hey... you anti-huge corporation people who are freaking out

norm

Jeanwah wrote:

Ok, sorry. I'm typing so fast, basically that's what I meant, that they distribute, they don't sell direct. The two differences.

no apologies....i understand your and others disappointment...i was taken aback when this news broke...but as been said, these are the times we live in and the music industry is different than what it was 15 years ago...judging kelly's comments, i really believe they are trying to do this in the most socially aware manner that they can...they could just release it through 10c/internet/indy records stores and do fine...but i think they want to try to get new fans...younger generations that don't know about them...they need a national distributor like target to subsidize it...it's a win for the band and target...target being the lessor of all evils

dunkman

slightofjeff wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

slightofjeff wrote:

And I don't think you understand how basic economics works.

If you have two identical products, but one sells for $5 cheaper than the other, that one is going to win out.

Every. Single. Time.

PS -- You REALLY need to stop making assumptions about my level of social awareness. You have no idea who am I, what I do, or what causes I support or do not support. It's really not cool.

Yet, you can tell tell people that they're not very old and that's ok. I don't know anything about you...but I do know you shop at Walmart.
And not everyone will drive from store to store to find the cheapest price. Think of all that gas you've just wasted! If you're best friend or a family member opened a business, would you not support them because they have to have prices more expensive than Walmart? Would you really go out of your way to buy the cheapest or would you help a friend/family out?

I did not mean "you sound young" as an insult to Crazy Breed. Something about his posts and his infatuation with marijuana just made him seem like a young'un. I didn't mean it as an insult at all. If he took it that way -- not sure he did -- then I apologize.

I'm glad you brought up the gas argument. Because it is a precious commodity. And because excessive driving is bad for the environment and causes global warming.

Let's say I need the following items/services: Bread. Diapers. Sunscreen. A package of underwear (boxers not briefs). A new tire for my Prius. An oil change. Stamps. An Applebee's gift card. Photos developed. A haircut.

I could either: Drive to the grocery store. Drive to the clothing store. Drive to the tire store. Drive to the oil change place. Drive to the Post Office. Drive to Applebees. Drive to the Photomat. Drive to the barber.

OR ... I could drive to Super Target.

I could drive around for six hours, and waste ALL THAT GAS.

OR ... I could drive to Super Target.

I think I'm going to Super Target. It's the socially aware thing to do.

this post deserves an award of some kind... its that good!

decides2dream

Jeanwah wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

yep, THAT's exactly what i am saying........ :roll:
i'm actually saying the opposite...but again, see post above.
we are not at all relating on this topic, which is a shame. i do actually quite see your points, but i am also just looking at it from a different angle....also looking at life as it IS, right now...for the world, for us and sure....for lots and lots of people who truly struggle to make the best for their families. yep, a real me, me, me scenario...... :?

anyhoo.....don't buy your CD at target, i actually won't be either as i'll probably order thru 10c.....lament the loss of your hereos, abandon them if you feel it necessary. me, i see all of pjs evolutions thru the lens of change, and i personally still see them sticking to their ideals. perhaps in a new way, but as our world changes it dictates we change and adapt and still work towards our ideals. i still see pj doing that, you may not.....neither changes what pj chooses to do and all the more i respect them for making choices based on their OWN ideas.


and whether one distributes the music or sells the music...wtf difference does it make?
one huge corp is another huge corp and they are all equally *evil*...no?ehhhh...forget it...hahahahaha...........

I do know what you're saying...for the most part. Target does appear to be more philanthropic than many other large corps, I'll give you that.

ahhhhhh...understanding, even if just a little. one small step, and a giant step for us both. truly. while i don't have to agree with someone, i always like to understand, and to be understood.


that said, i and others have posed this question numerous times....even in the post you responded to...so again, truly, i do want to understand...wtf is the difference, and actually what makes it worse? why was sony all these years ok, but target = not ok? this is where the great divide of understanding lies for me....

Jeanwah

decides2dream wrote:

jeanwah - don't mean to speak for norm...but i think the actual point was....so what?
one distributes, 1 sells...wtf is the difference if simply all corp giants are evil? why is it ok to be in bed with sony, a HUGE, multinational corp....but not ok to be with target, a national giant corp? is sony somehow *better* than target, and thus, ok? bottomline...pj was in bed with sony for 18 years..who then distributed their music to ALL those giant corps and all else, also why maintaining ownership of pjs masters. now pj is doing it on their OWN...forming their own partnerships...they are making aLL their own decisions, partnering with different manufacturers, distributors, etc....but all thru their own personal corp.....and made a deal with target, along with indie shops too, to sell em. again.....why is it *worse*...whereas i actually see it as *better* in a sense........? i think that is where the question lies...and correct me if i am wrong norm.

Because Pearl Jam wouldn't exist if they didn't have a record label. They had to have a label to succeed. They wanted success, and I'm glad they did. I don't condone Sony, but unless it's local musicians, you won't find an amateur band gunning for commercial success without a label. They had no choice if they wanted to make it big. Now they're big, they don't need Sony anymore. But they don't need one specific big-box retail giant to sell their music either. They needed the support of many in the past, if they want to sell their music, so yeah, they've always been associated with corporations, selling their music. Do they want to sell their music? Of course! But there is absolutely no reason they have to partner with one single corp. and have that corp name attached to theirs.

slightofjeff

dunkman wrote:

this post deserves an award of some kind... its that good!

I'll drive my Hummer down to Wal-Mart and buy a ribbon, making sure to run over plenty of kittens on the way home.

PearlJain

slightofjeff wrote:

norm wrote:

ugh! i really believe some of you like the band more for their image than their music...and that's sad

That is the fucking bingo post of all bingo posts my man. Well done.

I just like their music. And Pearl Jam still has a great image. BTW - I honestly shop at Target all of the time, and grow my own vegetables. We don't "wipe with pine cones" however.

PissBottleMan

decides2dream wrote:

why was sony all these years ok, but target = not ok? this is where the great divide of understanding lies for me....

If I could briefly chime in here. I think many fans bought into this "us against them" ideology the band may have portrayed at certain points while not looking at the big picture.

We were screaming "hell no, we won't go"...while we bought their records produced by a large corporation.

We drank the fruit punch...but now, realize it was Kool-Aid all along.

PBM

Jeanwah

dunkman wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

And this is why I think you're not very socially aware, because everything is not about how cheap it is. It's about value, it's about integrity, it's about People before Profit. You don't get this at all.

the new pj album will cost the same as the others before it? your point?

social awareness is all well and good if you

a) have the time
b) have the inclination
c) have enough money in the bank to spend the extra

social awareness when you are a multimillionaire rock/pop musician is quite easy... but for some Joe Schmoe in Detroit who has been laid off and he has to feed his family then his social awareness becomes "where can i get bread the cheapest" he's not thinking "oh i better use O'Hennessy's Bakers... poor O'Hennessy and his Mercedes to run"

altruism is an ideal... not a reality for many millions of people.

It takes zero money to be socially aware. Be a good neighbor, look out for others rather than just yourself, take care extended family and friends. Sure, donating is a big part, but you don't have to have money to donate old things you were going to throw out, your time if you have it, or buy a raffle ticket. Attend a pre-party fundraiser and participate!!
Altruism is an ideal that everyone can participate, everyone.

quelquefois

slightofjeff wrote:

I'm glad you brought up the gas argument. Because it is a precious commodity. And because excessive driving is bad for the environment and causes global warming.

Let's say I need the following items/services: Bread. Diapers. Sunscreen. A package of underwear (boxers not briefs). A new tire for my Prius. An oil change. Stamps. An Applebee's gift card. Photos developed. A haircut.

I could either: Drive to the grocery store. Drive to the clothing store. Drive to the tire store. Drive to the oil change place. Drive to the Post Office. Drive to Applebees. Drive to the Photomat. Drive to the barber.

OR ... I could drive to Super Target.

I could drive around for six hours, and waste ALL THAT GAS.

OR ... I could drive to Super Target.

I think I'm going to Super Target. It's the socially aware thing to do.

i completely understand your point... but there are also those of us who choose to live in cities and use public transport... the money we save by not owning a car goes to supporting local businesses...

it's not lost on me that having the extra money to spend on local or organic, or fairly traded goods is a privilege ... not everyone can do it of course, and i would never want someone to live outside their means... but every dollar we spend is political, whether we like it or not,... so when i've got the extra cash i always try to spend that money supporting something i can believe in...

slightofjeff

Jeanwah wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

jeanwah - don't mean to speak for norm...but i think the actual point was....so what?
one distributes, 1 sells...wtf is the difference if simply all corp giants are evil? why is it ok to be in bed with sony, a HUGE, multinational corp....but not ok to be with target, a national giant corp? is sony somehow *better* than target, and thus, ok? bottomline...pj was in bed with sony for 18 years..who then distributed their music to ALL those giant corps and all else, also why maintaining ownership of pjs masters. now pj is doing it on their OWN...forming their own partnerships...they are making aLL their own decisions, partnering with different manufacturers, distributors, etc....but all thru their own personal corp.....and made a deal with target, along with indie shops too, to sell em. again.....why is it *worse*...whereas i actually see it as *better* in a sense........? i think that is where the question lies...and correct me if i am wrong norm.

Because Pearl Jam wouldn't exist if they didn't have a record label. They had to have a label to succeed. They wanted success, and I'm glad they did. I don't condone Sony, but unless it's local musicians, you won't find an amateur band gunning for commercial success without a label. They had no choice if they wanted to make it big. Now they're big, they don't need Sony anymore. But they don't need one specific big-box retail giant to sell their music either. They needed the support of many in the past, if they want to sell their music, so yeah, they've always been associated with corporations, selling their music. Do they want to sell their music? Of course! But there is absolutely no reason they have to partner with one single corp. and have that corp name attached to theirs.

But I don't see how you propose they get their new CD INTO stores without a distributor. Is Jeff supposed to skateboard from coast-to-coast with a box of CDs under his arm?

Bottom line is: Somebody has to handle distribution.

Before it was Sony. Now, it is Target, loading Pearl Jam CDs onto their trucks next to boxes of bath towels and decorative hand soaps.

decides2dream

Jeanwah wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

jeanwah - don't mean to speak for norm...but i think the actual point was....so what?
one distributes, 1 sells...wtf is the difference if simply all corp giants are evil? why is it ok to be in bed with sony, a HUGE, multinational corp....but not ok to be with target, a national giant corp? is sony somehow *better* than target, and thus, ok? bottomline...pj was in bed with sony for 18 years..who then distributed their music to ALL those giant corps and all else, also why maintaining ownership of pjs masters. now pj is doing it on their OWN...forming their own partnerships...they are making aLL their own decisions, partnering with different manufacturers, distributors, etc....but all thru their own personal corp.....and made a deal with target, along with indie shops too, to sell em. again.....why is it *worse*...whereas i actually see it as *better* in a sense........? i think that is where the question lies...and correct me if i am wrong norm.

Because Pearl Jam wouldn't exist if they didn't have a record label. They had to have a label to succeed. They wanted success, and I'm glad they did. I don't condone Sony, but unless it's local musicians, you won't find an amateur band gunning for commercial success without a label. They had no choice if they wanted to make it big. Now they're big, they don't need Sony anymore. But they don't need one specific big-box retail giant to sell their music either. They needed the support of many in the past, if they want to sell their music, so yeah, they've always been associated with corporations, selling their music. Do they want to sell their music? Of course! But there is absolutely no reason they have to partner with one single corp. and have that corp name attached to theirs.

so it's ok to get in bed with corps when you HAVE to....but then you absolutely should not ever again?
again, i see what you're saying...but i disagree. they don't HAVe to...they WANT to....and asi said, i personally see it as a BETTER message. by choosing target they are aligning themselves with probably THE most philanthronpic corp of the big box retailers. they also made it clear they chose target b/c they still want to use/support indie stores, a big deal. by actually CHOOSING a corp partner, they are making a STATEMENT. they are REWARDing the corp they deem who does the BEST for the community. again, target is not perfect by any stretch, but their model is better than a lot of em out there. it's a conscious choice to say i am doing business with this corp b/c i think they are most aligned with my values. i think it's a GOOD thing. btw - their names are not *attached*.....it's a partnership for distribution only, for now...for this album...and who knows what will happen in the future? bottomline THIS is our current reality, we don't live in a bubble....i think pearl jam is consciously making choices that best align with their ideals b/c now they truly CAN.


we definitely see it differently overall......but it's good to understand your pov. thanks for answering.

dunkman

Jeanwah wrote:

dunkman wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

And this is why I think you're not very socially aware, because everything is not about how cheap it is. It's about value, it's about integrity, it's about People before Profit. You don't get this at all.

the new pj album will cost the same as the others before it? your point?

social awareness is all well and good if you

a) have the time
b) have the inclination
c) have enough money in the bank to spend the extra

social awareness when you are a multimillionaire rock/pop musician is quite easy... but for some Joe Schmoe in Detroit who has been laid off and he has to feed his family then his social awareness becomes "where can i get bread the cheapest" he's not thinking "oh i better use O'Hennessy's Bakers... poor O'Hennessy and his Mercedes to run"

altruism is an ideal... not a reality for many millions of people.

It takes zero money to be socially aware. Be a good neighbor, look out for others rather than just yourself, take care extended family and friends. Sure, donating is a big part, but you don't have to have money to donate old things you were going to throw out, your time if you have it, or buy a raffle ticket. Attend a pre-party fundraiser and participate!!
Altruism is an ideal that everyone can participate, everyone.

thats an ideal... all social concepts are an ideal.

quelquefois

PissBottleMan wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

why was sony all these years ok, but target = not ok? this is where the great divide of understanding lies for me....

If I could briefly chime in here. I think many fans bought into this "us against them" ideology the band may have portrayed at certain points while not looking at the big picture.

We were screaming "hell no, we won't go"...while we bought their records produced by a large corporation.

We drank the fruit punch...but now, realize it was Kool-Aid all along.

PBM

i think there is also a difference between a band being contractually obligated to a record company, and willingly signing a contract with a sponsor when they didn't have to (debatable). that's where the tension is coming from... people who think they could have distributed on their own vs. people who see target as a means to an end... i think they could have done it on their own, but i suppose i begrudgingly understand.

Jeanwah

dunkman wrote:

slightofjeff wrote:

I'm glad you brought up the gas argument. Because it is a precious commodity. And because excessive driving is bad for the environment and causes global warming.

Let's say I need the following items/services: Bread. Diapers. Sunscreen. A package of underwear (boxers not briefs). A new tire for my Prius. An oil change. Stamps. An Applebee's gift card. Photos developed. A haircut.

I could either: Drive to the grocery store. Drive to the clothing store. Drive to the tire store. Drive to the oil change place. Drive to the Post Office. Drive to Applebees. Drive to the Photomat. Drive to the barber.

OR ... I could drive to Super Target.

I could drive around for six hours, and waste ALL THAT GAS.

OR ... I could drive to Super Target.

I think I'm going to Super Target. It's the socially aware thing to do.

this post deserves an award of some kind... its that good!

Going to Super Target is not the socially aware thing to do, it's the most convenient. BIG DIFFERENCE.

slightofjeff

Jeanwah wrote:

It takes zero money to be socially aware. Be a good neighbor, look out for others rather than just yourself, take care extended family and friends. Sure, donating is a big part, but you don't have to have money to donate old things you were going to throw out, your time if you have it, or buy a raffle ticket. Attend a pre-party fundraiser and participate!!
Altruism is an ideal that everyone can participate, everyone.

I think what he was referring to is that some people can't afford to shop anywhere but Wal-Mart. It's easy to pay more to shop at Mom and Pop when you have the means to do so.

Some people don't have that option. They have to go to Wal-Mart because it is the only way to get sufficient food on the table, and they can't worry about whether Wal-Mart is a big, evil corporation that eats children.

Jean Valjean stole bread to feed his family.
I'm not sure that shopping at Wal-Mart is much worse.

norm

Kat wrote:

And I personally think it's an excellent idea to work with people from the inside to seek change in our society. We can only try...and that's what activism is all about.

xo

this too

redrock

Jeanwah wrote:

Now they're big, they don't need Sony anymore..

No but they still need a 'weight' behind them to continue to bring their music to the masses and, in the process, gain new fans. Sure there are examples of some 'doing it on their own' but how long will that 'novelty' last?

Jeanwah wrote:

But they don't need one specific big-box retail giant to sell their music either. .

That retail giant is one of the avenues they chose.....

I would rather see PJ at Target for years to come than doing it on their own for a few years and dying a death....

slightofjeff

NothingIsEverything. wrote:

i completely understand your point... but there are also those of us who choose to live in cities and use public transport... the money we save by not owning a car goes to supporting local businesses...

it's not lost on me that having the extra money to spend on local or organic, or fairly traded goods is a privilege ... not everyone can do it of course, and i would never want someone to live outside their means... but every dollar we spend is political, whether we like it or not,... so when i've got the extra cash i always try to spend that money supporting something i can believe in...

Hell, I'd love for my city to invest in public transport. My job requires me to visit most every major U.S. city at least once a year. I love going to places like NYC or San Francisco, where I don't have to rent a car ... Every city should be like that. Makes life so much easier.

slightofjeff

Jeanwah wrote:

this post deserves an award of some kind... its that good!

Going to Super Target is not the socially aware thing to do, it's the most convenient. BIG DIFFERENCE.

So you would have me burn a week's worth of gas when a couple gallons would suffice? And spew all that exhaust into the environment?

Tsk, tsk.

dunkman

slightofjeff wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

It takes zero money to be socially aware. Be a good neighbor, look out for others rather than just yourself, take care extended family and friends. Sure, donating is a big part, but you don't have to have money to donate old things you were going to throw out, your time if you have it, or buy a raffle ticket. Attend a pre-party fundraiser and participate!!
Altruism is an ideal that everyone can participate, everyone.

I think what he was referring to is that some people can't afford to shop anywhere but Wal-Mart. It's easy to pay more to shop at Mom and Pop when you have the means to do so.

Some people don't have that option. They have to go to Wal-Mart because it is the only way to get sufficient food on the table, and they can't worry about whether Wal-Mart is a big, evil corporation that eats children.

Jean Valjean stole bread to feed his family.
I'm not sure that shopping at Wal-Mart is much worse.

thats what i meant

nice Les Miserables reference in there as well