Denver show on 04/03/03 was just plain....

Penrose · #71 04-08-2003, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myguitar

Penrose,

How and where do you get the credibility to call me a liar?

He DID say F U to Pearl Jam and Justin Timberlake and I wish there were more Coloradans on this board who have seen the show to rub it all in your face. My friend who was there too told me she was mad about the comment because she is a Timberpusst fan...

Get the facts and then post your comments. Prove me wrong if you can, oherwise shut your hole...

Here is why Jon said what he did about Pearl Jam..

Looks like the flag was not burned, I was misinformed by a few people but I don't know if that is true or care to know.
The point is IF there are 20,000+ fans who pay almost $100.00 for a ticket than you should watch what you say and maybe not bash the troops or the President because half of these people have family or friends overseas. That was pure act of hatred by Pearl Jam.

As far as views on war, I think that Bon Jovi are most likely of same opinion as Pearl Jam are but the difference is that Jon (known for not supporting Bush) didn't go off and talk crap about our fellow US and UK troops or the pres because he knows for sure that there are many people in that crowd that support, vote and cheer for President Bush, Mr. Blair and their actions.

I don't support war or President Bush but I do think that what PJ did was morally wrong. Once again, they make money and a living off these fans so they need not express their opinions about this issue. Just because their fans came to see them it doesn't mean they all have same views on politics as the band does.

Honestly, I thought Oasis were the only dumb-asses capable of crap like this..

By the way, I know that Bon Jovi has issued a lot of ballads lately but they are still more accomplished ROCKERS than Pearl Jam. And when was the last time you heard Pearl Jam play a song at the tempo of, hmmm, let's say "Bad Name" or "Runaway"? They are the kings of crappy depressive ballads and I think they have nothing to do with rock and roll. Bounce still as great rock songs on it to make it a better album than the Riot Act. Just look at the scans, Pearl Jam is not selling as well as Bon Jovi and they are both in the ROCK category.

I think that Jon said what he did because he was angered by Eddie Wedder's actions towards his fans. Jon still dedicated The Distance to the troops even though we all know that he is against this war. Eddie bashed the troops because he hates Bush and thinks that they support him. Well...... not all those troops overseas support Bush. As a matter of fact 6 out of 8 of my buddies who are now in Iraq are Democrats.

I've always been against Bush because he wants to drill in Alaska Wildlife Refuge for oil. BUT, I don't argue about Bush and about the war with my friends because I don't want them to get mad at me if they are of different opinion..... hmmmmmm same reason that Jon didn't discuss war with the fans at the concert.

Get it????

I've tried and succeeded not to say personal comments to you but I am now about to fail.

Are you stupid or something? Pearl Jam never insulted the troops, they said that they supported them. They just insulted George Shrub. Here is what happened since it seems you are too retarded to go and actually look up what happened from a reputable source. You seem content with hearing what happened from other idiots:

Dozens of fans walked out of a Pearl Jam concert in the US after singer Eddie Vedder impaled a mask of President Bush on a microphone stand.
Several members of the audience booed and shouted for Vedder to shut up as he told the crowd he was against the war and Mr Bush.

The incident happened during the encore of the band's opening show of a US tour in Denver, Colorado.

Vedder used the mask during the song Bushleaguer from Pearl Jam's latest album, Riot Act.

We looked at each other and realised he really did have George Bush's head on a stick and was waving it in the air

Kim Mueller, Pearl Jam fan
The song's lyrics say: "He's not a leader, he's a Texas leaguer."

Vedder, who had used the Bush mask at previous shows in Australia and Japan, said that the band was behind the efforts of US soldiers in Iraq.

"Just to clarify... we support the troops," he said.

"We're just confused on how wanting to bring them back safely all of a sudden becomes non-support.

Just to clarify... we support the troops

Eddie Vedder, Pearl Jam singer
"We love them. They're not the ones who make the foreign policy. Let's hope for the best and speak our opinions."

But it was too much for some fans who left the venue in protest.

One, Kim Mueller, told Denver's Rocky Mountain News: "I wasn't sure if it was really happening.

"We looked at each other and realised he really did have George Bush's head on a stick and was waving it in the air, then slammed it to the ground and stepped on it."

Fan Keith Zimmerman added: "It was like he decapitated someone in a primal ritual and stuck their head on a stick."

Pearl Jam manager Kelly Curtis was not available for comment.

Pearl Jam are the latest music artists to get caught up in controversy about the war in Iraq.

Country superstars the Dixie Chicks have had their CDs destroyed and their shows boycotted after singer Natalie Maines said the group was ashamed of President Bush.

Madonna is withdrawing a promotional video for her forthcoming single, which shows her in combat gear and a grenade being hurled at a Mr Bush lookalike.

Myguitar · #72 04-08-2003, 04:37 AM

Look dude,
He said that he supports the troops after the show. How come BBC doesn't mention that this moron called the troops invaders?? Bush and his Invareds to be exact... This was in the beginning of the set not at the same time the mask incident happened. Someone shouted SHUT UP and Eddie heard it and said some crap about how this was "Freedom of speech" and he would practice it as much as he could because it would soon go away anyway. What the hell??

Maybe BBC didn't comment on the troops line because it was a part of Eddie's speech and that happens all the time with a lot of bands. It's the freedom to express you know... Not even all the protest get coverage on your BBC and our CNN. Pulling out a mask is a different story, an ignorant action, probably as bad as burning a flag. You get my point here?

Good.

The bottom line is that Eddie Vedder is wrong for insulting his fans. Tickets aren't exactly affordable you know? We have enough war coverage on CNN, FOX, MSN and so on and we don't need a hippie to tell us what is right and wrong when we only came in here for the entertainment. He should have at least tried and saved these comments for a show in a Non-Military and Democratic state. Colorado is a Republican, mostly pro-Bush state where most of US arsenal is stored and most folks here are somehow involved in the military.

Penrose · #73 04-08-2003, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myguitar

Look dude,
He said that he supports the troops after the show.

Did you hear that from 'someone who was at the show' too. Even CNN says that he said it during the show:

DENVER, Colorado (AP) -- Dozens of fans walked out of a Pearl Jam concert after lead singer Eddie Vedder took a mask of President Bush and impaled it on a microphone stand.

Several concertgoers booed and shouted Tuesday night for Vedder to shut up as he told the crowd he was against the war and Bush. He impaled the mask during the encore of the band's opening show of a U.S. tour.

"It was like he decapitated someone in a primal ritual and stuck their head on a stick," fan Keith Zimmerman said.

Vedder used a Bush mask in Australia and Japan to perform the song "Bushleaguer," from the band's latest album, "Riot Act." The song's lyrics say, "He's not a leader, he's a Texas leaguer."

During the show, Vedder said: "Just to clarify... we support the troops."

"We're just confused on how wanting to bring them back safely all of a sudden becomes non-support," he said. "We love them. They're not the ones who make the foreign policy .... Let's hope for the best and speak our opinions."

Pearl Jam manager Kelly Curtis could not immediately be reached for comment Thursday.

The Dixie Chicks were the target of boycotts and bans after their lead singer made anti-Bush statements on a London stage last month.

Santa_Fe · #74 04-08-2003, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike McRock

Rubish, creibility is based on ones ideas, what they are doing now, not what they have done...... If you were brilliant, but have gone senile, don't know whats going on around you, and you make a comment on a piece of work within your field, you're opinion woudln't be that credible..... Similarly, I'd say people don't think that George Bush is that credible as President.....although on your basis, only the past Presidents can make any sort of judgement, as they're the only ones who are up to his 'level'.

THat really is absolute rubish...... Jon was at his most credible in the late 80's. If you listen to anybody talking about the band who lived through that period, and were rock fans in general, that' what they point to with Bon Jovi..... Just a few weeks ago, there was a guy talking about Bounce on the rock radio, saying something like "Bon Jovi now are just a very good pop band, who play rock. They're great at selling records, and have produced a good album. However they're days of rocking, and pushing rock are well and truely over, and I think Jon has come to realise that within Bon Jovi he's never going to be able to win the respect of Springsteen". That was basically it, that nowerdays it's just selling to a market. I know a lot of peole have felt this. Thus Bon Jovi's credbibility now is much less, or rather Jon's is, becuase the albums aren't respected as much. It's like they're recognised for still going, but not in the light other bands, who have stuck to their guns are reguarded. Even if the critics are softer with the new stuff, it doesn't mean anything, because the 80's was when Jon's opinion, when the bands music mattered. Just take the stage shows, or the fact they headlined Moscow Peace festival......

Are you using the royal "we" there? Beacause as far as I'm concerned, I am as credible in the rock field, as I do like 100% rock, whereas Jon likes a lot of pop music, writes a lot of pop music, achnowleges the need to write for a market.....which isn't rock and roll

This is an interesting discussion.

Everyone got ideas. How we can materialize them - that's what counts.
That's why I claim that achievements count towards credibility, not ideas.

Let's not confuse authority with credibility. Bush got lots of authority. So much authority that he was able to start a war. That doesn't mean that he is credible as a President. When people (mostly historians, other politicians, law people, political science people) analyse his actions and the propriety of them, they will decide on his credibility as a President. In my eyes, he is not a good President.

People have resumes. And basically people's resumes outline their credibility and qualification in their fields. Once some achievement is in a resume - it stays there forever. That's why I'd like to believe that credibility and qaulification cannot decrease (if you are not sick of course). After a while they stop increasing though.

Why people keep on comparing Jon with Bruce? Jon is 41. Bruce was 41 in 1991. Let's compare Jon of today with Bruce of 1991. Actually I don't think Bruce is Jon's aspiration at all. Jon seems to aspire to The Rolling Stones. Knowing Jon's career drive and ambitions, I don't think he is gonna beat a dead horse. If he keeps the band together, he believes in it. Crush, as much as I didn't like it, made them relevant in the US again. That's a big achievement. Bounce is a transition period from Crush to something else. Let's see where they go next.

I'm not gonna reply to your last paragraph.

Santa_Fe · #75 04-08-2003, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by letitrock

i like to hear Jon's political views often - it gives you a deeper insight into the person sometimes and at a show can make it a little special (depending on what is said) but your statement that "what I said here about credibility and everything still holds" is rubbish...

if you really want to throw all that maths PHd jargon at me then remember that music is an arts subject unlike maths, a science.

What qualifications do you think music critics (even some of our most respected and most famous) have???
They have none (usually) - they are writers who write what they think

You can hear Jon's political views plenty. Just not on Bon Jovi stage.

I simply gave an example from my field because that's my field. I don't think the core is all that different for arts subjects. We all have resumes that show our credibility and qualification. All our life we try to extend our resumes. The requirements for good resumes are different however.

I'm sure music critics have some criteria within their field that define a good critic for them. But IMO as musicians they are not credible. They only got ideas. If I don't see those critics' credentials and qualifications that prove that they know what they talk about (true in most cases), I don't give a shite about what they say. Be it good or bad. I go - okay, next! and move on. Of course some of them are better than others but it's still mostly iddle talk. (Just like on these boards.)

letitrock · #76 04-08-2003, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Santa_Fe

Quote:

Originally Posted by letitrock

i like to hear Jon's political views often - it gives you a deeper insight into the person sometimes and at a show can make it a little special (depending on what is said) but your statement that "what I said here about credibility and everything still holds" is rubbish...

if you really want to throw all that maths PHd jargon at me then remember that music is an arts subject unlike maths, a science.

What qualifications do you think music critics (even some of our most respected and most famous) have???
They have none (usually) - they are writers who write what they think

You can hear Jon's political views plenty. Just not on Bon Jovi stage.

I simply gave an example from my field because that's my field. I don't think the core is all that different for arts subjects. We all have resumes that show our credibility and qualification. All our life we try to extend our resumes. The requirements for good resumes are different however.

I'm sure music critics have some criteria within their field that define a good critic for them. But IMO as musicians they are not credible. They only got ideas. If I don't see those critics' credentials and qualifications that prove that they know what they talk about (true in most cases), I don't give a shite about what they say. Be it good or bad. I go - okay, next! and move on. Of course some of them are better than others but it's still mostly iddle talk. (Just like on these boards.)

your field is different

for me i'm being taught by the best historians in the world but i am constantly told by them that my opinion is just as valid as theirs - i have to criticise their own views

music critics only gain 'greatness' through being critical, the real ones had the opportunity to make or break a band's carreer - critics have been destroyed though by the music industry and their opinion means nothing.

you've lost your point here - not let Penrose and co. get back to the original 'political' point and if not start a new post or just PM me

letitrock · #77 04-08-2003, 12:03 PM

Quote:

He said that he supports the troops after the show. How come BBC doesn't mention that this moron called the troops invaders?? Bush and his Invareds to be exact...

we hear those words all the time on our tv screens - I'm not doubting it is different for you and the USA

i don't see a problem with that since by definition they are invaders

Denver show on 04/03/03 was just plain....

Tour Discussion