From Rollingstone.com. It's not very in depth, and it's kinda short. But still worth reading. Enjoy!
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.rollingstone.com/news/qa/story/9961927/eddie_vedder">http://www.rollingstone.com/news/qa/sto ... die_vedder</a><!-- m -->
Thanks for the link dire...loved how it ended. Classic Ed :thumb:
I really hated how it ended, not to be a contrarian.
One of my pet peeves is when mags or newspapers latch on to a trademark and don't really do digging...it's uninspired.
But it was from Rolling Stone, so I put zero stock in it.
I have certainly read way better articles out there but what did you really expect...Ed to pour his heart out? The wine issue can definately be seen as a "trademark" of sorts....I am sure lots of people are curious as to what kind of wine he likes to drink. Having seen PJ live for my first and only time last year, I found myself a little curious about it too. I had no idea he even drank wine on stage in the first place before that show. All music articles don't have to be so serious or literary masterpieces. Sometimes its nice to find out light-hearted, random tidbits about your favorite artist....which is usually what a standard Rolling Stone article is. What made the ending great was Ed's response, not the question.
There's a Pearl jam interview in the new edition of "Toro" magazine. There was a free copy in this weekends Globe, don't know if it's on newstands yet. Pretty standard stuff, bucking trends, shunning the mainstream and paying a commercial price for it... nice photo of the band holding Michael Jackson albums and such.
I apologize, I came across as one of those sorta pretentious writer guys (which I sort of am, but still).
All I was saying is the wine thing was like asking the hip, "Uhhh, what do you think of hockey?". And I mean a lot of "reporters" do, and it irritates me every time.
But by no means does every article have to be brilliant to the point of being pretentious and no fun. Certainly not.