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.
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.
I see them actually doing the active part of activism instead of the image part. I also love Fugazi but I”ll never get to see them live.
Comments