Billie Eilish criticize artists releasing several vinyl variants

BF25394

Because there are bigger things that one could do to help the world does not mean that one should not do small things to help the world.

Our individual choices add up. I have always driven a small car that gets high mileage per gallon. Does this amount to a "drop in the bucket" of oil consumption? Well, yes and no. It actually adds up to thousands of barrels of oil compared to a larger car or SUV over the lifetime of the car, which is figuratively, though not literally, a "drop in the bucket." However, if each of us makes similar choices, then we can collectively put a dent in the problem. But I don't throw my hands up and trade in my car when I see someone blow by me in a Hummer. I still do my part.

js87130

I don't know about the environmental argument but having 12+ variants certainly takes advantage of a part of your fanbase.  A few variants is fine but having this many is lame.  I'm a completist and have almost every PJ record on vinyl.  I would have to spend more than $600 to get all of these variants, if I can get them at retail cost.  I don't know how many people on this thread are collectors but from my perspective, and the perspective of other collectors that I know, this is a really disappointing trend and taking the fun out of collecting.  I won't be chasing down these variants.  It's just unfortunate.  

pjl44

Tim Simmons said:

I’m curious what’s worse buying 12 variants or traveling to a couple different shows

Nobody knows because there's no "if we do X we will see Y benefit as measured by Z results." It's why while the vast majority of people believe there is a manmade negative impact on the climate a large percentage don't do much or anything to change their behavior. They keep buying stacks of records, taking 8 flights on a tour, etc etc. Subconsciously they don't believe they can actually make a dent. But it kinda clears that conscience to fret about it while you do it anyway.

BF25394

js87130 said:

I don't know about the environmental argument but having 12+ variants certainly takes advantage of a part of your fanbase.  A few variants is fine but having this many is lame.  I'm a completist and have almost every PJ record on vinyl.  I would have to spend more than $600 to get all of these variants, if I can get them at retail cost.  I don't know how many people on this thread are collectors but from my perspective, and the perspective of other collectors that I know, this is a really disappointing trend and taking the fun out of collecting.  I won't be chasing down these variants.  It's just unfortunate.  

Yes, the phrase I used in other post on this topic is that it exploits the goodwill of your fanbase.

EDIT: I'm referring here not to different colors necessarily, but to releasing four versions each containing a unique song.

pjl44

Given the amount of energy Pearl Jam has put into advocating for climate-related issues I tend to believe that if putting out a single black pressing made any sort of difference that's what they would do 

BF25394

pjl44 said:

Given the amount of energy Pearl Jam has put into advocating for climate-related issues I tend to believe that if putting out a single black pressing made any sort of difference that's what they would do 

I wouldn't assume that. Everything makes a difference. Manufacturing bits of plastic that wouldn't exist if you didn't choose to offer them uses resources that wouldn't otherwise be used. Of course, black records and CDs also consume resources, but their primary purpose is to allow people to own the music. The variants' primary purpose is to be collected. Sure, some people will buy only one variant (and not the standard black) for the purpose of listening to it, but most of the variants sold will be to people who are buying them in addition to the black version and/or the CD. I wouldn't assume that Pearl Jam has thought about the implications of this.

pjl44

BF25394 said:

pjl44 said:

Given the amount of energy Pearl Jam has put into advocating for climate-related issues I tend to believe that if putting out a single black pressing made any sort of difference that's what they would do 

I wouldn't assume that. Everything makes a difference. Manufacturing bits of plastic that wouldn't exist if you didn't choose to offer them uses resources that wouldn't otherwise be used. Of course, black records and CDs also consume resources, but their primary purpose is to allow people to own the music. The variants' primary purpose is to be collected. Sure, some people will buy only one variant (and not the standard black) for the purpose of listening to it, but most of the variants sold will be to people who are buying them in addition to the black version and/or the CD. I wouldn't assume that Pearl Jam has thought about the implications of this.

Possibly but you have to take a pretty cynical view of their activism to believe that's the case

JKestle

Isn't the idea of 12 different "regional" variants to provide direct support to the local record shops that will distribute them? 

If that's the spirit of the idea, then I say buy as many as you like.

lastexitlondon

It's become hypocritical . 
The values of old no longer stand

gotthebottle

JKestle said:

Isn't the idea of 12 different "regional" variants to provide direct support to the local record shops that will distribute them? 

If that's the spirit of the idea, then I say buy as many as you like.

Yes.. to benefit record stores sure. 
Personally I don't collect anything other than stickers... they are great memoirs of shows. 
I don't see the point of the same record owned in different colors unless you just l like to frame pretty things on your wall. 

Tim Simmons

Like most things in life, there’s trade offs. The trade off for driving business to local stores through fan service is environmental impact.

shitting on someone who cares is cynical. But yes it rings hollow when she has done what she’s complaining about. But the best you can do is to live, learn and change. Make the impact where you can. 

PJ has been very environmentally friendly, this isn’t necessarily in that direction, but I have no reason to believe their compass isn’t still pointing true. 

life is convoluted

AA295481

if someone wants to spend money and time getting all 12 variants, who cares? their are lot of bad things in the world they can spend their money and time on. I'm perfectly fine with getting one vinyl copy and one vinyl copy only. And who knows, they all might be avaliable on Spotify 

pjl44

Tim Simmons said:

Like most things in life, there’s trade offs. The trade off for driving business to local stores through fan service is environmental impact.

shitting on someone who cares is cynical. But yes it rings hollow when she has done what she’s complaining about. But the best you can do is to live, learn and change. Make the impact where you can. 

PJ has been very environmentally friendly, this isn’t necessarily in that direction, but I have no reason to believe their compass isn’t still pointing true. 

life is convoluted

But climate change is pitched as an existential threat. If you don't think this decision points in the correct direction, that's crazy. Having multiple colored vinyl variants is exceptionally trivial. If that sacrifice can't be made, why would anyone be expected to make more difficult choices.

(Again, unless we tend to believe but don't want to admit that we've advanced/industrialized to a certain point where we're just better off figuring out how to mitigate.)

vant0037

pjl44 said:

Shout out to everyone who is convinced they're harming the environment but aren't going to do anything differently but want to make sure people know they're wrestling with it

jeez I guess Billie hit a chord.

pjl44

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

Shout out to everyone who is convinced they're harming the environment but aren't going to do anything differently but want to make sure people know they're wrestling with it

jeez I guess Billie hit a chord.

Oh definitely. I think most climate change activist posturing is more conscience-clearing or virtue signaling than impact.

vant0037

pjl44 said:

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

Shout out to everyone who is convinced they're harming the environment but aren't going to do anything differently but want to make sure people know they're wrestling with it

jeez I guess Billie hit a chord.

Oh definitely. I think most climate change activist posturing is more conscience-clearing or virtue signaling than impact.

I’m not sure how you could possibly know that, at least to the point of painting strangers with such a broad brush.  Even if it is, what’s the harm in the question she raises?  Is she wrong that reducing what we consume is a good idea?

pjl44

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

Shout out to everyone who is convinced they're harming the environment but aren't going to do anything differently but want to make sure people know they're wrestling with it

jeez I guess Billie hit a chord.

Oh definitely. I think most climate change activist posturing is more conscience-clearing or virtue signaling than impact.

I’m not sure how you could possibly know that, at least to the point of painting strangers with such a broad brush.  Even if it is, what’s the harm in the question she raises?  Is she wrong that reducing what we consume is a good idea?

There's no harm whatsoever in raising the question. The devil is in actually producing an answer.

vant0037

pjl44 said:

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

Shout out to everyone who is convinced they're harming the environment but aren't going to do anything differently but want to make sure people know they're wrestling with it

jeez I guess Billie hit a chord.

Oh definitely. I think most climate change activist posturing is more conscience-clearing or virtue signaling than impact.

I’m not sure how you could possibly know that, at least to the point of painting strangers with such a broad brush.  Even if it is, what’s the harm in the question she raises?  Is she wrong that reducing what we consume is a good idea?

There's no harm whatsoever in raising the question. The devil is in actually producing an answer.

I think her critique pretty much the suggested an answer: producing multiple variants using new plastics and single use packaging is wasteful.  Is that incorrect?

pjl44

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

Shout out to everyone who is convinced they're harming the environment but aren't going to do anything differently but want to make sure people know they're wrestling with it

jeez I guess Billie hit a chord.

Oh definitely. I think most climate change activist posturing is more conscience-clearing or virtue signaling than impact.

I’m not sure how you could possibly know that, at least to the point of painting strangers with such a broad brush.  Even if it is, what’s the harm in the question she raises?  Is she wrong that reducing what we consume is a good idea?

There's no harm whatsoever in raising the question. The devil is in actually producing an answer.

I think her critique pretty much the suggested an answer: producing multiple variants using new plastics and single use packaging is wasteful.  Is that incorrect?

I don't know. If it is, it's very odd that a beloved ecologically-conscious band would make the opposite decision. Personally I think something can be technically described as "wasteful" and have no meaningful impact.

vant0037

pjl44 said:

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

Shout out to everyone who is convinced they're harming the environment but aren't going to do anything differently but want to make sure people know they're wrestling with it

jeez I guess Billie hit a chord.

Oh definitely. I think most climate change activist posturing is more conscience-clearing or virtue signaling than impact.

I’m not sure how you could possibly know that, at least to the point of painting strangers with such a broad brush.  Even if it is, what’s the harm in the question she raises?  Is she wrong that reducing what we consume is a good idea?

There's no harm whatsoever in raising the question. The devil is in actually producing an answer.

I think her critique pretty much the suggested an answer: producing multiple variants using new plastics and single use packaging is wasteful.  Is that incorrect?

I don't know. If it is, it's very odd that a beloved ecologically-conscious band would make the opposite decision. Personally I think something can be technically described as "wasteful" and have no meaningful impact.

Certainly possible, but that doesn’t mean people asking the questions or trying to do something are merely “virtue signaling,” in the critical way people tend to mean it. Very quickly you’ll get into a nihilism that justifies “nothing is impactful so therefore all action is meaningless.”  Clearly that can’t be true.  The oil lobby wants you to believe it’s your and my carbon footprint that’s driving this mess.  And to your point, sure, ours are way smaller than theirs.  But barring our ability to instantly make broad sweeping changes to how energy companies are impacting the environment, small efforts still count, unless you’re prepared to say that all action is meaningless.  I got a three year old.  I can’t afford to believe that, and I hope you don’t either.

cp3iverson

The most unique/gimmicky LP ive ever purchased is from her.  She splattered it in paint and walked on the sleeve.  Like actual footprints.  I think people drove hundreds of miles to Third Man Records trying to buy one and there weren't many.  It's not a simple battle to fight.  

This isn't about PJ anyway.  Their new albums don't get sold in big box stores.  Maybe a black copy in Barnes n Noble and that's it.  This about her fellow stars who have fans who flood into target and walmart for each cover and each bonus song.  

Tim Simmons

pjl44 said:

Tim Simmons said:

Like most things in life, there’s trade offs. The trade off for driving business to local stores through fan service is environmental impact.

shitting on someone who cares is cynical. But yes it rings hollow when she has done what she’s complaining about. But the best you can do is to live, learn and change. Make the impact where you can. 

PJ has been very environmentally friendly, this isn’t necessarily in that direction, but I have no reason to believe their compass isn’t still pointing true. 

life is convoluted

But climate change is pitched as an existential threat. If you don't think this decision points in the correct direction, that's crazy. Having multiple colored vinyl variants is exceptionally trivial. If that sacrifice can't be made, why would anyone be expected to make more difficult choices.

(Again, unless we tend to believe but don't want to admit that we've advanced/industrialized to a certain point where we're just better off figuring out how to mitigate.)

I agree these 25k extra are ultimately trivial. I think we as a society are better reaching for larger more impactful changes. The clean energy boom has been incredibly impactful. But big individuals changing small behaviors is a net benefit too. 

That being said I think this multiple variant era we live in is short lived. 

pjl44

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

Shout out to everyone who is convinced they're harming the environment but aren't going to do anything differently but want to make sure people know they're wrestling with it

jeez I guess Billie hit a chord.

Oh definitely. I think most climate change activist posturing is more conscience-clearing or virtue signaling than impact.

I’m not sure how you could possibly know that, at least to the point of painting strangers with such a broad brush.  Even if it is, what’s the harm in the question she raises?  Is she wrong that reducing what we consume is a good idea?

There's no harm whatsoever in raising the question. The devil is in actually producing an answer.

I think her critique pretty much the suggested an answer: producing multiple variants using new plastics and single use packaging is wasteful.  Is that incorrect?

I don't know. If it is, it's very odd that a beloved ecologically-conscious band would make the opposite decision. Personally I think something can be technically described as "wasteful" and have no meaningful impact.

Certainly possible, but that doesn’t mean people asking the questions or trying to do something are merely “virtue signaling,” in the critical way people tend to mean it. Very quickly you’ll get into a nihilism that justifies “nothing is impactful so therefore all action is meaningless.”  Clearly that can’t be true.  The oil lobby wants you to believe it’s your and my carbon footprint that’s driving this mess.  And to your point, sure, ours are way smaller than theirs.  But barring our ability to instantly make broad sweeping changes to how energy companies are impacting the environment, small efforts still count, unless you’re prepared to say that all action is meaningless.  I got a three year old.  I can’t afford to believe that, and I hope you don’t either.

I directionally agree with you (and Tim Simmons on his point about trade-offs) but where we diverge is on every little bit helping. I think you can do a lot of harm by asking people to make sacrifices that don't add up to tangible results. People will change their behavior but they want to see results. I'm optimistic that we'll have a cleaner energy breakthrough and don't want to burn a lot of goodwill before we get there. And it's a big part of the reason why I chafe (aka nerves touched) when someone like Billie Eilish takes a stand I believe is dubious.

It probably puts me in the minority of this fanbase but while I believe climate change is a problem I also have not remotely been convinced that there are any current collective actions that would make a dent. 

pjl44

In this context what I'm saying is making different colored vinyl versions has virtually no real climate impact so why blow your ability to persuade in the future by busting balls over producing or buying it.

vant0037

pjl44 said:

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

Shout out to everyone who is convinced they're harming the environment but aren't going to do anything differently but want to make sure people know they're wrestling with it

jeez I guess Billie hit a chord.

Oh definitely. I think most climate change activist posturing is more conscience-clearing or virtue signaling than impact.

I’m not sure how you could possibly know that, at least to the point of painting strangers with such a broad brush.  Even if it is, what’s the harm in the question she raises?  Is she wrong that reducing what we consume is a good idea?

There's no harm whatsoever in raising the question. The devil is in actually producing an answer.

I think her critique pretty much the suggested an answer: producing multiple variants using new plastics and single use packaging is wasteful.  Is that incorrect?

I don't know. If it is, it's very odd that a beloved ecologically-conscious band would make the opposite decision. Personally I think something can be technically described as "wasteful" and have no meaningful impact.

Certainly possible, but that doesn’t mean people asking the questions or trying to do something are merely “virtue signaling,” in the critical way people tend to mean it. Very quickly you’ll get into a nihilism that justifies “nothing is impactful so therefore all action is meaningless.”  Clearly that can’t be true.  The oil lobby wants you to believe it’s your and my carbon footprint that’s driving this mess.  And to your point, sure, ours are way smaller than theirs.  But barring our ability to instantly make broad sweeping changes to how energy companies are impacting the environment, small efforts still count, unless you’re prepared to say that all action is meaningless.  I got a three year old.  I can’t afford to believe that, and I hope you don’t either.

I directionally agree with you (and Tim Simmons on his point about trade-offs) but where we diverge is on every little bit helping. I think you can do a lot of harm by asking people to make sacrifices that don't add up to tangible results. People will change their behavior but they want to see results. I'm optimistic that we'll have a cleaner energy breakthrough and don't want to burn a lot of goodwill before we get there. And it's a big part of the reason why I chafe (aka nerves touched) when someone like Billie Eilish takes a stand I believe is dubious.

It probably puts me in the minority of this fanbase but while I believe climate change is a problem I also have not remotely been convinced that there are any current collective actions that would make a dent. 

So what should we do then? 

If results are all that matter, then won’t people who, say, donate money to a children’s cancer research organization conclude their actions weren't or aren’t worth taking unless there are tangible results immediately available?  And how would they measure whether a “dent” has or hasn’t been made?  Isn’t that one of the prime conundrums of living in a globalized world: you can’t ever measure your own impact so how do you know good from bad or right from wrong if “results” or “dents” are the only measure that matters?

This is all polite dialogue, so please don’t take the challenge as a hostile one.  Thanks for the conversation.

curmudgeoness

Loujoe said:

^It's a nice day to...start again

I saw what you did there.

pjl44

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

Shout out to everyone who is convinced they're harming the environment but aren't going to do anything differently but want to make sure people know they're wrestling with it

jeez I guess Billie hit a chord.

Oh definitely. I think most climate change activist posturing is more conscience-clearing or virtue signaling than impact.

I’m not sure how you could possibly know that, at least to the point of painting strangers with such a broad brush.  Even if it is, what’s the harm in the question she raises?  Is she wrong that reducing what we consume is a good idea?

There's no harm whatsoever in raising the question. The devil is in actually producing an answer.

I think her critique pretty much the suggested an answer: producing multiple variants using new plastics and single use packaging is wasteful.  Is that incorrect?

I don't know. If it is, it's very odd that a beloved ecologically-conscious band would make the opposite decision. Personally I think something can be technically described as "wasteful" and have no meaningful impact.

Certainly possible, but that doesn’t mean people asking the questions or trying to do something are merely “virtue signaling,” in the critical way people tend to mean it. Very quickly you’ll get into a nihilism that justifies “nothing is impactful so therefore all action is meaningless.”  Clearly that can’t be true.  The oil lobby wants you to believe it’s your and my carbon footprint that’s driving this mess.  And to your point, sure, ours are way smaller than theirs.  But barring our ability to instantly make broad sweeping changes to how energy companies are impacting the environment, small efforts still count, unless you’re prepared to say that all action is meaningless.  I got a three year old.  I can’t afford to believe that, and I hope you don’t either.

I directionally agree with you (and Tim Simmons on his point about trade-offs) but where we diverge is on every little bit helping. I think you can do a lot of harm by asking people to make sacrifices that don't add up to tangible results. People will change their behavior but they want to see results. I'm optimistic that we'll have a cleaner energy breakthrough and don't want to burn a lot of goodwill before we get there. And it's a big part of the reason why I chafe (aka nerves touched) when someone like Billie Eilish takes a stand I believe is dubious.

It probably puts me in the minority of this fanbase but while I believe climate change is a problem I also have not remotely been convinced that there are any current collective actions that would make a dent. 

So what should we do then? 

If results are all that matter, then won’t people who, say, donate money to a children’s cancer research organization conclude their actions weren't or aren’t worth taking unless there are tangible results immediately available?  And how would they measure whether a “dent” has or hasn’t been made?  Isn’t that one of the prime conundrums of living in a globalized world: you can’t ever measure your own impact so how do you know good from bad or right from wrong if “results” or “dents” are the only measure that matters?

This is all polite dialogue, so please don’t take the challenge as a hostile one.  Thanks for the conversation.

Same here by the way. The way I type I go back and read it and sometimes it comes off more confrontational than I intended. This would be way different if we were discussing it over beers.

Cancer research is a good analogy. I think people are very willing to donate time and money when it's going to something with a rigorous scientific process. What are we testing? Did we choose appropriate endpoints? What were the results? People are even very forgiving of failures when they're being acknowledged and especially if something was still learned.

Have we proven what effect carbon trade-off programs have? How about a couple decades of hybrid/electric cars? Fill in the blank. How do we take what we can measure in the short term like carbon emissions and translate that to more significant endpoints like stabilizing temperatures or sea levels? I don't see scientific programs sticking their neck out to that degree. Certainly not to the level of trials for cancer detection and treatment.

What we should do is promote programs that can (at least in strong theory if not proven fact) attack our primary problems with climate change. I think that's more funding research on cleaner fuels than reducing various forms of consumption but I'm open to the latter if one can actually demonstrate measurable results.

2-feign-reluctance

Have fun with it. Glad the band is. I am! Donate to green causes. Create green action. 

lastexitlondon

Green disease 

vant0037

pjl44 said:

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

vant0037 said:

pjl44 said:

Shout out to everyone who is convinced they're harming the environment but aren't going to do anything differently but want to make sure people know they're wrestling with it

jeez I guess Billie hit a chord.

Oh definitely. I think most climate change activist posturing is more conscience-clearing or virtue signaling than impact.

I’m not sure how you could possibly know that, at least to the point of painting strangers with such a broad brush.  Even if it is, what’s the harm in the question she raises?  Is she wrong that reducing what we consume is a good idea?

There's no harm whatsoever in raising the question. The devil is in actually producing an answer.

I think her critique pretty much the suggested an answer: producing multiple variants using new plastics and single use packaging is wasteful.  Is that incorrect?

I don't know. If it is, it's very odd that a beloved ecologically-conscious band would make the opposite decision. Personally I think something can be technically described as "wasteful" and have no meaningful impact.

Certainly possible, but that doesn’t mean people asking the questions or trying to do something are merely “virtue signaling,” in the critical way people tend to mean it. Very quickly you’ll get into a nihilism that justifies “nothing is impactful so therefore all action is meaningless.”  Clearly that can’t be true.  The oil lobby wants you to believe it’s your and my carbon footprint that’s driving this mess.  And to your point, sure, ours are way smaller than theirs.  But barring our ability to instantly make broad sweeping changes to how energy companies are impacting the environment, small efforts still count, unless you’re prepared to say that all action is meaningless.  I got a three year old.  I can’t afford to believe that, and I hope you don’t either.

I directionally agree with you (and Tim Simmons on his point about trade-offs) but where we diverge is on every little bit helping. I think you can do a lot of harm by asking people to make sacrifices that don't add up to tangible results. People will change their behavior but they want to see results. I'm optimistic that we'll have a cleaner energy breakthrough and don't want to burn a lot of goodwill before we get there. And it's a big part of the reason why I chafe (aka nerves touched) when someone like Billie Eilish takes a stand I believe is dubious.

It probably puts me in the minority of this fanbase but while I believe climate change is a problem I also have not remotely been convinced that there are any current collective actions that would make a dent. 

So what should we do then? 

If results are all that matter, then won’t people who, say, donate money to a children’s cancer research organization conclude their actions weren't or aren’t worth taking unless there are tangible results immediately available?  And how would they measure whether a “dent” has or hasn’t been made?  Isn’t that one of the prime conundrums of living in a globalized world: you can’t ever measure your own impact so how do you know good from bad or right from wrong if “results” or “dents” are the only measure that matters?

This is all polite dialogue, so please don’t take the challenge as a hostile one.  Thanks for the conversation.

Same here by the way. The way I type I go back and read it and sometimes it comes off more confrontational than I intended. This would be way different if we were discussing it over beers.

Cancer research is a good analogy. I think people are very willing to donate time and money when it's going to something with a rigorous scientific process. What are we testing? Did we choose appropriate endpoints? What were the results? People are even very forgiving of failures when they're being acknowledged and especially if something was still learned.

Have we proven what effect carbon trade-off programs have? How about a couple decades of hybrid/electric cars? Fill in the blank. How do we take what we can measure in the short term like carbon emissions and translate that to more significant endpoints like stabilizing temperatures or sea levels? I don't see scientific programs sticking their neck out to that degree. Certainly not to the level of trials for cancer detection and treatment.

What we should do is promote programs that can (at least in strong theory if not proven fact) attack our primary problems with climate change. I think that's more funding research on cleaner fuels than reducing various forms of consumption but I'm open to the latter if one can actually demonstrate measurable results.

None of that is problematic in and of itself, but by itself, as the only action we can take?  Oil industry killed the electric car decades ago just to avoid exactly what you’re suggesting.  We can’t wait for big change to happen before we act, especially when there are small things we can do.  We might have to disagree about the value, viability and ethics of small acts vs. waiting for big options.