Why do people care about which candidate a rock band supports? I could care less. I love pj s music but they would never influence me to vote for either candidate.
Agreed, unless your name is John Lennon I don't care what their political views are...
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Well it's going to take a lot more that an election for the stuff you're talking about to change. Doesn't matter who the elected POTUS is in that context. A new POTUS isn't going to cause the kind of change you're talking about. The only thing that will cause the changes you (and most people, I think) want will be something more along the lines of a revolution or rewriting law and maybe the constitution itself. Stuff like that. I personally think that the kind of change you're talking about can't happen as long as the USA is ruled under a so-called democratic republic system. That is not something even the best POTUS is going to achieve without most likely starting a civil war. So given that, this election, the best thing to do is minimize damages. And that means not allowing Trump to win. He could do a LOT of damage if he won. Hillary is indeed the status quo, and yeah, I know, we all hate that. But for now, the status quo is the only short term (i.e. 4 - 8 year) option unless you want someone who won't only maintain all the things about the status quo that you hate, but also cause new irreparable harm. So the only logical path is to make sure Clinton wins in order to minimize long lasting harm, and then let it seep through your skull that you need a different idea about how to make these righteous changes people are always talking about here. It will take decades if not centuries. The entire US system of government has to change.... not to mention society, the position of the wealthy, the concept of power, human nature.... yeah, it's not so simple and Clinton not winning an election, lol. That wouldn't even be a good start. It would be nothing except bad because Trump.
..... not that Trump has a chance in hell of winning at this point. Before the video came out I was still worried, but not anymore. He reached full-scale meltdown. Unless Clinton actually is arrested, I don't think there is any possibility of a Trump win now.... I guess anything is possible though, lol. Maybe that idiot Assange (sad, I used to like him, but not anymore because he seems to have gone crazy) really does have a smoking gun. Maybe he hates Americans so much that he'll save it until election day. Or the day after.
Of course it's not going to change, as Gerorge Carlin said "the system is rigged and you can not win". And sanders wasn't going to change a thing either, nor did he ever have a shot at the nomination. It also would not surprise me that the RNC changes so that an outsider can never win the nomination again. This is where Trump went right, he proved an outsider can gain the nomination of one of the 2 major parties, to bad it was someone so bat shit crazy, could have been real interesting if a true outsider that wasn't a crazy egomaniac just trying to disrupt things...
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
I grew up on the kind of rock and roll that rocked the establishment way more than rolling with it. Not that that is the PRIME purpose of rock and roll, but it lies deep in the foundation and spirit of the music and it certainly had a lot to do with how Pearl Jam started out. So from that perspective (admittedly subject to argument) it's hard for me to not see PJ fund raising for Clinton to by anything but very "establishment".
But there can never be resolution to this kind of discussion because we've seen the same set of arguments every which way about this band. So let the facts stand for themselves: Early on, Pearl Jam was young, wild and had a degree of socio-political flavor to their energetic bravado. Mid period, they honed their craft and became a better band and presented a more clear message. Later on they became middle-aged, family-oriented and began to move to the center politically and became more polished but less creative artistically. Sometimes this happens, sometimes not (for example, the likes of Neil Young and John Lydon have maintained a socio-political tendency in much of their art). And we all get to choose our flavor.
I like all kinds of music and respect any artist that gives it their best at every turn (Pearl Jam included) but I always rue the loss or quieting of strong outspoken voices or having them just rest on their laurels. I hope that isn't the case here.
Post edited by brianlux on
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
It's there money and apparantley a free country so they can go and support whoever they choose. Everyone might want to reconsider claiming your anti-war if you support either a republican or democrat, or at least the facts indicate that neither party is a party of peace...
Or you could consider that you're not going to have a president align 100% with your own beliefs.
Being anti war is a good believe system, I would think supporting candidates with those same beliefs would also be good...
It's very good, but that ship sailed after the primaries.
Nowhere does it say do we have to be partial to one of the two "chosen" ones.
That's correct, except the sheeple will do as they always do trudge off vote for the same bullshiters, and wonder in awww when nothing really changes...
Are you calling Hillary supporters sheeple?
All voters of the main parties are sheeple...nothing changes, lots of of bullshit and empty promises.
It's impossible for nothing to change. Change always happens.
I grew up on the kind of rock and roll that rocked the establishment way more than rolling with it. Not that that is the PRIME purpose of rock and roll, but it lies deep in the foundation and spirit of the music and it certainly had a lot to do with how Pearl Jam started out. So from that perspective (admittedly subject to argument) it's hard for me to not see PJ fund raising for Clinton to by anything but very "establishment".
But there can never be resolution to this kind of discussion because we've seen the same set of arguments every which way about this band. So let the facts stand for themselves: Early on, Pearl Jam was young, wild and had a degree of socio-political flavor to their energetic bravado. Mid period, they honed their craft and became a better band and presented a more clear message. Later on they became middle-aged, family-oriented and began to move to the center politically and became more polished but less creative artistically. Sometimes this happens, sometimes not (for example, the likes of Neil Young and John Lydon have maintained a socio-political tendency in much of their art). And we all get to choose our flavor.
I like all kinds of music and respect any artist that gives it their best at every turn (Pearl Jam included) but I always rue the loss or quieting of strong outspoken voices or having them just rest on their laurels. I hope that isn't the case here.
Celebrity changes everybody unfortunately. This election is far more of a globalist class battle then it is anything else and once you get to participate in that global elite upper crust, regardless of how you got there, you tend to still support it. Pearl Jam with time has bought into that group. They say the right things, just like Clinton does from time to time, but on the whole they perpetuate and maintain the status quo. This is no longer the band that fought ticketmaster and testified before congress...they now lock arms with congress.
I grew up on the kind of rock and roll that rocked the establishment way more than rolling with it. Not that that is the PRIME purpose of rock and roll, but it lies deep in the foundation and spirit of the music and it certainly had a lot to do with how Pearl Jam started out. So from that perspective (admittedly subject to argument) it's hard for me to not see PJ fund raising for Clinton to by anything but very "establishment".
But there can never be resolution to this kind of discussion because we've seen the same set of arguments every which way about this band. So let the facts stand for themselves: Early on, Pearl Jam was young, wild and had a degree of socio-political flavor to their energetic bravado. Mid period, they honed their craft and became a better band and presented a more clear message. Later on they became middle-aged, family-oriented and began to move to the center politically and became more polished but less creative artistically. Sometimes this happens, sometimes not (for example, the likes of Neil Young and John Lydon have maintained a socio-political tendency in much of their art). And we all get to choose our flavor.
I like all kinds of music and respect any artist that gives it their best at every turn (Pearl Jam included) but I always rue the loss or quieting of strong outspoken voices or having them just rest on their laurels. I hope that isn't the case here.
Celebrity changes everybody unfortunately. This election is far more of a globalist class battle then it is anything else and once you get to participate in that global elite upper crust, regardless of how you got there, you tend to still support it. Pearl Jam with time has bought into that group. They say the right things, just like Clinton does from time to time, but on the whole they perpetuate and maintain the status quo. This is no longer the band that fought ticketmaster and testified before congress...they now lock arms with congress.
they fought ticketmaster because they know what they do is bullshit. they now realize that was a stupid fight, and it only cost them shows, money, and some fans. it was a losing battle they now openly regret fighting.
they testified before congress because they were asked to, not the other way around.
lock arms with congress? that's laughable. they still have many causes they are for and against. Ed just doesn't always scream about them at shows anymore. he's matured. he realizes that doesn't accomplish much.
I grew up on the kind of rock and roll that rocked the establishment way more than rolling with it. Not that that is the PRIME purpose of rock and roll, but it lies deep in the foundation and spirit of the music and it certainly had a lot to do with how Pearl Jam started out. So from that perspective (admittedly subject to argument) it's hard for me to not see PJ fund raising for Clinton to by anything but very "establishment".
But there can never be resolution to this kind of discussion because we've seen the same set of arguments every which way about this band. So let the facts stand for themselves: Early on, Pearl Jam was young, wild and had a degree of socio-political flavor to their energetic bravado. Mid period, they honed their craft and became a better band and presented a more clear message. Later on they became middle-aged, family-oriented and began to move to the center politically and became more polished but less creative artistically. Sometimes this happens, sometimes not (for example, the likes of Neil Young and John Lydon have maintained a socio-political tendency in much of their art). And we all get to choose our flavor.
I like all kinds of music and respect any artist that gives it their best at every turn (Pearl Jam included) but I always rue the loss or quieting of strong outspoken voices or having them just rest on their laurels. I hope that isn't the case here.
Celebrity changes everybody unfortunately. This election is far more of a globalist class battle then it is anything else and once you get to participate in that global elite upper crust, regardless of how you got there, you tend to still support it. Pearl Jam with time has bought into that group. They say the right things, just like Clinton does from time to time, but on the whole they perpetuate and maintain the status quo. This is no longer the band that fought ticketmaster and testified before congress...they now lock arms with congress.
they fought ticketmaster because they know what they do is bullshit. they now realize that was a stupid fight, and it only cost them shows, money, and some fans. it was a losing battle they now openly regret fighting.
they testified before congress because they were asked to, not the other way around.
lock arms with congress? that's laughable. they still have many causes they are for and against. Ed just doesn't always scream about them at shows anymore. he's matured. he realizes that doesn't accomplish much.
I'm not slagging them for it but there is no two-ways about it if they are endorsing Hillary then they are endorsing Clinton corruption and the continuation of the status quo. That's not who they once were and that's fine. It is their free choice to be for a third party or to be for more of the same.
I grew up on the kind of rock and roll that rocked the establishment way more than rolling with it. Not that that is the PRIME purpose of rock and roll, but it lies deep in the foundation and spirit of the music and it certainly had a lot to do with how Pearl Jam started out. So from that perspective (admittedly subject to argument) it's hard for me to not see PJ fund raising for Clinton to by anything but very "establishment".
But there can never be resolution to this kind of discussion because we've seen the same set of arguments every which way about this band. So let the facts stand for themselves: Early on, Pearl Jam was young, wild and had a degree of socio-political flavor to their energetic bravado. Mid period, they honed their craft and became a better band and presented a more clear message. Later on they became middle-aged, family-oriented and began to move to the center politically and became more polished but less creative artistically. Sometimes this happens, sometimes not (for example, the likes of Neil Young and John Lydon have maintained a socio-political tendency in much of their art). And we all get to choose our flavor.
I like all kinds of music and respect any artist that gives it their best at every turn (Pearl Jam included) but I always rue the loss or quieting of strong outspoken voices or having them just rest on their laurels. I hope that isn't the case here.
Celebrity changes everybody unfortunately. This election is far more of a globalist class battle then it is anything else and once you get to participate in that global elite upper crust, regardless of how you got there, you tend to still support it. Pearl Jam with time has bought into that group. They say the right things, just like Clinton does from time to time, but on the whole they perpetuate and maintain the status quo. This is no longer the band that fought ticketmaster and testified before congress...they now lock arms with congress.
they fought ticketmaster because they know what they do is bullshit. they now realize that was a stupid fight, and it only cost them shows, money, and some fans. it was a losing battle they now openly regret fighting.
they testified before congress because they were asked to, not the other way around.
lock arms with congress? that's laughable. they still have many causes they are for and against. Ed just doesn't always scream about them at shows anymore. he's matured. he realizes that doesn't accomplish much.
I'm not slagging them for it but there is no two-ways about it if they are endorsing Hillary then they are endorsing Clinton corruption and the continuation of the status quo. That's not who they once were and that's fine. It is their free choice to be for a third party or to be for more of the same.
What people often think they were was a false projection. They supported a third party and realized that got us Bush Jr and the Iraq war. What's more rebellious: signing on with a mega corporate record label, or doing it yourself? Bernie lost. If not they'd be more gung ho with him than they were with Nader.
Aside from Nader in 2000 have they ever endorsed a third party candidate? Seems like they've never really been this band some of you are claiming they no longer are.
PJ invited to meet the president? Who would pass up the opportunity?! But attending fund raisers for a pro-fracking candidate who is more pro-war that any since Bush? No thanks.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
PJ invited to meet the president? Who would pass up the opportunity?! But attending fund raisers for a pro-fracking candidate who is more pro-war that any since Bush? No thanks.
maybe they were there to give her that exact opinion. Pretty cool to be able to do that.
PJ invited to meet the president? Who would pass up the opportunity?! But attending fund raisers for a pro-fracking candidate who is more pro-war that any since Bush? No thanks.
maybe they were there to give her that exact opinion. Pretty cool to be able to do that.
That's not a bad point actually. "We'll be watching and if this is who you are we won't be there for you in 2020."
PJ invited to meet the president? Who would pass up the opportunity?! But attending fund raisers for a pro-fracking candidate who is more pro-war that any since Bush? No thanks.
maybe they were there to give her that exact opinion. Pretty cool to be able to do that.
I would be thrilled to hear that is the case.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
PJ invited to meet the president? Who would pass up the opportunity?! But attending fund raisers for a pro-fracking candidate who is more pro-war that any since Bush? No thanks.
maybe they were there to give her that exact opinion. Pretty cool to be able to do that.
That's not a bad point actually. "We'll be watching and if this is who you are we won't be there for you in 2020."
Yup. One thing you learn over time is figuring what's the best approach to influencing certain people.
PJ invited to meet the president? Who would pass up the opportunity?! But attending fund raisers for a pro-fracking candidate who is more pro-war that any since Bush? No thanks.
maybe they were there to give her that exact opinion. Pretty cool to be able to do that.
That's not a bad point actually. "We'll be watching and if this is who you are we won't be there for you in 2020."
And that is very valid because most of the Clinton corruption did not come out until long after this visit. I just don't see how they endorse someone who supported the defence of marriage act, who never supported fair trade, who enabled wall street to lay the groundwork for the 2008 financial collapse, who voted for the Iraq war, who pushed for the invasion of libya, who got rich through millions of dollars of paid speeches to the financial industry etc. Again it is their choice and they are free to make it but it pokes a massive whole in their ability to speak out on these issues from here on out.
I grew up on the kind of rock and roll that rocked the establishment way more than rolling with it. Not that that is the PRIME purpose of rock and roll, but it lies deep in the foundation and spirit of the music and it certainly had a lot to do with how Pearl Jam started out. So from that perspective (admittedly subject to argument) it's hard for me to not see PJ fund raising for Clinton to by anything but very "establishment".
But there can never be resolution to this kind of discussion because we've seen the same set of arguments every which way about this band. So let the facts stand for themselves: Early on, Pearl Jam was young, wild and had a degree of socio-political flavor to their energetic bravado. Mid period, they honed their craft and became a better band and presented a more clear message. Later on they became middle-aged, family-oriented and began to move to the center politically and became more polished but less creative artistically. Sometimes this happens, sometimes not (for example, the likes of Neil Young and John Lydon have maintained a socio-political tendency in much of their art). And we all get to choose our flavor.
I like all kinds of music and respect any artist that gives it their best at every turn (Pearl Jam included) but I always rue the loss or quieting of strong outspoken voices or having them just rest on their laurels. I hope that isn't the case here.
Absolutely. I don't understand how so many people forgot so quickly that rock and roll is supposed to be a subversive art form.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I grew up on the kind of rock and roll that rocked the establishment way more than rolling with it. Not that that is the PRIME purpose of rock and roll, but it lies deep in the foundation and spirit of the music and it certainly had a lot to do with how Pearl Jam started out. So from that perspective (admittedly subject to argument) it's hard for me to not see PJ fund raising for Clinton to by anything but very "establishment".
But there can never be resolution to this kind of discussion because we've seen the same set of arguments every which way about this band. So let the facts stand for themselves: Early on, Pearl Jam was young, wild and had a degree of socio-political flavor to their energetic bravado. Mid period, they honed their craft and became a better band and presented a more clear message. Later on they became middle-aged, family-oriented and began to move to the center politically and became more polished but less creative artistically. Sometimes this happens, sometimes not (for example, the likes of Neil Young and John Lydon have maintained a socio-political tendency in much of their art). And we all get to choose our flavor.
I like all kinds of music and respect any artist that gives it their best at every turn (Pearl Jam included) but I always rue the loss or quieting of strong outspoken voices or having them just rest on their laurels. I hope that isn't the case here.
Brian, maybe I've missed the 10c email with a elect Hillary fund link.
3 individuals of the same band in attendance AT a fundraiser doesn't mean the band is doing or hosting a fundraiser FOR said candidate. The missoula concert on the otherhand WAS fundraiser hosted by the band.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
The Rock n Roll hall of fame is no achievement...it's a complete JOKE...
Yeah, Dave got a raw deal. Replace Krusen with him since Irons is inducted with RHCP. Plus Cameron will get in with Soundgarden anyways.
You'd think PJ would lobby for his inclusion and maybe they are behind the scenes...but he was fired, am I correct?
Yeah, they don't like him and fired him, so I don't know why anyone would expect PJ to lobby for him. Silliness. If they did, it would be surprising, not the other way around.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Absolutely. I don't understand how so many people forgot so quickly that rock and roll is supposed to be a subversive art form.
But fans tend to overlook the fact that people who become professional musicians hope to make a living at it and many ultimately hope to make a fortune. That aspect of popular music has always been there but for some reason people want to believe their idols are above all that.
It's hard for me to understand being upset that the musicians somebody likes don't share their political and social points of view. I can still like someone's music even I don't like their politics. Being an artist doesn't make someone more qualified to make political judgements.
Absolutely. I don't understand how so many people forgot so quickly that rock and roll is supposed to be a subversive art form.
But fans tend to overlook the fact that people who become professional musicians hope to make a living at it and many ultimately hope to make a fortune. That aspect of popular music has always been there but for some reason people want to believe their idols are above all that.
It's hard for me to understand being upset that the musicians somebody likes don't share their political and social points of view. I can still like someone's music even I don't like their politics. Being an artist doesn't make someone more qualified to make political judgements.
No, but they aren't necessarily any less qualified than other either. They have the public's attention, and many are inclined to take advantage of that. And good for them. If I had the attention of the public and way to get the word out and increase awareness about things I thought were really important to society in some way, I'd definitely take advantage of that too. I think it is actually the responsible thing to do as a citizen. You don't have to be a politician to make important statements... In fact, we should be MORE interested in those statements, since their motivations are almost certainly a lot more pure and righteous than the motivations of 99% of politicians. In other words, just because someone is an artist, it doesn't mean they don't have important things to say. Remember, artists, particularly ones who are famous, really DO tend to have special insights about things. Most people at the level of Eddie and the rest of PJ have genius in them, and often also have a pretty rich life experience to help form their views. So, if we're supposed to listen to crooked politicians, why not also consider musicians as viable contributors to public discussion and dissent as well?? Along with scholars, writers, business owners, teachers, etc etc etc.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
The Rock n Roll hall of fame is no achievement...it's a complete JOKE...
Yeah, Dave got a raw deal. Replace Krusen with him since Irons is inducted with RHCP. Plus Cameron will get in with Soundgarden anyways.
You'd think PJ would lobby for his inclusion and maybe they are behind the scenes...but he was fired, am I correct?
Yeah, they don't like him and fired him, so I don't know why anyone would expect PJ to lobby for him. Silliness. If they did, it would be surprising, not the other way around.
It's called doing the right thing, he was a part of the band in the early days ... but the rock n roll hall of fame is a joke.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Absolutely. I don't understand how so many people forgot so quickly that rock and roll is supposed to be a subversive art form.
But fans tend to overlook the fact that people who become professional musicians hope to make a living at it and many ultimately hope to make a fortune. That aspect of popular music has always been there but for some reason people want to believe their idols are above all that.
It's hard for me to understand being upset that the musicians somebody likes don't share their political and social points of view. I can still like someone's music even I don't like their politics. Being an artist doesn't make someone more qualified to make political judgements.
Well said....
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Comments
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Oh, hi ya'll!
2003: 4/29 Albany, 5/2 Buffalo, 7/9 MSG 2 2006: 5/12 Albany, 6/3 East Rutherford 2
2008: 6/27 Hartford 2009: 10/27 Philadelphia 1 2010: 5/15 Hartford, 5/21 MSG 2
2013: 10/15 Worcester 1, 10/25 Hartford 2014: 10/1 Cincinnati
2018: 9/2 Fenway 1
2024: 9/3 MSG 1, 9/4 MSG 2 , 9/15 Fenway 1, 9/17 Fenway 2
But there can never be resolution to this kind of discussion because we've seen the same set of arguments every which way about this band. So let the facts stand for themselves: Early on, Pearl Jam was young, wild and had a degree of socio-political flavor to their energetic bravado. Mid period, they honed their craft and became a better band and presented a more clear message. Later on they became middle-aged, family-oriented and began to move to the center politically and became more polished but less creative artistically. Sometimes this happens, sometimes not (for example, the likes of Neil Young and John Lydon have maintained a socio-political tendency in much of their art). And we all get to choose our flavor.
I like all kinds of music and respect any artist that gives it their best at every turn (Pearl Jam included) but I always rue the loss or quieting of strong outspoken voices or having them just rest on their laurels. I hope that isn't the case here.
they testified before congress because they were asked to, not the other way around.
lock arms with congress? that's laughable. they still have many causes they are for and against. Ed just doesn't always scream about them at shows anymore. he's matured. he realizes that doesn't accomplish much.
www.headstonesband.com
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
PJ invited to meet the president? Who would pass up the opportunity?! But attending fund raisers for a pro-fracking candidate who is more pro-war that any since Bush? No thanks.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
www.headstonesband.com
3 individuals of the same band in attendance AT a fundraiser doesn't mean the band is doing or hosting a fundraiser FOR said candidate.
The missoula concert on the otherhand WAS fundraiser hosted by the band.
theres a difference.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
It's hard for me to understand being upset that the musicians somebody likes don't share their political and social points of view. I can still like someone's music even I don't like their politics. Being an artist doesn't make someone more qualified to make political judgements.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon