Eddie Vedder - NY Times Magazine Q&A

on2legs

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/01/31/magazine/eddie-vedder-interview.html

ianpickus

What a treat. 

RiotAct10

Sorry to be negative, but I had high hopes when I saw this earlier today, but was pretty disappointed. Did there really need to be questions about Kurt Cobain or the lyrics to Yellow Ledbetter?

elwayvedder

am i out of line to request a copy and paste of the article details in here? not sure if that's frowned upon but i click the link and it wants me to pay

on2legs

elwayvedder said:

am i out of line to request a copy and paste of the article details in here? not sure if that's frowned upon but i click the link and it wants me to pay

Didn't ask me to pay...

[Post edited. Please respect copyright.]

elwayvedder

on2legs said:

elwayvedder said:

am i out of line to request a copy and paste of the article details in here? not sure if that's frowned upon but i click the link and it wants me to pay

Didn't ask me to pay...

TY!

Noload

RiotAct10 said:

Sorry to be negative, but I had high hopes when I saw this earlier today, but was pretty disappointed. Did there really need to be questions about Kurt Cobain or the lyrics to Yellow Ledbetter?

I'm with you.  Ticketmaster, Kurt...it's all been covered over and over.  By the way, when Ticketmaster comes up now, Ed should say, "yeah TM..those are my boys, have you seen how many platinum tix we selling?"

Tim Simmons

Surprisingly, its a pretty revealing interview, but man, the interviewer was really dialed in on the past. I'd like more of where his (and the band's) headspace is at now, especially after the past 2 years. Seemed to boarder on acrimonious around Brother the Cloud too. I like how Ed deflated the vibe by turning the suicide talk around to find commonality.  

demetrios

Thanks!

Spiritual_Chaos

Interviewets should dial back to 2002 and ask more about Riot Act. 

brianlux

My sister sent me this article.  This was how I responded to her with my thoughts:

Eddie Vedder and Pearl Jam are a huge frustration for me.  First of all, I've tried to appreciate their work over the last several years of their career but have found their last several albums to be a disappointment.  It seems a bit ironic to me that Vedder mentions two lesser known bands- Dead Moon and Fugazi- as being some of his favorites.  These days, I'm much more a fan of Dead Moon (now defunct since the passing of Fred Cole at age 69 a few years ago) and find Fugazi more compelling despite being less melodic and more difficult to listen to.  What Vedder loves about those bands- things like the "ritual, the sweat, and the love"- are what has gone missing from a lot of Pearl Jam's work these last several years.  Maybe I'm expecting too much for artists to maintain their youthful exuberance, but then Dean Moon never lost it and Ian McKaye of Fugazi has always continued to push to the edge of creativity.  Pearl Jam, on the other hand, got rich and famous (not a sin in of itself), but lost their edge in the comfort of fame and fortune.  

One of the things I liked about Pearl Jam in the past was their activism.  That seems to have all but disappeared.  Vedder mentioned their earlier efforts at environmentalism and when I read that, my mind went right to this photo I recently saw of him standing next to his private jet.  A lot of fans besides me have found that hugely disingenuous and hypocritical.   When Neil Young, Joni Mitchell and Nils Lofgren all pulled their music from Spotify in order to not share a platform with popular podcast host Joe Rogan who has been spreading false information about COVID, I was hoping Pearl Jam would follow suit.  They did not. 

So basically I see Vedder and Pearl Jam as having lost their edge and given in to the lures of fame.

But the fact that this interview brought out some of those points and Vedder seems to be aware of the contradictions at least leaves me with a little hope that he will return to those roots he seems to so love.  You never know.

Thanks for the article.  It obviously got me thinking!

JOEJOEJOE

brianlux said:

My sister sent me this article.  This was how I responded to her with my thoughts:

Eddie Vedder and Pearl Jam are a huge frustration for me.  First of all, I've tried to appreciate their work over the last several years of their career but have found their last several albums to be a disappointment.  It seems a bit ironic to me that Vedder mentions two lesser known bands- Dead Moon and Fugazi- as being some of his favorites.  These days, I'm much more a fan of Dead Moon (now defunct since the passing of Fred Cole at age 69 a few years ago) and find Fugazi more compelling despite being less melodic and more difficult to listen to.  What Vedder loves about those bands- things like the "ritual, the sweat, and the love"- are what has gone missing from a lot of Pearl Jam's work these last several years.  Maybe I'm expecting too much for artists to maintain their youthful exuberance, but then Dean Moon never lost it and Ian McKaye of Fugazi has always continued to push to the edge of creativity.  Pearl Jam, on the other hand, got rich and famous (not a sin in of itself), but lost their edge in the comfort of fame and fortune.  

One of the things I liked about Pearl Jam in the past was their activism.  That seems to have all but disappeared.  Vedder mentioned their earlier efforts at environmentalism and when I read that, my mind went right to this photo I recently saw of him standing next to his private jet.  A lot of fans besides me have found that hugely disingenuous and hypocritical.   When Neil Young, Joni Mitchell and Nils Lofgren all pulled their music from Spotify in order to not share a platform with popular podcast host Joe Rogan who has been spreading false information about COVID, I was hoping Pearl Jam would follow suit.  They did not. 

So basically I see Vedder and Pearl Jam as having lost their edge and given in to the lures of fame.

But the fact that this interview brought out some of those points and Vedder seems to be aware of the contradictions at least leaves me with a little hope that he will return to those roots he seems to so love.  You never know.

Thanks for the article.  It obviously got me thinking!

Wow, that's quite the long response!

If my sister would have sent it to me, my response would have been "Thanks, I'll read it later"

on2legs

brianlux said:

So basically I see Vedder and Pearl Jam as having lost their edge and given in to the lures of fame.

But the fact that this interview brought out some of those points and Vedder seems to be aware of the contradictions at least leaves me with a little hope that he will return to those roots he seems to so love.  You never know.

Thanks for the article.  It obviously got me thinking!

I can’t say I disagree with any thing you wrote. Just more that it doesn’t really bug me. 

I do think it’s important to remember that Pearl Jam is more than a band.  It’s a company and there are a lot of people who work for them and make a living under the umbrella of the band.  And while it would be noble of them to ignore the trappings of fame for a simpler model, I can’t really blame them for the choices they’ve made.  Surely they could choose to play 200 dates a year in small venues to keep the scale small and stay in touch with their roots. But playing small tours in big venues gives them the luxury of both money to support the infrastructure of the band and still leave plenty of time for family. 

brianlux

JOEJOEJOE said:

brianlux said:

My sister sent me this article.  This was how I responded to her with my thoughts:

Eddie Vedder and Pearl Jam are a huge frustration for me.  First of all, I've tried to appreciate their work over the last several years of their career but have found their last several albums to be a disappointment.  It seems a bit ironic to me that Vedder mentions two lesser known bands- Dead Moon and Fugazi- as being some of his favorites.  These days, I'm much more a fan of Dead Moon (now defunct since the passing of Fred Cole at age 69 a few years ago) and find Fugazi more compelling despite being less melodic and more difficult to listen to.  What Vedder loves about those bands- things like the "ritual, the sweat, and the love"- are what has gone missing from a lot of Pearl Jam's work these last several years.  Maybe I'm expecting too much for artists to maintain their youthful exuberance, but then Dean Moon never lost it and Ian McKaye of Fugazi has always continued to push to the edge of creativity.  Pearl Jam, on the other hand, got rich and famous (not a sin in of itself), but lost their edge in the comfort of fame and fortune.  

One of the things I liked about Pearl Jam in the past was their activism.  That seems to have all but disappeared.  Vedder mentioned their earlier efforts at environmentalism and when I read that, my mind went right to this photo I recently saw of him standing next to his private jet.  A lot of fans besides me have found that hugely disingenuous and hypocritical.   When Neil Young, Joni Mitchell and Nils Lofgren all pulled their music from Spotify in order to not share a platform with popular podcast host Joe Rogan who has been spreading false information about COVID, I was hoping Pearl Jam would follow suit.  They did not. 

So basically I see Vedder and Pearl Jam as having lost their edge and given in to the lures of fame.

But the fact that this interview brought out some of those points and Vedder seems to be aware of the contradictions at least leaves me with a little hope that he will return to those roots he seems to so love.  You never know.

Thanks for the article.  It obviously got me thinking!

Wow, that's quite the long response!

If my sister would have sent it to me, my response would have been "Thanks, I'll read it later"

LOL, yeah, most of the time your response is similar to what I would write.  This article just really got me thinking.

on2legs said:

brianlux said:

So basically I see Vedder and Pearl Jam as having lost their edge and given in to the lures of fame.

But the fact that this interview brought out some of those points and Vedder seems to be aware of the contradictions at least leaves me with a little hope that he will return to those roots he seems to so love.  You never know.

Thanks for the article.  It obviously got me thinking!

I can’t say I disagree with any thing you wrote. Just more that it doesn’t really bug me. 

I do think it’s important to remember that Pearl Jam is more than a band.  It’s a company and there are a lot of people who work for them and make a living under the umbrella of the band.  And while it would be noble of them to ignore the trappings of fame for a simpler model, I can’t really blame them for the choices they’ve made.  Surely they could choose to play 200 dates a year in small venues to keep the scale small and stay in touch with their roots. But playing small tours in big venues gives them the luxury of both money to support the infrastructure of the band and still leave plenty of time for family. 

I don't mean to sound overly harsh on Vedder and Pearl Jam, I just find a lot of contradiction that is hard for me to reconcile.  I guess if the band had come out in the beginning and said, "We want to become the biggest band in the world", I wouldn't give much of this a second thought.  But early on, they took an almost punk rock type stance on the music industry an soon began to promote an activist nature in a lot of their work.  You can see this reflected right at the top of the Pearl Jam Community forum front page where it says "Pearl Jam's Music and Activism".  This implies activism is an integral part of their music.  But is it?  I'm not sure how well corporate rock and rock stars standing next to their private jets represent activism, at least not what is usually thought of as activism.   At this point, their carrying on as if activism is a high priority seems (to me anyway) at least a bit disingenuous. 

on2legs

brianlux said:

JOEJOEJOE said:

brianlux said:

My sister sent me this article.  This was how I responded to her with my thoughts:

Eddie Vedder and Pearl Jam are a huge frustration for me.  First of all, I've tried to appreciate their work over the last several years of their career but have found their last several albums to be a disappointment.  It seems a bit ironic to me that Vedder mentions two lesser known bands- Dead Moon and Fugazi- as being some of his favorites.  These days, I'm much more a fan of Dead Moon (now defunct since the passing of Fred Cole at age 69 a few years ago) and find Fugazi more compelling despite being less melodic and more difficult to listen to.  What Vedder loves about those bands- things like the "ritual, the sweat, and the love"- are what has gone missing from a lot of Pearl Jam's work these last several years.  Maybe I'm expecting too much for artists to maintain their youthful exuberance, but then Dean Moon never lost it and Ian McKaye of Fugazi has always continued to push to the edge of creativity.  Pearl Jam, on the other hand, got rich and famous (not a sin in of itself), but lost their edge in the comfort of fame and fortune.  

One of the things I liked about Pearl Jam in the past was their activism.  That seems to have all but disappeared.  Vedder mentioned their earlier efforts at environmentalism and when I read that, my mind went right to this photo I recently saw of him standing next to his private jet.  A lot of fans besides me have found that hugely disingenuous and hypocritical.   When Neil Young, Joni Mitchell and Nils Lofgren all pulled their music from Spotify in order to not share a platform with popular podcast host Joe Rogan who has been spreading false information about COVID, I was hoping Pearl Jam would follow suit.  They did not. 

So basically I see Vedder and Pearl Jam as having lost their edge and given in to the lures of fame.

But the fact that this interview brought out some of those points and Vedder seems to be aware of the contradictions at least leaves me with a little hope that he will return to those roots he seems to so love.  You never know.

Thanks for the article.  It obviously got me thinking!

Wow, that's quite the long response!

If my sister would have sent it to me, my response would have been "Thanks, I'll read it later"

LOL, yeah, most of the time your response is similar to what I would write.  This article just really got me thinking.

on2legs said:

brianlux said:

So basically I see Vedder and Pearl Jam as having lost their edge and given in to the lures of fame.

But the fact that this interview brought out some of those points and Vedder seems to be aware of the contradictions at least leaves me with a little hope that he will return to those roots he seems to so love.  You never know.

Thanks for the article.  It obviously got me thinking!

I can’t say I disagree with any thing you wrote. Just more that it doesn’t really bug me. 

I do think it’s important to remember that Pearl Jam is more than a band.  It’s a company and there are a lot of people who work for them and make a living under the umbrella of the band.  And while it would be noble of them to ignore the trappings of fame for a simpler model, I can’t really blame them for the choices they’ve made.  Surely they could choose to play 200 dates a year in small venues to keep the scale small and stay in touch with their roots. But playing small tours in big venues gives them the luxury of both money to support the infrastructure of the band and still leave plenty of time for family. 

I don't mean to sound overly harsh on Vedder and Pearl Jam, I just find a lot of contradiction that is hard for me to reconcile.  I guess if the band had come out in the beginning and said, "We want to become the biggest band in the world", I wouldn't give much of this a second thought.  But early on, they took an almost punk rock type stance on the music industry an soon began to promote an activist nature in a lot of their work.  You can see this reflected right at the top of the Pearl Jam Community forum front page where it says "Pearl Jam's Music and Activism".  This implies activism is an integral part of their music.  But is it?  I'm not sure how well corporate rock and rock stars standing next to their private jets represent activism, at least not what is usually thought of as activism.   At this point, their carrying on as if activism is a high priority seems (to me anyway) at least a bit disingenuous. 

I hear you.  It makes sense. Though I do see them doing a lot of activism - Just with a bit of a softened edge… And their charitable endeavors are laudable.  The corporate jet is a bad look but I don’t think it cancels out all the good they do.  I think we’re all a product of our successes and failures and hopefully it totals up to something meaningful in the end. 

brianlux

on2legs said:

brianlux said:

JOEJOEJOE said:

brianlux said:

My sister sent me this article.  This was how I responded to her with my thoughts:

Eddie Vedder and Pearl Jam are a huge frustration for me.  First of all, I've tried to appreciate their work over the last several years of their career but have found their last several albums to be a disappointment.  It seems a bit ironic to me that Vedder mentions two lesser known bands- Dead Moon and Fugazi- as being some of his favorites.  These days, I'm much more a fan of Dead Moon (now defunct since the passing of Fred Cole at age 69 a few years ago) and find Fugazi more compelling despite being less melodic and more difficult to listen to.  What Vedder loves about those bands- things like the "ritual, the sweat, and the love"- are what has gone missing from a lot of Pearl Jam's work these last several years.  Maybe I'm expecting too much for artists to maintain their youthful exuberance, but then Dean Moon never lost it and Ian McKaye of Fugazi has always continued to push to the edge of creativity.  Pearl Jam, on the other hand, got rich and famous (not a sin in of itself), but lost their edge in the comfort of fame and fortune.  

One of the things I liked about Pearl Jam in the past was their activism.  That seems to have all but disappeared.  Vedder mentioned their earlier efforts at environmentalism and when I read that, my mind went right to this photo I recently saw of him standing next to his private jet.  A lot of fans besides me have found that hugely disingenuous and hypocritical.   When Neil Young, Joni Mitchell and Nils Lofgren all pulled their music from Spotify in order to not share a platform with popular podcast host Joe Rogan who has been spreading false information about COVID, I was hoping Pearl Jam would follow suit.  They did not. 

So basically I see Vedder and Pearl Jam as having lost their edge and given in to the lures of fame.

But the fact that this interview brought out some of those points and Vedder seems to be aware of the contradictions at least leaves me with a little hope that he will return to those roots he seems to so love.  You never know.

Thanks for the article.  It obviously got me thinking!

Wow, that's quite the long response!

If my sister would have sent it to me, my response would have been "Thanks, I'll read it later"

LOL, yeah, most of the time your response is similar to what I would write.  This article just really got me thinking.

on2legs said:

brianlux said:

So basically I see Vedder and Pearl Jam as having lost their edge and given in to the lures of fame.

But the fact that this interview brought out some of those points and Vedder seems to be aware of the contradictions at least leaves me with a little hope that he will return to those roots he seems to so love.  You never know.

Thanks for the article.  It obviously got me thinking!

I can’t say I disagree with any thing you wrote. Just more that it doesn’t really bug me. 

I do think it’s important to remember that Pearl Jam is more than a band.  It’s a company and there are a lot of people who work for them and make a living under the umbrella of the band.  And while it would be noble of them to ignore the trappings of fame for a simpler model, I can’t really blame them for the choices they’ve made.  Surely they could choose to play 200 dates a year in small venues to keep the scale small and stay in touch with their roots. But playing small tours in big venues gives them the luxury of both money to support the infrastructure of the band and still leave plenty of time for family. 

I don't mean to sound overly harsh on Vedder and Pearl Jam, I just find a lot of contradiction that is hard for me to reconcile.  I guess if the band had come out in the beginning and said, "We want to become the biggest band in the world", I wouldn't give much of this a second thought.  But early on, they took an almost punk rock type stance on the music industry an soon began to promote an activist nature in a lot of their work.  You can see this reflected right at the top of the Pearl Jam Community forum front page where it says "Pearl Jam's Music and Activism".  This implies activism is an integral part of their music.  But is it?  I'm not sure how well corporate rock and rock stars standing next to their private jets represent activism, at least not what is usually thought of as activism.   At this point, their carrying on as if activism is a high priority seems (to me anyway) at least a bit disingenuous. 

I hear you.  It makes sense. Though I do see them doing a lot of activism - Just with a bit of a softened edge… And their charitable endeavors are laudable.  The corporate jet is a bad look but I don’t think it cancels out all the good they do.  I think we’re all a product of our successes and failures and hopefully it totals up to something meaningful in the end. 

Good thoughts there.  I hope for the same.

LastStopOnTheWestCoastLine

That was a good interview. Ed has a tendency to give abstract answers and go off into tangents. It was nice to see someone try to get him to answer the question, even if it might come across as confrontational.

Zod

I feel like Pearl Jam still has causes, but I'm not always sure they advertise them.   They do give away money in every city the play to local charities.   PJ was never big with the press, so they're probably content with most of it flying under the radar.  They did the homeless fundraiser with their last hometown shows. They skipped that tour date a few years back etc..

Shitting on them because they didn't pull their music from spotify.    Which is a freedom of speech vs. Misinformation argument.    Maybe they loathe misinformation, but also feel freedom of speech is important.  Maybe it was their grenade to jump on.

I dunno... interesting comments.  They are getting closer to 60, how much fight do most 60 year olds have left in them? I think when you get older you want to enjoy the time you have left and make the most out of it.

brianlux

Zod said:

I feel like Pearl Jam still has causes, but I'm not always sure they advertise them.   They do give away money in every city the play to local charities.   PJ was never big with the press, so they're probably content with most of it flying under the radar.  They did the homeless fundraiser with their last hometown shows. They skipped that tour date a few years back etc..

Shitting on them because they didn't pull their music from spotify.    Which is a freedom of speech vs. Misinformation argument.    Maybe they loathe misinformation, but also feel freedom of speech is important.  Maybe it was their grenade to jump on.

I dunno... interesting comments.  They are getting closer to 60, how much fight do most 60 year olds have left in them? I think when you get older you want to enjoy the time you have left and make the most out of it.

The article mentions Vedder being 57.  My first reaction was that it was a typo.  No way is that kid 57.  Then I looked it up.  Damn, but the years fly by!

Yeah, tough call on pulling from Spotify.  I really had hoped they would follow suit but it's all about records for me and I don't do digital other than the occasional CD in the car, so I wouldn't miss it either way.  On the other hand, it would be good to hear them make some kind of statement about spreading of misinformation about the deadly virus.

igotid88

brianlux said:

My sister sent me this article.  This was how I responded to her with my thoughts:

Eddie Vedder and Pearl Jam are a huge frustration for me.  First of all, I've tried to appreciate their work over the last several years of their career but have found their last several albums to be a disappointment.  It seems a bit ironic to me that Vedder mentions two lesser known bands- Dead Moon and Fugazi- as being some of his favorites.  These days, I'm much more a fan of Dead Moon (now defunct since the passing of Fred Cole at age 69 a few years ago) and find Fugazi more compelling despite being less melodic and more difficult to listen to.  What Vedder loves about those bands- things like the "ritual, the sweat, and the love"- are what has gone missing from a lot of Pearl Jam's work these last several years.  Maybe I'm expecting too much for artists to maintain their youthful exuberance, but then Dean Moon never lost it and Ian McKaye of Fugazi has always continued to push to the edge of creativity.  Pearl Jam, on the other hand, got rich and famous (not a sin in of itself), but lost their edge in the comfort of fame and fortune.  

One of the things I liked about Pearl Jam in the past was their activism.  That seems to have all but disappeared.  Vedder mentioned their earlier efforts at environmentalism and when I read that, my mind went right to this photo I recently saw of him standing next to his private jet.  A lot of fans besides me have found that hugely disingenuous and hypocritical.   When Neil Young, Joni Mitchell and Nils Lofgren all pulled their music from Spotify in order to not share a platform with popular podcast host Joe Rogan who has been spreading false information about COVID, I was hoping Pearl Jam would follow suit.  They did not. 

So basically I see Vedder and Pearl Jam as having lost their edge and given in to the lures of fame.

But the fact that this interview brought out some of those points and Vedder seems to be aware of the contradictions at least leaves me with a little hope that he will return to those roots he seems to so love.  You never know.

Thanks for the article.  It obviously got me thinking!

It's like you want them to live in a trailer or something. Flying in a private jet doesn't mean they're not the same person that doesn't care about causes. As for the Spotify thing. There was a tweet by Richard Marx I believe that said it's not as easy as you think. 

HughFreakingDillon

I found this to be one of the most revealing of Ed's in years. As someone else said, when Ed didn't answer the question, this interviewer actually pressed on. About time. Most of the time interviewers just go to the next question. 

As to the fame/causes/hypocrisy thing, I see them doing more good these days on a local or personal level than taking on The Man. Jeff with his skate parks, Mike with his Crohns and Colitis events, Ed with his EB foundation; it's all stuff that means a lot to them and hits close to home in each situation. 

I think in a lot of ways that's quite normal as most people age; they find the things that are most important to them personally and within their groups of loved ones. 

Some people still want to save the world (Bono), and some people just want to save their friends. It's ok to have both. 

Spiritual_Chaos

The week would have been more fun if Pearl Jam left Spotify though.

More fun than that week they released the "Rock around Barack" song.

OceansJenny

Wow, Ed turns into the interviewer and The NY Times guy went with it for a bit!

Interesting how he addresses the change from paying for music and cheaper concerts to “free” music and expensive concerts. His response tells me he’s probably ok with how his tour is being ticketed. Not a great feeling.

Also - music isn’t “free” now unless you pirate it. You still have to either 1) pay directly for the music 2) pay a streaming platform for access to the music or 3) listen for “free” with ads (YouTube). I guess there more hands in the pot now but as a consumer I’m still paying for the music and now super high ticket prices so thanks? And then he talks about the great concerts he went to for $10. So fuck us I guess?

HughFreakingDillon

OceansJenny said:

Wow, Ed turns into the interviewer and The NY Times guy went with it for a bit!

Interesting how he addresses the change from paying for music and cheaper concerts to “free” music and expensive concerts. His response tells me he’s probably ok with how his tour is being ticketed. Not a great feeling.

Also - music isn’t “free” now unless you pirate it. You still have to either 1) pay directly for the music 2) pay a streaming platform for access to the music or 3) listen for “free” with ads (YouTube). I guess there more hands in the pot now but as a consumer I’m still paying for the music and now super high ticket prices so thanks? And then he talks about the great concerts he went to for $10. So fuck us I guess?

it's basically free in the eyes of the artist when you consider unlimited streaming costs $10 a month. that is hours upon hours upon hours of music that normally would cost you $15-20 per hour. 

I'm glad he finally acknowledged that is the reason for the uptick in ticket and merch pricing. Every other artist has basically said it. And it's true. Getting paid a fraction of a cent for a song when you used to have to pay $20 for 12 of them is absurd. It's funny how people still rag on Metallica for basically now being agreed with by every artist out there. 

Spiritual_Chaos

HughFreakingDillon said:

OceansJenny said:

Wow, Ed turns into the interviewer and The NY Times guy went with it for a bit!

Interesting how he addresses the change from paying for music and cheaper concerts to “free” music and expensive concerts. His response tells me he’s probably ok with how his tour is being ticketed. Not a great feeling.

Also - music isn’t “free” now unless you pirate it. You still have to either 1) pay directly for the music 2) pay a streaming platform for access to the music or 3) listen for “free” with ads (YouTube). I guess there more hands in the pot now but as a consumer I’m still paying for the music and now super high ticket prices so thanks? And then he talks about the great concerts he went to for $10. So fuck us I guess?

it's basically free in the eyes of the artist when you consider unlimited streaming costs $10 a month. that is hours upon hours upon hours of music that normally would cost you $15-20 per hour.

But they are not forced to have their music on there selling it for cheap. The big and powerful labels aren't handcuffed to these services either. They could come up with a better solution where more money reaches the artist. 

I mean, the difference between Spotify and Tidal seems to be big enough. So, there seems to be room to make more per stream than what they agree to do.

Also, not sure if this is true - I read somewhere that people pay more per year now for music by paying for streaming every month than when they bought CD:s

The consumers pay for the music again. Just like before. Make the balance work, instead of going with the victim mentality of "it's all free now" when they themselves decide to sell it for what Spotify offers. Spotify isn't government run. Doesn't the whole american experiment run on fetishizing the market economy? Well then, ask Warner or Sony or Univesal or Elon Musk to come up with a competitor. 

Neil Young atleast did something with his NYA.

drakeheuer14

There is still something to be said for gaining exposure on the platform for new/young bands. I have found 100+ new bands through Spotify algorithms and suggestions. 

Now I at least know who they are and can choose to spend money on them

Tim Simmons

Just an FYI because people get bent out of shape about the private jet thing every time it comes up, NetJets is a carbon neutral airline. So while not the ideal vehicle (though given his experiences and PJ fandom, I can’t blame him for flying private, especially since he has a family), at least it’s as in line with his environmental stance as possible given the parameters. 

on2legs

I used to buy 1-2 CD’s every week on Tuesdays when new albums dropped back in the 90s.  Now I get Tidal for free with my cell phone plan with T-Mobile.  Great for me… lousy for artists. 

OceansJenny

Spiritual_Chaos said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

OceansJenny said:

Wow, Ed turns into the interviewer and The NY Times guy went with it for a bit!

Interesting how he addresses the change from paying for music and cheaper concerts to “free” music and expensive concerts. His response tells me he’s probably ok with how his tour is being ticketed. Not a great feeling.

Also - music isn’t “free” now unless you pirate it. You still have to either 1) pay directly for the music 2) pay a streaming platform for access to the music or 3) listen for “free” with ads (YouTube). I guess there more hands in the pot now but as a consumer I’m still paying for the music and now super high ticket prices so thanks? And then he talks about the great concerts he went to for $10. So fuck us I guess?

it's basically free in the eyes of the artist when you consider unlimited streaming costs $10 a month. that is hours upon hours upon hours of music that normally would cost you $15-20 per hour.

But they are not forced to have their music on there selling it for cheap. The big and powerful labels aren't handcuffed to these services either. They could come up with a better solution where more money reaches the artist. 

I mean, the difference between Spotify and Tidal seems to be big enough. So, there seems to be room to make more per stream than what they agree to do.

Also, not sure if this is true - I read somewhere that people pay more per year now for music by paying for streaming every month than when they bought CD:s

The consumers pay for the music again. Just like before. Make the balance work, instead of going with the victim mentality of "it's all free now" when they themselves decide to sell it for what Spotify offers. Spotify isn't government run. Doesn't the whole american experiment run on fetishizing the market economy? Well then, ask Warner or Sony or Univesal or Elon Musk to come up with a competitor. 

Neil Young atleast did something with his NYA.

I typed a bunch of half baked replies but you summed up my thoughts better. +1

HughFreakingDillon

drakeheuer14 said:

There is still something to be said for gaining exposure on the platform for new/young bands. I have found 100+ new bands through Spotify algorithms and suggestions. 

Now I at least know who they are and can choose to spend money on them

100%, that's why you see so many young/undiscovered bands thinking Lars Ulrich was a greedy dick and they thanks Spotify for adding them to their playlists. it's all about how much exposure you need. 

HughFreakingDillon

I was the same when iTunes had their free track of the week. I used to download it every single week. more often than not, it made me buy that band's music. we have apple music, but I don't use it that much. it's more for my kids.