Pearl Jam Walkout

Here we go again.

War Criticism Prompts Walkout

[TroyF]

This one kind of stunned me. What do you expect Eddie Vedder and Pear Jam to do when you go see one of their concerts?

If you disagree with Eddie about the war, don't go to the damned concert. (I didn't and wouldn't and this was long before his protest of this war)

TroyF

[SackAttack]

For the record, I think it's really fairly childish and idiotic of these performers to use their celebrity as a platform for their political views, as though being famous somehow also makes them omniscient and automatically qualified to sound off on any and every topic that sparks their ill-informed ire.

Likewise, I think it's fairly stupid to spend the $300 on tickets to such a concert and then think that walking out because you don't like what they have to say. Can't both groups just realize that, war or no war, you're there to perform/enjoy the music, and that should be the focus of the evening?

Josh

[GrantDawg]

Ack! A SackAttack sighting!

[SackAttack]

I haven't gotten THAT rare around here, have I?

[bbor]

More Medium rare than rare

[SackAttack]

I prefer to think of myself as well-done, dangit.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by SackAttack
For the record, I think it's really fairly childish and idiotic of these performers to use their celebrity as a platform for their political views, as though being famous somehow also makes them omniscient and automatically qualified to sound off on any and every topic that sparks their ill-informed ire.

While I might agree that there's nothing that really qualifies a particular entertainer to spout off political views... is it necessarily the case that only qualified people should say what they thing, and make an effort to change public opinion?

If you hold strong political beliefs, and you have an opportunity to reach many more people than the average joe - isn't it almost a duty to share them? Not necessarily that you are an expert or otherwise "qualified" but if you can take the stage and convince people that they need to stop the war, or stop abortion, or stop jaywalking -- whatever your cause-- isn't that an appropriate use of the public eye?

I realize you aren't calling for the government to shut down Eddie Vedder (though perhaps a case can be made there), so this isn't a matter of the First Amendment or basic freedoms. But, I wonder - at what point does it become no longer "childish and idiotic" for someone like him to do so? Does that, perhaps, depend on whether his views coincide with yours? Are the (admittedly less frequent) conservative celebrity spokeshacks out there equally idiotic in your mind?

[andy m]

Originally posted by QuikSand
If you hold strong political beliefs, and you have an opportunity to reach many more people than the average joe - isn't it almost a duty to share them?

spot on.

[Ksyrup]

I just think it's nice that for a change, celebs are being held accountable by their fans for what they say. They can say whatever they want, but it looks like from this and other incidents, people aren't just automatically taking everything a celeb says (an opinion, no better than mine or yours) as the gospel.

To me, that reached a sickening height when the Democrats paraded Christopher Reeve out at one of their conventions for an "I'm famous and injured, pity me and vote Democrat" speech. I'm glad these guys are getting backlash from some of their fans, and regardless of which side they are on, people aren't just accepting celebrity opinions as how they should think.

[oykib]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
I just think it's nice that for a change, celebs are being held accountable by their fans for what they say. They can say whatever they want, but it looks like from this and other incidents, people aren't just automatically taking everything a celeb says (an opinion, no better than mine or yours) as the gospel.

To me, that reached a sickening height when the Democrats paraded Christopher Reeve out at one of their conventions for an "I'm famous and injured, pity me and vote Democrat" speech. I'm glad these guys are getting backlash from some of their fans, and regardless of which side they are on, people aren't just accepting celebrity opinions as how they should think.

To your first point: I agree that people should be held accountable. But I bet 80% of the people who did dont even have a working grasp of the situation. Most of the backlash against the anti-war crowd has been of the 'If you dont like America, then get the hell out' variety.
Not that these people aren't entitled to their opinions-- however poorly they were arrived at-- but I, personally have liitle respect for anyone who can justify the mass atrocity that is war without really considering the ramifications.

To your second point: Chris Reeve didn't say vote democrat. He was very open about the fact that he respected Bob Dole a great deal for the great work he had done for the causes of the disabled.
While the Democrats deserve any harsh criticism that you give them for using his plight for their own agenda, you are painting with too broad a brush to indict him too. He had to be aware that he was being used. But the promises of a sitting president and the opportunity to reach such a broad range of decision makers about a cause that is literally integral to your life and well-being is enough that I think any reasonable person has to cut him some slack on that one.

[Easy Mac]

Hmmm, I'm going to see them on the 19th I think (actually going to see the warm up band, PJ just happens to be headlining)... might make it interesting in Atlanta.

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by oykib
To your first point: I agree that people should be held accountable. But I bet 80% of the people who did dont even have a working grasp of the situation. Most of the backlash against the anti-war crowd has been of the 'If you dont like America, then get the hell out' variety.
Not that these people aren't entitled to their opinions-- however poorly they were arrived at-- but I, personally have liitle respect for anyone who can justify the mass atrocity that is war without really considering the ramifications.

To your second point: Chris Reeve didn't say vote democrat. He was very open about the fact that he respected Bob Dole a great deal for the great work he had done for the causes of the disabled.
While the Democrats deserve any harsh criticism that you give them for using his plight for their own agenda, you are painting with too broad a brush to indict him too. He had to be aware that he was being used. But the promises of a sitting president and the opportunity to reach such a broad range of decision makers about a cause that is literally integral to your life and well-being is enough that I think any reasonable person has to cut him some slack on that one.

A. Although I'm not saying you are guilty of this, I'm sick of hearing people automatically assume that because we went to war, we didn't consider the ramifications. We did, and the ramifications of NOT going to war to resolve this outweighed those of going to war and the horrible things that have and can occur with that decision. Contrary to popular perception, I do not believe that war means failure. War is a means to an end just like diplomacy, and when one works and the other doesn't, you go with what works. Here, we tried diplomacy for 12 years and had to resort to the other.

Having said that, I don't doubt that a number of people, stoned out of their minds, probably, left that concert with the thought that anti-Bush/war is anti-American, and I agree that that is wrong. But my point at the beginning was that I'm glad Eddie Vedder got to see that just because he's the singer in a popular rock group, his opinion isn't automatically accepted with open arms by everyone, simply because of who he is.

B. I understand your point, but ultimately, to me, it comes down to the fact that he knew what they wanted him for and what people would think and why they would think it. He whored himself out to make his point - a point he probably could have made without a political attachment on countless morning and evening news magazines, btw - and for that, I think he is disgraceful. He might have been able to justify the trade-off in his own mind, but I can't.

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
But my point at the beginning was that I'm glad Eddie Vedder got to see that just because he's the singer in a popular rock group, his opinion isn't automatically accepted with open arms by everyone, simply because of who he is.

Pearl Jam's still popular?

[oykib]

I still say that it was probably his best shot to get something done.

He wrote a book that everone bought, but no one read.
-- nothing happens

He went on every major talk and news program ( including the highest -rated non-Michael Jackson 20/20 of the last fifteen years )
-- nothing happens

He takes a chance with the biggest audience of actual decision makers possible ( the DNC convention of the presumed winner-- making sure to do the talk-show circuit to let everyone know that he doesn't endorse Clinton )
-- nothing happens, but that was his last best chance

Peole still haven't given any real notice to paralysis victims. I have a family friend who is a quadrapalegic, so I can tell you that the abilities of the vast majority of health care workers in this field are laughable. They are trained to keep you alive. The quality of your life is almost beneath their concern. There has not even been real dissemination of the information and breakthroughs learned by the Christopher Reeve situation.
My friend has to keep up with the info himself and direct some of his care workers to it. And he is one of the few with enough money to afford 'good care', as he got a settlement from the party that did this to him.

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
Pearl Jam's still popular?

They're still selling a lot of albums. For a grunge band, that's pretty popular. They may be the only one left that's still together and doing well. I gave up on them after the second album, but apparently a lot of other people were able to handle the "Neil Young years" and stick with them. Not me.

King's X started grunge anyway. Sorry, just had to get that in there.

[cincyreds]

I have never bought a Pearl Jam album because the guy just cannot sing whatsoever!!

I say put him and the Dixie Chicks on a boat and ship them out of this country.

People still do not understand what a special blessing it is to live in this country.

Sure I understand that people have opinions, but please when it it is something like this, I think people need to just keep their mouths shut.

Pearl Jam and the Chicks sure don't have a problem making a lot of money in the states that is for sure. I don't ever hear them complaining about that.

Originally posted by Ksyrup
They may be the only one left that's still together and doing well.

What about The Foo Fighters? Hands down the best grunge band still in existance.

[Easy Mac]

[sarcasm]Yay! Only praise Bush! he's our God! He can't make mistakes![/sarcasm]

On a serious note, does anyone know if they played "jeremy" at the denver concert, that may be a little tasteless if they did?

[oykib]

Originally posted by cincyreds
I have never bought a Pearl Jam album because the guy just cannot sing whatsoever!!

I say put him and the Dixie Chicks on a boat and ship them out of this country.

People still do not understand what a special blessing it is to live in this country.

Sure I understand that people have opinions, but please when it it is something like this, I think people need to just keep their mouths shut.

Pearl Jam and the Chicks sure don't have a problem making a lot of money in the states that is for sure. I don't ever hear them complaining about that.

I've seen this kind of reaction about a billion places. The point of free speech is to allow the people we disagree with to feel free to say what they want. You're free to exercise your rights as a consumer and make them feel a financial backlash for it.

Of course, we;re all free to call these people morons for shelling out the bucks and then walking out.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
Pearl Jam's still popular?

the millions of album sales say yes. They broke a record last year with 18 albums in the billboard 200 at the same time.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by QuikSand
If you hold strong political beliefs, and you have an opportunity to reach many more people than the average joe - isn't it almost a duty to share them?

Speaking of which, did anyone see Dennis Miller on Leno last night? I wonder how he really feels?

[Ksyrup]

I don't consider the Foo Fighters a grunge band, at least not fro mthe standpoint of being around when grunge broke. Although I admit, I don't listen to them, so I can't really compare them to other grunge bands. The songs all sound the same and bore me.

Originally posted by Ksyrup
I don't consider the Foo Fighters a grunge band, at least not fro mthe standpoint of being around when grunge broke. Although I admit, I don't listen to them, so I can't really compare them to other grunge bands. The songs all sound the same and bore me.

Ah, David Grohl is a founding member of Nirvana, arguably the band that single handedly created grunge rock. Besides that, 4 Grammy awards suggest that their music doesn't sound the same or bore to too many people.

[Ksyrup]

Um, I said it bores ME, not anyone else. Just an opinion. Remember your lecture to me from yesterday?

Just because the guy was in a grunge band, doesn't mean his next band is or can be characterized as one as well. I'm sure Amir Derahk of Orgy wouldn't want you to come to the conclusion that Orgy is an 80's hair metal band simply because he was in Rough Cutt. And I didn't even say FF was not a grunge band, beause I don't really like them or listen to them.

...and there is no "arguably" about it, Nirvana did not create grunge. They popularized it, no doubt, but they weren't even together when the first bands (like the Melvins, Soundgarden, and of yeah, King's X) were Drop-D tuning.

[moriarty]

By the way, the article says 'dozens of fans' walked out. Now either Pearl Jam is playing very, very small crowds these days, or the press is trying to make it sound bigger than it really was.

If 24 fans out of a thousand leave the concert, big freakin deal. More people probably leave just because of the noise level.

[Ksyrup]

And it'll turn out that they were just going to take a leak!

Never argued that their music didn't bore YOU or that your opinion wasn't legitimate so I don't see much point in you having repeated or clarifying your original statement. It's not like I didn't get it the first time around.

I will grant you that Nirvana may not have "created" grunge so maybe a poor choice of words on my part. Popularized is a much better word for it. I will even grant you that Soundgarden and the Melvins had a lot to with the grunge movement as well. However according to the All Music Guide The Foo Fighters are in fact consider grunge while King X is not.

Finally, now that I know that you consider our conversations as a one sided lecture these will be my final words to you. Take care and good luck.

[Ksyrup]

The only reason I emphasized that my opinion on FF is just that, is that you're response was that winning Grammys and selling a lot of albums must not bore too many people. My point is that I never said it did, it just bored me!

King's X is definitely not grunge - they are much more diverse than that. Just on vocals alone (3-part harmonies), they couldn't be considered a grunge band. But they were one of the first bands to drop D tune and gave many of the bands who popularized grunge the "road map," if you will, that they followed. Gossard and Ament of PJ are die-hard fans of KX, and in fact, one of the guys wears a KX shirt on PJ's first SNL appearance, and in the movie Singles, there's a KX wristband or shirt again on display. Alice In Chains and STP are also huge KX fans and count them as influences on their music as well. AIC's music has quite a few similarities to KX, and in fact, the album with the dog on it was reportedly (I read it in an article way back when) a nod to KX's Dogman.

I didn't mean to threadjack, but this has always been a sore point for me. For whatever reason, KX has never been popular, but bands (like Collective Soul, for example - Shine is a KX riff) have been taking KX's riffs and general approach and becoming huge for the past 15 years. They actually tried to capitalize on the grunge comparisons with Dogman, which was produced by grunge producer Brendan O'Brien, and that album is as close as they get to grunge. But I have no problem agreeing with you that they are definitely not grunge. No offense to grunge bands, but they are way more than that.

As for your "parting" comment, I see that you can give but not take. I meant no offense, and in fact I believe I apologized for the emotional outburst in yesterday's thread. But I see that you can't let things go, so that's cool. But just for the record, I have no hard feelings - arguing's what I do for a living, so I have an ability, which pisses my wife off, for being able to argue a point and then being able to act as if nothing's happened seconds later.

[JPhillips]

I read that the walkout happened during the encore. Shocking that dozens of people left during the encore, simply shocking. I wouldn't be surprised if this kind of intense pressure gets Eddie Vedder to rethink his position really fast. That audience walkout had to cost them atleast oone or two cd sales!

[WSUCougar]

Anyone know if the colossal squid walked out as well?

It has nothing to do with me being able to give but not take. For two consecutive days I have stated my opinions on a subject based on my personal beliefs yet you felt the need to turn the discussions into a personal attack on me. In no way have I made any of our conversations personal and in no way have I not let something go. You did in fact apologies for coming across as making a personal attack yesterday but today you seemed to have retracted that with your statement about my lecturing you. This was uncalled for. There are plenty of intelligent individuals around these boards for me to converse with and I simply do not have the time for people of the likes of you. Apparently your idea of a debate is to argue and that just doesn’t work for me. Using a profession as an excuse for rudeness is not a good thing to do. People should try to rise above their narrow perceptions of themselves as slaves to their professions and make every attempt at becoming a better person on a whole. Sorry if you don’t agree with that but that is how I see things. No hard feeling but I will refrain from commenting on any remarks that you make in the future so to avoid any misunderstandings. Since you clearly have some well thought out points and can express yourself well I will not resort to using the ignore feature and will continue to read your posts. Cheers.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by WSUCougar
Anyone know if the colossal squid walked out as well?

SAVE THE COLOSSAL SQUID!

[Craptacular]

Originally posted by QuikSand

If you hold strong political beliefs, and you have an opportunity to reach many more people than the average joe - isn't it almost a duty to share them?

I hope not. I don't want to see every celebrity spouting off about some political issue every time they're in front of an audience.

[Craptacular]

The "don't listen" argument only hold so much water. If someone is granted an audience for a particular reason, whether that's a concert, a presentation on traffic safety, a physics lecture, or a sports press conference, most people would be pissed off if the speaker started going off about his/her political views. Obviously, one of the responses an audience can make is to leave. Certainly everyone has the right to speak their mind, but I hope that they realize that there are times and places where it's not proper to do so.

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by couriers
It has nothing to do with me being able to give but not take. For two consecutive days I have stated my opinions on a subject based on my personal beliefs yet you felt the need to turn the discussions into a personal attack on me. In no way have I made any of our conversations personal and in no way have I not let something go. You did in fact apologies for coming across as making a personal attack yesterday but today you seemed to have retracted that with your statement about my lecturing you. This was uncalled for. There are plenty of intelligent individuals around these boards for me to converse with and I simply do not have the time for people of the likes of you. Apparently your idea of a debate is to argue and that just doesn’t work for me. Using a profession as an excuse for rudeness is not a good thing to do. People should try to rise above their narrow perceptions of themselves as slaves to their professions and make every attempt at becoming a better person on a whole. Sorry if you don’t agree with that but that is how I see things. No hard feeling but I will refrain from commenting on any remarks that you make in the future so to avoid any misunderstandings. Since you clearly have some well thought out points and can express yourself well I will not resort to using the ignore feature and will continue to read your posts. Cheers.

No problem. The original remark in my post today was an attempt at sarcasm based on yesterday's issue, not a personal attack. Sarcasm doesn't always come through as it should or is meant to in writing.

Aside from that, there was no attack on your opinion (on the topics being discussed in this thread), so I don't know where you get that impression. My profession is not an excuse for rudeness, it's an excuse for being able to argue passionately and personally about an issue, then be unemotional in the blink of an eye. It's actually a great quality to have, and although a source of confusion for my wife, has helped a great deal in my personal life, since I don't carry personal issues much past the time it takes to finish an argument. And I will do the same with you, so again, no hard feelings.

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by Craptacular
The "don't listen" argument only hold so much water. If someone is granted an audience for a particular reason, whether that's a concert, a presentation on traffic safety, a physics lecture, or a sports press conference, most people would be pissed off if the speaker started going off about his/her political views. Obviously, one of the responses an audience can make is to leave. Certainly everyone has the right to speak their mind, but I hope that they realize that there are times and places where it's not proper to do so.

And this issue is exacerbated when certain celebs, and I'm not going to say whether I think Vedder falls into this category or not, think that their position as movie star, or rock singer, or whatever, entitles them to make their opinion part of who they are or what they do. That because that person is who they are, people should take their opinions more seriously than the guy in the cubicle next to them.

I don't think certain celebs can comprehend that just because someone likes their music or movies or whatever, that they don't also want to believe the same things the celeb believes or support the same causes. Take Rage Against the Machine, for example. I'm conservative and have all of their albums. None of what that guy spouts off has any effect on my beliefs whatsoever. But I bet he thinks he influences far more people than he actually does, because he probably believes people listen to him for his message, not just the music. I like it just because I like the groove. Frankly, the message is comical at times, and certainly entertaining, but doesn't mean much of anything to me in terms of changing my view of the world.

[Hammer755]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
And this issue is exacerbated when certain celebs, and I'm not going to say whether I think Vedder falls into this category or not, think that their position as movie star, or rock singer, or whatever, entitles them to make their opinion part of who they are or what they do. That because that person is who they are, people should take their opinions more seriously than the guy in the cubicle next to them.

I think this guy falls into that category.

[Ksyrup]

Exactly. And good God, giving him the job of President on a TV show was probably just the ego boost he needed to really feel like his opinion should count more than others.

Originally posted by pjstp20
Actually, Dave Grohl just joined the band right before they hit big. They had two drummers previous to him.

That is correct. However I believe that band had not signed with anyone until Grohl joined and this was the period that I was referring to. Sorry I didn't express myself more clearly in my original statements. I wrongfully chose to type my thoughts quickly as they were spinning in my head instead of stopping to think about them first. If I had taken a little more time I would not have referred to Grohl as a "founding" member nor would I have referred to Nirvana as the "creators" of grunge. My apologies.

Ksyrup,

I know that I have said goodbye to you twice already but I couldn't resist posting once more for some reason. So all I really want to say is.............

[Logan]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
On a serious note, does anyone know if they played "jeremy" at the denver concert, that may be a little tasteless if they did?

Nope, they didn't. I'm pretty sure it hasn't been played in a while.

[SackAttack]

Originally posted by QuikSand
While I might agree that there's nothing that really qualifies a particular entertainer to spout off political views... is it necessarily the case that only qualified people should say what they thing, and make an effort to change public opinion?

From where I'm sitting? Sure. Otherwise you get what amounts to shameless emotional pleas to do something when nobody really understands the reasoning behind why something ought or oughtn't to be done. It's like the timeless "Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?!" cry that comes out when all other arguments have failed. It's a shameless invoking of an entity that has no ability to stand up for themselves and say "Whoa, slow down, buster, leave me out of this."

You wouldn't ask Donald Rumsfeld to be a judge of musical talent for a record label, would you? Then why, for the love of whatever deity you choose to believe in, would you ask a musician or actor (who probably didn't finish college, let alone high school) to speak out on a topic like why we're going to war, and treat it as though it were an informed, intelligent answer?

If you hold strong political beliefs, and you have an opportunity to reach many more people than the average joe - isn't it almost a duty to share them? Not necessarily that you are an expert or otherwise "qualified" but if you can take the stage and convince people that they need to stop the war, or stop abortion, or stop jaywalking -- whatever your cause-- isn't that an appropriate use of the public eye?

No, not really, because the public eye isn't on you because you believe fur is bad or war is wrong or jaywalking is dangerous. The public eye is on you because you have a particular talent, whether that's hitting a baseball, hitting high C, or an incredible stream-of-consciousness humor track (e.g. Robin Williams). If you take advantage of that concert platform, that comedy routine, what have you, to spout your own political views in front of however many hundreds or thousands of people showed up, you're essentially taking advantage of a captive audience who attended for a completely different reason.

Put another way, many of these people may be going to the ballgame, the concert, whatever, as an escape from the near-constant coverage of the war. They just want an evening to relax. What the hell gives the performer the right to intrude on that just because they're "famous"? Give the people what they came to see, and get the hell off the stage. Nobody gives a damn what you think about the plight of your cause celebre.

[i]I realize you aren't calling for the government to shut down Eddie Vedder (though perhaps a case can be made there), so this isn't a matter of the First Amendment or basic freedoms. But, I wonder - at what point does it become no longer "childish and idiotic" for someone like him to do so? Does that, perhaps, depend on whether his views coincide with yours? Are the (admittedly less frequent) conservative celebrity spokeshacks out there equally idiotic in your mind?

Depends why they're celebrities in the first place. If it's a conservative celebrity musician or athlete, then yeah, absolutely. If your audience is your audience for your political views in the first place, then that's one matter. They're getting what they came for (or, possibly, the other side of the story if they *don't* agree). But I honestly don't think *any* entertainment celebrity ought to be using their platform to push their pet causes. Whether or not I agree with them. If they honestly think somebody is sitting out in that audience or at home saying "My God, Eddie Vedder is right, how could I have been so blind?! I'm now against the war!", then I have to question the mental acuity of our citizenry (not that I didn't already have doubts, but...).

And no, I don't think the government ought to shut them up. I think they ought to have a little common sense and shut up their own damn selves.

Josh

Edit: forgot the quote brackets.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by couriers
Ah, David Grohl is a founding member of Nirvana, arguably the band that single handedly created grunge rock. Besides that, 4 Grammy awards suggest that their music doesn't sound the same or bore to too many people.

founding member? I think you need to hire a new fact-checker.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by couriers
That is correct. However I believe that band had not signed with anyone until Grohl joined and this was the period that I was referring to.

This is also wrong. Dave Grohl joined them after they had released the album "bleach" on Sub Pop records.

edited: to make title of album bold.

[Ksyrup]

There are certainly some entertainers who have successfully melded politics/views with their comedy or music, and the audience expects that from them, whether they agree or not. Bill Hicks was masterful at this. His pro-smoking rant and his "if it wasn't for drugs music would suck" sermons were hilarious and a part of his act. At the same time, I can't stand listening to Gallagher go off on social issues. Smash the damn watermelon and shut the hell up!

Perhaps Martin Sheen's position as pseudo-President makes him think that he has crossed that line and should be taken seriously as an actor/activist by virtue of his job. That he is somehow different from, say, Alec Baldwin, who "threatened" to leave the country if Bush was elected (we're waiting for you to make good on your threat, buddy...). Sadly, he's not.

[dawgfan]

Originally posted by Craptacular
The "don't listen" argument only hold so much water. If someone is granted an audience for a particular reason, whether that's a concert, a presentation on traffic safety, a physics lecture, or a sports press conference, most people would be pissed off if the speaker started going off about his/her political views. Obviously, one of the responses an audience can make is to leave. Certainly everyone has the right to speak their mind, but I hope that they realize that there are times and places where it's not proper to do so.

A few points:

A) This is a country that protects free speech. Vedder has every right to express his opinions about the war, provided he's not endangering the lives of his audience members (i.e. not yelling "fire" in a crowded theater).

B) This country operates as a capitalistic society, and we have the ability to make choices on how to spend our money. If people are unhappy with listening to the political views of musicians, they are free to stop buying their albums, concert tickets, associated swagg, etc.

While I sympathize with those who are fans of Pearl Jam's music but are uninterested in hearing his political views in concert, I have to say that it shouldn't come as any surprise. Pearl Jam has always had overt political messages in its' music and Vedder has never been shy about expressing his opinions in public.

You expressed one option for audience members offended by a public figure's political rantings is to leave; another obvious one is to not buy a ticket in the first place. If you go see a speech on film by Michael Moore, you have to expect that he'll share his political views in the process; same thing if you go see a radio seminar featuring Rush Limbaugh.

[Franklinnoble]

Personally, I'm disappointed in Vedder. I was a big Pearl Jam fan, and bought every album they made until Riot Act came out.

I think the war in Iraq is an honorable and just cause, especially in the wake of what happened on 9/11/01. I'm sorry to see Vedder take the same "head up his own ass" anti-war stance as so many other pampered celebrity types.

[ShovelMonkey]

To me this is silly critisising someone for their opinion. Isn't that what we are fighting for? The right for those people to have the same right as we to hold an opinion. Let Eddie Vedder have his opinion. After all, if you actually read the story it's clear that they support our men and women in the service, just not the "foreign policy makers."

There's a difference between opposing the war and opposing our troops. It's a fine line, granted, but it exists. I myself support the war, but I respect the opinions of those people who don't. So long as the don't throw our troops out with the bathwater while doing it.

[Craptacular]

Originally posted by dawgfan
A few points:

A) This is a country that protects free speech. Vedder has every right to express his opinions about the war,
...
B) This country operates as a capitalistic society, and we have the ability to make choices on how to spend our money. If people are unhappy with listening to the political views of musicians, they are free to stop buying their albums, concert tickets, associated swagg, etc.
...
You expressed one option for audience members offended by a public figure's political rantings is to leave; another obvious one is to not buy a ticket in the first place. If you go see a speech on film by Michael Moore, you have to expect that he'll share his political views in the process; same thing if you go see a radio seminar featuring Rush Limbaugh.

dawgfan,

I hope it was clear that I never said or implied that people don't have the right of free speech. The last sentence of my previous post started with "Certainly everyone has the right to speak their mind". I also don't think people should be surprised when Pearl Jam or Moore or Limbaugh speak out. My point was that celebrities, public figures and Joe Schmoe should realize that not every forum is a good place for them to spew their political views. I agree with your general view that in our society, we have the ability to speak with our money. However, saying that people shouldn't have bought tickets to an event in the first place if they didn't like what they heard is the easy way out.

For example, let's say that I'm brought in to give a speech on traffic safety at a conference. Attendees are paying $350 for a one-day session that includes myself and three other speakers. My turn comes up, and I start spouting off about how it's about time we went after Saddam and his henchman, that we should go after Syria next, that protestors should be abused, and that the U.N. is a useless piece of crap. A number of people in the audience start shouting in disapproval. Should I simply tell them that they should leave, or that they shouldn't have bought tickets if they didn't want to hear about anything and everything that I believe about subjects that are completely unrelated to the topic they expected to hear? They paid to hear me talk about traffic safety, not my views on the war. Do I have the right to free speech? Of course! Would that be a proper forum to espouse my beliefs? No way!