Options
OUCH - Chicago Review
Indifference
Posts: 2,636
http://www.suntimes.com/output/entertainment/cst-ftr-pearl18.html
Didn't see it posted - if it was sorry for the dupe.
Didn't see it posted - if it was sorry for the dupe.
SHOW COUNT: (149) 1990's=3, 2000's=53, 2010/20's=89, US=109, CAN=15, Europe=19 ,New Zealand=2, Australia=2
Mexico=1, Colombia=1
Upcoming: Sacramento, Vegas x2, Manchester, London, Chicago x2, NYC x2, Fenway x2, Aucklandx2, Gold Coast, Melbournex2
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
years back Ed blew this guy off for an interview.....
ever since this guy has done nothing but write shitty reviews whenever pearl jam performs here.....
fuck him!!!!!!!!
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
"Pearl Jam simply shouldn't be allowed to play slower than 140 beats per minutes." Are you kidding me?
given to fly is boring ?? this dude is high on something
lol yeah... :rolleyes:
Well, at least he left his email address open....
Politely tell him how wrong he is.
Well, some get it, some don't.... their losses.
EV: It's your band.
~Q Magazine
"Kisses for the glow...kisses for the lease." - BDRII
dude i could see lowlight but given to fly and corduroy? that guy knows nothing about music. If you look at the tittle next to his name at the beginning of the article you will see it says "pop music critic" and not "rock music critic". someone tell that fat wad he should go to the jessica simpson concert and write a review about something he has knowledge about
7-06-03
7-11-03
9-28-04
9-29-04
5-13-06
6-03-06
6-27-08
(10)
And to be fair the 2003 United Center show was the worst show I can remember.
But he's wrong in so many ways and I like how he copies the Grateful Dead angle from Entertainment weekly. Hard working that Deragotis.
Also the review seats are really horrid at the UC for sound and view.
The BIGGEST fault is that they are as close to their mid 90s power then ever. I honestly think sound wise they werent' this powerful since 94. Cameron is killing on the kit, finally.
And the big problem with Dero is that he's writing for himself and not his readers. When I had to cover Brittney Spears you write from a pop perspective even if you don't like the music personally. He's coming from a biased place and it shows. It's ok Dero. More people will buy the bootleg from Night 1 then your entire catalogue from the crappy "punk" band you're in. And that pisses him off.
http://www.fightingthesuburbs.com
Idiot. Seriously, what an idiot.
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
Kot was a bit nicer
http://www.fightingthesuburbs.com
-John Lennon
<___<
I've been in this city for the better part of 40 years and never seen DeRogatis accurately review anything. He is to music what Jay Mariotti is to sports ... both remind me of the South Park episode where everyone craps out their mouth.
And jadakid accurately points out Derogatis's idiocy in referring to Release as part of a "hard-hitting ... flurry".
He's a media blowhard who, like Mariotti, seems as if he just echoes what he reads elsewhere instead of actually knowing a damn thing about music (and in Mariotti's case, sports). And it is true that he rips on Pearl Jam every time they come here. I think he ripped on the '95 Soldier Field show also, which he now "praises" in retrospect.
And in no way do I defend him, but the United Center is about the worst place to evaluate any band. It's a terrible venue, and the '03 show with Ed sick certainly was one of their more lackluster. And although these shows were very strong by the standard of the first half-dozen of the tour, we all know the band gets better as the tour goes on. Having said that, his review is as idiotic as everything else he writes. I often wonder how guys like that keep their job despite churning out writing that a half-aware 12 year old could run circles around.
The stones did the same thing to him in 1994 and ever since then, he trashes every album/show of theirs too, simply for spite, many times without even seeing the show itself. If he writes anything negative about a band...assume the show was fantastic. He is a poor journalist.
I seen him in the mens room at the United Center on Tuesday and thanked him by telling him that "without his reviews, hundreds of birdcages would go without something to catch the bird shit"
http://www.myspace.com/vedderology
I'll ride the wave where it takes me
I'll hold the pain...Release me...
Eddie Vedder
he is trying to be the Jay Mariotti of music journalism
ROFL!!!!! Great quote!!
Jim:
I just read your review, a link supplied by someone at Pearl Jam's message board. I'm from Boston and was not at the Chicago show. You are entitled to your opinion but I am appalled.
I've seen the band 8 times in 12 years and will see them at both upcoming Boston shows. Unless they have gone way downhill since the 2004 VFC tour, you are grossly mistaken or plain just should not be a rock critic. I'm a die hard fan but not a fanatic or as rabid as many in the fan base are. I am also usually logical and fair.
Your article appalled me, not because you did not like the show but how you go out of your way to slander and put down the band. You are supposed to be a professional and provide a service to your readers with integrity that should be demanded by your employer on a daily basis.
I know that the band and their music is not for everyone. But one who attends their show to write a review should at least be a rock fan who will give the band a chance to at least change your preconceived mind. If you still do not like the show, at least write a negative review without being so careless. I just don't think you are qualified to be a critic and you really should apologize to scores of fans on the website.
Thanks.
- Mr. Edward Vedder 7/11/03
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
Hope he reads this... "You are a moron" Go ahead you can print it too.
Mr. Derogatis,
Some of your reasons for comparing the Grateful Dead and Pearl Jam are just. Both bands have (or had) huge live followings (and many obsessive fans) even while album sales lagged. However, there are huge differences. One difference is that while Grateful Dead had a few mildly interesting tunes, Pearl Jam has never made a bad album. Their album sales lagged because they weren't trying to sell records. Pearl Jam made this obvious by recording Vitalogy (I'm specifically referring to the lyrics in "Not For You" and the fact that there are purposely fillers that are not even really songs on the record juxtaposed with tremendous, powerful music), not making videos, and not promoting albums.
After Vitalogy, Pearl Jam pursued more experimental song-writing and followed their creative drive where ever it would take them regardless of what the reaction would be. Consider No Code, Pearl Jam's eclectic head-phone masterpiece that was as anti-mainstream as the oppositional genre gets. However, after completely cutting off the "MTV crowd" with No Code, Pearl Jam followed it up with the breathetaking (and alternatively radio-ready) Yield, once again, proving that they don't adhere to anyone's expectations.
At this time they started regularly touring again and they began accumulating a massive following. This time period is when the "Jamily," or the Pearl Jam family began to form. Was it because of Ten or Vs.? Nope. It was because Pearl Jam had consistently put out great albums over a span of 8 years and had become a force to be reckoned with live.
After Yield, Pearl Jam went in another experimental direction yet again, with Binaural. Binaural is probably Pearl Jam's worst album. And while it is unfocused and somewhat meandering, it still has many good songs on it. After Binaural put off a lot of fans of Yield, Pearl Jam yet again lost some of their fan base but still, it didn't phase them. They released the low key, relaxed, purposefully tired sounding Riot Act, which is a very underrated album.
Through all of this time, Pearl Jam kept getting BETTER live. Their setlists shifted more, they played longer, they were much more experienced and mature as musicians, etc...And their music is 10x more interesting than the Grateful Dead's ever was! I hate jambands like the Grateful Dead. If you want a better comparison talk about Phish. They were the modern day Grateful Dead. They made mediocre records and had like 20 minute long aimless jams that should've bored people to tears if they weren't so stoned. That is not Pearl Jam. Pearl Jam is emotionally charged and along with R.E.M., Radiohead, Nirvana, and the White Stripes, among the best bands of our time.
Thanks for your time,
Matthew Parrish
P.S. You may peg me as one of those "crazed" Pearl Jam fans, but to the contrary, I've only seen Pearl Jam once live. I judge their live stuff by their bootlegs mostly.