PJ meets with Hillary
Comments
-
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?lukin2006 said:
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.PJ_Soul said:
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.lukin2006 said:
You'd think PJ would lobby for his inclusion and maybe they are behind the scenes...but he was fired, am I correct?InHiding80 said:
Yeah, Dave got a raw deal. Replace Krusen with him since Irons is inducted with RHCP. Plus Cameron will get in with Soundgarden anyways.lukin2006 said:The Rock n Roll hall of fame is no achievement...it's a complete JOKE...
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
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?mickeyrat said:
Brian, maybe I've missed the 10c email with a elect Hillary fund link.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.
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.0 -
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.
0 -
Did you read the post you responded to?Free said:
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?mickeyrat said:
Brian, maybe I've missed the 10c email with a elect Hillary fund link.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.
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.With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
Same was said about Obama. This is nothing new for Eddie.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.With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
Good points all, Mickey. I will try to withhold judgement until we have more info here.mickeyrat said:
Brian, maybe I've missed the 10c email with a elect Hillary fund link.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.
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."It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
Also a good point and why I can't help but think this incident is a step away from an endorsement.Free said:
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?mickeyrat said:
Brian, maybe I've missed the 10c email with a elect Hillary fund link.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.
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."It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
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.Free said:
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?mickeyrat said:
Brian, maybe I've missed the 10c email with a elect Hillary fund link.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.
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.
3 individual members of the band however showed their support by attending. NOT PEARL JAM as a band._____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
...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.mickeyrat said:
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.Free said:
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?mickeyrat said:
Brian, maybe I've missed the 10c email with a elect Hillary fund link.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.
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.
3 individual members of the band however showed their support by attending. NOT PEARL JAM as a band.Post edited by Free on0 -
That's would make a great Bernie vs Hillary and Jill vs Hillary meme.Jason P said:I'm sure Hillary was thrilled to meet The Pearl Jams.
0 -
This is funny.InHiding80 said:
That's would make a great Bernie vs Hillary and Jill vs Hillary meme.Jason P said:I'm sure Hillary was thrilled to meet The Pearl Jams.
What also is funny is picturing Hillary rockin out to Pearl Jam.
0 -
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 said:
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.Free said:
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?mickeyrat said:
Brian, maybe I've missed the 10c email with a elect Hillary fund link.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.
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.
3 individual members of the band however showed their support by attending. NOT PEARL JAM as a band."It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
well when the disclosures happen we'll see. now was this a hillary specific fundraiser or wss it a dnc type function.brianlux said:
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 said:
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.Free said:
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?mickeyrat said:
Brian, maybe I've missed the 10c email with a elect Hillary fund link.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.
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.
3 individual members of the band however showed their support by attending. NOT PEARL JAM as a band._____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
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.Free said:
...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.mickeyrat said:
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.Free said:
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?mickeyrat said:
Brian, maybe I've missed the 10c email with a elect Hillary fund link.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.
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.
3 individual members of the band however showed their support by attending. NOT PEARL JAM as a band.my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
From the three brief reports I found it appears to have been a private Hillary only fund raiser.mickeyrat said:
well when the disclosures happen we'll see. now was this a hillary specific fundraiser or wss it a dnc type function.brianlux said:
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 said:
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.Free said:
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?mickeyrat said:
Brian, maybe I've missed the 10c email with a elect Hillary fund link.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.
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.
3 individual members of the band however showed their support by attending. NOT PEARL JAM as a band."It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
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...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.I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon0 -
This is a strange thread.
You`d think many posters on AMT would be happy about this.0 -
I'm neither happy nor unhappy. Good for them. I'm just not at all surprised.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:This is a strange thread.
You`d think many posters on AMT would be happy about this.___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."0 -
What do you use to measure global peace?lukin2006 said:
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...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.0 -
No one is happy about anything related to this election... except the possible miracle of Bernie winning!PJfanwillneverleave1 said:This is a strange thread.
You`d think many posters on AMT would be happy about this.
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help