Pearl Jam to play Oracle OpenWorld

RFTC

there's more to this gig than just a corporate rock show. i do not believe this is a cash grab, a multitude of positives will leak in some shape, form, or fashion. you will then be provided an opportunity to forgive, forget, or further appreciate the best band in the universe.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

RFTC wrote:

there's more to this gig than just a corporate rock show. i do not believe this is a cash grab, a multitude of positives will leak in some shape, form, or fashion. you will then be provided an opportunity to forgive, forget, or further appreciate the best band in the universe.

I agree. I don't understand how anyone could think that a bunch of guys who are worth millions upon millions would risk their reputation for a cash grab they don't need. it doesn't make any logical sense.

curmudgeoness

I haven't read all 51 (!) pages of this thread, so pardon me if this already has been said. But I have two (okay, maybe three) questions.

1) How many of you who are over the age of, say, 23, still are working for the same salary that you made in your first job out of school?

1a) How many of you turned down a raise because you felt it would not be right to earn more money than you already were being paid?

2) How many of you, if offered a quick, easy, fun, completely legal way to make a nice piece of cash -- say, a weekend gig working security at a function a friend was organizing, or a piece of contract work that came with six weeks' pay but only took you two weeks to complete -- would say, "Heck no, I'll do it for free!" ??

Most of us would love to have Pearl Jam show up at our house some evening and play a set just for us and our friends. I can tell you that my husband spends an alarming amount of time trying to devise a scheme whereby he could get PJ to come play a benefit show at his company for Haiti or a similar cause. Larry Ellison just happens to have enough money and influence that he can make that sort of thing happen, lucky guy.

Artists need to eat, too. Perhaps music is a calling, but it's also a career. Pearl Jam has been successful enough that the guys get offered opportunities like this -- good for them. [And I am assuming here that they are being compensated for their time/efforts -- I really have no idea if they are.]

I also think most of us are old enough that we know that priorities shift when children and families enter the picture. If my husband gets to choose between a late-night conference call with colleagues in Asia and a week-long trip to China, believe me, he chooses the conference call every time.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

curmudgeoness wrote:

I haven't read all 51 (!) pages of this thread, so pardon me if this already has been said. But I have two (okay, maybe three) questions.

1) How many of you who are over the age of, say, 23, still are working for the same salary that you made in your first job out of school?

1a) How many of you turned down a raise because you felt it would not be right to earn more money than you already were being paid?

2) How many of you, if offered a quick, easy, fun, completely legal way to make a nice piece of cash -- say, a weekend gig working security at a function a friend was organizing, or a piece of contract work that came with six weeks' pay but only took you two weeks to complete -- would say, "Heck no, I'll do it for free!" ??

Most of us would love to have Pearl Jam show up at our house some evening and play a set just for us and our friends. I can tell you that my husband spends an alarming amount of time trying to devise a scheme whereby he could get PJ to come play a benefit show at his company for Haiti or a similar cause. Larry Ellison just happens to have enough money and influence that he can make that sort of thing happen, lucky guy.

Artists need to eat, too. Perhaps music is a calling, but it's also a career. Pearl Jam has been successful enough that the guys get offered opportunities like this -- good for them. [And I am assuming here that they are being compensated for their time/efforts -- I really have no idea if they are.]

I also think most of us are old enough that we know that priorities shift when children and families enter the picture. If my husband gets to choose between a late-night conference call with colleagues in Asia and a week-long trip to China, believe me, he chooses the conference call every time.

I'm on PJ's side on this one, but using the money argument can't really fly when we are talking about multi millionaires. that would be like someone saying "I know you make 50 grand, do you want to do your job for me for a few hours for $20?"

bootlegger10

curmudgeoness wrote:

I haven't read all 51 (!) pages of this thread, so pardon me if this already has been said. But I have two (okay, maybe three) questions.

1) How many of you who are over the age of, say, 23, still are working for the same salary that you made in your first job out of school?

1a) How many of you turned down a raise because you felt it would not be right to earn more money than you already were being paid?

2) How many of you, if offered a quick, easy, fun, completely legal way to make a nice piece of cash -- say, a weekend gig working security at a function a friend was organizing, or a piece of contract work that came with six weeks' pay but only took you two weeks to complete -- would say, "Heck no, I'll do it for free!" ??

Most of us would love to have Pearl Jam show up at our house some evening and play a set just for us and our friends. I can tell you that my husband spends an alarming amount of time trying to devise a scheme whereby he could get PJ to come play a benefit show at his company for Haiti or a similar cause. Larry Ellison just happens to have enough money and influence that he can make that sort of thing happen, lucky guy.

Artists need to eat, too. Perhaps music is a calling, but it's also a career. Pearl Jam has been successful enough that the guys get offered opportunities like this -- good for them. [And I am assuming here that they are being compensated for their time/efforts -- I really have no idea if they are.]

I also think most of us are old enough that we know that priorities shift when children and families enter the picture. If my husband gets to choose between a late-night conference call with colleagues in Asia and a week-long trip to China, believe me, he chooses the conference call every time.

I think reading through the thread you would find all of the answers.

Your questions are not out of line and make sense. They probably do for 90% of bands out there. The problem for Pearl Jam though is they have hundreds if not thousands of anti-corporate quotes out there.

No one is against Pearl Jam making money or earning more each year. They spoke out against corporations and the integrity of music, and they won over a lot of fans by doing it. Now that they play corporate gigs, it makes people question whether the integrity of the music (and of the band) is still there. Right or wrong this thread is created by the position PJ took early on.

I don't think families should be brought into this debate because families and costs never came into play when Eddie argued against corporations. If families changed Ed's mind that I think this position change is hugely hypocritical (i.e., I'll be a proponent against corporations but now that I want more money I'll tone it down a bit).

I'm guessing your husband never ridiculed coworkers for ten years for not attending China trips before he decided to do the conference calls instead. PJ ridiculed corporations and other bands for over a decade, so there is a backlash now.

Anyway, one corporate gig doesn't mean a lot, but it does raise questions.

Haywood Yablomee

bootlegger10 wrote:

curmudgeoness wrote:

I haven't read all 51 (!) pages of this thread, so pardon me if this already has been said. But I have two (okay, maybe three) questions.

1) How many of you who are over the age of, say, 23, still are working for the same salary that you made in your first job out of school?

1a) How many of you turned down a raise because you felt it would not be right to earn more money than you already were being paid?

2) How many of you, if offered a quick, easy, fun, completely legal way to make a nice piece of cash -- say, a weekend gig working security at a function a friend was organizing, or a piece of contract work that came with six weeks' pay but only took you two weeks to complete -- would say, "Heck no, I'll do it for free!" ??

Most of us would love to have Pearl Jam show up at our house some evening and play a set just for us and our friends. I can tell you that my husband spends an alarming amount of time trying to devise a scheme whereby he could get PJ to come play a benefit show at his company for Haiti or a similar cause. Larry Ellison just happens to have enough money and influence that he can make that sort of thing happen, lucky guy.

Artists need to eat, too. Perhaps music is a calling, but it's also a career. Pearl Jam has been successful enough that the guys get offered opportunities like this -- good for them. [And I am assuming here that they are being compensated for their time/efforts -- I really have no idea if they are.]

I also think most of us are old enough that we know that priorities shift when children and families enter the picture. If my husband gets to choose between a late-night conference call with colleagues in Asia and a week-long trip to China, believe me, he chooses the conference call every time.

I think reading through the thread you would find all of the answers.

Your questions are not out of line and make sense. They probably do for 90% of bands out there. The problem for Pearl Jam though is they have hundreds if not thousands of anti-corporate quotes out there.

No one is against Pearl Jam making money or earning more each year. They spoke out against corporations and the integrity of music, and they won over a lot of fans by doing it. Now that they play corporate gigs, it makes people question whether the integrity of the music (and of the band) is still there. Right or wrong this thread is created by the position PJ took early on.

I don't think families should be brought into this debate because families and costs never came into play when Eddie argued against corporations. If families changed Ed's mind that I think this position change is hugely hypocritical (i.e., I'll be a proponent against corporations but now that I want more money I'll tone it down a bit).

I'm guessing your husband never ridiculed coworkers for ten years for not attending China trips before he decided to do the conference calls instead. PJ ridiculed corporations and other bands for over a decade, so there is a backlash now.

Anyway, one corporate gig doesn't mean a lot, but it does raise questions.

It's not the first corporate gig they've played... remember the Target corporate gig when they shared the stage with one of the Jonas brothers? What a joke!

"If I had know then, What I know now..."

faithfullale

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

RFTC wrote:

there's more to this gig than just a corporate rock show. i do not believe this is a cash grab, a multitude of positives will leak in some shape, form, or fashion. you will then be provided an opportunity to forgive, forget, or further appreciate the best band in the universe.

I agree. I don't understand how anyone could think that a bunch of guys who are worth millions upon millions would risk their reputation for a cash grab they don't need. it doesn't make any logical sense.

I agree, it doesn't make sense but I was talking with my neighbor this evening who in the IT business and he will be attending a conference in next couple of weeks in San Francisco and Bon Jovi will be performing. Similar scenario, he definitely does not need the money but what's the reason? I don't think he has been outspoken against corporations as has Eddie and PJ but there is a reason why he is deciding to play the show. I don't believe the show is financially motivated either, because they could play shows in their hometown for a week straight and sell out without having to travel anywhere. Most likely, we will never know but as many have said it is disappointing.
It won't stop me from enjoying the music I have learned to love over the past 21 years and excited to see Eddie on his solo tour in Florida.

ceska

Hadn't read thread 'til now. Whoa, hadn't realized it was 50 plus pages of negativity. It didn't occur to me to be pissed off about shows like this. Now, the fact that ticket prices have gone from like 38-43 bucks in 2003 to like 89-92 bucks in 2010, and that we used to be guaranteed tix to a show or shows to now a lottery system, well that's stuff I am more inclined to opine about, stuff that affects me directly.

mfc2006

woohoo!!! my wife made brownies!

Spiritual_Chaos

Haywood Yablomee wrote:

It's not the first corporate gig they've played... remember the Target corporate gig when they shared the stage with one of the Jonas brothers? What a joke!

"If I had know then, What I know now..."

And you don't think they ever played some Sony functions when they were signed to them?
The Target thing and playing 3 songs for the corporotaion who said "we will buy up a shitload of your albums and sell the, and when it doesn't sell we will have to pretty much give it away to our consumers" I don't think is the same thing. This seems to be something else.

AND - didn't Eddie do some solo corporate gigs "under the radar" a few years ago?

PJ_Lukin

Here is the problem as some perceive it in a nutshell.



Coincidentally, this is my 1991st post.

Good read from Uncle Neil
http://www.jambase.com/Articles/14655/Neil-Young-Chaos-Is-Good/2

LloydXmas

My office has a sweet auditorium that was built in the 1800's. It would be perfect for an Ed Solo show. I should email the CEO

teeman

PJ_Lukin wrote:

Here is the problem as some perceive it in a nutshell.



Coincidentally, this is my 1991st post.

Good read from Uncle Neil
http://www.jambase.com/Articles/14655/Neil-Young-Chaos-Is-Good/2

Good article

norm

mfc2006 wrote:

woohoo!!! my wife made brownies!

best post in the entire thread! :thumbup:

dimitrispearljam

norm wrote:

mfc2006 wrote:

woohoo!!! my wife made brownies!

best post in the entire thread! :thumbup:

PJForceofNature

teeman wrote:

PJ_Lukin wrote:

Here is the problem as some perceive it in a nutshell.



Coincidentally, this is my 1991st post.

Good read from Uncle Neil
http://www.jambase.com/Articles/14655/Neil-Young-Chaos-Is-Good/2

Good article

Looks like Stone is sporting an Uncle Neil "Greendale" T shirt. I have one just like it!

LastExitBJP

delete

rrivers

LastExitBJP wrote:

I figure I should offer my two sense because this issue seems like it's up for village discussion (not that any consensus has to be reached).

Pearl Jam can do whatever the fuck they want. If they indeed are sellouts, the music will get worse, fans will fall off the wagon, and they'll get what they deserve for "selling out."

But I think they're better than that.
We've been well aware of their charity efforts (individual and group), and they don't seem like a band that would make decisions if they all weren't on board. I have a hard time believing that Stone, Jeff, Matt, Mike and Ed (Boom too) would all be going through with the show just to make a quick corporate buck.

I'm 26, have huge friggin college debt, and am single. I work 40+ hours a week and barely support myself. The dudes from Pearl Jam are almost twice my age, have kids, support numerous charities, as far as I know don't use a record label, have business expenses, homes to pay for, Ed has had that recent back problem that probably cost him a lot (they pay health insurance too), and the list could go on.

My point is, these guys have bills like all of us, and probably get stressed time to time thinking how to financially go forward.

Unfortunately we live in a world where money and credit is inevitable. If Pearl Jam plays a gig that is financially beneficial for them, I'm happy. They're not gods. They're dudes with financial responsibility, and it was probably easier for them to make music about certain freedoms and anti-greed when they were younger and had less shit to pay for.

We get it, Pearl Jam needs to eat. If Ed doesn't lecture the crowd at Made in America about other corporations they can do whatever they want without being questioned. Until then people who call them out when they play these "gigs" have a point.

Kathi

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

RFTC wrote:

there's more to this gig than just a corporate rock show. i do not believe this is a cash grab, a multitude of positives will leak in some shape, form, or fashion. you will then be provided an opportunity to forgive, forget, or further appreciate the best band in the universe.

I agree. I don't understand how anyone could think that a bunch of guys who are worth millions upon millions would risk their reputation for a cash grab they don't need. it doesn't make any logical sense.

agreed.

ceska

I guess I understand why people are upset, but I don't perceive it to be that big of a deal. I have never cared what the band's political/corporate stance was/is - those stances have nothing to do with why I like the band, even if those viewpoints parallel mine. PJs political/corporate songs are the weakest in their catalog. I'll take me some Black/Off He Goes/Thumbing My Way over Soon Forget/Insignificance/Grievance any minute of any day. I'll take the fun stuff like Black, Red, Yellow and Leatherman over Bushleaguer anyday. This is the danger of idolizing or sympathizing with rock stars, or thinking that they sympathize with you. Their opinions are not yours. They might seem to be similar one minute, but another minute they might not be.

PJ_Lukin wrote:

Here is the problem as some perceive it in a nutshell.



Coincidentally, this is my 1991st post.

Good read from Uncle Neil
http://www.jambase.com/Articles/14655/Neil-Young-Chaos-Is-Good/2