PJ meets with Hillary

123578

Comments

  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Posts: 49,951
    edited October 2016
    lukin2006 said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    lukin2006 said:

    lukin2006 said:

    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 figure doing the right thing in this case would be to leave the HoF rules well enough alone and go with the flow. It's not like this is the first time someone was excluded because of this rule. Most are mature enough to deal with it. It's not like this is a matter of life or death. As you say, you think it's a joke. So what's the difference?
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • FreeFree Posts: 3,562
    mickeyrat said:

    brianlux said:

    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.

    theres a difference.
    Actually, no. when you go to a $250/ticket fundraiser, you actually pay $250 more per person. and they met and spoke with Hillary. Did you read the article?
  • FreeFree Posts: 3,562
    edited October 2016
    What I'm curious about is the pro-Peace stance Eddie stands by and still pushes at concerts. Hillary is so far from being pro-peace it's not funny. There's a reason why even she, herself calls herself a hawk.

    I'm gathering that the band is just playing it safe and siding with her because they're in fear of Trump. :confounded:
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Posts: 49,951
    Free said:

    mickeyrat said:

    brianlux said:

    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.

    theres a difference.
    Actually, no. when you go to a $250/ticket fundraiser, you actually pay $250 more per person. and they met and spoke with Hillary. Did you read the article?
    Did you read the post you responded to?
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Posts: 49,951
    Free said:

    What I'm curious about is the pro-Peace stance Eddie stands by and still pushes at concerts. Hillary is so far from being pro-peace it's not funny. There's a reason why even she, herself calls herself a hawk.

    I'm gathering that the band is just playing it safe and siding with her because they're in fear of Trump. :confounded:

    Same was said about Obama. This is nothing new for Eddie.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • brianluxbrianlux Posts: 42,033
    mickeyrat said:

    brianlux said:

    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.

    theres a difference.
    Good points all, Mickey. I will try to withhold judgement until we have more info here.
    “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
    Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.













  • brianluxbrianlux Posts: 42,033
    Free said:

    mickeyrat said:

    brianlux said:

    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.

    theres a difference.
    Actually, no. when you go to a $250/ticket fundraiser, you actually pay $250 more per person. and they met and spoke with Hillary. Did you read the article?
    Also a good point and why I can't help but think this incident is a step away from an endorsement.
    “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
    Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.













  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 38,592
    Free said:

    mickeyrat said:

    brianlux said:

    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.

    theres a difference.
    Actually, no. when you go to a $250/ticket fundraiser, you actually pay $250 more per person. and they met and spoke with Hillary. Did you read the article?
    and they have every right to. my greater point was PEARL JAM did not nor has not made any kind of official endorsement of her, to my knowledge.
    3 individual members of the band however showed their support by attending. NOT PEARL JAM as a band.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    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
  • FreeFree Posts: 3,562
    edited October 2016
    mickeyrat said:

    Free said:

    mickeyrat said:

    brianlux said:

    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.

    theres a difference.
    Actually, no. when you go to a $250/ticket fundraiser, you actually pay $250 more per person. and they met and spoke with Hillary. Did you read the article?
    and they have every right to. my greater point was PEARL JAM did not nor has not made any kind of official endorsement of her, to my knowledge.
    3 individual members of the band however showed their support by attending. NOT PEARL JAM as a band.
    ...And we don't even know if that story is accurate. We really don't know the truth. Just Gimme some Truth. All I want is the truth.
    Post edited by Free on
  • InHiding80InHiding80 Posts: 7,623
    Jason P said:

    I'm sure Hillary was thrilled to meet The Pearl Jams.

    That's would make a great Bernie vs Hillary and Jill vs Hillary meme.
  • PJfanwillneverleave1PJfanwillneverleave1 Posts: 12,885
    edited October 2016

    Jason P said:

    I'm sure Hillary was thrilled to meet The Pearl Jams.

    That's would make a great Bernie vs Hillary and Jill vs Hillary meme.
    This is funny.
    What also is funny is picturing Hillary rockin out to Pearl Jam.
  • brianluxbrianlux Posts: 42,033
    mickeyrat said:

    Free said:

    mickeyrat said:

    brianlux said:

    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.

    theres a difference.
    Actually, no. when you go to a $250/ticket fundraiser, you actually pay $250 more per person. and they met and spoke with Hillary. Did you read the article?
    and they have every right to. my greater point was PEARL JAM did not nor has not made any kind of official endorsement of her, to my knowledge.
    3 individual members of the band however showed their support by attending. NOT PEARL JAM as a band.
    Right again as far as the band as a whole, Mickey. You have to admit though, EV, SG and JA all paying at least $250 sounds like BIG support to me... but then it takes me a lot longer than any of those guys to make 250 bucks.
    “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
    Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.













  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 38,592
    brianlux said:

    mickeyrat said:

    Free said:

    mickeyrat said:

    brianlux said:

    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.

    theres a difference.
    Actually, no. when you go to a $250/ticket fundraiser, you actually pay $250 more per person. and they met and spoke with Hillary. Did you read the article?
    and they have every right to. my greater point was PEARL JAM did not nor has not made any kind of official endorsement of her, to my knowledge.
    3 individual members of the band however showed their support by attending. NOT PEARL JAM as a band.
    Right again as far as the band as a whole, Mickey. You have to admit though, EV, SG and JA all paying at least $250 sounds like BIG support to me... but then it takes me a lot longer than any of those guys to make 250 bucks.
    well when the disclosures happen we'll see. now was this a hillary specific fundraiser or wss it a dnc type function.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    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
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Posts: 12,845
    Free said:

    mickeyrat said:

    Free said:

    mickeyrat said:

    brianlux said:

    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.

    theres a difference.
    Actually, no. when you go to a $250/ticket fundraiser, you actually pay $250 more per person. and they met and spoke with Hillary. Did you read the article?
    and they have every right to. my greater point was PEARL JAM did not nor has not made any kind of official endorsement of her, to my knowledge.
    3 individual members of the band however showed their support by attending. NOT PEARL JAM as a band.
    ...And we don't even know if that story is accurate. We really don't know the truth. Just Gimme some Truth. All I want is the truth.
    I'm not sure you actually have any intrinsic right to know which candidate any of the band members support, unless they choose to make that public.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • brianluxbrianlux Posts: 42,033
    mickeyrat said:

    brianlux said:

    mickeyrat said:

    Free said:

    mickeyrat said:

    brianlux said:

    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.

    theres a difference.
    Actually, no. when you go to a $250/ticket fundraiser, you actually pay $250 more per person. and they met and spoke with Hillary. Did you read the article?
    and they have every right to. my greater point was PEARL JAM did not nor has not made any kind of official endorsement of her, to my knowledge.
    3 individual members of the band however showed their support by attending. NOT PEARL JAM as a band.
    Right again as far as the band as a whole, Mickey. You have to admit though, EV, SG and JA all paying at least $250 sounds like BIG support to me... but then it takes me a lot longer than any of those guys to make 250 bucks.
    well when the disclosures happen we'll see. now was this a hillary specific fundraiser or wss it a dnc type function.
    From the three brief reports I found it appears to have been a private Hillary only fund raiser.
    “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
    Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.













  • lukin2006lukin2006 Posts: 9,087
    Free said:

    What I'm curious about is the pro-Peace stance Eddie stands by and still pushes at concerts. Hillary is so far from being pro-peace it's not funny. There's a reason why even she, herself calls herself a hawk.

    I'm gathering that the band is just playing it safe and siding with her because they're in fear of Trump. :confounded:

    Well your current POTUS and Nobel peace winner is compensating for the lack of peace before and after his presidency...I assuming the last 8 years he lead the charge for peace, after all he is the Nobel peace prize winner...
    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
  • This is a strange thread.
    You`d think many posters on AMT would be happy about this.
  • JimmyVJimmyV Posts: 19,171

    This is a strange thread.
    You`d think many posters on AMT would be happy about this.

    I'm neither happy nor unhappy. Good for them. I'm just not at all surprised.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 9,086
    lukin2006 said:

    Free said:

    What I'm curious about is the pro-Peace stance Eddie stands by and still pushes at concerts. Hillary is so far from being pro-peace it's not funny. There's a reason why even she, herself calls herself a hawk.

    I'm gathering that the band is just playing it safe and siding with her because they're in fear of Trump. :confounded:

    Well your current POTUS and Nobel peace winner is compensating for the lack of peace before and after his presidency...I assuming the last 8 years he lead the charge for peace, after all he is the Nobel peace prize winner...
    What do you use to measure global peace?
  • brianluxbrianlux Posts: 42,033

    This is a strange thread.
    You`d think many posters on AMT would be happy about this.

    No one is happy about anything related to this election... except the possible miracle of Bernie winning! :smiley:
    “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
    Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.













  • lukin2006lukin2006 Posts: 9,087
    brianlux said:

    This is a strange thread.
    You`d think many posters on AMT would be happy about this.

    No one is happy about anything related to this election... except the possible miracle of Bernie winning! :smiley:
    Lol
    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
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 38,592
    brianlux said:

    mickeyrat said:

    brianlux said:

    mickeyrat said:

    Free said:

    mickeyrat said:

    brianlux said:

    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.

    theres a difference.
    Actually, no. when you go to a $250/ticket fundraiser, you actually pay $250 more per person. and they met and spoke with Hillary. Did you read the article?
    and they have every right to. my greater point was PEARL JAM did not nor has not made any kind of official endorsement of her, to my knowledge.
    3 individual members of the band however showed their support by attending. NOT PEARL JAM as a band.
    Right again as far as the band as a whole, Mickey. You have to admit though, EV, SG and JA all paying at least $250 sounds like BIG support to me... but then it takes me a lot longer than any of those guys to make 250 bucks.
    well when the disclosures happen we'll see. now was this a hillary specific fundraiser or wss it a dnc type function.
    From the three brief reports I found it appears to have been a private Hillary only fund raiser.
    $250 a plate is cheap as fuck.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    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
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487

    lukin2006 said:

    Free said:

    What I'm curious about is the pro-Peace stance Eddie stands by and still pushes at concerts. Hillary is so far from being pro-peace it's not funny. There's a reason why even she, herself calls herself a hawk.

    I'm gathering that the band is just playing it safe and siding with her because they're in fear of Trump. :confounded:

    Well your current POTUS and Nobel peace winner is compensating for the lack of peace before and after his presidency...I assuming the last 8 years he lead the charge for peace, after all he is the Nobel peace prize winner...
    What do you use to measure global peace?
    Not drone striking weddings would be a start.
  • what dreamswhat dreams Posts: 1,761
    mickeyrat said:

    brianlux said:

    mickeyrat said:

    brianlux said:

    mickeyrat said:

    Free said:

    mickeyrat said:

    brianlux said:

    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.

    theres a difference.
    Actually, no. when you go to a $250/ticket fundraiser, you actually pay $250 more per person. and they met and spoke with Hillary. Did you read the article?
    and they have every right to. my greater point was PEARL JAM did not nor has not made any kind of official endorsement of her, to my knowledge.
    3 individual members of the band however showed their support by attending. NOT PEARL JAM as a band.
    Right again as far as the band as a whole, Mickey. You have to admit though, EV, SG and JA all paying at least $250 sounds like BIG support to me... but then it takes me a lot longer than any of those guys to make 250 bucks.
    well when the disclosures happen we'll see. now was this a hillary specific fundraiser or wss it a dnc type function.
    From the three brief reports I found it appears to have been a private Hillary only fund raiser.
    $250 a plate is cheap as fuck.
    Tickets ranged from 250 to 27,000. I doubt the members of Pearl Jam paid 250.

    $250 probably got people one cocktail in a room with a thousand other people. $27,000 probably got people a seat at a small dinner table behind closed doors when cocktails were over.
  • hedonisthedonist Posts: 24,524

    mickeyrat said:

    brianlux said:

    mickeyrat said:

    brianlux said:

    mickeyrat said:

    Free said:

    mickeyrat said:

    brianlux said:

    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.

    theres a difference.
    Actually, no. when you go to a $250/ticket fundraiser, you actually pay $250 more per person. and they met and spoke with Hillary. Did you read the article?
    and they have every right to. my greater point was PEARL JAM did not nor has not made any kind of official endorsement of her, to my knowledge.
    3 individual members of the band however showed their support by attending. NOT PEARL JAM as a band.
    Right again as far as the band as a whole, Mickey. You have to admit though, EV, SG and JA all paying at least $250 sounds like BIG support to me... but then it takes me a lot longer than any of those guys to make 250 bucks.
    well when the disclosures happen we'll see. now was this a hillary specific fundraiser or wss it a dnc type function.
    From the three brief reports I found it appears to have been a private Hillary only fund raiser.
    $250 a plate is cheap as fuck.
    Tickets ranged from 250 to 27,000. I doubt the members of Pearl Jam paid 250.

    $250 probably got people one cocktail in a room with a thousand other people. $27,000 probably got people a seat at a small dinner table behind closed doors when cocktails were over.
    And a happy ending :whistle:

    Kidding!
  • what dreamswhat dreams Posts: 1,761
    hedonist said:

    mickeyrat said:

    brianlux said:

    mickeyrat said:

    brianlux said:

    mickeyrat said:

    Free said:

    mickeyrat said:

    brianlux said:

    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.

    theres a difference.
    Actually, no. when you go to a $250/ticket fundraiser, you actually pay $250 more per person. and they met and spoke with Hillary. Did you read the article?
    and they have every right to. my greater point was PEARL JAM did not nor has not made any kind of official endorsement of her, to my knowledge.
    3 individual members of the band however showed their support by attending. NOT PEARL JAM as a band.
    Right again as far as the band as a whole, Mickey. You have to admit though, EV, SG and JA all paying at least $250 sounds like BIG support to me... but then it takes me a lot longer than any of those guys to make 250 bucks.
    well when the disclosures happen we'll see. now was this a hillary specific fundraiser or wss it a dnc type function.
    From the three brief reports I found it appears to have been a private Hillary only fund raiser.
    $250 a plate is cheap as fuck.
    Tickets ranged from 250 to 27,000. I doubt the members of Pearl Jam paid 250.

    $250 probably got people one cocktail in a room with a thousand other people. $27,000 probably got people a seat at a small dinner table behind closed doors when cocktails were over.
    And a happy ending :whistle:

    Kidding!
    The article says they reportedly got five minutes to talk to her. I give that a 10,000 price tag . . .in between cocktails and dinner. . .Behind door number 1 . . .
  • eddieceddiec Posts: 3,881

    PJ_Soul said:

    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.
    Being an artist doesn't make them more qualified but if an artist speaks about a political message with their music, painting, film, etc. and this message resonates with millions of people then if they feel the need to garner support for a cause of course they are going to speak publicly.
  • CM189191CM189191 Posts: 6,927
    mickeyrat said:

    brianlux said:

    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.

    ...maybe I've missed the 10c email with a elect Hillary fund link....
    It's cool, I got your back:
    https://www.hillaryclinton.com/donate/?hfa=mkwan
  • brianlux said:

    mickeyrat said:

    Free said:

    mickeyrat said:

    brianlux said:

    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.

    theres a difference.
    Actually, no. when you go to a $250/ticket fundraiser, you actually pay $250 more per person. and they met and spoke with Hillary. Did you read the article?
    and they have every right to. my greater point was PEARL JAM did not nor has not made any kind of official endorsement of her, to my knowledge.
    3 individual members of the band however showed their support by attending. NOT PEARL JAM as a band.
    Right again as far as the band as a whole, Mickey. You have to admit though, EV, SG and JA all paying at least $250 sounds like BIG support to me... but then it takes me a lot longer than any of those guys to make 250 bucks.
    they attended as private citizens, not as an official endorsing entity.
    new album "Cigarettes" out Spring 2025!

    www.headstonesband.com




  • Who PrincessWho Princess Posts: 7,305
    eddiec said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    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.
    Being an artist doesn't make them more qualified but if an artist speaks about a political message with their music, painting, film, etc. and this message resonates with millions of people then if they feel the need to garner support for a cause of course they are going to speak publicly.
    Which is fine. But just because I like their music doesn't mean that I have to buy into their political beliefs, nor do I have reason to be disappointed if they don't support my causes. You're also assuming that as a listener I understand their message in the first place. Look at all the people who thought Born in the USA is a patriotic song.

    The point I was trying to make and didn't very well is that no matter how altruistic or philanthropic the artist may appear to be, they are still trying to make money with their work. Whether fans like it or not, Pearl Jam is a business. If you don't think so, take a look in the shop at this site or the miles long lines at the merch booths at shows. As far as I know, the guys don't give away all their money to charities and causes. It's their money; they can do what they want with it, but don't expect me to believe they should spend it in a certain way because of political statements they've made in the past.
    "The stars are all connected to the brain."
Sign In or Register to comment.