Board index » Watched from the Window, with a Red Mosquito... » Pearl Jam




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 506 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Where do you draw the line?
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am
Posts: 28541
Location: PORTLAND, ME
Quote:
The band released the album through their own label Monkeywrench Records with worldwide distribution by Universal Music Group via a licensing agreement with Island Records. Physical copies of the record were sold through Target in North America, and promotion included a deal with Verizon, a world tour, and moderately successful singles "The Fixer" and "Got Some"/"Just Breathe". Reviews for Backspacer were positive, praising the sound and composition, and the album became Pearl Jam's first chart topper at the United States' Billboard 200 since 1996's No Code, while also topping the charts in Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
considering backspacer was their first solo endeavor, i'd say their new business model worked out well for them and hopefully, w/ that as a starting point this next project will be more about the music than "how they'll sell it."

_________________
Winner, 2011 RM 'Stache Tournament


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Where do you draw the line?
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am
Posts: 28541
Location: PORTLAND, ME
To be clear, i'm not trying to make a case to defend Backspacer or proclaim it "good." What I am attempting to do is demonstrate that the bands shifting views about their business-practices brought positive results:

Quote:
The album debuted at number one on the Billboard 200 with 189,000 copies sold in its first week of release, the only independent release to top the Billboard 200 that year. It is the first Pearl Jam album to reach number one in the United States since No Code debuted at number one in 1996. 7,000 of those copies were on vinyl, the highest first week total for LPs in 2009. On the Billboard 200 dated May 22, 2010, Backspacer logged its 32nd week on the chart, making the album Pearl Jam's longest-charting album since 1998's Yield. Backspacer was certified Gold by the RIAA on January 28, 2010. It also topped the charts in Canada, where it was certified Platinum; Australia, also going Platinum; and New Zealand, being certified Gold.


so, as i posted earlier, maybe this will mean they can focus more on their music as they're now completely independent and successfully so.

_________________
Winner, 2011 RM 'Stache Tournament


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Where do you draw the line?
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 2:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar
The Snowboy
 Profile

Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 2:53 pm
Posts: 11395
tyler wrote:
You guys act like Bush was the anti-christ and Gore some sort of saviour. Do you really think things would be much different had Gore won, other than the rhetoric? Same shit, different spoon feeding it to you is how I see it.


Excellent rhetoric :thumbsup:


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Where do you draw the line?
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 2:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am
Posts: 28541
Location: PORTLAND, ME
get that discussion elsewhere, honestly. :cop: :offtopic:

_________________
Winner, 2011 RM 'Stache Tournament


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Where do you draw the line?
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 4:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar
statistically insignificant
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:19 pm
Posts: 25134
Why is it so important to change the subject? Since when did we start caring when threads veered into off-topic territory? Let them talk politics.

_________________
Fortuna69 wrote:
I will continue to not understand


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Where do you draw the line?
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 4:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am
Posts: 28541
Location: PORTLAND, ME
thodoks wrote:
Why is it so important to change the subject? Since when did we start caring when threads veered into off-topic territory? Let them talk politics.
why have different forums at all? shit, why even bother w/ new threads?

if i wanted to read about who stip voted for in 2000 and whether that outcome of that election would have made any difference in the world i'd seek out those conversations, not inject them into a very meaningful discussion about the bands moral compass.

_________________
Winner, 2011 RM 'Stache Tournament


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Where do you draw the line?
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 4:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar
The Snowboy
 Profile

Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 2:53 pm
Posts: 11395
EllisEamos wrote:
thodoks wrote:
Why is it so important to change the subject? Since when did we start caring when threads veered into off-topic territory? Let them talk politics.
why have different forums at all? shit, why even bother w/ new threads?

if i wanted to read about who stip voted for in 2000 and whether that outcome of that election would have made any difference in the world i'd seek out those conversations, not inject them into a very meaningful discussion about the bands moral compass.


It wasn't any more meaningful, to be honest, and we've had the discussion a million times. I would've said that political voting was a related tangent anyway.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Where do you draw the line?
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 4:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar
statistically insignificant
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:19 pm
Posts: 25134
EllisEamos wrote:
thodoks wrote:
Why is it so important to change the subject? Since when did we start caring when threads veered into off-topic territory? Let them talk politics.
why have different forums at all? shit, why even bother w/ new threads?

if i wanted to read about who stip voted for in 2000 and whether that outcome of that election would have made any difference in the world i'd seek out those conversations, not inject them into a very meaningful discussion about the bands moral compass.

Don't be obtuse.

Why is what you wanted to read or talk about any more important than what stip and cutuphalfdead wanted to read and talk about? They wanted to seek out that conversation.

Is this forum/topic really so precious that a little bit of non-PJ centric discussion can't be imposed upon it without disrupting your desire to have a non-political conversation? Really, all you would have had to was post whatever PJ-related stuff you wanted to, and the conversation very likely would have eventually returned to PJ.

_________________
Fortuna69 wrote:
I will continue to not understand


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Where do you draw the line?
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 5:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Former PJ Drummer
 Profile

Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 3:00 pm
Posts: 19826
Location: Alone in a corridor
My answer on the original question would be "on page 25".


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Where do you draw the line?
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 5:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Global Moderator
 Profile

Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:02 am
Posts: 44183
Location: New York
Gender: Male
tyler wrote:
You guys act like Bush was the anti-christ and Gore some sort of saviour. Do you really think things would be much different had Gore won, other than the rhetoric? Same shit, different spoon feeding it to you is how I see it.


well that is a very nuanced opinion that clearly indicates a sophisticated understanding of how complex political and social life is.

_________________
"Better the occasional faults of a Government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a Government frozen in the ice of its own indifference."--FDR

The perfect gift for certain occasions


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Where do you draw the line?
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 5:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Red Mosquito, my libido
 Profile

Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:02 am
Posts: 91597
Location: Sector 7-G
thodoks wrote:
Why is it so important to change the subject? Since when did we start caring when threads veered into off-topic territory? Let them talk politics.

Yeah, no shit.

_________________
It takes a big man to make a threat on the internet.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Where do you draw the line?
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 5:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Red Mosquito, my libido
 Profile

Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:02 am
Posts: 91597
Location: Sector 7-G
stip wrote:
cutuphalfdead wrote:
stip wrote:
cutuphalfdead wrote:
stip wrote:
cutuphalfdead wrote:
I miss the Pearl Jam that wouldn't even affiliate with the Democratic Party.


I had a socialist friend in graduate school who really hated that I voted for Nadar instead of Gore in 2000. It took me a few years but I came around to his way of thinking.


What I've decided with these kinds of things is that context is everything. Drawing a priori abstract lines is a little too 'holier than thou' for me, especially since most of us do not have to make these kinds of decisions.

So you regret voting your conscience?



well in practice my state went for Gore anyway so it didn't matter, but in theory yes, I do. Or better, politics is about more than just keeping your hands clean. If you voted for Nader and truly didn't care that you were also making it easier for Bush to win than fine. But anyone who voted for Nader does need to own up to the fact that by voting for Nader they helped author the bush presidency, and salving my conscience is not worth that.

Eh, there are a few more people ahead in the line of culpability than Nader when it comes to that election. Systematic voter disenfranchisement in Florida comes to mind, as does the Supreme Cort.


Oh sure, and I don't loose sleep over this, but it did convince me not to vote for a third party in a close election (although I live in a fusion state so I do vote for the working families party ticket). That's time and energy better spent on getting better candidates in the primaries, which, for all their awfulness, tea party republicans have shown can be quite effective.

My point is largely that simply voting your conscience can have consequences, and the most important (not the only, of course) reason for participating in politics is to affect the outcomes.

The bottom line is

If there was not massive voter disenfranchisement in florida Gore definitely would have won
Had the supreme court not ruled the way they did in Bush v Gore gore would have won
Had Al Gore run a better campaign he might have won
Had Ralph Nader not been running, and not received the support he did, Al Gore would be president.

And whether I am happy about that or not, I played a role in number 4 happening. Even if there was still voter disenfranchisement, even with Bush v Gore, even if Gore had campaigned better, had Nader not run the last 12 years of American/World history would look much different. Now at the time I also had these grand dreams of helping to try and build a viable third party, etc. And if that was your goal than voting for Nader made sense at the time. But if my only point was a protest/conscience vote I helped elect Bush.



I don't think we necessarily disagree here. But I wouldn't lose sleep over voting for Nader in 2000 and I would be very offended by any Democrat trying to blame me as a Nader voter (to be fair I wasn't even of voting age in this election) for the Bush years. Those three other reasons you listed are a lot more significant than the third party spoiler and are worthy of a lot more anger from anyone who didn't want Bush in office. Also, about your last two sentences there: What's the difference between voting for Nader in the grand dream of trying to build a viable third party (or simply throw a monkeywrench in the duopoly) and voting for Nader as a protest/conscience vote? Those seem like exactly the same thing to me.

_________________
It takes a big man to make a threat on the internet.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Where do you draw the line?
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 6:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar
The Snowboy
 Profile

Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 2:53 pm
Posts: 11395
stip wrote:
tyler wrote:
You guys act like Bush was the anti-christ and Gore some sort of saviour. Do you really think things would be much different had Gore won, other than the rhetoric? Same shit, different spoon feeding it to you is how I see it.


well that is a very nuanced opinion that clearly indicates a sophisticated understanding of how complex political and social life is.


The old 'It would've been the same whoever was in power' fallacy. It's the same thing that Tories are spouting over here in order to cover up the shit caused by the ConDems.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Where do you draw the line?
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 6:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar
See you in another life, brother
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:01 pm
Posts: 13165
Gender: Male
cutuphalfdead wrote:
Also, about your last two sentences there: What's the difference between voting for Nader in the grand dream of trying to build a viable third party (or simply throw a monkeywrench in the duopoly) and voting for Nader as a protest/conscience vote? Those seem like exactly the same thing to me.

IMO, voting Nader to help build a 3rd party recognizes that you may be helping a candidate in today that you don't want to win. But you do it anyway, because in your view the end justifies the means. Your vote is part of something bigger. You realize the 3rd party won't win today or tomorrow, but you are trying to help it stick around in the future. Perhaps by getting it to hit certain thresholds for public financing in future elections, etc, or simply by showing a shift in voters' ideals and decisions. This person is actively committed to the idea of that specific party.

Voting as a protest/conscience vote could include all of the above, or it could simply be to express dissatisfaction with the establishment choices. Some people choose to express dissatisfaction by not voting, others by voting for an "other" candidate, not necessarily based on an active hope in the future success of the specific party/candidate they did vote for, but rather as a vote against the two parties.

_________________
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
-- John Steinbeck


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Where do you draw the line?
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 6:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Global Moderator
 Profile

Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:02 am
Posts: 44183
Location: New York
Gender: Male
4/5 is right. The conscience vote is a vote whose significance starts and stops with the fact that it is the candidate you want to see win, regardless of any larger calculations.

Republicans got destroyed in the 1964 presidential election, but that election is now seen as having laid the groundwork for the Reagan revolution and the dominance of conservativism over the last 40 years. That's overly simplistic, but running that platform that they did, even if it cost them the election, helped train the elements of the party who would bring it all to fruition 15 years later.

In both cases you are presumably voting for what you believe in, but voting for what you believe in just because you believe in it is moralizing. You might feel good about it afterwards, but it is also something of an apolitical act when you remove the act of voting from the consequences of how you vote.

_________________
"Better the occasional faults of a Government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a Government frozen in the ice of its own indifference."--FDR

The perfect gift for certain occasions


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Where do you draw the line?
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 6:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Global Moderator
 Profile

Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:02 am
Posts: 44183
Location: New York
Gender: Male
cutuphalfdead wrote:
What's the difference between voting for Nader in the grand dream of trying to build a viable third party (or simply throw a monkeywrench in the duopoly) and voting for Nader as a protest/conscience vote?


I bought into that logic hard in 2000, and while there are still many areas both parties, or at least enough elements of both parties to form a constant majority, overlap, the argument that the two parties are basically the same is just spectacularly wrong, and often conflates the structural environment that influences the outcomes of politics with the choices and desires and ideology of the politicians themselves.

America also has a multi party system, in practice. It's just that the multi party process takes place during primaries. We don't have parliamentary parties. candidates are not bound to a platform. Party leadership has limited disciplinary capabilities. A democrat from NYC is VERY different than a democrat from Montana or West Virgina. But rather than have multiple parties and having to deal with coalition governments we run our multiple parties in the primary process. The tea party is a great example of this. If OWS coalesces into an electoral movement (I hope it does) we'll see the same influence on the democrats.

_________________
"Better the occasional faults of a Government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a Government frozen in the ice of its own indifference."--FDR

The perfect gift for certain occasions


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Where do you draw the line?
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 7:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am
Posts: 28541
Location: PORTLAND, ME
i draw the line w/ political conversations!!!!1!!!!

_________________
Winner, 2011 RM 'Stache Tournament


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Where do you draw the line?
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 7:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Red Mosquito, my libido
 Profile

Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:02 am
Posts: 91597
Location: Sector 7-G
stip wrote:
cutuphalfdead wrote:
What's the difference between voting for Nader in the grand dream of trying to build a viable third party (or simply throw a monkeywrench in the duopoly) and voting for Nader as a protest/conscience vote?


I bought into that logic hard in 2000, and while there are still many areas both parties, or at least enough elements of both parties to form a constant majority, overlap, the argument that the two parties are basically the same is just spectacularly wrong, and often conflates the structural environment that influences the outcomes of politics with the choices and desires and ideology of the politicians themselves.

America also has a multi party system, in practice. It's just that the multi party process takes place during primaries. We don't have parliamentary parties. candidates are not bound to a platform. Party leadership has limited disciplinary capabilities. A democrat from NYC is VERY different than a democrat from Montana or West Virgina. But rather than have multiple parties and having to deal with coalition governments we run our multiple parties in the primary process. The tea party is a great example of this. If OWS coalesces into an electoral movement (I hope it does) we'll see the same influence on the democrats.

There are plenty of tangible differences between the democrats and the republicans, but there are none when it comes to their stranglehold on American democracy. To me, that's the most important thing.

_________________
It takes a big man to make a threat on the internet.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Where do you draw the line?
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 10:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar
statistically insignificant
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:19 pm
Posts: 25134
stip wrote:
cutuphalfdead wrote:
What's the difference between voting for Nader in the grand dream of trying to build a viable third party (or simply throw a monkeywrench in the duopoly) and voting for Nader as a protest/conscience vote?


I bought into that logic hard in 2000, and while there are still many areas both parties, or at least enough elements of both parties to form a constant majority, overlap, the argument that the two parties are basically the same is just spectacularly wrong, and often conflates the structural environment that influences the outcomes of politics with the choices and desires and ideology of the politicians themselves.

America also has a multi party system, in practice. It's just that the multi party process takes place during primaries. We don't have parliamentary parties. candidates are not bound to a platform. Party leadership has limited disciplinary capabilities. A democrat from NYC is VERY different than a democrat from Montana or West Virgina. But rather than have multiple parties and having to deal with coalition governments we run our multiple parties in the primary process. The tea party is a great example of this. If OWS coalesces into an electoral movement (I hope it does) we'll see the same influence on the democrats.

Yikes, mate.

_________________
Fortuna69 wrote:
I will continue to not understand


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Where do you draw the line?
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 10:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar
a joke
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:08 am
Posts: 22978
Gender: Male
stip scares me sometimes.


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 506 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26  Next

Board index » Watched from the Window, with a Red Mosquito... » Pearl Jam


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 9:21 am