Pearl Jam to play Oracle OpenWorld

Byrnzie

bootlegger10 wrote:

I find it fascinating that what people didn't accept 10 years ago they freely accept now because it is affecting their pocket book now more than back then.

Pearl Jam playing to a small group of corporate millionaires doesn't affect my pocketbook at all. Because I'm not a corporate millionaire, and I won't be attending.
Though it does affect my attitude to the band, in that it forces me to ask some questions about where their heads are at.

djsmoot

South of Seattle wrote:

29 pages and most people still don't get it :roll:

I've gleaned over this thread and I'll clear up things for the mentally challenged.

1. Tickets to this show are not $2400
2. IT professionals know who Pearl Jam are and listen to their music. Many fans I have met through the 10c work in IT.
3. We don't know what PJ is getting or the details of the deal.
4. Pearl Jam is more than 5 guys and a hairy Hawaiian
5. The sense of entitlement is mind boggling.

Other than that, how's everyone doing? :wave:

Nice job, South of Seattle, you have summed this up very well.

Just think of how the music industry has changed. Bands do not make their money on album sales any more, they have to get out on the road and tour and play shows like this. PJ is more than 5 guys and a Hawaiian ... maybe they are trying to make some dough to help put some money into their employees' pockets. Is that wrong?

I was at this event last year when Petty and Sting played. It is a nice venue, Oracle puts on a great event, and people have a good time. I have already bonded with one of my customers who is going to go to OpenWorld about the night that he saw PJ in Minneapolis at First Avenue (iconic small venue) in '92 and we are going to make sure we find ourselves a good spot for the show. PJ has earned the right to play shows like this and to make some dough.

I think I will be going to OpenWorld again this year, and I cannot wait to see them. I will gladly volunteer to be the setlist relay for this show.

djsmoot

Byrnzie wrote:

bootlegger10 wrote:

I find it fascinating that what people didn't accept 10 years ago they freely accept now because it is affecting their pocket book now more than back then.

Pearl Jam playing to a small group of corporate millionaires doesn't affect my pocketbook at all. Because I'm not a corporate millionaire, and I won't be attending.
Though it does affect my attitude to the band, in that it forces me to ask some questions about where their heads are at.

You people need to get your facts straight. This is not a small show for corporate millionaires. This is a customer appreciation event. There will be 7-10k people at this show and a lot of the people that are going probably sat close to you at PJ20 and countless other shows.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

bootlegger10 wrote:

I don't think this thread is embarrassing at all. There is a reason this thread is 30 pages long so far. It is a topic that many people want to discuss and it is a good debate of people from both sides of the issue.

Some of us complainers (myself included) need to be slapped down at times by the likes of you, but sometimes we have have valid points as well. For example, it seems like a lot of people on this board let economics rule their values. Corporations were evil in the 90's, but they aren't anymore. WHat changed? Economics. Fans had kids and families, the band had kids and families, expenses are higher, music business changed....I find it fascinating that what people didn't accept 10 years ago they freely accept now because it is affecting their pocket book now more than back then.

I find it embarassing not because of what you just said, because it is partly true. People grow up and realize things aren't all black and white, like hippies=good and big money=bad. people grow up and realize that the world doesn't operate on the ideals of the young and angry.

what I'm embarassed about is the people who somehow in their heads believe Pearl Jam owe them some sort of explanation for this, or even going so far as to say "give us a statement". Seriously? that is just so ridiculous it's not even really funny.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

djsmoot wrote:

You people need to get your facts straight. This is not a small show for corporate millionaires. This is a customer appreciation event. There will be 7-10k people at this show and a lot of the people that are going probably sat close to you at PJ20 and countless other shows.

thank you. I work in accounting, and I see expenses of everyone in the corporation. we rarely send executives (who, at my work, are FAR from millionaires) to these events. the people who go are the users of the technology. middle class folks like you and I. and THEY aren't paying the price of admission, their employers do. the entertainment is a very small portion of the conference.

so they are playing a show in front of IT people who are just like us. Who are us. and the problem is....?

if this was in the middle of a full US tour, would anyone have a problem with this?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

bootlegger10 wrote:

I don't think this thread is embarrassing at all. There is a reason this thread is 30 pages long so far.

don't equate a good topic with how long it goes. that's like saying Britney Spears must make awesome music because of how many cd's she sold.

PJ_Soul

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

bootlegger10 wrote:

I don't think this thread is embarrassing at all. There is a reason this thread is 30 pages long so far. It is a topic that many people want to discuss and it is a good debate of people from both sides of the issue.

Some of us complainers (myself included) need to be slapped down at times by the likes of you, but sometimes we have have valid points as well. For example, it seems like a lot of people on this board let economics rule their values. Corporations were evil in the 90's, but they aren't anymore. WHat changed? Economics. Fans had kids and families, the band had kids and families, expenses are higher, music business changed....I find it fascinating that what people didn't accept 10 years ago they freely accept now because it is affecting their pocket book now more than back then.

I find it embarassing not because of what you just said, because it is partly true. People grow up and realize things aren't all black and white, like hippies=good and big money=bad. people grow up and realize that the world doesn't operate on the ideals of the young and angry.

what I'm embarassed about is the people who somehow in their heads believe Pearl Jam owe them some sort of explanation for this, or even going so far as to say "give us a statement". Seriously? that is just so ridiculous it's not even really funny.

I agree with that. Not thrilled that they're playing that kind of gig because it does seem to go against their CURRENT beliefs in many ways, but to expect something from them about it? That's crazy. My feelings about the band won't change... just kind of surprised because no matter how much they've changed, most of what they say and do seems to contradict this kind of gig. That's all. But even though I think it's a strange move for them, they are still the same group of people they were last week.

PJ_Soul

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

djsmoot wrote:

You people need to get your facts straight. This is not a small show for corporate millionaires. This is a customer appreciation event. There will be 7-10k people at this show and a lot of the people that are going probably sat close to you at PJ20 and countless other shows.

thank you. I work in accounting, and I see expenses of everyone in the corporation. we rarely send executives (who, at my work, are FAR from millionaires) to these events. the people who go are the users of the technology. middle class folks like you and I. and THEY aren't paying the price of admission, their employers do. the entertainment is a very small portion of the conference.

so they are playing a show in front of IT people who are just like us. Who are us. and the problem is....?

if this was in the middle of a full US tour, would anyone have a problem with this?

I think for a lot of people it's just about who and what it represents. People are overreacting though (not like the band didn't know how many fans would react btw). I feel disappointed by their choice for sure and wish they hadn't chosen to do this, but fuck, let's not go off the deep end. My own mother has disappointed me once or twice in my life, but I don't care about her any less, so I don't see why I should care less for PJ because of a corporate gig I wish they weren't playing.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

checked this part of the site out lately? still think they've sold out their ideals and morals?


http://pearljam.com/activism/news

bootlegger10

Byrnzie wrote:

bootlegger10 wrote:

I find it fascinating that what people didn't accept 10 years ago they freely accept now because it is affecting their pocket book now more than back then.

Pearl Jam playing to a small group of corporate millionaires doesn't affect my pocketbook at all. Because I'm not a corporate millionaire, and I won't be attending.
Though it does affect my attitude to the band, in that it forces me to ask some questions about where their heads are at.

I guess my comment wasn't necessarily geared toward accepting PJ's activities, but just the passive response from people that make it seem normal to change your views drastically over time (which can happen but I would think wouldn't on the important things). Ethics and morals shouldn't change based on your economic position.

bootlegger10

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

bootlegger10 wrote:

I don't think this thread is embarrassing at all. There is a reason this thread is 30 pages long so far.

don't equate a good topic with how long it goes. that's like saying Britney Spears must make awesome music because of how many cd's she sold.

I've always thought if a deaf alien showed up on earth, and looked at a Nickleback concert where there were 20,000 fans, and then looked at a Fugazi concert where there were 1,000 fans, then looked at the album charts for Nickleback and Fugazi, that I would have a hard time convincing the alien that Fugazi was the better band.

"So you are saying because less people like a band and listen to the music, it is better?"

PJ_Soul

bootlegger10 wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

bootlegger10 wrote:

I find it fascinating that what people didn't accept 10 years ago they freely accept now because it is affecting their pocket book now more than back then.

Pearl Jam playing to a small group of corporate millionaires doesn't affect my pocketbook at all. Because I'm not a corporate millionaire, and I won't be attending.
Though it does affect my attitude to the band, in that it forces me to ask some questions about where their heads are at.

I guess my comment wasn't necessarily geared toward accepting PJ's activities, but just the passive response from people that make it seem normal to change your views drastically over time (which can happen but I would think wouldn't on the important things). Ethics and morals shouldn't change based on your economic position.

I see what you mean, but what if someone changes their ethics and morals over time for what most of us would consider the better? Then we'd applaud. People's ethics and morals do change over time sometimes, often because of lifestyle changes, and our own ethics and morals are what dictate whether or not the change is acceptable or not. I agree that a change like that is a big deal, though, so don't get the passivity about the theory. Perspective though... it's one corporate gig. Just one or two actions don't make a person or a band. Everyone has ebs and flows when it comes to their vision of the world. I think the band deserves to be cut a break; their good deeds and consistent positive force in the world by FAR outshine this gig or few other things people might consider to be contrary to their overall beliefs.

rival.

SolarWorld wrote:

cp3iverson wrote:

i like how people think that the entire audience is made up of millionaires and that they're all corporate thugs. To me this looks like a convention for everyday working people. Yes the week costs $2500 but anyone with a job on here should realize that companies send their 9-5 workers to these things for training, networking, marketing, etc. A lot of companies DEMAND that their workers go to these things. $2500 is a drop in the bucket for any business or office. Haven't you people ever heard of training budgets? How is this even news. Pearl Jam/Vedder have played corporate gigs/parties before going back 10 years or so. I better stop tho. In this community sometimes it's bad to talk about the corporate world. I'll go occupy my office now.

this was a great original post and 100% spot on. the poster should not have deleted it.

my company has sent me on plenty of training/networking events that cost my company $2500 and more. i just wasn't lucky enough to have pearl jam show up. :x

nothing else to add other than misguided hate in this thread.

dimitrispearljam

bootlegger10 wrote:

I've always thought if a deaf alien showed up on earth, and looked at a Nickleback concert where there were 20,000 fans, and then looked at a Fugazi concert where there were 1,000 fans, then looked at the album charts for Nickleback and Fugazi, that I would have a hard time convincing the alien that Fugazi was the better band.
"

i really wanna know..how the hell your mind went there..

Byrnzie

bootlegger10 wrote:

I guess my comment wasn't necessarily geared toward accepting PJ's activities, but just the passive response from people that make it seem normal to change your views drastically over time (which can happen but I would think wouldn't on the important things). Ethics and morals shouldn't change based on your economic position.

Actually I'm not overly peeved about them doing this gig, and my posting of 'Pull My Strings' was a bit over the top - would be cool if they played that song at this gig though

But I've thought about this corporate shindig a lot today, and no matter what way I look at it I still come back to the same conclusion: It's lame.

PJ_Soul

Byrnzie wrote:

bootlegger10 wrote:

I guess my comment wasn't necessarily geared toward accepting PJ's activities, but just the passive response from people that make it seem normal to change your views drastically over time (which can happen but I would think wouldn't on the important things). Ethics and morals shouldn't change based on your economic position.

Actually I'm not overly peeved about them doing this gig, and my posting of 'Pull My Strings' was a bit over the top - would be cool if they played that song at this gig though

But I've thought about this corporate shindig a lot today, and no matter what way I look at it I still come back to the same conclusion: It's lame.

That it is.

Byrnzie

PJ_Soul wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

bootlegger10 wrote:

I guess my comment wasn't necessarily geared toward accepting PJ's activities, but just the passive response from people that make it seem normal to change your views drastically over time (which can happen but I would think wouldn't on the important things). Ethics and morals shouldn't change based on your economic position.

Actually I'm not overly peeved about them doing this gig, and my posting of 'Pull My Strings' was a bit over the top - would be cool if they played that song at this gig though

But I've thought about this corporate shindig a lot today, and no matter what way I look at it I still come back to the same conclusion: It's lame.

That it is.

Corporate shindigs are the domain of people like Mick Hucknall, and Robbie Williams. Not Pearl Jam.

Spags

Just catching up on this news and its really put the cat amongst the pigeons. Kind of begs the question 'Will the real Pearl Jam please stand up'? Are they a group of talented free-thinking musicians with strong collective moral compass, passionate about what they preach through their music and care about their fans? Are they just the front men of a giant business, having to make compromises in order to ensure the well being of its employees and the continued success of their brand? Or are they actually greedy old men, part of a wealthy elite with access and privilege we can only imagine, selling a calculated image to ensure they and their family keeps safe what they've managed to squeeze out of the American Dream?

I expect it's probably a mix of the first two, at least that's what I choose to believe and I guess that's what it comes down to in the end. We don't really know the true motivations behind why this band does anything, but we choose to have faith in them as good decent people. If we can't rely on them, then ultimately what worth does their music have? Would it be more worthy if Ed still worked as a security guard and Mike made pizza, but on their down time they played music together and only charged ticket prices that covered costs? Or if the band quit their jobs and lived on a farm together growing their own food and making their own clothes and playing free festivals in one of their fields? Of course not, that would be silly, we live in a capitalist system after all. At times our faith is tested, and I'm aware this is all starting to sound a bit horribly religious, but how bad is playing a corporate event now and then in the grand scheme of things? Is it as bad as a priest abusing a child, clearly not. Is it as bad as Ed marrying a model after railing against the industry in a line from one of his songs (if that was how you interpreted it)? Who knows? I'm sure there are loads of instances that you could use to chip away at the group and their actions over 20 odd years if you so choose. But knowing all the good that they do, and have done, I'd have to question what your motivations are, why are you so angry? If it's as simple as you want to see them live and this has brought out that frustration then cool. I can get behind that. If it's because you are pissed that the ticket price is too high then I'd question why you'd want to see them in this type of environment in the first place. Sounds a bit like watching a porno with your parents sat next to you. But the accusations that they have 'sold out' at this time of their lives and in this world, as sad and un-idealistic as it may be, come off as a little immature and blinkered.

I admit that this is my initial reaction to the news and I've yet to look to deeply into what this corporate event actually is, just wanted to get in the mix. I've always wanted to go to SF...maybe it being the birth place of counter culture and the whole hippy thing makes this move seem even more hard to swallow? Or is the whole technology thing the 'new' hippy movement? I'm getting old.

Kloddz

So what's the dress code for this thing gonna be? Are PJ bow ties going to be available at the merch stand?

Byrnzie

Spags wrote:

I'd question why you'd want to see them in this type of environment in the first place. Sounds a bit like watching a porno with your parents sat next to you.

That's kind of what I thought earlier. I imagine watching them in this kind of setting would be a bit weird, and awkward. I'd rather see them in a proper venue, playing to proper fans.