PJ meets with Hillary

PJ_Soul

lukin2006 said:

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.

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?

Free

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?

Free

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.

PJ_Soul

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?

PJ_Soul

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.

Same was said about Obama. This is nothing new for Eddie.

brianlux

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.

brianlux

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.

mickeyrat

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.

Free

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.

InHiding80

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.

PJfanwillneverleave1

InHiding80 said:

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.

brianlux

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.

mickeyrat

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.

oftenreading

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.

brianlux

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.

lukin2006

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.

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...

PJfanwillneverleave1

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

JimmyV

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

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.

Go Beavers

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.

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?

brianlux

PJfanwillneverleave1 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!