The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
Joined: Tue September 24, 2013 5:56 pm Posts: 47141 Location: In the oatmeal aisle wearing a Shellac shirt
Parts of that interview are perfect evidence for my " The band is complicit in his suicide" argument from a while back:
But that wasn’t always the case with the band. In Scott, you were having to be around someone who might not have felt the same way. How did you get through that?
Yeah, Scott was the complete opposite. Scott’s existence was the complete opposite. Scott’s harmony was that it wasn’t right unless it was wrong. [Laughs] And that’s how he ticked, man. That’s just how he ticked. And like I said, you’re spending time with him, you get to know one another, and you know one another’s routines, one another’s ins and outs, and you know when to stick around and when to walk away. ------
Do you feel like you lost him a long time ago, not just two years ago?
Oh, years ago. Yeah. He left us long ago. -----------
Phenomenal songwriters with some really awesome records, but I still maintain that they were shitty, idiotic friends motivated by money more than anything else.
Phenomenal songwriters with some really awesome records, but I still maintain that they were shitty, idiotic friends motivated by money more than anything else.
Is that really fair? It's entirely possible to be in a band, or any kind of creative project, with someone for a long period of time but that relationship be essentially that of workmates dedicated to common cause, not friends as such. I get that sense from the Pearl Jam guys, to be honest. We don't really have any insight into what they might have done to help Scott but regardless it feels as though you're ascribing to them a degree of responsibility that's unwarranted.
I think most people don't know how to help people with issues like Scott. The average person does not want to be inconvenienced and feels it's not their responsibility. I agree that it's not right on some level but...
Joined: Tue September 24, 2013 5:56 pm Posts: 47141 Location: In the oatmeal aisle wearing a Shellac shirt
Birds in Hell wrote:
tragabigzanda wrote:
Phenomenal songwriters with some really awesome records, but I still maintain that they were shitty, idiotic friends motivated by money more than anything else.
Is that really fair? It's entirely possible to be in a band, or any kind of creative project, with someone for a long period of time but that relationship be essentially that of workmates dedicated to common cause, not friends as such. I get that sense from the Pearl Jam guys, to be honest. We don't really have any insight into what they might have done to help Scott but regardless it feels as though you're ascribing to them a degree of responsibility that's unwarranted.
Dev wrote:
I think most people don't know how to help people with issues like Scott. The average person does not want to be inconvenienced and feels it's not their responsibility. I agree that it's not right on some level but...
Personally, I think it's totally fair. They took a long-term drug addict and absentee father back out on the road to fuel their own egos and bank accounts. Are they fucking idiots? What did they think would happen?
Personally, I think it's totally fair. They took a long-term drug addict and absentee father back out on the road to fuel their own egos and bank accounts. Are they fucking idiots? What did they think would happen?
That seems like a wildly uncharitable interpretation of their motives. Scott was a grown man, I don't believe he was forced to anything he didn't want to do; whether that's go on tour, drink booze, take drugs, etc. Absentee father? That's on the band too? C'mon.
Joined: Tue September 24, 2013 5:56 pm Posts: 47141 Location: In the oatmeal aisle wearing a Shellac shirt
Birds in Hell wrote:
tragabigzanda wrote:
Personally, I think it's totally fair. They took a long-term drug addict and absentee father back out on the road to fuel their own egos and bank accounts. Are they fucking idiots? What did they think would happen?
That seems like a wildly uncharitable interpretation of their motives. Scott was a grown man, I don't believe he was forced to anything he didn't want to do; whether that's go on tour, drink booze, take drugs, etc. Absentee father? That's on the band too? C'mon.
Scott was a drug addict, which in my mind is an illness. Would you take your sick friend to a raging party for thirty nights in a row? Obviously not my expertise to say precisely what he did need in order to heal, but it's a safe bet that a rock n' roll tour was not going to help him one iota...
What motive do you think STP had beyond ego and money? If they wanted to create beautiful music together, they could have done that just as easily from a home studio while Scott engaged with an out-patient rehab program.
I'll always tend towards the Steve Albini outlook on bands: They are unique living organisms that are perfectly capable of sustaining their creative output within their respective communities, with virtually no interaction with the world outside of those communities. The desire to sell CDs and merch and get radio play and make residuals of your hits is borne of something else entirely, and has absolutely nothing to do with the act of creating and sharing music with your friends.
What motive do you think STP had beyond ego and money? If they wanted to create beautiful music together, they could have done that just as easily from a home studio while Scott engaged with an out-patient rehab program.
I'll always tend towards the Steve Albini outlook on bands: They are unique living organisms that are perfectly capable of sustaining their creative output within their respective communities, with virtually no interaction with the world outside of those communities. The desire to sell CDs and merch and get radio play and make residuals of your hits is borne of something else entirely, and has absolutely nothing to do with the act of creating and sharing music with your friends.
I don't know, I think Steve Albini is an interesting guy who's been involved in some great music, but this seems like a very restrictive, idiosyncratic and quite ahistorical attitude towards professional musicians.
I don't think there's anything inherently contradictory about making wonderful music and also wanting to make a living while doing so, whatever that involves.
Layne, Andy and Kurt died alone, away from touring. There really isn't an easy answer to this kind of thing. I don't agree that you can blame the band for what happened, unless they did something more than simply tour with him.
Joined: Tue September 24, 2013 5:56 pm Posts: 47141 Location: In the oatmeal aisle wearing a Shellac shirt
Birds in Hell wrote:
tragabigzanda wrote:
What motive do you think STP had beyond ego and money? If they wanted to create beautiful music together, they could have done that just as easily from a home studio while Scott engaged with an out-patient rehab program.
I'll always tend towards the Steve Albini outlook on bands: They are unique living organisms that are perfectly capable of sustaining their creative output within their respective communities, with virtually no interaction with the world outside of those communities. The desire to sell CDs and merch and get radio play and make residuals of your hits is borne of something else entirely, and has absolutely nothing to do with the act of creating and sharing music with your friends.
I don't know, I think Steve Albini is an interesting guy who's been involved in some great music, but this seems like a very restrictive, idiosyncratic and quite ahistorical attitude towards professional musicians.
On the contrary, the notion of rights and residuals generating passive income for musicians represents only about 100 years worth of the entire history of music. Being paid for a gig makes perfect sense, and has been happening for hundreds of years; pursuing peak exposure in the pursuit of passive income is actually idiosyncratic and ahistorical (though not necessarily restrictive).
What motive do you think STP had beyond ego and money? If they wanted to create beautiful music together, they could have done that just as easily from a home studio while Scott engaged with an out-patient rehab program.
I'll always tend towards the Steve Albini outlook on bands: They are unique living organisms that are perfectly capable of sustaining their creative output within their respective communities, with virtually no interaction with the world outside of those communities. The desire to sell CDs and merch and get radio play and make residuals of your hits is borne of something else entirely, and has absolutely nothing to do with the act of creating and sharing music with your friends.
I don't know, I think Steve Albini is an interesting guy who's been involved in some great music, but this seems like a very restrictive, idiosyncratic and quite ahistorical attitude towards professional musicians.
On the contrary, the notion of rights and residuals generating passive income for musicians represents only about 100 years worth of the entire history of music. Being paid for a gig makes perfect sense, and has been happening for hundreds of years; pursuing peak exposure in the pursuit of passive income is actually idiosyncratic and ahistorical (though not necessarily restrictive).
This is getting way off-track of your original point though, which was the band was somehow complicit in Scott's downfall by going out to work in the same way professional musicians have done for eons (as you yourself just said).
Joined: Tue September 24, 2013 5:56 pm Posts: 47141 Location: In the oatmeal aisle wearing a Shellac shirt
Birds in Hell wrote:
tragabigzanda wrote:
Birds in Hell wrote:
tragabigzanda wrote:
What motive do you think STP had beyond ego and money? If they wanted to create beautiful music together, they could have done that just as easily from a home studio while Scott engaged with an out-patient rehab program.
I'll always tend towards the Steve Albini outlook on bands: They are unique living organisms that are perfectly capable of sustaining their creative output within their respective communities, with virtually no interaction with the world outside of those communities. The desire to sell CDs and merch and get radio play and make residuals of your hits is borne of something else entirely, and has absolutely nothing to do with the act of creating and sharing music with your friends.
I don't know, I think Steve Albini is an interesting guy who's been involved in some great music, but this seems like a very restrictive, idiosyncratic and quite ahistorical attitude towards professional musicians.
On the contrary, the notion of rights and residuals generating passive income for musicians represents only about 100 years worth of the entire history of music. Being paid for a gig makes perfect sense, and has been happening for hundreds of years; pursuing peak exposure in the pursuit of passive income is actually idiosyncratic and ahistorical (though not necessarily restrictive).
This is getting way off-track of your original point though, which was the band was somehow implicit in Scott's downfall by going out to work in the same way professional musicians have done for eons (as you yourself just said).
No, working in the manner done for eons would mean some regional shows that made enough money to pay them a living wage, but not much else. Playing to massive audiences the world over is a pursuit of excess (which isn't inherently bad, but in this case likely created all sorts of temptations for their sick/addicted singer). Hence my out-patient program scenario suggested a few posts back...
It's rare that I expect anyone to agree with me, but I am starting to find it disconcerting that no one else sees the ethical implications of the rich rock stars propping up their drug addict singer for one last tour. That last part from the interview I pasted above is such an awful reflection on the band members, IMO.
I kind of agree with trag. We have an obligation to care for each other and think about what is best for the other people in our lives
I think the pilots tried to do that, though.
I guess it could be argued that they didn't take matters seriously enough. But actually I'm not sure how I feel now. They ultimately did kick him out of the band twice and this second time seemed like it was for good. Maybe they actually did make an honest effort to do the right thing.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 96 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum