Article comments

Subscribe to comment RSS

• 1 - Le Saboteur

  Apr 05, 2003 at 3:31 pm

  Ed Ved and Pearl Jam are also known for taking on political issues. Vedder's been an outspoken advocate for Nader. In their latest fanclub newsletter, Pearl Jam had contributions from Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn. Going to a show, one expects Eddie Vedder to say something -- whether it's scribbling pro choice on his arm with a marker or impaling a mask of Bush. At a show in San Francisco on Halloween 2000, Vedder did something similar, with the participation of an audience member constumed as Dubya.
  

• 2 - Eric Olsen

  Apr 05, 2003 at 3:35 pm

  Thanks Le Sab, very important points I didn't emphasize enough. Thanks.

• 3 - Chris

  Apr 05, 2003 at 3:55 pm

  Speaking as someone who is neither a Dixie Chicks, nor a Pearl Jam fan, I'd argue that part of why the Chicks got more attention is that, you know, they still sell records. A lot of folks echoed Glenn Reynolds (or v.v.) when he said, "Pearl Jam's still together?" Pearl Jam hasn't been relevant, outside of a very small demographic, for years now. The Dixie Chicks at least have commercial relevance.
  
  I'm kinda with Le Sab on this, but with a twist: I don't expect adult behavior out of Eddie Vedder. While silly, his antics aren't really more advanced than a four year-old's. We shouldn't be surprised -- or, honestly, offended, any more than we would be by a stupid four year old.

• 4 - Eric Olsen

  Apr 05, 2003 at 4:01 pm

  Chris, I'm not sure I would go that far about PJ's irrelevance: they still sell out large venues, their albums still chart high and sell, and they have a large number of rabid fans. That said, I agree they aren't in the public eye as they once were, or like the DC's are. But I still think a bigger reason is the demographics of the fans, their relative expectations, the timing, as per above.

• 5 - Le Saboteur

  Apr 05, 2003 at 5:11 pm

  Eric, I think you are correct about the demographics of the respective bands. It's also important where each band is heard on the radio dial. Even at Pearl Jam's height, circa 1993-1996, the band wasn't played on top40 or country radio, where the DCs can be heard now. I am not saying those DJs are any dumber than rock DJs, but I would say they are more apt to flog a story like the DCs' (read: do stunts like crushing their CDs) than a rock DJ would over a musician's political views. I mean, how many rock DJs crushed Limp Bizkit's CDs after Fred Durst said his 'in agreeance' comment at the grammys? Maybe they did, but I didn't hear about it.

• 6 - Woland

  Apr 05, 2003 at 5:42 pm

  Chris,
  
  While exceedingly lame, your post needs a reply. It's clear that in your opinion Vedder's antics on stage were immature. Sooooo. Besides the speech he gave, where he mentioned his disagreement with US policies and gave support to troops, he used a Bush mask during a song.
  
  So what is so immature about that? Should he have pulled out the ol' chalk board and gave a lecture? Surely the idea of a visual, theatrical aid during a song has no place at a goddam rock concert!

• 7 - InMarin

  Apr 05, 2003 at 9:16 pm

  Here's a review from a writer that has no political agenda:
  
  Pearl Jam now classic rockers - '90s grunge stars fresh, passionate at Pepsi Center show
  
  But even though Vedder has cut his hair, he hasn't cut back on polemics. He wasn't overly garrulous during the set, but he made a few anti-war remarks.
  
  "You got a minute for this?" he asked as he started to relate a conversation with a Gulf War helicopter pilot. Moments later, he stopped in mid-sentence. "Did somebody say "Shut up'? There's something called freedom of speech ... It doesn't feel like we've evolved at all in 20 years."
  
  Returning to the stage for an encore, Vedder said, "In regard to what was said earlier, we support the troops." Someone tossed a glow-ring at the stage, and he flinched, then chuckled - "A Scud!"
  
  Vedder donned a George Bush mask for "Bushleaguer," his political song from "Riot Act." Talk-singing the verses, he took a few digs at the president: "He's not a leader, he's a Texas leaguer ... Born on third, thinks he got a triple." It wasn't particularly melodious or eloquent, but he got a big hand. "We follow Ed's intuition, where he wants to go," Gossard said. "He's the leader of the band."
  
  Quite a difference, eh?
  
  

• 8 - Tom Johnson

  Apr 05, 2003 at 11:58 pm

  I think part of the difference is that fans already know that Pearl Jam is anti-Bush. Fans also know to expect random political ranting from Eddie from time to time. I don't think it's to get publicity. However much I disagree with Eddie's views, they do seem heart-felt (maybe a little too much, Ed's always been a bit of a drama-queen.) The Dixie Chicks sound as if they did it simply for effect. Just look at the phrasing - "Just so you know . . . " That's the kind of comment you hear coming from someone who's backstabbing someone else to get ahead. You know, like a whispered slam against a supposedly "good" friend when they aren't around. It wasn't genuine and it sounded like a cop-out to a sympathetic audience in Europe. Done for pure effect, devoid of any real meaning or importance. And coming from the Dixie Chicks, who have come across as these wholesome Texas sweethearts who just sing down-home good ol' fashion bluegrass/country, it seems ingenuine. It was Natalie Maines trying on her 'self-important' hat. It didn't fit. And now they're paying for it by having alienated a large part of their home audience. Seems perfectly fitting to me.
  
  That said, when I go see a concert, I want to hear music. I don't want to hear the band's political views spelled out for me. If it's that important, put it into a song. Otherwise, shut up and play your guitar. My views won't be changed because Eddie spots off some lame theory on Bush, or because Natalie snips at the president. I've said it before and I'm saying it again: please, people, please do not get your politics from entertainers. Their opinions are no more valid than anyone else's and may very often have ulterior motives (hello, publicity) driving them. You would do as well to point at a random stranger on the street and ask for that person's opinion. Would you trust it? Probably not. And you shouldn't trust Eddie's or Natalie's views either. Watch the news, read the paper. Do something proactive, instead of reactive like these celebs.

• 9 - Anna Kissed

  Apr 06, 2003 at 9:18 am

  Tom I agree with most of what you said. But I think people forget that most musicians are artists. Going to a concert isn't like going to a restaurant were you tell the waiter what you want to hear and s/he plays it for you. It's an artistic, sometimes theatrical, performance. Often it's a journey. If you don't like to trip buy the CD or better still jump an elevator to the 45th floor, there's plenty of "shut up and play..." music in there.

• 10 - ronbailey

  Apr 06, 2003 at 11:12 am

  One big difference can be summed up in three words: Clear Channel Communications.
  
  CCC publicized Maine's comments at every turn, banned the group from corporate playlists, and built flag-waving rallies on the basis of an admittedly ill-considered choice of words, all in an effort to look "patriotic".
  
  It's no coincidence that all this took place when it did, as the FCC is currently considering a proposal to further loosen radio market-share regulations. Like most music industry issues, it all comes down to money and image. Clear Channel wants the FCC see things their way, and they used the Dixie Chicks to make themselves look good.

• 11 - KC

  Apr 06, 2003 at 1:34 pm

  I think that you are right, Anna. Pearl Jam has an activist left slant. Eddie is a political guy and likes to talk about it. If you don't want to see that, don't go to the show! He didn't put a commerical on national TV, he just did some things at his own show.
  
  I was actually at that Denver show, and it was a bit surreal when he came out in the Bush mask and all, but to me it was just all part of the act. I saw very few people leave early, and if there were any boos they were inaudible to me. I think that a concert would be less enjoyable if the band just played one song after another all the way through.
  
  I don't agree with Eddie's politics, but if he wants to tell everyone how he feels, it doesn't really affect me. If Natalie Maines wants to say something at her own concert, fine. I think that the expectation factor plays a very big part in the reaction.
  
  

• 12 - Dave Mangan

  Apr 06, 2003 at 2:11 pm

  Look, you want to know what the big difference is, look at who the music is aimed at, OK? The people who listen to country music are the ones who still tear up at Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA", wear blue jeans and Stetson's and drive pick-up trucks, while Pearl Jam's fans are the ones more likely to wear "Free Mumia" t-shirts, drive VW Bugs and smoke a lot of dope.
  
  You want to see the country music demographic? Watch NASCAR. There's still a prayer before the cars start, as well as a huge military presence, mostly color guards holding the flag during pre-race festivities. This is NOT the crowd who reacts well to people bashing the Prez. To be honest, I'm more suprised that people walked out of a Pearl Jam concert than I am with the fans reactions to the Dixie Chicks.
  
  And yeah, I listen to country music.

• 13 - InMarin

  Apr 06, 2003 at 4:02 pm

  You mean NASCAR folks don't listen to rock-n-roll? (You should inform the Fox network of this as they use rock and roll in their NASCAR promos - that could alienate some folks!) Or smoke dope? Or drive anything but pickup trucks?
  
  Oh Dave, Dave, Dave...what's up dude? I bet good money you've got a Zepplin album tucked away somewhere.

• 14 - ricky d

  Apr 06, 2003 at 4:08 pm

  that article from undercover doesnt tell the whole story though...
  vedders free speech comment came after a fan shouted at him to shut up. he then went on to bravely defend free speech. while im glad he didnt try and shut up the yeller himself, that guy was exercising as much free speech as vedder and pj in front of 12,000 fans. tackling the issue of what free speech does and doesnt cover is another issue.
  basically, it wasnt completely unsolicited. and as gross as the bush defamation was, i personally think a person is entitled to yell shut up or whatever else they want to a music artist making a fringe political stand.

• 15 - Jeremy

  Apr 06, 2003 at 5:54 pm

  The difference is largely because Pearl Jam is now not that popular, while the Dixie Chicks are quite popular right now.
  
  Pearl Jams were big in the early 90s, for a while it seemed you couldn't turn on a radio and not hear one of their songs.
  
  http://www.billboard.com/bb/charts/bb200.jsp
  
  Dixies Chicks at at #16 on the chart (and top of the country chart). Pearl Jam is no where to be found, at least in the top 100.
  
  12,000 isn't exactly a huge amount at a concert, either.

• 16 - Jeremy

  Apr 06, 2003 at 5:57 pm

  For instance, Cher, just had a concert with 8,000 fans. So Pearl Jam is 50% more popular than Cher. Whee!

• 17 - Karl

  Apr 06, 2003 at 7:05 pm

  Of course much of the difference is the audience's expectations. But the part that interests me is Pearl Jam's reaction to the criticism. The band focuses on "Ed's talk" about freedom of speech, when it was the symbolic equivalent of impaling the President's head on a pike that had people leaving the show.

  The band's response is not unlike MSNBC's firing of Peter Arnett. The stated reason was for giving an interview to Iraqi TV, but his comments would have had the same effect if said elsewhere and rebroadcast there. The problem with Arnett was that praising Saddam's treatment of the press while four reporters were rotting in a dungeon and his claim that anti-war sentiment was rising in the US when polling data showed the exact opposite. It was further proof that Arnett remained an anti-American poropagandist, not an objective reporter. But MSNBC could not admit that because of what it would have said about the decision to hire him in the first place, given his reputation. Pearl Jam's attempt to spin the walkout as being against free speech is much the same...they don't want to defend sticking the President's head on a pike as an artistic statement. Moreover, Ed & Co. are so hopelessly earnest that it will never occur to them that their complaint about the press focusing on a small minority of people acting in protest at one of their shows is just a tad ironic -- not to say hypocritical -- in light of the extent to which the US press focused coverage the minority anti-war view here. I guess Ed is one of those guys who defends dissent...so long as it isn't directed at him.

• 18 - Mark

  Apr 06, 2003 at 7:06 pm

  I detest PJ's politics but musically irrelevant, I think not. Before the Bush bruha they sold out a local, small venue(8 or 9 thousand) tickets in hours. The Chicks could do the same thing but a heck of a lot of 90's musical acts couldn't do that around here without a small army to round up the fans. As far as record sales go, I would look into the Pearl Jam
  effect(downloading) before totally trashing their sales. MTV went (c)rap and their popularity has faded but, at least, locally there is strong interest in their concerts.

• 19 - JorgXMcKie

  Apr 06, 2003 at 7:43 pm

  Well, regardless of what kind of music one listens to, one widely missed point is exactly what "free speech" consists of. Essentially, it means tha the government and government related entities may not pre-censor speech, i.e. prevent it from occurring. It emphatically does not mean that celebrities or anyone else has a right to say anything they want without counter criticism.
  
  Any corporation, business, artist, or act that is stupid enough to say things that piss off their main customers deserves to get whatever fallout occurs. My guess is that PJ will get little or no fallout. So what. On the other hand Eddie Vedder is flat out wrong when he equates someone yelling "shut up" with some sort of restraint of free speech rights under the First Amendment.
  
  The real problem with artists is their changrin and anger when they say something stupid and people point it out. They are used to being surrounded by ass-kissers of various stripes, and the shock is too much.

• 20 - Chris

  Apr 06, 2003 at 8:37 pm

  Woland:
  
  I didn't even expect a response to my "exceedingly lame" points, but here goes:
  
  While excruciatingly poorly phrased, your post needs a reply. It's clear that you either didn't pay attention to the article in question; did, but lack reading comprehension; or are engaging in sophistry. My issue -- and I apologize for not making this clearer -- is not with the cliche anti-Bush speech (or Vedder's atrocious lyrics), Vedder's knee-jerk politics, or even whatever might be inspiring his "thinking;" it's that he chose to express his, um, thoughts, in about as juvenile and egocentric a manner as possible. He didn't just "use[] a Bush mask during a song," he impaled the thing, then smashed it into the stage. That, dear Woland, is what's immature. It's the act of an adolescent, seeking maximum emotive impact, with little thought to logic or reason; it is, in short, a temper tantrum. And that, believe it or not, is a "juvenile" thing to do.
  
  Explicit imagery is of course an important (if, I'd argue, secondary) component of a concert; but it is the choice of imagery to which I object.
  
  As an added note, had he done the same thing to someone on the other side of the spectrum, I would find it just as juvenile and repulsive. Sorry.
  
  Le Sab: I'm gonna mildly disagree on two points. First, I listened to Top 40 from 1993-1997, and can indeed report that Pearl Jam had more than a few songs there (at least in the three major markets to which I was exposed) during that time period. Second, and this is perhaps reflective of the political beliefs where I live, but the rock DJs around here didn't leave Durst alone for a week or two (although they were making fun of his grammar more than anything).
  
  Eric: All salient points.

• 21 - Craig Ranapia (OtherPundit)

  Apr 06, 2003 at 8:49 pm

  I suspect the disparity is quite simple: I'd be more shocked if Eddie Vedler had anything complimentary to say about the Bush Reg... sorry, Administration.

• 22 - Stephen

  Apr 07, 2003 at 12:09 am

  CCC publicized Maine's comments at every turn, banned the group from corporate playlists, and built flag-waving rallies on the basis of an admittedly ill-considered choice of words, all in an effort to look "patriotic".
  
  That doesn't make any sense, since Clear Channel owns plenty of rock stations as well. So if it was a CCC-directed move to look patriotic, then they logically would have done the same thing to Pearl Jam that you say they did to the Dixie Chicks.
  
  All of the reasons I can think of for the disparate coverage have been touched on here, so I don't really need to dwell on it. I do think audience perception/expectations of the musicians in question is important. I can remember Pearl Jam hosting a pro-abortion benefit concert locally to promote their first album back in the day. And I refused (and still refuse) to buy an album of theirs because I don't want my money going there or any of the other left-wing causes they support, but I don't think most of their target audience cares about their political leanings either way. The ones that WOULD care about Pearl Jam being ultra-leftists have left them in the dust long ago.
  
  As to the Dixie Chicks, don't forget that their patriotic image was cemented with a beautifully done rendition of the national anthem sung to the largest television audience of the year at the Super Bowl. That made the anti-Bush comments all the more surprising.

• 23 - Jason

  Apr 07, 2003 at 12:34 am

  "I mean, how many rock DJs crushed Limp Bizkit's CDs after Fred Durst said his 'in agreeance' comment at the grammys?"
  
  I think they were too busy laughing at the absurdity. The performer of "Break Stuff", who many think is responsible for helping start the riots at Woodstock '99, is suddenly a "peace" activist? That's funny!

• 24 - Babylon

  Apr 07, 2003 at 1:18 am

  "I mean, how many rock DJs crushed Limp Bizkit's CDs after Fred Durst said his 'in agreeance' comment at the grammys?"
  
  The problem is, nobody would admit to owning one of their CDs in the first place.

• 25 - James Haney

  Apr 07, 2003 at 2:27 am

  I think one point that is being underemphasized so far is that Eddie Vedder made his comments in Denver while Natalie Maines made hers in London. I suspect that matters to some people.