Please don't make the sales argument for whether or not music is quality. That's **** and you know it. And for the record, when I think of PJ and their greatest album I think of Vitalogy. Ten was overrated and overplayed, and versus just flat out sucked for the most part. The article was a dissapointment and not really all that interesting imo. Wow, "dozens" of people walked out. Non-story, kinda like the dixie chicks crap. Don't care about this incident and don't care about them.
CK, I am confused. Are you saying that sales don't make an album great?? Because if you are, that is what I was saying up above. Sorry if that is not clear. If you are not saying that, then I disagree with you wholeheartedly.
I can understand Vedder's anti-war stance. I can understand his anti-Bush stance. He has his freedom of speech that is being protected by the government and the military. Just as we as consumers can decide whether to buy his music or not. But this is the same guy that said in Gulf War I and when Bush was elected that he would leave the country. Along with Alec Baldwin and Rosie O'donnel, they have made suggestions that they would leave if something happened. At least the president must be held accountable for his actions, if they stated if an event happened that they would leave, then they need to do so. I felt if we were invading Iraq for the right reasons, then it should be done. Even if the US turns into a dictatorship, at least the US one won't have economic sanctions and the people will not starve versus a Baath party and Saddam ruling group.
my bad Manny, the way its written it can be taken both ways I guess. Seemed like it was saying Ten was great because it sold a lot of albums. I doubt their newer stuff is selling much, not that I would know. Oh, well, least I got to throw a **** in there. and take this!!!!
Crisco, I read it the same way, then realized that Manny would be a huge hypocrite if he really meant it that way, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt.
Manny, sorry if you think I was slandering you. It wasn't my intention. Your post was the most suitable one for me to address, since you laid out so many points. 1) I've been on this board since it began. I don't claim to know what every member likes or dislikes. It's too much to keep up with. My Creed statement was just a general closing statement. It was a reaction to the many posts saying that PJ hasn't done anything good since Ten. I would be offended too if someone made me out to be a Creed fan. My apologies. 2) Sales does not equate to good. Sales equates to popular. An artist's most popular work is not necessarily their best work. For someone who claims to not like pop music, you should know this. Most people only talk about "Dark Side..", or "The Wall" when referring to Pink Floyd. We all know that there is a whole lot more to PF than those 2 albums. 3) If you stopped buying their albums, how can you judge how good they are. Surely you didn't judge them on what you heard on the radio. 4) When is the time? Why can't we question to motives and actions of someone that we don't trust? I find that to be dangerous. A lot of people do not trust Bush. That is in no way a reflection on those who chose to serve in the military. It's not a judgement on those who are fighting right now. Your so called experts and analyists have said on CNN or Fox that what goes on here in the form of protest has no effect on the troops. They are solely focused on their situation. You're right, it does go both ways. Just as artists have every right to express their opinions in their forum, you have every right to express yours in your forum. I don't think I said anything about you not being able to criticize an artist. I just didn't agree with some of your statements, that's all.
Space City, Fair enough, sorry if I came across as an ass but I can get worked up over these celebrities acting like this. I guess that is one reason why I try to stay out of the political threads. And for the record, I must have been unclear about sales and albums being great. I have albums like "Loveless" by My Bloody Valentine, "Mezzanine" by Massive Attack, and "Fumbling Towards Ecstasy" by Sarah McLachlan and I don't think any of those albums sold a lot; however, IMO, those 3 albums are better than anything that is selling 10 million copies these days because I feel that they are eternal records. Something like "The Macarena" (for example) was popular at that time, but now we (or at least me) looks back and say "How?" As for point #3, I still read websites on music like Billboard and watch music shows, so I am very aware of what is going on with many bands. It is true that I don't listen to the radio, but I have other outlets to keep me posted on what is going on with bands. But I see where you are coming from.
Thats funny, because Vs. is my favorite album, while ten is probably one of my least favorite. I think it just show how subjective "good music" really is. But I still love Vitalogy. strange
If a band or an entertainer wants to take advantage of and prevail upon thier audience to spout their politics, that is fine. I just think that people who are disaffected by it should have the right to redress the situation. I don't mean to say that they shold be able to sit through the concert and then request a refund because of the commentary. It's not right to take advantage of a situatiion where people have paid good money to hear your music and are then forced to listen to your politics or relligion or whatever. Remember Seals and Crofts? They were part of some minor religious group and they invited their fans to hang around after a concert for Q&A about their beliefs. That was classy.
exactly. That's why I rarely rip on people for their taste in music. Just too subjective. Now movies, on the other hand ...
I also have 'Loveless'. It is my opinion that <i>some</i> of the greatest music ever made came out between 1988 and 1993. The whole 4AD scene was awesome; Pixies, Breeders, Cocteau Twins, This Mortal Coil, Dead Can Dance, Throwing Muses. We also bands like (but not limeted to); Jane's Addiction, Soundgarden, Nirvana, Alice in Chains, Pearl Jam, Smashing Pumpkins, Charlatons UK, Julian Cope, Lenny Kravitz, Mudhoney, Dinosaur Jr, Sonic Youth, etc. (Can you tell I'm a rock guy?) That same time period saw tremendous growth in rap, techno, and even country. Anyway, we seem to share similar musical interests regardless of our political views. Like you, I've stayed away from the 'celebrities expressing their politics' threads. I just couldn't resist when PJ was brought into it. Unlike the Dixie Chicks, PJ and Michael Moore having been saying this stuff their entire careers. Fans of them should not have been surprised. In fact, their fans would have probably been dissapointed if they hadn't. Again, that's just <i>my</i> opinoin.
Exactly. Wasn't there a thread a while back where somebody mentioned not liking to hear the artist's political commentary at a concert when they need to shut up and play music? They decided, "that's why beer comes in small, throwable bottles." The expectation is that they keep the politicizing to a minimum unless the audience understands they're there to hear that. They can go on talk shows, put messages on their web sites, or a number of other things if they're so desperate for us to hear what they think. Or write songs about it, and those who don't like it won't buy or listen to the songs. I listen to lots of stuff by artists with whom I disagree on just about everything. (i.e. REM - they've been kissing up to the Democratic Party for years, they're pro-choice, and they're opposed to the war effort now. But different people are going to believe different things, and I don't hold it against them. I can still respect their music.) The difference is how they express themselves. The Dixie Chicks comment was rude, but the Pearl Jam display went a lot further in implying bodily harm. What if President Bush was to destroy a likeness of Eddie Vedder during a televised appearance, or stick pins in an Eddie Vedder voodoo doll? There would be a huge outcry. I guess some things just aren't fair.
People are jumping on the case of some who are ripping Pearl Jam to shreds for their political view. Weren't players like Nick Van Exel and others in sports ripped for giving THEIR political views? The same people were saying "Well these players suck anyway so who cares?" Same goes for Pearl Jam, people were saying their music sucks, a lot of celebrities were ripped this way for their comments. Besides its one thing to disagree withe government, people could live with that. But to take a stick of Bush's head and slam it to the floor, stomp on it and then make a song ripping him, that is just sad and pathetic. Go make a song people give a crap about and then get back to us.
I'm sure you all will say I'm wrong, but I just can't help but think that it would all be different if Clinton or Gore were president right now. If that were the case, I'm sure a lot of people would suddenly realize the difference between supporting your troops and not trusting your president.
I understand where your coming from. I used to go to concerts all the time before we had kids (and before they got so damned expensive... at least for touring acts... not the kids, lol) and I can't tell you how often someone or some group who's albums I loved where AWFUL live, or at best mediocre. Many times I wished I could get a refund or a discount just because the music was such a disappointment. During the Viet Nam war so much of the music was political and/or groups would make political statements during a concert that I guess I'm a bit jaded, so I apologize. It just didn't bother me then, and my own politics had something to do with that, I'm sure. Also, it was pretty clear that the war might be brought up, so it wasn't a surprize, like this seems to be to some folks. As an example, what would be the surprize about the political bent of Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young? And they were usually mediocre live! Most of the time they couldn't harmonize on stage to save their lives. But I loved most of their albums and went to see them anyway. Today, seeing a concert of a touring group is a major financial outlay. I saw Hendrix at the old Houston Coliseum, 3rd row center, for 6 bucks. (more than once.. different seats ) Things have changed quite a bit, to put it mildly.
I'm sure that's true, just like I'm sure a lot of people who are opposed to this war would either not be opposed to it if Clinton or Gore were President.... or wouldn't take personal potshots against him even if they were still against the war.
If you don't want to hear an artist's political beliefs during a concert, then your'll probably have better luck going see N'Sync or something. Groups like that are the juke boxes on stage you want to see. If the artist's political beliefs mirrored yours and you wouldn't be complaining about only wanting to hear music, then you should probably go see Charlie Daniels, Toby Kieth, or the ultimate pimp of taking advantage of tragedy, Alan Jackson (anybody else see the South Park episode where they ripped him a new one?).
I long for the days when the biggest opinion our musical stars made in concert was about whether or not our city rocked and to what extent.
