From: ajw@cbnews.cb.att.com (andrew.j.whitman)
Newsgroups: alt.rock-n-roll,rec.music.misc
Subject: Re: Pearl Jam on SNL
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:58:05 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <Apr.12.18.03.05.1992.14312@remus.rutgers.edu> forys@remus.rutgers.edu (jessica) writes:
>In a previous article Andrew W Korbut writes..
>
>>No matter how much I agree with what Vedder had to say, it was a really
>>condescending, obnoxious, pretentious, insulting way to present it in a wholly
>>inappropriate forum for doing so.  I suspect that heavy-handed soapbox-ing
>>of this sort turns off even those folks who agree with Eddie's position on
>>the stuff he's preaching about. 
>
>I have reservations on how much you agree with what Veddar had to say.  
>To refer to this as condescending or obnoxious debases the seriousness of the
>situation as it appears today.  If heavy-handed soapboxing is effective, so be
>it.. at least something will be accomplished.  

And just what is accomplished?  A writer of self-proclaimed "socially
important songs" gets a national soapbox from which to spout his views.
All this proves is that Eddie Vedder has his opinions.  So what?  So do I, 
and so do the other two hundred and fifty million people in the country.  
What makes you think that someone in the realm of rock music - a domain 
hardly known for its clear thinking and intellectual acumen - should be 
given a forum to mouth political slogans?  And *why* would you want to 
give this bozo more attention than, say, someone running for political
office who has made it his/her life's work to understand the issues
involved?  God help us when we start taking our political cues from
entertainers.  The next thing you know, we'll be electing one of them
president :-( . . .  Uh, oh yeah . . . well, God help us anyway.

Yeah, yeah . . . it's a free country, and there's this thing called 
free speech.  Neither of which does a thing to explain why I should 
believe that rock musicians know fuck-all about anything other 
than THE THREE GREATEST CHORDS OF ALL TIME.

>I would be curious to know how you feel about other bands expressing their
>views when in the spotlight.  For example when the Red Hot Chilli Peppers
>were guests on MTV and they did their "soapbox-ing" on hunger, racism, 
>bush-bashing etc.  If it is not appropriate forum as you say to do so
>during SNL, then when is it an appropriate forum. Wake up this is an election
>year and ALOT is at stake, for many causes.

Yes, there is a lot at stake, and for many causes.  And if musicians
want to write music about those causes, more power to them.  I'll
then judge the songs on their own merits.  There's a fine and 
longstanding tradition of social commentary in music, and I cherish
a lot of the songs that have come out of that tradition.  But I
don't know too many people who wouldn't feel manipulated by political
speechmaking and sloganeering at concerts.  I don't like to be told how 
to think, least of all by someone whose talents are, as far as I know, 
confined to writing four minute pop songs.  I'd suggest that Mr.
Vedder's proper forum is the ballot box, which is where my proper
forum is too.  And I'm thankful that, there at least, my voice is
as loud as his.  

>forys@remus.rutgers.edu

Andy Whitman
AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio
att!cblpo!ajw  or
ajw@cblpo.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.rock-n-roll