the "inventing eddie vedder" one:

http://www.lukin.com/Articles/rs11-96.html

this man often gets burnt by the magazine

Does coke limit your search abilities?

Anyway, here you go: http://www.lukin.com/Articles/rs11-96.html

Read it and weep.

I thought the reaction to the article was overblown. Ed was popular in high school and then became disillusioned afterwards. Then he channeled this angst into his music and on-stage performances. He worked hard to make it big and established important contacts in the industry. What exactly is the controversy there?
I didn't read it as an attack on his credibility despite its admittly flammatory title. He wasn't the first to have a larger than life rock star persona in the public view and won't be the last.

I think he reached a point in the mid to late 90's where he became more of himself and less of a contrived "rock star."

There were probably around 5 minor details about that article which were wrong...

Those aside, what a sad article.

When I read it in '96, and re-view it now, it really gives the impression of Eddie about to pull an exit from PJ ala his one from Bad Radio (at least the way the article portrayed his Bad Radio exit). Except in this instance, it's due to his inability to handle all of the attention. Kurt probably heightened his nervousness and fear about his strength, or lack thereof. And in lieu of the '95 tour and the cancelled-then-rescheduled July dates, I guess Rolling Stone's conjecture is/was not all that baseless. The comments by Jeff and Stone about their No Code tour are frightening, and reveal how close to the edge they were at that point.

I also got the feeling that the Hype around the music became too much for Vedder. I don't doubt for one second he did take the helm of the ship and the pressure was probably getting to him. His declining an interview with RS probably had less to do with distaste for the magazine nor even "protection" of his real self than not wanting any more of himself out there for the public to consume. RS took it personally though and wrote this antonistic piece.

As for the small tour for No Code, I think it was as much as to minimize exposure as it was a default of their Ticketmaster stance. Clearly , the band could have expanded it, as evidenced by the dates/regions they'd played the year before-- which leads me to think Ed intentionally made No Code a small tour. Moreover, given the band had the majority of '97 off, after finishing the No Code tour before the '96 holidays, I think Ed probably reached a huge turning point personally during the No Code the tour. Ed's admission prior to the Yield sessions to the bandmates about song-writing and needing/wanting/willing to allow them a bigger part in it reveal the pressure was still real and felt, but that he wanted the show to go on even if it meant "yielding" to them.

Sad that Rolling Stone depicts Ed as a careerist. He wanted a life in the musical industry-- which I don't have a problem with someone striving for that. We don't fault people for striving to get into the top universities, firms, hospitals, etc. We don't fault authors for networking, well, their peers do, mostly out of jealousy because they didn't make it. Ed just seemed opposed to all of the attention for trivial details (hair, clothes, "Seattle")-- especially given how involved he was in social issues. And ironically, though after the majority of America tuned out to hear about it all, Kurt was the one at the end of the day calling editors and publicists saying, "Why isn't my video playing, why isn't an article being published??" That's something I hope a revisionist journalist will get into the public record about Nirvana-- that Kurt WAS courting attention when Ed was pushing it away to keep his sanity, so this whole b.s. dichotomy of PJ not being bonafied, only a corporate rock band, is abated-- I think that dichotomy still persists today in the PJ/Nirvana debates.

Such an eloquent piece you've written, Isaac. So sympathetic.

If someone with as much talent as eddie (and the rest of the band had) I'd be fucking pissed if they didnt do all it took to be able to tour the world and put out records. yea, you work hard for something you really love to do. i dont blame them, i wish i had more of that kind of work ethic when it came to music (and talent, of course).

So what if they strived to be commerciall successful? Anyone who wouldnt want what they got is full of shit....

I also think it's important to note: in the RS article, there is maybe one paragraph of it that mentions the band's music, and the growth and quality of No Code-- which to RS's credit, it is praised.

But knowing all of the "it's only about the music" sentiments Ed has , it's not surprising he began to shun interviews which weren't explictly about the music. If we recall, Ed spoke very candidly about the music in the '92 RS article-- even gave the damn Mamason story. He's never been uncomfortable speaking about that. He just didn't seem to take to being the literal poster-boy for "Seattle," to be not a musician, but a commodity for journalists to sell (and thus "Not For You"). I praise his principles and his abiding by them. But I think RS took his unwillingness to speak about himself as another instance of Ed being holier-than-thou. Sad it resulted in this smear piece. Ed's character really has been a constant.

i was buying almost every issue of RS at that time and a few issues after this cover-story, many people wrote about it in the "correspondence, love letters and advices" section, such as michael stipe and courtney love defending eddie, praising the band and flaming RS for the lack of objectivity. i,ll try to find it and i'll trascribe later

Yeah, i think we take it for granted that this group is still together, enjoying eachother. It was a very dark time for the band. It truly is a blessing.

Glad to see that someone else (I'm sure there are more) agrees with me on this.

i agree also. Although, over here in the uk, with music videos becoming more popular, but with less channels at the time of ten/nevermind devoted to music, "smells like" with its slick video was a much easier play than "alive" with its black and white live vid and nirvana became (and obv. still are) a much bigger deal than pj - coupled with our media's obsession with the uk being the coolest place on earth, the minute kurts coporate rock accusation was coined, pearl jam didn't have a chance. Pearl jam became a 70s rock re-hash group and Nirvana ultra-alternative punk rockers (yay!)

Looking back, all their decisions re vids, singles, appearances were done to keep things to just music - and in the end, they are now treated like forgotten men over here, just riding on nirvana's coat-tails and somehow, kurt's comments have been written in stone with no escape...

for my sins, i'm reading none too fragile at the moment - not read it before, and know much of what is in there already, just needed something easy to read on the train to work (badly written, by the way - also shows a picture of pj with soundgarden and says " pearl jam and crew relaxing backstage..lol! )* and have just read the chapter on this very subject. interesting to see how the, now defunct, melody maker seemed to understand eddie and the band more than any other read

* i know, all this has probably been covered many times on RM in the past

actually it hasn't.

and, that's all really interesting. especially the melody maker part! i liked their interviews with Ed, if not a bit melodramatic.

That's ridiculous.

The real story is that Eddie Vedder wanted to be a rock star. Kurt Cobain wanted to be a rock star. They BOTH made very radio rock friendly albums. They BOTH became huge. They BOTH gave interviews, made videos, (often) did the things that were expected of them initially. They BOTH realized that they didn't really want to jump through hoops and give the industry and public exactly what they wanted. But NEITHER was quite sure (early on) that they wanted to go all the way to shun the limelight. Because as obnoxious as it was for BOTH of them at times, there was a part of them that desperately wanted that forum for their voice to be heard. So they BOTH took steps so cut down on their exposure a bit. Ed said no more videos. But the second album was still very radio friendly, pleasing-to-the-masses. Kurt still made videos, but their next album was far from the glossy pop-punk rock glory that fans wanted to hear. That was the direction Kurt was taking to shed some of the bandwagon fans.

I have always felt that the ideas and goals of Eddie and Kurt were very concurrent with one another; however, the paths they took to achieve them was different. They were both caught in a musical "scene" or "movement" in which being cool was not cool. To be "cool" you had to not want to be cool. So you have Kurt constantly trying to prove how punk rock he was. Eddie constantly trying to prove that he wasn't some outside cock-rocker, in it for the fame, etc. It's almost ironic. They both had hit it big. Loved by millions across the country. But neither felt comfortable in their own skin. The millions of people weren't the ones they felt they needed to prove themselves to.

So, I agree that to act as if Kurt was punk and shunned attention while Ed was a glory seeker is incorrect. However, it is just as wrong to assert that Ed was always shunning attention while Kurt was always trying to get it for himself.

Sadly, it would appear that Kurt never quite was able to create a comfortable niche for himself. I really wish he had. Thankfully, Ed was eventually able to carve out a comfort zone for himself, even though it took a long time to do.


My two cents.

i think the melodrama makes them really good reading now though. I'm going through a bit of a renaissance with PJ and the early nineties in particular (mid-life crisis and all that - plus ipods make nostalgia so easy!) and finding these articles really helps to see why and how the band got to where they are now - like was said earlier - helps you appreciate that they are even still around - even if the world at large isn't bothered

I don't think that this is what Isaac Turner was trying to say. I know a lot more about Kurt than Ed, so I can't speak to what Ed was going through very well. But when the Seattle grunge scene began to fade from the public consciousness, Kurt was hurt and took it personally. Trends in music change constantly, but I believe that he felt that it constituted a rejection of his music. He was also feeling a unsure about his musical direction and needed some kind of positive reinforcement. Hence, the phone calls to journalists, etc. I don't think that Isaac was in any way being critical. Kurt was a deeply troubled person for whom music had been an escape. When it began to feel like a trap, he didn't know where to turn. Such a sad story.

I have never gotten that feeling before. (I'm not trying to argue with you, you're obviously a big Nirvana fan as well) but in all the extensive readings I've done about Kurt Cobain and Nirvana, nothing has ever given me that impression. I have always found that In Utero was Kurt stepping back from the pop rock. I know I've read comments about him wanting to get rid of the fans who thought that Nevermind is what the band was. So he comes out with this much harder, raw, and not always pleasant to listen to follow up album.

I really don't think that "grunge" was fading away before Kurt's death. Pearl Jam was popular as ever. Soundgarden was breaking through to the masses about that time. And your STPs and Bushes were doing their best to churn out that same sound that was so popular.

I mostly agree with the rest of what you said. Obviously, he had his own personal demons that went far beyond how popular his music was.

I'm not trying to argue with you either. It makes me really sad to think about Kurt dying alone like that. And I do think that the less polished sound of In Utero was an attempt to reclaim his music for himself. But in 1994 "grunge" was mutating into a more mass culture oriented form. That's not a criticism. The collection of bands that formed Seattle "grunge" were a pretty unrelated and eclectic set, and the music industry was trying to cull what it could out of that morass. STP and Bush were part of that process. Kurt was hurt by the fact that Nevermind was a much bigger seller than In Utero, which he considered a truer manifestation of his art. At the same time he also felt that In Utero was lacking in creativity. That it didn't really break new musical ground. So he was beating himself up over his perception of these issues. It's so upsetting to think about these things from the distance of being a fan. What must have been going through the minds of people like Eddie Vedder, Chris Cornell, Mark Arm? You think that you just want to sit down and listen to music, but listening to music elicits so much emotion, doesn't it? And this music intended to do just that.

right....

and making a music video (i.e. Heart-Shaped Box) that was very well arranged and produced was all part of this alleged masterplan as well? (and wasn't that video part of some Waynes World 2 promotion?)

and what about the phone calls complaining/beckoning about the absence of Nirvana in the media?

hmmm... guess you should go read some more, my friend.

i think you're suffering under the aforementioned misconception.

Sorry man, Kurt and Nirvana were not as anti-attention as you claim.

Any "punk rock" on a major-label is not PUNK rock, despite how "unappealing" to the masses the author of it may assert he's trying to make it. Record companies are not going to release albums they know won't generate $ (go watch the Wilco documentary; and fuck, even they left their label over that whole debacle). In Utero certainly has commercial appeal. No Code, none at all substantively, other than it's released by a band named "Pearl Jam"

Further, I cannot agree with your interpretation of Pearl Jam's career trajectory. I don't know too much about Kurt, so I cannot contend with some of that. Fact is: Pearl Jam utterly refused to release Black as a single-- a decision of rejecting the industry's standards as early as their first album. Released grainy live performance videos for 2 out the 3 US released singles. Did create a video for Jeremy, innocently and afterwards pledged not to do it again after they saw what happened (uh, unlike Nirvana).

They did NO television performances for Vitalogy. Only one for No Code, at the request of Ed to Letterman to not promote and minimize the number of advertisements, which Dave even did one better-- made it commercial free. And to shun their fans, they released "Who You Are" as the first single and gave an album of primarily slow, un-rocking songs on No Code that revealed maturity and alienated their youthful, testosterone fanbase (ie middle america)-- proof: Creed. They filled the void of hard-rocking PJ songs and went multi-platinum several times over in response to the public demand for more PJ, created by PJ's absence.


PS forgot to mention Nirvana's Unplugged performance on MTV, and MTV's subsequent licensing of the performance so it could be released as a live cd; where is PJ Unplugged? * checking the trading forum *

PSS why was Ed wearing a blazer on Letterman, as well as a collared shirt at most of the No Code shows? to drop the "grunge" appearance/association.