Great Interview About Pinkerton, for all the matt haters

http://www.altpress.com/features/entry/this_is_beginning_to_hurt_a_...

it was posted in another thread, but it's such a good read it deserves it's own thread.

basically, karl, matt, and their A&R guy from geffen at the time give the history of pinkerton up until matt left the band.

for the people who think matt is a douche bag, read the article, and then leave your apologies. and rivers doesn't exactly come out as a saint

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by matedog on November 23, 2010 at 8:38am

Seconding/thirding everyone above. Great read and interesting to know of Pat's initial thoughts of the group as a collaborative effort (which makes sense given Lemonade, Jonas, and Surf Wax) and how his realization of that not being the case put him in a funk. And it seems that Matt wasn't willing to leave the Rentals and other things at the drop of a hat for Rivers which ultimately became his undoing.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by matedog on November 23, 2010 at 8:39am

What was the deal with Hurley?

j-biebs said:

oh no, i don't think he's changed much at all.
i mean half the time the other members have no idea what's going on with the band (see: hurley). he's gone from controlling them to not including them.

Dungeon Master said:
I'm not so sure its 'use to be'.

I have a feeling that he's still a prick. seems there is still tension. after Matt was gone and the band broke up and reformed in 2000 I think it was Rivers's way or the highway. he might be a littler better, but a zebra doesn't change its stripes.

j-biebs said:
yeah, there's always a new group that really has no clue that rivers used to be an a******.
it's entertaining when they learn the truth.

Dungeon Master said:
too bad the rest of .com won't read this.

legendofchin97 said:
it's a pretty good read for sure.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MakeUpOnShelf on November 23, 2010 at 11:35am

The people above who are saying that a band needs a leader to take control of the direction of the band; you're abosolutely right.

This is Rivers' band. I'm not saying the other members haven't contributed greatly, but it's Rivers who made the other band members rich and famous beyond their wildest dreams.

The article was interesting. I understand why Pat was upset originally. They were still sorting out what this band was actually going to be like. The guys have gotten along fine in the last 10 years. Everyone knows their role. As for Matt, he quit the band and that's lame. Pat didn't quit the band. Nobody else quit the band. What does that tell you? I'm sure Matt regrets it.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dungeon Master on November 23, 2010 at 8:46pm

apparently you didn't read the article.

MakeUpOnShelf said:

The people above who are saying that a band needs a leader to take control of the direction of the band; you're abosolutely right.

This is Rivers' band. I'm not saying the other members haven't contributed greatly, but it's Rivers who made the other band members rich and famous beyond their wildest dreams.

The article was interesting. I understand why Pat was upset originally. They were still sorting out what this band was actually going to be like. The guys have gotten along fine in the last 10 years. Everyone knows their role. As for Matt, he quit the band and that's lame. Pat didn't quit the band. Nobody else quit the band. What does that tell you? I'm sure Matt regrets it.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MakeUpOnShelf on November 23, 2010 at 8:57pm

Read it.

Dungeon Master said:

apparently you didn't read the article.

MakeUpOnShelf said:
The people above who are saying that a band needs a leader to take control of the direction of the band; you're abosolutely right.

This is Rivers' band. I'm not saying the other members haven't contributed greatly, but it's Rivers who made the other band members rich and famous beyond their wildest dreams.

The article was interesting. I understand why Pat was upset originally. They were still sorting out what this band was actually going to be like. The guys have gotten along fine in the last 10 years. Everyone knows their role. As for Matt, he quit the band and that's lame. Pat didn't quit the band. Nobody else quit the band. What does that tell you? I'm sure Matt regrets it.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dungeon Master on November 24, 2010 at 3:03am

I think maybe you should give it another read... I think you misses a lot of what was being said...

"As for Matt, he quit the band and that's lame. Pat didn't quit the band. Nobody else quit the band. What does that tell you? I'm sure Matt regrets it."

MakeUpOnShelf said:

Read it.

Dungeon Master said:
apparently you didn't read the article.

MakeUpOnShelf said:
The people above who are saying that a band needs a leader to take control of the direction of the band; you're abosolutely right.

This is Rivers' band. I'm not saying the other members haven't contributed greatly, but it's Rivers who made the other band members rich and famous beyond their wildest dreams.

The article was interesting. I understand why Pat was upset originally. They were still sorting out what this band was actually going to be like. The guys have gotten along fine in the last 10 years. Everyone knows their role. As for Matt, he quit the band and that's lame. Pat didn't quit the band. Nobody else quit the band. What does that tell you? I'm sure Matt regrets it.