More like a collectively drawn line then.

I think that, unless it's something genuinely serious--like someone in the band committing a murder or something--there isn't anything that wouldn't have at least some defenders. This is a positive thing--it seems to signify the proper perspective in which such things deserve to placed in relation to the music. I'd be annoyed if they did some of the things listed at the beginning of this thread, but I don't think I'd feel so strongly about them that I would declare some kind of personal threshold. For the most part, they're shallow things that are only as weighty as any person allows them to be.

That Pearl Jam gets a free pass from their fans just because of who they are is dubious; there are just as many on the other side who place them under increased scrutiny for the same reason.

Thanks. I thought the "damn it" added spunk.

The thing is they don't know enough about the business side of things so they tend to talk too soon. I presume they aren't all that willing to take financial risks easily and they may or may not be able to afford that in the 1st place. It's hard to have a serious opinion not really knowing the facts or have it solely based on principles.

Look no further than the parking lot in Camden, NJ to prove that point

"King Jeremy MOTHER FUCKERS!! AAAAARRRGHHHHH!"

I don't really like the implication in your post and the way it was phrased, that someone who seems to not find fault where you find fault is an apologist--it delegitimizes the other point of view.

Basically the stuff I'm defending that makes me a fan boy (in your eyes) is the fact that i like S/T and Backspacer and the fact that i don't think the target thing is a big deal.

My refusal to call something hypocritical is, to be honest, more a product of the fact that you guys have at best a confused or superfical and almost juvenile understanding of what hypocrisy is. I'm really waiting for a good argument amongst its supporters that goes beyond the moronic assumption that, in a world saturated with corporations and corporate power, dealing with a corporation makes you a hypocrite, or the equally infantile belief that being opposed to something means you need to never come into contact with it (your point about someone who preaches one thing and then does the opposite is frustratingly vacuous) Skitch seems to be the only person on that side who has given this any reasonable thought or at least articulated it in an intelligent manner. I disagree with him, but I'll respect his opinion on it.

It's a very complicated world, and I see the world in a complicated way and am slow to judge because of it. That may make me many things, but probably not an apologist. This comment and its implications particularly annoyed me (I've been pretty tired and cranky all week, so I apologize) because pretty much every single opinion I've ever advanced on this board has some long post attached to it laying out precisely why I feel the way I do about it, why I reject the other side, and all the rest. Yeah I like Backspacer, but I also wrote a 40 page essay explaining why I like Backspacer. Binaural and Riot Act are towards the bottom of my Pearl Jam hierarchy and I have essays just as long about why I feel the way I do about those albums. So to dismiss all that as me being an apologist is kind of offensive given the amount of work I put into expressing what I think and why I think it.

the lyrical content is also vastly different.

I think I have an almost sentimental attachment to the band now so it would be difficult to stop "following" them. That said, they try my fucking patience with their ticket prices.

I think this is much more debatable than it seems.

Im not sure if you mean collective as pearl jam fans as a group, or a collection of things.

For me, it was a collection of things, exacerbated by the fact I never really have agreed with Ed on a lot of things, so Ive always enjoyed the hypocracy. The Target thing, the rising ticket costs, etc were all just proof on the changes I felt i had seen.

For me, it was the Borgata casino shows- At that point Ed was being very vocal about the "haves" and the "have nots" and playing $90 shows (huge for them at the time) with special sets essentially turned the fan base in to "haves" and "have nots." I think this is a problem that has only grown larger, to me. As a fan of Pearl Jam songs, and seeing Pearl Jam live, this is really the only one that bugs me. They do all these very exclusive, and limited things... which of course drive up costs, meaning that only the wealthy of the wealthy fans can afford them, unless they get lucky enough to catch the sale at the right time- IE Benoyara Vinyl. They set up these special shows (charity or not) that for all intents and purposes, lock out large percentages of their fans. Wasn't there some Robin Hood Charity thing that tickets were like $250? Great for the charity- horrible for the fans- except the ones that can afford it. And by billing these events as "Special," a lot of people miss out on something that they would otherwise love to be a part of.

I think the somewhat restrictive touring is another example of it. Sure a lot of people "travel" to the shows in the NE.. but that costs money too. There are a lot of people in areas that could reasonably expect major concerts to hit their town that have been totally ignored by Pearl Jam for long periods of time now.

and it's different than "DUDE OMG THEY FINALLY PLAYED LEASH AT MY SHOW FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 15 YEARS" special. These are special things based purely on which of their fans can afford it.

For everyone, that line is going to be different. That event that makes you stop justifying, rationalizing, or defending is going to be unique to each fan.

My post might not have been perfectly phrased, but you're completely oversimplifying things. What I'm saying has almost nothing to do with Pearl Jam's music, past or present. We've been mostly talking about promoting methods, advertising, business decisions, sponsoring, etc. Yes, I did mention once the fact that I thought The Fixer was an example of a blatant attempt at dumbing it down, but I don't think it's enough to make the shortcut you're making. Like I already explained, by apologists (which might not have been the right word, granted) I meant people who seemingly give the band a free or a freeer pass on stuff a lot of people felt was worth criticizing (the Target deal, the Fixer video, the SUV thing, prices, etc.). And hell, it's precisely because, in spite of what it seemed, I did not believe you would actually defend anything that I made this thread, trying to know what, for you, would be undefendable, in terms of business or artistic decisions.



Again, oversimplifying. No one is actually saying that the hypocrisy resides in dealing with corporations. No one, or else yes it's very moronic. The reason people are calling hypocrisy or sellout on the Target deal is because it's not just about dealing with a corporation but about unnecessary, explicit endorsement of this corporation. People have to deal with corporations daily, that doesn't mean they have to walk around holding a "shop at Target!" sign. Dealing with corporations is understandable. Even endorsing some of them is sometimes unavoidable (like the need for a band to have a label, maybe less so today actually but evidently 15 years ago). But this deal is not one of these cases. And guess what? I am not even offended by the Target deal. I just refuse to pretend they did it for any reason other than a money grab, which by the way is basically the only thing that is being argued all over the recent threads on this matter, and it's precisely because of this that people are calling hypocrisy on guys who have wrote songs about greed.



It is a complicated world, but that doesn't mean you can't call a cat a cat when you see one. Let me ask you, can't the world "hypocrite" ever be justified to you? Do you think it's always too complicated to tell? I don't. I believe that, in some instances, you can safely use this word. I believe sometimes someone behaves in a way that is asshole-ish or hypocritical or whatever else and it's okay to say it. If that is juvenile, then so be it. And again, it's cool that you like Backspacer, but this has nothing to do with any of it.

@Skitch: I meant collective as in a group of RMers.

What was the entrance fee again for the Chicago, House of Blues 05 show? Katrina fundraiser I believe.

I want to say that was pretty reasonable, because the only reason my wife and I didn't get to go was because her mother was in town.



because she was displaced for 8 weeks by.. Katrina

0/05/05 – House of Blues, Chicago, IL, USA
TFT Notes: This show was a benefit for the survivors of Hurricane Katrina, tickets were $1000 with net proceeds go to Habitat for Humanity, The American Red Cross and Jazz Foundation of America.

Reasonable? I want to do your job.

I wanna say that there was a small fan club presale for like $60 bucks each for the first 20 people or something that posted in a thread on the pit. I remember i was the 2nd person to view the thread it was like 6am on a saturday i think. And i almost posted to get tickets, but my wife said no.

again, where is there a free pass? I've gone at length about pretty much all these things (except prices, which I usually agree with) why this is not troubling. That is not a free pass. it is an argument.




Oh come on--basically you're saying that trying to get the best deal for yourself is greedy. greed is not a desire for money. it's what you are prepared to do and sacrifice (of yourself and of others) to get it. If there was a substantive backing down on formal principles involved here i'd be more sympathetic to this, but the only major difference between this and what is has been in the past is surface aesthetics. What's being done is slightly more obvious than in the past--people getting tripped on the phrase 'exclusive deal' than any of the real content here.

Aesthetically I don't like it either, which I've also said on numerous occasions. It doesn't look great. But beyond how it LOOKS there is nothing really disturbing or inexcusable about any of this



Of course it can. And i've given numerous examples of what would make something hypocrtical. If, for instance, the band was still giving people shit about signing exclusive deals with distirbutors (have they ever done that) that would be hypocritical. If they were currently going on about how important cheap concerts are while raising prices (especially above industry standards) that would be hypocritical. My point is that this target deal='s hypocrisy kick is superficial.

My general stance with this target stuff is not that i'm apologizing for the band, or defending them because it's them, or that it's not okay to criticize them. it's that, in this case, I believe you happen to be wrong.

I'm not saying that at all. Actually I'd define greed about the same way you just did. The difference is that I think the Target deal is very close to being exactly what you describe below:





While I'm not saying it's inexcusable or anything that dramatic, I feel like it's different enough from what the band used to do to make calling it "surface aesthetics" a real understatement.



Okay. Look, I'm sick of being dragged into arguments about things that are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Let's sum up what we got:

- re: "apologists". Okay, I already said this was a poor choice of words. I was trying to ask a specific question to a specific group of people, and this is just me trying to target this group of people. Obviously I did it pretty poorly because it got you all offended. Would it have been better had I just said "hey, people who don't think the Target deal is a money grab..."? Because if so, let's say I did and let's move on from this stupid unrelated argument.
- re: Target. Like I said, I don't even care. The only reason you got me into arguing over this deal is because I thought you were being dishonest by reducing other people's argument to a simplified, juvenile version of it. Other than that, it's also completely irrelevant to the question I asked.
- re: hypocritical/SUV. Pretty much the same situation as above.

None of this has to do with the topic at hand. There's nothing to argue about.

Juve, wasn't it around €10 more expensive to see Pj in Dublin than in Belfast this year? ticket prices are dictacted by a huge amount of outside influences, not the band ever just wanting more.
I got to see 2 Pj gigs in Ireland this summer past..I don't mind ticket prices so much. Just fuckin happy they came

Do you think she would have preferred that Pearl Jam keep the ticket prices high, permit only rich people in, and raise more money for the disaster? Or would she rather have had them drop the ticket prices, raise less money for Katrina, and "keep it real" with their fans?

The idea that they anything should be considered for a charity event other than what's best for the charity seems pretty idiotic.