I think a few things should be clarified. When did they say they were "anti-corporate"? Maybe they did, but when? They were anti-Ticketmaster, anti-BP. Yes, they are corporations, but is that all of them?

Would they have done this in 1995? No. And EV was just being extremely foolish back then. But maybe they should have been more clear about their positions.

I think they weren't because they had not figured out their positions yet. My belief is that they are about "corporate responsibility" and that they are not simply "anti-corporate". Corporations can do awful things, and they can also do good things. Bad corporations can do good, and good corporations can mess up and be horrible. Shit's complicated.

:/

Wasn't it during the Binaural tour when they made venues take down advertisements from near the stage?

You know, nothing in the world is black and white and you can point to lots of good things done by most organizations. But there's something about an artist that says "you know what, I'd rather just keep that shit separate from my art". I really respect that stance and that was something Pearl Jam seemed to value even halfway through their career.

Yeah, listen to detroit 1 2003 during the encore. He makes a point to rip on every corporate ad around the stage... including Miller Lite.


and is then photographed with a bud light less than a month later at a cubs game.

The picture with a bud light I don't have a problem with. He's drinking a beer, whatever. But when you're performing your art under a sign for a company, that looks more like an endorsement (even if it really isn't), and I respect a band that seeks to avoid that.

My bad, I shouldn't have resorted to namecalling. But it's easy to be perfect and powerless, but Bill Gates is overall good for this planet and his good have much outweighed his bad.

Perhaps all the "sponsored by no one" crap in the early days was Eddie's own posturing in response to all the careerist flak they took from other rock artists of their generation. They've always been sponsored by someone, even when they said they were against it. And then we all fell for the ruse, hook, line, and sinker.

I just watched Weezer perform a free gig for the Microsoft Store in DC. Rivers even made up a song about how much he loves Microsoft products on stage. They've never made claims about being anti-corporate, so while it was a little drag to see logos all over the stage, I have a little bit more respect for them willing to play the game now that they're no longer on a major label. The irony is that they're on Epitaph now, but whatever. They do what they have to do nowadays to finance their records and get their music out. And they don't look like fools in the process because they never railed against it with such conviction.

I'll be really upset when it comes out that there wasn't a line in Eddie Vedder's will that his image and music can't be used for corporate gain after he's no longer around.

eddie vedder complaining about a beer ad is like stone complaining about a ky jelly ad

You're right, Weezer is awful.

You know, straight people have use for personal lubricants as well.

dont speak for other people

did anyone see "the other f word"? brett gurewitz had some great things to say about selling out.

This.

Funny how so many people swallowed PJs ideals yet never took to any of the bands they championed. Ideals are cheaper than CDs I guess.

You're an idiot.

I guess, on some level, I always appreciated the attempted blue-collar, band-of-the-people ethic, but that's never why I listened to them. Even at the height of all of that, it was impossible not to roll your eyes a bit because the lecture was coming from a platform built by a major, corporate label.

I think, they've always understood what got them where they are. They wouldn't have had the audience to speak to without the big corporate money. And it pissed Ed off a bit when he was younger. He had trouble reconciling it. So he acted out. And, for me, it was understandable. I could listen to the message, and not read too much into it because I've experienced the same kind of thing a million times. Companies I've worked for have had polices that I've disagreed with and complained/argued about. Didn't stop me from collecting my check.

So, this "news" is whatever. It means nothing to me. Changes nothing about how I feel about Pearl Jam.

You love it.

Nor me. I mean, what's the guy going to do? That's like people ripping on Jeff for being in a hired SUV when he got mugged because Eddie moaned about them a few times in 2003 (which actually happened). It seems ridiculous to have to point out that there's a distinction between their private and professional lives and that it's unreasonable to expect them to maintain absolute consistency (or even perceived consistency) between the two at all times.

Anyway, I can't feel too worked up about this. Maybe I would have in the past, but I cringe when I hear Ed's 2003 rants these days too. I really can't stomach the 'it's to finance recording/tours/band stuff' rationalisaitons, however; as has been pointed out earlier in the thread, that's complete horseshit. Countless bands record and tour on a fraction of the cost of what Pearl Jam does, a show like this is about money. There's nothing wrong with that (to me, anyway) and it's quite possible they'll put some of that towards those things, but that will be their choice: it's by no means a necessity. If it's going to piss of a large chunk of their fans, then I'd think that they might've thought twice about doing it to 'protect the integrity of their brand' and whatnot, but maybe they figure the juice is worth the squeeze in this case. That dude did steal a bunch of their cash recently, after all.

Shitty music annoys me much more than something like this.


I have no idea what you're trying to say here.


LOL


I don't think this has much to do with the above, but agreed.

Springsteen's got the same rap in a way. Blue collared man of the people. Anyone else see that shot of him and his wife shopping in what looked like a fairly nice and expensive boutique in Europe a while back, wearing fancy shades, bracelets, necklaces, and earrings?

And aside from Make Believe, Ratitude, and The Red Album, Weezer's last album was cool, but it was called Hurley. They used the Lost guy on the cover, and then Brian Bell made the inference that Hurley, the surf company, had helped finance the recording sessions.

I don't have any problem when artists make money, but when they take a position and claim to stand for specific ideals, when it looks like they make an about face, they just seem like they're full of shit. If Pearl Jam releases a great album in the next year, cool songs, good sounds, whatever. I'll like the music and happily give them more of my money, but if its fairly lame and uninspiring, I'll just shake my head and wonder where they derailed along the way.

Stip had a nice line. They really are compromising their art in this day and age.

Its pretty simple. We all bought the beliefs and viewpoints this band put to us cos we were younger and needed to be and were happy to be inspired and given a direction by our favorite singer. A lot of it just never carried over to the other stuff they tried to push on us all. Mudhoney? Vinyl only? Ishmael? No thanks.

Will Larry Ellison be the MC? I think this is really odd, and annoyingly consistent with some of their choices since about 2009.