How the can manage to frame making more in one night than many fans make their entire lives as being charitable rockers who give a **** is incredible. How the **** do they do it? Not just them but so many people.

Metallica, King Crimson, and Prince were all incredibly greedy.

I don't know if they are greedy or trying to protect their royalties i.e. income - but then again to what point? Metallica had an issue with Napster. Maybe they saw the potential of royalties drying up from p2p file sharing as a canary in the coal mine. And if that canary dies then gravy train would stop, and come right to a halt right in front of Napster Junction. So maybe they felt they had to do something, anything to keep that gravy train rolling onward, way past Napster Junction. Maybe they saw themselves as SJWs fighting for other musicians and the music industry - trying to right a wrong. Who knows? I don't. All I know is they wanted to keep riding that gravy train, laughing all the way to the bank.

Musicians shouldn’t get royalties. No one should be able to own sound vibrations.

Metallica really blew it with how they chose to approach the issue - they tried playing victims and it backfired for a number of reasons.

1) Their reputation was as bad asses so the whining looked so wrong.
2) The were the biggest and richest band in the world at the time.
3) This spread like wildfire and made them look 10x worse.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS6udST6lbE

OH i didnt need the links to know that pearl jam were millionaires. ithought noone else did.
ok i m going to try to rephrase the whole thing.
So, Pearl Jam back in 94-95 were making millions upon millions for their multinational label and were also millionaires themselves.
they were in the commercial top shelf of rok bands along with REM, RHCP, Smashing Pumpkins, metallica nothing else comes to mind, anyway a handful of bands.

So operating in a corporate environment and while making big dollars, they decided to start a crusade against the sole player in the selling-tickets-for-arena-concerts. They thought that this middleman took a very hefty share of the tickets price, and that it was ableto do so by taking advantage of its role in the market (the monopoly role actually) they hoped that in this way they could lower ticket prices around 20% (thats a rough number but i dont feel like searching it, correct me if i m wrong) without lowering they price that ended in their share (i am not sure about that also but it dont matter, i have no reason to question it)
of course this would be a popular move amongst music fans and musicians. At the same time going after such a big prey involved great and obvious risk that they willingly took.

nobody else in the same business stood by them ( i think REM were in it at the beginning but shortly after backed up (?)) a fact that i think highlights the dangers involved in such a fight. Pearl Jam cancelled a tour (and lost big money from that) spend 1-2 years in courts, congress hearings and so on and eventually lost. all this happenned in the mid 90s so i guess OH that it wont be apparrent in 2019 ticket prices. Pearl Jam are still millionaires.

To me this whole thing they started was admirable and i give them big credit for that.
there are other musicians i give credit to or even, in other cases, admire for non-musical reasons, fugazi mentioned above beeing among them.


ps. hey weres OH?

Define pointed music please.

You are not weird and you are no existentialist.

Everyone knows that Nietzsche went ****ing mental, right?

Pretty sure that the idea of that is to just do whatever you want that you find meaningful as opposed to following your preferred meaning as a doctrine but don't let that stop you from self-aggrandized moping.