Home› The Porch

pearl jam on jools holland

jwoodcockjwoodcock Posts: 22
edited January 2008 in The Porch
I recently re-watched the Jools Holland clip on youtube where Ed looks embarassed for acting like he did. I don't know about everone else, but I think I would have been upset in the early days if they didn't act fired up. I know everyone looks back at themselves and thinks, oh man I made a fool of myself. I guess what I am saying is that you shouldn't be ashamed to be having fun. I can't get my head around the idea of him being able to look into the future and see himself react that way. I think he would be pissed. Any thoughts on these ramblings?
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • harmless_little_f***harmless_little_f*** Posts: 8,005
    I actually think it was endeering that a rockstar could laugh at himself. We were all over-angry when we were younger.. The fact that he admits it just shows his humanity..
    'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'

    - the great Sir Leo Harrison
  • Rhinocerous SurpriseRhinocerous Surprise Posts: 4,423
    How would you want him to react? "Oh man, wasn't I awesome?"
    Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
  • jwoodcockjwoodcock Posts: 22
    why not, he is. no I get it I'm just thinking about it.
  • Rhinocerous SurpriseRhinocerous Surprise Posts: 4,423
    jamie w wrote:
    why not, he is. no I get it I'm just thinking about it.

    I don't think he really thought that deeply about it himself - I know if I see old video of myself, my first reaction is usually laughing. It's not embarrassment, necessarily - just seeing how much you've changed.
    Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
  • zootownzootown Posts: 666
    jamie w wrote:
    I recently re-watched the Jools Holland clip on youtube where Ed looks embarassed for acting like he did. I don't know about everone else, but I think I would have been upset in the early days if they didn't act fired up. I know everyone looks back at themselves and thinks, oh man I made a fool of myself. I guess what I am saying is that you shouldn't be ashamed to be having fun. I can't get my head around the idea of him being able to look into the future and see himself react that way. I think he would be pissed. Any thoughts on these ramblings?


    Well, since I started on this board, one thing Ive noticed is that there is oftentimes a thread started with someone saying that they are wanting the old Eddie back, that intensity and anger, and lamenting about how much they wish they could have been at some of the earlier shows- which is likely an indication of the age of the poster---it might be cool for someone to do a poll in which there were two questions...which "Eddie" they prefer, the dark brooding, angry Eddie, or the current, more laid back Eddie, and then the second question would be "your age?" I bet there would be a correlation between a fan's age and which "Eddie" they prefer..
    I hold the pain, release me!
  • greenmindgreenmind Posts: 34
    Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:
    I don't think he really thought that deeply about it himself - I know if I see old video of myself, my first reaction is usually laughing. It's not embarrassment, necessarily - just seeing how much you've changed.


    but the whole point is he's hardly changed at all! he's maybe just put a little more humour and reflection into the anger, but thats about that. even his wardrobe has hardly changed - literally in some cases!

    didn't jools actually ask what had changed and all they could come up with was mike's stevie ray vaughan wardrobe had gone?

    i think ed was just a little defensive in that interview. it was a bit awkward (nothing compared to henry rollins' tho) and i don't think he came out like himself. the media in the uk was always very anti-pj until about 1996 when they just forgot they existed instead. that show was very odd - articles in the radio times etc....

    i remember ed's joke: 'how many members of pj does it take to change a lightbulb?' 'change??? we're not gonna fuckin change for anyone!'
    take a teenage riot to get me outta bed right now...
  • jwoodcockjwoodcock Posts: 22
    I guess I also now see why anyone established wouldn't wan't to do interviews. It seems like when you watch or hear an interview with pearl jam, especially in the last 8 years, the media makes bafoons of themselves. Not knowing what the album name is or the artwork or anything about the band. I remember waiting forever to to hear an interview on the radio in 2003 or something and the interviewer asked them if they were ever going to record any live albums. Okay how do they not no they did this already?
  • harmless_little_f***harmless_little_f*** Posts: 8,005
    jamie w wrote:
    I guess I also now see why anyone established wouldn't wan't to do interviews. It seems like when you watch or hear an interview with pearl jam, especially in the last 8 years, the media makes bafoons of themselves. Not knowing what the album name is or the artwork or anything about the band. I remember waiting forever to to hear an interview on the radio in 2003 or something and the interviewer asked them if they were ever going to record any live albums. Okay how do they not no they did this already?

    Agreed.

    It happens with any cult following band. Sigur Ros always get terrible interviewers as well.

    'So your music.... it's beautiful... it's full of soundscapes and really reminds me of the landscape of Iceland.'

    'Is it? Does it? Have you been?'

    'No.'

    'Oh.'

    'Your music is so dreamlike... almost transcendent. Why is it that you music write like that?'

    'Because it's nice....? We like it. Dunno.'
    'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'

    - the great Sir Leo Harrison
  • halszka123halszka123 Posts: 1,109
    zootown wrote:
    Well, since I started on this board, one thing Ive noticed is that there is oftentimes a thread started with someone saying that they are wanting the old Eddie back, that intensity and anger, and lamenting about how much they wish they could have been at some of the earlier shows- which is likely an indication of the age of the poster---it might be cool for someone to do a pollvigoe two questions...which "Eddie" they prefer, the dark brooding, angry Eddie, or the current, more laid back Eddie, and then the second question would be "your age?" I bet there would be a correlation between a fan's age and which "Eddie" they prefer..
    I suppose U r right. I.e.: i'm 31 and sometimes i wish EV could be a little bit crazy as He was in 90's, like sometimes Mike McC is now (I love this guy:) - He is so vigorous) but I know we all change and EV behaves as He is over 40 years old...it would be frustrating if He wasn't changed.
    And my remark - EV really was embarrassed - He moved the cups on the table, like He didn't know what to do with His hands... His laugh was just the cover of His emmbassement. I understand His behaviour - i think most people would do the same - most of them, who don't like to watch themselves from the past on video with a public (=people, who U don't know... and U don't feel safely)
    About the rest... Maybe it's sad and very annoying when reporters don't know the basic things about the band they just interview, but SORRY,not everybody knows who is PJ... so, sometimes maybe reporters try to refresh for the public who are They. Of course - sometimes they really make stupid mistakes (AVOCADO - Jools Holland)
    Not 10c member? Have sth to say? write to me - I'll put it on the forum
    halszka123@op.pl
  • dunkmandunkman Posts: 19,646
    jamie w wrote:
    I recently re-watched the Jools Holland clip on youtube where Ed looks embarassed for acting like he did. I don't know about everone else, but I think I would have been upset in the early days if they didn't act fired up. I know everyone looks back at themselves and thinks, oh man I made a fool of myself. I guess what I am saying is that you shouldn't be ashamed to be having fun. I can't get my head around the idea of him being able to look into the future and see himself react that way. I think he would be pissed. Any thoughts on these ramblings?


    i'd have been embarrassed as well.. they looked and acted awful back then.. 14 pairs of shorts and 9 hats on one bassist isnt a good look...
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • jwoodcockjwoodcock Posts: 22
    How about Kris Kross wearing there clothes on backwords. I know some of you on this board have tried it. Or how about hammer pants.
  • JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    dunkman wrote:
    i'd have been embarrassed as well.. they looked and acted awful back then.. 14 pairs of shorts and 9 hats on one bassist isnt a good look...
    They were big kids back then! They shouldn't be embarrassed, but who doesn't look back at what they did when they were younger and not wince and think "What the Hell was I thinking?!"
  • jeremyjeremy Posts: 409
    greenmind wrote:

    i remember ed's joke: 'how many members of pj does it take to change a lightbulb?' 'change??? we're not gonna fuckin change for anyone!'


    when did he say that..?..obviously he was not telling the truth..
    ''walk the bridges before you burn them down...''
    and always remember ''it's no crime to escape!!!"
Sign In or Register to comment.