PJ meets with Hillary

Go Beavers

BS44325 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

BS44325 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.

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.

JimmyV

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.

brianlux

Smellyman said:

Stone scoping out "souvenirs", haha!

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.

Smellyman

brianlux said:

Smellyman said:

Stone scoping out "souvenirs", haha!

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.

JimmyV

Smellyman said:

brianlux said:

Smellyman said:

Stone scoping out "souvenirs", haha!

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."

brianlux

Smellyman said:

brianlux said:

Smellyman said:

Stone scoping out "souvenirs", haha!

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.

Go Beavers

JimmyV said:

Smellyman said:

brianlux said:

Smellyman said:

Stone scoping out "souvenirs", haha!

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.

BS44325

JimmyV said:

Smellyman said:

brianlux said:

Smellyman said:

Stone scoping out "souvenirs", haha!

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.

InHiding80

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.

InHiding80

brianlux said:

Ummmmmmmmmm...

Oh, hi ya'll!

Oh hai Brian. I did not hit her!

PJ_Soul

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.

Absolutely. I don't understand how so many people forgot so quickly that rock and roll is supposed to be a subversive art form.

lukin2006

InHiding80 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?

Jason P

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

HughFreakingDillon

Jason P said:

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

LOL

mickeyrat

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.

PJ_Soul

lukin2006 said:

InHiding80 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.

Who Princess

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.

PJ_Soul

Who Princess 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.

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.

lukin2006

PJ_Soul said:

lukin2006 said:

InHiding80 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.

lukin2006

Who Princess 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.

Well said....