Eddie Vedder's A Joke
Patrick Grady
Sorry folks
The best two Pearl Jam albums are Ten (a bonified classic) and Neil
Young's Mirror Ball. Vedder is simply out of hand trying to pose as
this moralistic, exlpoited voice of our generation. In reality he's a
snot nosed brat that deserves the anonymity he so craves. Do you all
really enjoy listening to him gripe about being famous??...Then Why Did
You Sign That Epic Contract Jerkoff??? That's my question. I think
it's really a shame because the rest of the band is so damn talented.
Not that Eddie doesn't have a great voice, but please. If this song is
"Not For Me" then why didn't you just keep it to yourself instead of
putting it on a record. That little pip-squeak...they should replace
his ass. Then I'll buy another Pearl Jam album.
PMSherm
Sorry folks <rewrite>
The best two newsgroups are this one and aolpj <both are bonifed classics>.
But some jit-bag is simply out of hand trying to make Eddie look bad. In
reality he's a snot nosed brat that deserves the anonymity he so craves. Do
you all really enjoy listening to this asshole jerkoff about Eddie??....Then
Why Didn't Someone Take Out The Trash?!?!?!? That's my question. I think
it's really a shame because the rest of us LIKE PEARL JAM. Not that this
jit-bag doesn't have a brain, but please. If this newsgroup is "NOT FOR YOU"
then why are you posting in it? That little pip-squeak... they should
replace his ass. Then I'll apologize.
Peace
Paula
DrDisco99
>Not that Eddie doesn't have a great voice, but please. If this song is
>"Not For Me" then why didn't you just keep it to yourself instead of
>putting it on a record.
You obviously don't know what the song is about. Eddie wrote it because
reporters were writing articles about how Eddie was trying to alienate his
fans. The song is not about him writing music that is for him and "Not For
You", it is about the reporters that were writing the articles. His music is
for the fans and not for those who are out to get him. He was addressing the
song directly to those who were spending their time finding ways to bring him
down. This is "Not For You".
JM
I read your reply to this guy Grady's comments on asshole Eddie.
Brilliant. I love you. Peace.
mike
Patrick Grady wrote:
>
> Sorry folks
>
> The best two Pearl Jam albums are Ten (a bonified classic) and Neil
> Young's Mirror Ball. Vedder is simply out of hand trying to pose as
> snot nosed brat that deserves the anonymity he so craves. Do you all
> You Sign That Epic Contract Jerkoff??? That's my question.
Only the band can answer that but Im glad they did cause I actually
listen to their music instead of flaming them in their newsgroup
> I think it's really a shame because the rest of the band is so damn talented.
> Not that Eddie doesn't have a great voice, but please. If this song is
> "Not For Me" then why didn't you just keep it to yourself instead of
> putting it on a record.
Cause I like listening to it
> That little pip-squeak...they should replace his ass. Then I'll buy another Pearl Jam > album.
--mike
Hester
DrDisco99 wrote:
>
> >Not that Eddie doesn't have a great voice, but please. If this song is
> >"Not For Me" then why didn't you just keep it to yourself instead of
> >putting it on a record.
>
> reporters were writing articles about how Eddie was trying to alienate his
> fans. The song is not about him writing music that is for him and "Not For
> You", it is about the reporters that were writing the articles. His music is
> for the fans and not for those who are out to get him. He was addressing the
> song directly to those who were spending their time finding ways to bring him
> down. This is "Not For You".
Sounds like the "Hype" interpretation to me. I've always felt that this
was more a statement about his privacy, saying "This (meaning him) is
not for you." "Small my table, sits just two, got so crowded, can't
make room. Where did they come from, stormed my room, and you dare say
this (his privacy) belongs to you."
Laurie
yngver
In article <19971011002...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
drdi...@aol.com (DrDisco99) writes:
> You obviously don't know what the song is about. Eddie wrote it because
> reporters were writing articles about how Eddie was trying to alienate his
> fans. The song is not about him writing music that is for him and "Not For
> You", it is about the reporters that were writing the articles. His music is
> for the fans and not for those who are out to get him. He was addressing the
> song directly to those who were spending their time finding ways to bring him
> down. This is "Not For You".
According to Kelly Curtis, "Not for You" is aimed at PJ's more rabid
fans, not the media. If you think about it, after all, it was not the
media who "stormed his room" and stole his notebook, it was fans.
-yngver
elgirrl
How do you know it was fans who did it? It could have been anyone with
backstage access looking to profit off of it.
-El
Rick Creech
> > According to Kelly Curtis, "Not for You" is aimed at PJ's more rabid
> > fans, not the media. If you think about it, after all, it was not the
> > media who "stormed his room"
i've always thought eddie's whole world was his 'room.' the media, and
us the fans have 'stormed his room.'
.rick.
>
Allan Beharrell
I'm not even going to respond to this lunacy.
GREG
yngver
In article <344383...@earthlink.net>
elgirrl <elg...@earthlink.net> writes:
> > According to Kelly Curtis, "Not for You" is aimed at PJ's more rabid
> > fans, not the media. If you think about it, after all, it was not the
> > media who "stormed his room" and stole his notebook, it was fans.
> > -yngver
>
>
> How do you know it was fans who did it? It could have been anyone with
> backstage access looking to profit off of it.
I don't think the question is how I know it was fans who did it, but
how EV and Kelly Curtis know.
PJ were not not particularly popular at the time of the incident. If EV
suspected fans did it, it was because logically hardly anyone else
would want a journal of his notes. At the time it was stolen, PJ items
were not yet commanding big prices as their fan base was still fairly
small, and they were certainly not popular enough yet for the media to
want something like that.
-yngver
Joshua Polak
It sure sounds to me like "Not For You" is about the fans. It's a mean
song that I think EV must have written when he had a lot of anger towards
fans in general. Remember how pissed he seemed on SNL when they played
it? I also recall Rolling Stone calling it an anthem about "Star Fuckers"
back in early 94.
I would like to beleive that it about the media, but listen to the
words...how about how he adds "Me and Beth" to the lyrics? This is
clearly a song by a guy who wants to be left alone. It's not the press
that was following him around in hotels and restaurants, it was the fans.
Basically, the song is dircted at us.
I don't know why he felt the need to say that it's not, but I think the
true intention of the song remains clear. Anyone else agree?
Josh
Benjamin J Crouch
It's not that he just wants to be left alone, but that he wants to be
respected like any other human being. He's not attacking fans for being
fans and being curious, but for going above and beyond. There's my two
cents
Hester
Joshua Polak wrote:
>
> It sure sounds to me like "Not For You" is about the fans. It's a mean
> song that I think EV must have written when he had a lot of anger towards
> fans in general. Remember how pissed he seemed on SNL when they played
> it? I also recall Rolling Stone calling it an anthem about "Star Fuckers"
> back in early 94.
>
> I would like to beleive that it about the media, but listen to the
> words...how about how he adds "Me and Beth" to the lyrics? This is
> clearly a song by a guy who wants to be left alone. It's not the press
> that was following him around in hotels and restaurants, it was the fans.
> Basically, the song is dircted at us.
>
> I don't know why he felt the need to say that it's not, but I think the
> true intention of the song remains clear. Anyone else agree?
>
> Josh
It's only directed toward you if you are one of those crazy people who
chase after stars. It's certainly not directed toward me, and I don't
take any offense. Nor should you just because you're a fan. It was
directed at anyone, media or crazy fan, who doesn't respect his privacy.
Laurie
yngver
In article <624fgn$4hf$3...@dns2.serv.net>
mans...@Zdrizzle.com (Chris Mansfield) writes:
> 6/25/92... they most definitely were *very* popular at the time of this
> incident. the immense popularity of the "jeremy" video at home in the spring,
> followed by the first airing of their unplugged appearance (5/13/92) caused a
> major surge in interest in this band both here in the U.S. and abroad. they
> had already agreed to do the lolla tour later that summer, but long before they
> made it home from europe a sense of hysteria had already built. (that's why it
> seemed so strange to fans at the time that PJ was playing so early in the day
> at lolla, because they seemed like a band of greater status...) it isn't
> inconceivable to me that fans could have done such a thing, even american fans
> abroad. (yeah, they did go so far as to say the thieves were american fans.)
>
> but yeah, good question. how do they know it was fans?
Either they really did know who the thieves were, because in retrospect
they knew who had access to the room, or they assumed it was fans who
took the journal because it's not too likely anyone else would
recognize the journal as Eddie's or want it.
-yngver
Chris Mansfield
>> How do you know it was fans who did it? It could have been anyone with
>> backstage access looking to profit off of it.
>
>I don't think the question is how I know it was fans who did it, but
>how EV and Kelly Curtis know.
>PJ were not not particularly popular at the time of the incident.
>
>If EV suspected fans did it, it was because logically hardly anyone else
>would want a journal of his notes. At the time it was stolen, PJ items
>were not yet commanding big prices as their fan base was still fairly
>small, and they were certainly not popular enough yet for the media to
>want something like that.
>-yngver
6/25/92... they most definitely were *very* popular at the time of this
PattenDar
>>If EV suspected fans did it, it was because logically hardly anyone else
>>would want a journal of his notes. At the time it was stolen, PJ items
>>were not yet commanding big prices as their fan base was still fairly
>>small, and they were certainly not popular enough yet for the media to
>>want something like that.
>>-yngver
>
>
Actually, it's kind of amazing that these notebooks haven't yet surfaced. That
someone hasn't tried to sell them to make some big bucks.
-Darlene
Dismayed
In article <19971010235...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
pms...@aol.com (PMSherm) wrote:
> Sorry folks <rewrite>
>
> The best two newsgroups are this one and aolpj <both are bonifed classics>.
> But some jit-bag is simply out of hand trying to make Eddie look bad. In
> reality he's a snot nosed brat that deserves the anonymity he so craves. Do
> you all really enjoy listening to this asshole jerkoff about Eddie??....Then
> Why Didn't Someone Take Out The Trash?!?!?!? That's my question. I think
> it's really a shame because the rest of us LIKE PEARL JAM. Not that this
> jit-bag doesn't have a brain, but please. If this newsgroup is "NOT FOR YOU"
> then why are you posting in it? That little pip-squeak... they should
> replace his ass. Then I'll apologize.
>
> Peace
> Paula
This is the best fuckin flame Ive read in a while!
yngver
In article <19971016131...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
patt...@aol.com (PattenDar) writes:
> Actually, it's kind of amazing that these notebooks haven't yet surfaced. That
> someone hasn't tried to sell them to make some big bucks.
Actually, a couple of years ago someone in New York did post that he
had pages from the journal and offered them for sale, but of course on
Usenet you never know whether or not it was a hoax.
-yngver
Chris Mansfield
darlene:
>Actually, it's kind of amazing that these notebooks haven't yet surfaced. That
> someone hasn't tried to sell them to make some big bucks.
it was rumored at one time that pages of the journal had surfaced somewhere in
new york city and the person was trying to sell individual pages for a lot of
money. i don't know if it was actually true or not...