The PLAY MINNESOTA Thread!

evenflow82 wrote:

Just seems odd they would do a show for the corporation and not the fans. :?

Yeah that corporate event really rubbed me the wrong way, as well as the Oracle one. I couldn't see PJ doing this in 1993, but alas, the times they are a changin'. On the other hand, who the hell am I to judge? I shop at Target all the time, and it's awesome kdiddy got to be there to experience it!

As someone who's had this argument (on this board and in person) several times over, I'm not sure it's practical or fair to really pass judgment on their choices as a band.

For one, it's fine to want your favorite band to espouse your ideals. I certainly like when my favorite bands think like me (it's human nature), and would have a really hard time liking a band that's right-wing/conservative/racist etc. But to insist (as some on this board do from time to time) that the band has sold out or should do X or Y or Z because it's in-line with what Ed or Jeff or Stone said in 19xx or 20xx is unfair because reduces the band to a sponge, whose only purpose is to regurgitate the shit we want them to say. It also nails the band to the wall for shit they said or did decades ago. I can tell you that while my politics have never generally changed, there are definitely differences in my approaches and nuanced distinctions that have grown over the years etc. If we as individuals are allowed that freedom to change, why isn't a band given the same? Why should Pearl Jam be forced to act only in accordance with either (a) what their nutbag fans believe they should do, or (b) what 1995 Pearl Jam said/did/believed? I'll go so far as to say that as long as I have a choice in whether or not I am in this fan club or a fan of their music, even entertaining a critique of what the band does/says etc is unfair to the band but also tramples on the notion of artistic expression. In short, if your heroes do something unheroic, find a new hero.

Secondly, what always comes up in debates about what the band should or shouldn't do (i.e. Target, Oracle etc) is this idea that by getting paid for corporate events, the band is somehow whoring themselves out for profit, that there's somehow something wrong with the band getting paid by a company for a private show, as opposed to the band getting paid by a company to pay a "public" show (i.e. a tour). But really, what's the difference? Whether they're paid by Oracle or Target or whether they're paid by LiveNation or whether they're paid by you and me directly, is there any conceivable difference when they're paid to play music? This private vs. public distinction implies that we as fans somehow are entitled to the band, that they owe us something, as opposed to anyone else willing to pay for their services, because let's face it: when the band performs, it's strictly transactional. We paid to see them, they perform.

Most people then argue, "well, they're getting paid by companies like Target and Oracle and that goes against the band's ideals," to which I'll respond: does it? Most of us assume we know what the band's ideals are, but those are assumptions. Does that band, as a group, have any set group of politics? I have no clue how any of them voted, although I could probably wager a fair guess. The website links to some political groups, but again, those are pretty narrowly defined. It's tough to say being paid by Target or Oracle or LiveNation or Comcast is any better or any worse than one another, but it's very clear that we assume much and know little about the band's politics, to the point where it's unfair to say being paid to play by Oracle or Target or anyone else IS or IS NOT in line with their beliefs.

Some people will persist still though, and argue that the band getting paid for ANY corporate event is bad and grounds for them being called "sell-outs," as if any transaction with corporate entities is itself an evil thing. At a threshold level, these are often people who (a) have access to the internet (which means they themselves participate in transactions with corporations all the time), or (b) buy up posters and merch and CDs and albums (again, keeping the vitals of our capitalist world alive). On it's face, I can appreciate the philosophies of anti-corporatism, anti-commercialism, even anti-capitalism, because it's clear that the free market and big business does well for the free market and big business, but not for you and me. But to take that philosophy and apply it to PJ's decisions is to argue for the death of the band itself. Yep, I said it. If you think Pearl Jam shouldn't get paid for their shows by corporate entities, aside from everything else I've argued, is to suggest that the band should also not be commercial, not promote their albums, not be on tour, not operate fancy websites, not be accessible to virtually anyone outside of ear shot the next time they walk-up and play an acoustic set in a field in an unincorporated township in Minnesota (which sounds sweet by the way ).

These are also the same people who can't provide alternatives to corporate tours or events and who seem to forget that they tried something like this in 1995. And failed (not from lack of effort however). If the band can't play private corporate events because playing for corporations privately is band, then what should they do? And why is getting paid by a company for a "public" (even that term is laughable) event tolerable? Should they only play in fields? Warehouses? Fugazi-style clubs? (again, this all sounds sweet). Should they be paid at all? At least part of anti-corporatism is a rejection of capitalism and if we insist that Pearl Jam operate more in-line with anti-corporatism, the end result is they will not exist as they do. So long as music is commodified, bought and sold, transacted and delivered as a product, Pearl Jam will be inextricably intertwined with corporate entities, some good, some bad.

I apologize for the length, but it's been a slow afternoon and this is a topic that really grates on me. This "PJ has sold out" nonsense is the exact kind of hero-worship that I'm sure Ed and the guys hate now (as they did in 1995), and further the kind of nutbag thinking that sentences the guys to the tyranny and whims of their fans. It's just not fair, logical or defensible, at this day and age (or hell, even in 1995) for fans to persist in critiquing a band's choices as they relate to getting paid or not paid, so long as being a fan is voluntary.

To make any kind of informed, defensible claim that the band has sold out (because that's what all this Target/Oracle stuff is really about), you'd need access to the band's decision-making process for these gigs, their personal beliefs, and also a situation where being a fan is compulsory, none of which we'll ever get.