PJ becoming an elitist band?

BRMLAW

redrock wrote:

weenie wrote:

Those ideals are one of the things that first attracted me to this band and I had high hopes would never shift.

The thing is we all change/evolve. Are you the same person you were 20 years ago? Are your priorities the same? Generally, is a 20 year old not more idealistic than a 40 year old? One may still hold the same principles/values/ideals but eventually, with maturity and just plain old 'life' one will see things a bit differently. This does not mean that as we grow up, we lose all our passion and beliefs, maybe one is just a bit more realistic as opposed to idealistic.

Also, the ideals that 'we' decide PJ have... are these not a bit idealistic as well? Have 'we' put the band members on a pedestal because of certain causes they fought? Do we not forget these are regular people (albeit with a bit more talent than average!), with regular concerns, regular needs/wants, etc?

From the point of view of elitism, ie the band catering for a certain social level of the population (ie those that can pay for stuff)... I'm saying everything is more expensive, less people can afford 'luxuries' (and concert tix do count as a luxury). Simple. The band need to charge x amount of money for a ticket to pay for their touring and make some money too... simple economics. Less people being able to afford this.. simple economics too.

I know people are giving examples of a couple of bands that do things 'cheaply'. Yes they do, but that is not the norm. Also, is it something that they can sustain?

Ditto this. And the reality is that pious idealism can quickly drop away when you have more mouths to feed.I.E Kids. And I believe all the guys have them now. Ed has 2. So that will change your fans first priorities real fast. Its family first now. As it should be.

weenie

redrock wrote:

weenie wrote:

Those ideals are one of the things that first attracted me to this band and I had high hopes would never shift.

The thing is we all change/evolve. Are you the same person you were 20 years ago? Are your priorities the same? Generally, is a 20 year old not more idealistic than a 40 year old? One may still hold the same principles/values/ideals but eventually, with maturity and just plain old 'life' one will see things a bit differently. This does not mean that as we grow up, we lose all our passion and beliefs, maybe one is just a bit more realistic as opposed to idealistic.

Also, the ideals that 'we' decide PJ have... are these not a bit idealistic as well? Have 'we' put the band members on a pedestal because of certain causes they fought? Do we not forget these are regular people (albeit with a bit more talent than average!), with regular concerns, regular needs/wants, etc?

From the point of view of elitism, ie the band catering for a certain social level of the population (ie those that can pay for stuff)... I'm saying everything is more expensive, less people can afford 'luxuries' (and concert tix do count as a luxury). Simple. The band need to charge x amount of money for a ticket to pay for their touring and make some money too... simple economics. Less people being able to afford this.. simple economics too.

I know people are giving examples of a couple of bands that do things 'cheaply'. Yes they do, but that is not the norm. Also, is it something that they can sustain?

I appreciate your opinion, and the way you've verbalized it. As for the idealism, I guess I'm one of the few who is actually MORE idealistic than I was 20 years ago. I have made a lot of discoveries during the aging process as to how important ethics, truth and one's credibility really is in the grand scheme. I try harder than I ever did to live my life in that regard. For me to expect the same from anyone else really is silly, but that hasn't stopped me from thinking this band was in the same club.

I can also be the realist though. I understand the power of money. How much is enough? These guys all have to be pretty well off. I don't buy the bullshit about them having families and needing more money as a result. They don't live in the same economic class as ANYONE I know of on this board. That's not to say that some of you guys aren't well off.

It all comes back to the TIMING of ticket cost increases and playing regional shows. The whole thing could have been a little better thought through in terms of the fans. California is being treated pretty well - because Ed likes to surf? I really don't know and am just guessing.

For a band that used to ridicule the rich......I saw Ed turn his ass, shout "FUCK YOU" and give the finger to Ted Turner in Atlanta at Phillips Arena, all because Turner was/is a corporate mogul and owned the venue where they were playing.......it just makes one wonder. And this is only one example. I don't fault them for wanting to be profitable and secure, both now and for the future. Recent actions just don't mesh with all the lyrics, verbalized philosophies and statements I've heard over the past 14 years or so. Which is WHY I DARED to ask the question...... :shock:

BRMLAW

weenie wrote:

redrock wrote:

weenie wrote:

Those ideals are one of the things that first attracted me to this band and I had high hopes would never shift.

The thing is we all change/evolve. Are you the same person you were 20 years ago? Are your priorities the same? Generally, is a 20 year old not more idealistic than a 40 year old? One may still hold the same principles/values/ideals but eventually, with maturity and just plain old 'life' one will see things a bit differently. This does not mean that as we grow up, we lose all our passion and beliefs, maybe one is just a bit more realistic as opposed to idealistic.

Also, the ideals that 'we' decide PJ have... are these not a bit idealistic as well? Have 'we' put the band members on a pedestal because of certain causes they fought? Do we not forget these are regular people (albeit with a bit more talent than average!), with regular concerns, regular needs/wants, etc?

From the point of view of elitism, ie the band catering for a certain social level of the population (ie those that can pay for stuff)... I'm saying everything is more expensive, less people can afford 'luxuries' (and concert tix do count as a luxury). Simple. The band need to charge x amount of money for a ticket to pay for their touring and make some money too... simple economics. Less people being able to afford this.. simple economics too.

I know people are giving examples of a couple of bands that do things 'cheaply'. Yes they do, but that is not the norm. Also, is it something that they can sustain?

I appreciate your opinion, and the way you've verbalized it. As for the idealism, I guess I'm one of the few who is actually MORE idealistic than I was 20 years ago. I have made a lot of discoveries during the aging process as to how important ethics, truth and one's credibility really is in the grand scheme. I try harder than I ever did to live my life in that regard. For me to expect the same from anyone else really is silly, but that hasn't stopped me from thinking this band was in the same club.

I can also be the realist though. I understand the power of money. How much is enough? These guys all have to be pretty well off. I don't buy the bullshit about them having families and needing more money as a result. They don't live in the same economic class as ANYONE I know of on this board. That's not to say that some of you guys aren't well off.

It all comes back to the TIMING of ticket cost increases and playing regional shows. The whole thing could have been a little better thought through in terms of the fans. California is being treated pretty well - because Ed likes to surf? I really don't know and am just guessing.

For a band that used to ridicule the rich......I saw Ed turn his ass, shout "FUCK YOU" and give the finger to Ted Turner in Atlanta at Phillips Arena, all because Turner was/is a corporate mogul and owned the venue where they were playing.......it just makes one wonder. And this is only one example. I don't fault them for wanting to be profitable and secure, both now and for the future. Recent actions just don't mesh with all the lyrics, verbalized philosophies and statements I've heard over the past 14 years or so. Which is WHY I DARED to ask the question...... :shock:

Maybe they have just grown up a little bit ya know? Maybe they had an epiphany that biting the hand that constantly feeds you to be egregiously stupid. Personally I have never been enamored with the decision making of this band over the years. I would have been just fine with them doing videos and becoming epic rock star whores like U2. They certainly are more talented. They chose a different route. That's cool. I love the fan first idealism. But I think it's bullshit and creates fan elitists. Personally I think its bollocks that people who bought and renewed their ten club membership year after year always get the best seats. That's fucking elitist if you ask me. So if I forget to pay my 20 bucks one year I am now at the back of the bus? Fuck that. My 20 bucks is worth the same as the next guys. So if I want good seats Im still gonna have to pay a ticket broker in all reality. And the hodge podge touring?? Terrible marketing. If your dropping an album you better be prepared to do a long tour cause I would be shocked if the album sells more than 500k units. There's my rant for the day

100 Pacer

weenie wrote:

redrock wrote:

weenie wrote:

Those ideals are one of the things that first attracted me to this band and I had high hopes would never shift.

The thing is we all change/evolve. Are you the same person you were 20 years ago? Are your priorities the same? Generally, is a 20 year old not more idealistic than a 40 year old? One may still hold the same principles/values/ideals but eventually, with maturity and just plain old 'life' one will see things a bit differently. This does not mean that as we grow up, we lose all our passion and beliefs, maybe one is just a bit more realistic as opposed to idealistic.

Also, the ideals that 'we' decide PJ have... are these not a bit idealistic as well? Have 'we' put the band members on a pedestal because of certain causes they fought? Do we not forget these are regular people (albeit with a bit more talent than average!), with regular concerns, regular needs/wants, etc?

From the point of view of elitism, ie the band catering for a certain social level of the population (ie those that can pay for stuff)... I'm saying everything is more expensive, less people can afford 'luxuries' (and concert tix do count as a luxury). Simple. The band need to charge x amount of money for a ticket to pay for their touring and make some money too... simple economics. Less people being able to afford this.. simple economics too.

I know people are giving examples of a couple of bands that do things 'cheaply'. Yes they do, but that is not the norm. Also, is it something that they can sustain?

I appreciate your opinion, and the way you've verbalized it. As for the idealism, I guess I'm one of the few who is actually MORE idealistic than I was 20 years ago. I have made a lot of discoveries during the aging process as to how important ethics, truth and one's credibility really is in the grand scheme. I try harder than I ever did to live my life in that regard. For me to expect the same from anyone else really is silly, but that hasn't stopped me from thinking this band was in the same club.

I can also be the realist though. I understand the power of money. How much is enough? These guys all have to be pretty well off. I don't buy the bullshit about them having families and needing more money as a result. They don't live in the same economic class as ANYONE I know of on this board. That's not to say that some of you guys aren't well off.

It all comes back to the TIMING of ticket cost increases and playing regional shows. The whole thing could have been a little better thought through in terms of the fans. California is being treated pretty well - because Ed likes to surf? I really don't know and am just guessing.

For a band that used to ridicule the rich......I saw Ed turn his ass, shout "FUCK YOU" and give the finger to Ted Turner in Atlanta at Phillips Arena, all because Turner was/is a corporate mogul and owned the venue where they were playing.......it just makes one wonder. And this is only one example. I don't fault them for wanting to be profitable and secure, both now and for the future. Recent actions just don't mesh with all the lyrics, verbalized philosophies and statements I've heard over the past 14 years or so. Which is WHY I DARED to ask the question...... :shock:

it seems as though your current position has shifted towards focusing on the band's finances and business etiquette as opposed to the stand you took in your original post, where you focused entirely on "feeling left out because you haven't had a full-time job in 17 months and you aren't able to fly out to any shows." you state that you've come to realize just how "important ethics, truth and one's credibility really is in the grand scheme" and you seemingly question whether the band shares your views. my question to you is: just what exactly has prompted you to question the band's ethics and credibility? has a touring band's schedule and their inability to make it possible for you to afford to see them live (ACL is an option for you, but you stated "seeing them play for an hour (not sure where you got an hour from) isn't worth it.") made you lose all your faith in said band's ethics and credibility?

forgetting for a moment the price for tickets on the upcoming tour, and the reasons behind said prices, you mentioned that you're a "realist" - realistically speaking, as a matter of perspective during these difficult economic times where MANY individuals haven't had a full-time job for 17 months if not longer, isn't it logical to assume that with some perspective it's clear that not being able to afford seeing PJ live on a fly-away isn't the worst thing in the world? aren't there more important priorities and objectives to pursue and entertain? does questioning PJ's stance on touring in select markets on their own terms and schedule during these difficult times make the inability to afford a chance to see them live less painful? if you had the funds for tickets and for travel, and you were shut out because of the limited amount of tickets available would you then question why PJ wasn't playing more shows as opposed to a smaller tour?

for a band with ethics and credibility not quite up to snuff with your standards, it's truly unfortunate to read just how let down you are by them,...

weenie

100 Pacer wrote:

it seems as though your current position has shifted towards focusing on the band's finances and business etiquette as opposed to the stand you took in your original post, where you focused entirely on "feeling left out because you haven't had a full-time job in 17 months and you aren't able to fly out to any shows." you state that you've come to realize just how "important ethics, truth and one's credibility really is in the grand scheme" and you seemingly question whether the band shares your views. my question to you is: just what exactly has prompted you to question the band's ethics and credibility? has a touring band's schedule and their inability to make it possible for you to afford to see them live (ACL is an option for you, but you stated "seeing them play for an hour (not sure where you got an hour from) isn't worth it.") made you lose all your faith in said band's ethics and credibility?

forgetting for a moment the price for tickets on the upcoming tour, and the reasons behind said prices, you mentioned that you're a "realist" - realistically speaking, as a matter of perspective during these difficult economic times where MANY individuals haven't had a full-time job for 17 months if not longer, isn't it logical to assume that with some perspective it's clear that not being able to afford seeing PJ live on a fly-away isn't the worst thing in the world? aren't there more important priorities and objectives to pursue and entertain? does questioning PJ's stance on touring in select markets on their own terms and schedule during these difficult times make the inability to afford a chance to see them live less painful? if you had the funds for tickets and for travel, and you were shut out because of the limited amount of tickets available would you then question why PJ wasn't playing more shows as opposed to a smaller tour?

for a band with ethics and credibility not quite up to snuff with your standards, it's truly unfortunate to read just how let down you are by them,...

I'm not really sure of what you're trying to say. I DO see your response as your judgement of what I've written. Whenever someone reflects upon their own experiences, it's just that - reflection. Words aren't mean to convey merely black and white, there's a lot of grey included - interpretation. The difficulty in putting your experiences out there on a thread is that a majority of readers want to paint you either black or white based on THEIR interpretation of your words - assuming that they read them.

Some people understood what I was asking and responded with relevant, objective opinions. I'm grateful to them because they helped me consider what might be some of the reasoning OTHER than what I proposed for consideration - whether's it was what I wanted to hear or not. I can't refute the judgements that someone like yourself renders since they've strayed so far from the original question. You've selected a few particular sentences from my posts, or particular words, and extrapolated them into a response that I can't even recognize as relevant to my original question.

I've learned a lot from the band's words over the years. I've always held high regard for the opinions they've expressed. To assert that I think the bands actions are not up to my standards - (per the last line of your post) - is akin to proposing that black is white with a straight face. :roll:

100 Pacer

weenie wrote:

100 Pacer wrote:

it seems as though your current position has shifted towards focusing on the band's finances and business etiquette as opposed to the stand you took in your original post, where you focused entirely on "feeling left out because you haven't had a full-time job in 17 months and you aren't able to fly out to any shows." you state that you've come to realize just how "important ethics, truth and one's credibility really is in the grand scheme" and you seemingly question whether the band shares your views. my question to you is: just what exactly has prompted you to question the band's ethics and credibility? has a touring band's schedule and their inability to make it possible for you to afford to see them live (ACL is an option for you, but you stated "seeing them play for an hour (not sure where you got an hour from) isn't worth it.") made you lose all your faith in said band's ethics and credibility?

forgetting for a moment the price for tickets on the upcoming tour, and the reasons behind said prices, you mentioned that you're a "realist" - realistically speaking, as a matter of perspective during these difficult economic times where MANY individuals haven't had a full-time job for 17 months if not longer, isn't it logical to assume that with some perspective it's clear that not being able to afford seeing PJ live on a fly-away isn't the worst thing in the world? aren't there more important priorities and objectives to pursue and entertain? does questioning PJ's stance on touring in select markets on their own terms and schedule during these difficult times make the inability to afford a chance to see them live less painful? if you had the funds for tickets and for travel, and you were shut out because of the limited amount of tickets available would you then question why PJ wasn't playing more shows as opposed to a smaller tour?

for a band with ethics and credibility not quite up to snuff with your standards, it's truly unfortunate to read just how let down you are by them,...

I'm not really sure of what you're trying to say. I DO see your response as your judgement of what I've written. Whenever someone reflects upon their own experiences, it's just that - reflection. Words aren't mean to convey merely black and white, there's a lot of grey included - interpretation. The difficulty in putting your experiences out there on a thread is that a majority of readers want to paint you either black or white based on THEIR interpretation of your words - assuming that they read them.

Some people understood what I was asking and responded with relevant, objective opinions. I'm grateful to them because they helped me consider what might be some of the reasoning OTHER than what I proposed for consideration - whether's it was what I wanted to hear or not. I can't refute the judgements that someone like yourself renders since they've strayed so far from the original question. You've selected a few particular sentences from my posts, or particular words, and extrapolated them into a response that I can't even recognize as relevant to my original question.

I've learned a lot from the band's words over the years. I've always held high regard for the opinions they've expressed. To assert that I think the bands actions are not up to my standards - (per the last line of your post) - is akin to proposing that black is white with a straight face. :roll:

one can only interpret words and ideas shared on this forum at face value. if you see my previous posts as judgments of you, then your interpretation of my thoughts is incorrect. you shared some thoughts, asked some questions, and a process of discussion had begun. a successful discussion, if i might add. based on the original questions you've asked, my thoughts have remained true to course. you shouldn't feel threatened, nor feel the need to get defensive and suggest that i haven't taken the time to read your thoughts. likewise, ignoring valid points raised in response to positions you've taken only serves to weaken the entire discussion as a whole.

no doubt your experiences have helped you conclude the band is catering to the elitist crowd, and you're entitled to your opinion. and of course you're entitled to dismiss any and all questions and concerns with regards to your two previous central themes that you've touched on by suggesting those very questions or concerns somehow don't relate back to your original question/s, when in fact those questions directly challenge and relate back to your original position/s.

you mentioned learning a lot from the band's lyrics over the years, and you also mentioned recent actions just don't mesh with all the lyrics, verbalized philosophies and statements you've heard over the past 14 years. now, if i'm extrapolating too much from your comments above you'll have to correct me, but it seems as though you've been disillusioned by the band due, in large part, to the image you've created of them in your mind based on their lyrics, verbalized philosophies, and statements you've heard. what some might consider to be the gospel, others consider to be an escape. in both cases, the music lives on, but ultimately not everyone remains along for the ride,...

BRMLAW

Errr. What was the question again?

YieldToNothing

fuck this stupid thread.