Anyone hoping that the band still has the exact same "we're in it for the fans and the integrity, not the money, man" attitude of 20 years ago is demented. Like it or not, "Pearl Jam" is an entity now. It's a label. A corporation itself. All big bands are.
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 7:02 pm Posts: 6405 Location: DC Gender: Male
pearl_jam_r_good wrote:
Anyone hoping that the band still has the exact same "we're in it for the fans and the integrity, not the money, man" attitude of 20 years ago is demented. Like it or not, "Pearl Jam" is an entity now. It's a label. A corporation itself. All big bands are.
They could have taken a more Sonic Youth or Neil Young route though...
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 11:36 pm Posts: 25824 Location: south jersey
darth_vedder wrote:
pearl_jam_r_good wrote:
Anyone hoping that the band still has the exact same "we're in it for the fans and the integrity, not the money, man" attitude of 20 years ago is demented. Like it or not, "Pearl Jam" is an entity now. It's a label. A corporation itself. All big bands are.
They could have taken a more Sonic Youth or Neil Young route though...
are they on their own label?
_________________ Feel the path of every day,... Which road you taking?,...
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:02 am Posts: 44183 Location: New York Gender: Male
i would need someone to confirm this too, but pearl jam may also operate on a size and scope that make comparisons to smaller artists more difficult. But that may also not be the case anymore
_________________ "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
Anyone hoping that the band still has the exact same "we're in it for the fans and the integrity, not the money, man" attitude of 20 years ago is demented. Like it or not, "Pearl Jam" is an entity now. It's a label. A corporation itself. All big bands are.
They could have taken a more Sonic Youth or Neil Young route though...
Absolutely agree. But they haven't, and won't - so it's up to the fans to make their choice about how they follow the band now. But anyone thinking they're going to go back to the way it was then is misguided. I just enjoy the tunes and shows and don't ask for much more than that. They're just a band.
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 7:02 pm Posts: 6405 Location: DC Gender: Male
warehouse wrote:
darth_vedder wrote:
pearl_jam_r_good wrote:
Anyone hoping that the band still has the exact same "we're in it for the fans and the integrity, not the money, man" attitude of 20 years ago is demented. Like it or not, "Pearl Jam" is an entity now. It's a label. A corporation itself. All big bands are.
They could have taken a more Sonic Youth or Neil Young route though...
EV isn't worth $80 million. It's highly unlikely. You can do the math from every tour and it gets nowhere near that high. They also haven't made much on album sales because the early albums had 80-90% of it going to other people.
_________________ CrowdSurge and Ten Club will conduct further investigation into this matter.
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:37 pm Posts: 15767 Location: Vail, CO Gender: Male
i got booted from the pit a few years back, and black listed from a good friend/source for spreading info that was given to me about them barely making money/barely breaking even on the yield tour.
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:37 pm Posts: 15767 Location: Vail, CO Gender: Male
no question they crush with the live shows now...but it sounds like they didnt really start making money untill the riot act tour...when ticket prices were finally risen to market standards.
no question they crush with the live shows now...but it sounds like they didnt really start making money untill the riot act tour...when ticket prices were finally risen to market standards.
They would've made a lot of money in the 90's - not as much as other bands, but enough to buy a few houses and cars and smart investments. Let's not kid ourselves. Since after Vitalogy they would've all been millionaires.
There's no doubt that they're raking in the cash now though, for doing less work. But that's how the industry works.
EV isn't worth $80 million. It's highly unlikely. You can do the math from every tour and it gets nowhere near that high. They also haven't made much on album sales because the early albums had 80-90% of it going to other people.
I'm generally suspicious of people who spend excessive amounts of time worrying about whether their favorite band is "selling out." That strikes me as a pretty empty phrase that people throw around when they're mad that their favorite band is interested in attracting an audience other than just them, as if a demographic who doesn't already "get" them wouldn't be worth seeking out in the first place. Rarely have I heard someone make an argument to this effect where it didn't end up seeming to say more about the person making the argument than whomever the argument was being made against. All the stuff about how much money Ed makes, what kind of life he has for himself, why he should or shouldn't make certain personal decisions, etc. to me treads too closely to the neighborhood of sensationalist celebrity gossip for me to feel comfortable concerning myself with. I don't care where he lives or what kind of car he drives--as long as the music still matters to me, I'll listen.
As noble as their principles were throughout the 1990's, I think there probably comes a point where all that idealism a) gets hard to keep up with, and b) just seems a little silly. In reality, if the Target decision was the most lucrative offer for them to take, why wouldn't they take it? Is it really that surprising that there was an accompanying commercial, and that the commercial happened to feature the single off the record? Even if the ad was just a ploy on Target's part to get Pearl Jam fans into the store, who cares? Perhaps they should have said, "Well, we've decided that this marketing approach is the best choice for us otherwise, but no--we absolutely refuse to appear in this fifteen-second television ad to promote our product, because we feel that a sale achieved as the result of a television ad lacks the integrity of a sale achieved as the result of word-of-mouth promotion, or a radio ad, or an internet banner." That sounds moronic, but deep down it seems like that's the kind of thing people expect Pearl Jam to do--to surrender their own interests so that their fans can be proud of them for holding on to some cloistered principle.
I'm not sure what it means to "draw the line" if not to stop supporting the band, other than being so fed up that you might just come onto a message board and say, "I'm drawing the line!" I mean, I'm definitely in the likely majority that hopes Miley Cyrus doesn't make a guest appearance on the next album, but really--why do people care so much about this stuff?
I'm generally suspicious of people who spend excessive amounts of time worrying about whether their favorite band is "selling out." That strikes me as a pretty empty phrase that people throw around when they're mad that their favorite band is interested in attracting an audience other than just them, as if a demographic who doesn't already "get" them wouldn't be worth seeking out in the first place. Rarely have I heard someone make an argument to this effect where it didn't end up seeming to say more about the person making the argument than whomever the argument was being made against. All the stuff about how much money Ed makes, what kind of life he has for himself, why he should or shouldn't make certain personal decisions, etc. to me treads too closely to the neighborhood of sensationalist celebrity gossip. I don't care where he lives or what kind of car he drives--as long as the music still matters to me, I'll listen.
As noble as their principles were throughout the 1990's, I think there probably comes a point where all that idealism a) gets hard to keep up with, and b) just seems a little silly. In reality, if the Target decision was the most lucrative offer for them to take, why wouldn't they take it? Is it really that surprising that there was an accompanying commercial, and that the commercial happened to feature the single off the record? Even if the ad was just a ploy on Target's part to get Pearl Jam fans into the store, who cares? Perhaps they should have said, "Well, we've decided that this marketing approach is the best choice for us otherwise, but no--we absolutely refuse to appear in this fifteen-second television ad to promote our product, because we feel that a sale achieved as the result of a television ad lacks the integrity of a sale achieved as the result of word-of-mouth promotion, or a radio ad, or an internet banner." That sounds moronic, but deep down it seems like that's the kind of thing people expect Pearl Jam to do--to surrender their own interests so that their fans can be proud of them for holding on to some cloistered principle.
I'm not sure what it means to "draw the line" if not to stop supporting the band, other than being so fed up that you might just come onto a message board and say, "I'm drawing the line!" I mean, I'm definitely in the likely majority that hopes Miley Cyrus doesn't make a guest appearance on the next album, but really--why do people care so much about this stuff?
Ten years ago I used to analyse the shit out of this stuff. Got caught up in the PJ fandom, met some cool people who are still my best mates, but I also met some absolute weirdos who used to freak me out. So I just enjoy the music now and have a look on the forums occasionally.
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 5:23 pm Posts: 12793 Location: Tours, FR Gender: Male
Kevin Davis wrote:
I'm generally suspicious of people who spend excessive amounts of time worrying about whether their favorite band is "selling out." That strikes me as a pretty empty phrase that people throw around when they're mad that their favorite band is interested in attracting an audience other than just them, as if a demographic who doesn't already "get" them wouldn't be worth seeking out in the first place. Rarely have I heard someone make an argument to this effect where it didn't end up seeming to say more about the person making the argument than whomever the argument was being made against. All the stuff about how much money Ed makes, what kind of life he has for himself, why he should or shouldn't make certain personal decisions, etc. to me treads too closely to the neighborhood of sensationalist celebrity gossip for me to feel comfortable concerning myself with. I don't care where he lives or what kind of car he drives--as long as the music still matters to me, I'll listen.
As noble as their principles were throughout the 1990's, I think there probably comes a point where all that idealism a) gets hard to keep up with, and b) just seems a little silly. In reality, if the Target decision was the most lucrative offer for them to take, why wouldn't they take it? Is it really that surprising that there was an accompanying commercial, and that the commercial happened to feature the single off the record? Even if the ad was just a ploy on Target's part to get Pearl Jam fans into the store, who cares? Perhaps they should have said, "Well, we've decided that this marketing approach is the best choice for us otherwise, but no--we absolutely refuse to appear in this fifteen-second television ad to promote our product, because we feel that a sale achieved as the result of a television ad lacks the integrity of a sale achieved as the result of word-of-mouth promotion, or a radio ad, or an internet banner." That sounds moronic, but deep down it seems like that's the kind of thing people expect Pearl Jam to do--to surrender their own interests so that their fans can be proud of them for holding on to some cloistered principle.
I'm not sure what it means to "draw the line" if not to stop supporting the band, other than being so fed up that you might just come onto a message board and say, "I'm drawing the line!" I mean, I'm definitely in the likely majority that hopes Miley Cyrus doesn't make a guest appearance on the next album, but really--why do people care so much about this stuff?
If you actually read the purpose of this thread, you'll realize it has nothing to do with spending excessive amounts of time worrying about whether Pearl Jam have selled out or not. It also has nothing to do with caring too much about things that are external to the music. You won't find someone who cares less about what happens beyond the music than me. I don't even know who are the people who make some of my favorite music. I'd even go further and say that this thread has nothing to do with Pearl Jam and everything to do with the people who post here.
What I wanted to know with this thread is if there was something the band could do that would be impossible to defend even for the people who are currently defending pretty much anything the band does no matter what (the stips and 62strats of this board). Because as it is now it appears that there isn't anything, but there must be something, right? I didn't really get any real answer from any of the people I had in mind when I made this thread though. It mostly turned into people saying how you can't look up to a rock star as a role model, or how you're supposed to lose your ideals when you grow old, or whether thodoks' fiancée is a mass murderer. All of which have nothing to do with the question asked.
_________________ There has never been a silence like this before
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 11:00 pm Posts: 13226 Location: Adelaide, AUS
I think, generally speaking, it's almost impossible to divorce that from how you feel about the music. If you still love the music, you're more likely to view everything the band does in a positive light.
I don't there's ever going to be a point where those guys who think the band are still putting out excellent material will think "oh, I love the music to death but I'm really disappointed in their deal with Target" (for example's sake).
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 5:23 pm Posts: 12793 Location: Tours, FR Gender: Male
spenno wrote:
I think, generally speaking, it's almost impossible to divorce that from how you feel about the music. If you still love the music, you're more likely to view everything the band does in a positive light.
I don't there's ever going to be a point where those guys who think the band are still putting out excellent material will think "oh, I love the music to death but I'm really disappointed in their deal with Target" (for example's sake).
I don't see why it would be so hard to say something like that. I don't see it at all.
_________________ There has never been a silence like this before
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 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
