I'm sure there is a degree in over reliance on clever words to make oneself appear smarter than everyone else.
This review takes me back to Q magazines review of Advocado whereby they gave it 1 star, said it was regurgitated grunge for the sake of grunge.....they clearly had no idea, probably loved hip hop, one of those who would cheer if Thom Yorke or Pete Doherty farted, and had never bothered to even play the record...
I just hate it when there appears to be an apparent ignorance by someone who is reviewing something yet has clearly conducted no research
I'm sure there is a degree in over reliance on clever words to make oneself appear smarter than everyone else.
This review takes me back to Q magazines review of Advocado whereby they gave it 1 star, said it was regurgitated grunge for the sake of grunge.....they clearly had no idea, probably loved hip hop, one of those who would cheer if Thom Yorke or Pete Doherty farted, and had never bothered to even play the record...
I just hate it when there appears to be an apparent ignorance by someone who is reviewing something yet has clearly conducted no research
Let me be the first to apologize for having a 10 cent vocabulary. Growing up I had an affinity for learning words that I presumed would make me at least appear more intelligent than I actually am. It's a house of cards and a facade sprinkled atop a steaming pile of bullshit. I'm glad you called me out on it, watch as it comes crumbling down.
As for the author not doing his research. That's your first mention of it; is that your problem with the article? Checking the facts, he's got everything straight.
I'm sure there is a degree in over reliance on clever words to make oneself appear smarter than everyone else.
This review takes me back to Q magazines review of Advocado whereby they gave it 1 star, said it was regurgitated grunge for the sake of grunge.....they clearly had no idea, probably loved hip hop, one of those who would cheer if Thom Yorke or Pete Doherty farted, and had never bothered to even play the record...
I just hate it when there appears to be an apparent ignorance by someone who is reviewing something yet has clearly conducted no research
im with you. I wasn't aware of the Q review, but based on my feelings towards this ignoramus, I don't need to see that one! ;o)
cheers for being as passionate about this.
Empty pockets will allow a greater sense of wealth.
Why contain yourself like any other book on the shelf?
Subtle voices in the wind hear the truth they're telling.
A world begins where the road ends.
Watch me leave it all behind.
Let me be the first to apologize for having a 10 cent vocabulary. Growing up I had an affinity for learning words that I presumed would make me at least appear more intelligent than I actually am. It's a house of cards and a facade. I'm glad you called me out on it, watch as it comes crumbling down.
no problem, I get it now...at least your honest
As for the author not doing his research. That's your first mention of it; is that your problem with the article? Checking the facts, he's got everything straight.
there is another thread on this whereby the inconsistancies are pointed out, rather than rewrite that, I suggest you check it out, and that was pointed to the Q review also, which basically stank of being so one dimensional and judegmental without any recourse to a CD player and headphones
The Times caters to those indignant, snobbish "mod" people who have come to infest (and ruin..) New York. As far as music would go, they hate anything that is in any way reminiscent of basic rock and doesn't fit in with their whiny, overly progessive, trendy, "alternative" music. That would include Pearl Jam, and, therefore, Eddie Vedder. So basically, the review is saying, "Eddie Vedder has some good qualities, but he is just not trendy enough for anyone with REAL taste. His style of music is old, dated, and irrelevant to the sentiments of modern day people, but laced with some of the opinions of a modern day person, making it a jumble of nonsense not worth our attention. Just listen to Radiohead." Music and art are not about enjoyment to these people, they're about painful, discordant expression.
Of course, not everyone has to like Eddie Vedder. But they don't have to review him, either. So fuck off. Anyone who didn't like either of those shows (one of which I was at) must have some serious emotional problems anyway.
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
The Times caters to those indignant, snobbish "mod" people who have come to infest (and ruin..) New York. As far as music would go, they hate anything that is in any way reminiscent of basic rock and doesn't fit in with their whiny, overly progessive, trendy, "alternative" music. That would include Pearl Jam, and, therefore, Eddie Vedder. So basically, the review is saying, "Eddie Vedder has some good qualities, but he is just not trendy enough for anyone with REAL taste. His style of music is old, dated, and irrelevant to the sentiments of modern day people, but laced with some of the opinions of a modern day person, making it a jumble of nonsense not worth our attention. Just listen to Raidiohead."
ha ha sounds like you read our wonderful magazine the NME also.....
There is no "right" or "wrong" reveiw. Music is all interpatation....like, art or beauty...I may find someone atractive, while you may not...does that make me correct? Or does that make me wrong?
We are lucky to live in a place where we can express our ideas....and thats all they are...Ideas...thoughts...
There is no wrong or right...
Cant wait for tonights show...Newark dont know whats in store....
Too many young males beleive that manhood is defined by the ability to injure a man, rather than helping one.
There are two kinds of women in this world....one that will give you strength....the other will take it away.....
There is no "right" or "wrong" reveiw. Music is all interpatation....like, art or beauty...I may find someone atractive, while you may not...does that make me correct? Or does that make me wrong?
We are lucky to live in a place where we can express our ideas....and thats all they are...Ideas...thoughts...
There is no wrong or right...
Cant wait for tonights show...Newark dont know whats in store....
The problem is that this is a mainstream reviewer. It's not a simple matter of opinion. Many people hold reviewers in high regard as far as being able to tell them quickly whether or not they will like something. This review obviously does not portray Eddie or his music the way we know and love him. How many people may not ever even give Eddie or Pearl Jam a chance now because of this review, people that actually may have turned out to be huge Pearl Jam fans? That's what makes me angry. It's just not an accurate representation.
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
Good god people- Ed was good- was he great- maybe not- maybe cause we all love him so much we always think he's great- almost like how a parent sees a child-
Ed's a big boy- and I'm sure the check is still going to cash- and hopefully Ed will take what he wants from the reviews (which I'm sure not much)
Go about your day folks-
get ready for tonights show!
Rejoice the white pants people!
A pessimist is a man who thinks all women are bad. An optimist is one who hopes they are.
Good god people- Ed was good- was he great- maybe not- maybe cause we all love him so much we always think he's great- almost like how a parent sees a child-
One of the people who went with me had never seen Ed or Pearl Jam before and he was mystified. He wants to see Pearl Jam now asap.
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
The Times caters to those indignant, snobbish "mod" people who have come to infest (and ruin..) New York. As far as music would go, they hate anything that is in any way reminiscent of basic rock and doesn't fit in with their whiny, overly progessive, trendy, "alternative" music. That would include Pearl Jam, and, therefore, Eddie Vedder. So basically, the review is saying, "Eddie Vedder has some good qualities, but he is just not trendy enough for anyone with REAL taste. His style of music is old, dated, and irrelevant to the sentiments of modern day people, but laced with some of the opinions of a modern day person, making it a jumble of nonsense not worth our attention. Just listen to Radiohead." Music and art are not about enjoyment to these people, they're about painful, discordant expression.
To be fair, the chief music critic at the New York Times, Jon Pareles, seems to be a fan of Pearl Jam--he wrote glowing reviews of both the Irving show and the last album. And also called Pearl Jam's set at Bonnaroo "exhilirating" in his blog. I actually think NYT has been pretty good to the band, this particular review and critic notwithstanding. I actually read an interview with Pareles where he said that NYT likes to have different critics review the same performer so that readers get different perspectives--so that it's not always one person's take on a band. Which is actually a good thing I think, and probably why they sent this guy to the United Palace given the previous coverage. And really, this isn't that bad of a review. The only specific thing to be criticized is Eddie's guitar playing.
I'm pretty open to criticism of Eddie and the band, because I know they're not perfect and, hey, everyone has their flaws.
But here's my problem with the review: the reviewer's primary criticism seems to be with Eddie's "brooding and righteousness," yet I have read the article multiple times and cannot find anywhere in the story where the reviewer has provided evidence of this brooding and righteousness that he takes issue with.
The only slight suggestion of what he might be pointing to is his mention of the line from "Guaranteed," but if that's his only evidence, it's very, very weak. Not only is it pretty unclear what about the line is "brooding" or "righteous," it's also fairly stupid to base a performer's mood and attitude on a song he wrote to fit the character of a person in a biographical film.
So, that's my take on it. Opinions/debates are welcome.
Everything has chains...Absolutely nothing's changed. - PJ
“The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.” - Albert Camus
Clearly the show was good enough for Danny Clinche to show up and take pictures stage right. NY Times don't have good writers anymore. If Danny Clinche is at any show in New York City area or outside the city or anywhere in the world then its a Damn Good show. He's been at my shows I have attended this summer. Metallica Secret gig at the Basement, Metallica Bonnaroo, Bruce Springsteen second night Giants Stadium, Foo Fighters IZOD, and now Eddie Vedder United Palace night 2.
First of all
The article is "not" well written...Let's get that straight.
We really do not get any sense of whether this was a good show or a bad one from this article.
Reviews are written for a reason. In the case of concert reviews the point is to desribe what it was like to be at the show and whether it was worth peoples time and money to go see Eddie Vedder live.
It fails on all levels in my opinion.
The writer talks about how Eddie had a funny-aweful (What does that even mean?) skit about Barry White. Yet he goes on to say how Eddie is brooding, dark, and humorless at his shows...which sounds like a complete contradictioin to what he described in his opening sentence.
The writer really makes no sense in this article and basically stumbles his way around the piece with no direction or clear point to even make.
He has negative things to say
He has positive things to say
He obviously didn't know himself what he thought of the concert or Eddie Vedders performance.
I feel he basically wasted advertising space on the New York Times with a patch work hack article that really just sums up how this writer should have been assigned a different story like say....a horse race...where the winners and losers are much easier to point out
Anyways...that's my review of the New York Time Reivew on Eddie Vedder's show in New York.
Comments
well put. im sure there is a degree for that.
Why contain yourself like any other book on the shelf?
Subtle voices in the wind hear the truth they're telling.
A world begins where the road ends.
Watch me leave it all behind.
This review takes me back to Q magazines review of Advocado whereby they gave it 1 star, said it was regurgitated grunge for the sake of grunge.....they clearly had no idea, probably loved hip hop, one of those who would cheer if Thom Yorke or Pete Doherty farted, and had never bothered to even play the record...
I just hate it when there appears to be an apparent ignorance by someone who is reviewing something yet has clearly conducted no research
bizarre....notes to self dont really need noting in a public forum.
Let me be the first to apologize for having a 10 cent vocabulary. Growing up I had an affinity for learning words that I presumed would make me at least appear more intelligent than I actually am. It's a house of cards and a facade sprinkled atop a steaming pile of bullshit. I'm glad you called me out on it, watch as it comes crumbling down.
As for the author not doing his research. That's your first mention of it; is that your problem with the article? Checking the facts, he's got everything straight.
im with you. I wasn't aware of the Q review, but based on my feelings towards this ignoramus, I don't need to see that one! ;o)
cheers for being as passionate about this.
Why contain yourself like any other book on the shelf?
Subtle voices in the wind hear the truth they're telling.
A world begins where the road ends.
Watch me leave it all behind.
there is another thread on this whereby the inconsistancies are pointed out, rather than rewrite that, I suggest you check it out, and that was pointed to the Q review also, which basically stank of being so one dimensional and judegmental without any recourse to a CD player and headphones
I've actually just been to your site. Watch the NY Times for my review tomorrow. Apparently we agree about your sense of humor
So no one catches you?
why dont you post it here?
Of course, not everyone has to like Eddie Vedder. But they don't have to review him, either. So fuck off. Anyone who didn't like either of those shows (one of which I was at) must have some serious emotional problems anyway.
-Reagan
ha ha sounds like you read our wonderful magazine the NME also.....
We are lucky to live in a place where we can express our ideas....and thats all they are...Ideas...thoughts...
There is no wrong or right...
Cant wait for tonights show...Newark dont know whats in store....
There are two kinds of women in this world....one that will give you strength....the other will take it away.....
The problem is that this is a mainstream reviewer. It's not a simple matter of opinion. Many people hold reviewers in high regard as far as being able to tell them quickly whether or not they will like something. This review obviously does not portray Eddie or his music the way we know and love him. How many people may not ever even give Eddie or Pearl Jam a chance now because of this review, people that actually may have turned out to be huge Pearl Jam fans? That's what makes me angry. It's just not an accurate representation.
-Reagan
Good god people- Ed was good- was he great- maybe not- maybe cause we all love him so much we always think he's great- almost like how a parent sees a child-
Ed's a big boy- and I'm sure the check is still going to cash- and hopefully Ed will take what he wants from the reviews (which I'm sure not much)
Go about your day folks-
get ready for tonights show!
Rejoice the white pants people!
One of the people who went with me had never seen Ed or Pearl Jam before and he was mystified. He wants to see Pearl Jam now asap.
-Reagan
To be fair, the chief music critic at the New York Times, Jon Pareles, seems to be a fan of Pearl Jam--he wrote glowing reviews of both the Irving show and the last album. And also called Pearl Jam's set at Bonnaroo "exhilirating" in his blog. I actually think NYT has been pretty good to the band, this particular review and critic notwithstanding. I actually read an interview with Pareles where he said that NYT likes to have different critics review the same performer so that readers get different perspectives--so that it's not always one person's take on a band. Which is actually a good thing I think, and probably why they sent this guy to the United Palace given the previous coverage. And really, this isn't that bad of a review. The only specific thing to be criticized is Eddie's guitar playing.
But here's my problem with the review: the reviewer's primary criticism seems to be with Eddie's "brooding and righteousness," yet I have read the article multiple times and cannot find anywhere in the story where the reviewer has provided evidence of this brooding and righteousness that he takes issue with.
The only slight suggestion of what he might be pointing to is his mention of the line from "Guaranteed," but if that's his only evidence, it's very, very weak. Not only is it pretty unclear what about the line is "brooding" or "righteous," it's also fairly stupid to base a performer's mood and attitude on a song he wrote to fit the character of a person in a biographical film.
So, that's my take on it. Opinions/debates are welcome.
“The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.” - Albert Camus
Destroying DC Scum.
The article is "not" well written...Let's get that straight.
We really do not get any sense of whether this was a good show or a bad one from this article.
Reviews are written for a reason. In the case of concert reviews the point is to desribe what it was like to be at the show and whether it was worth peoples time and money to go see Eddie Vedder live.
It fails on all levels in my opinion.
The writer talks about how Eddie had a funny-aweful (What does that even mean?) skit about Barry White. Yet he goes on to say how Eddie is brooding, dark, and humorless at his shows...which sounds like a complete contradictioin to what he described in his opening sentence.
The writer really makes no sense in this article and basically stumbles his way around the piece with no direction or clear point to even make.
He has negative things to say
He has positive things to say
He obviously didn't know himself what he thought of the concert or Eddie Vedders performance.
I feel he basically wasted advertising space on the New York Times with a patch work hack article that really just sums up how this writer should have been assigned a different story like say....a horse race...where the winners and losers are much easier to point out
Anyways...that's my review of the New York Time Reivew on Eddie Vedder's show in New York.
Later.
We know who is the better man