Wreckage

[RockPusher]

Believe you me I'm hearing a little Bad Radio DNA

That makes sense. They were kind of brighter and poppier, right?

[spike]

I can’t do these new song threads anymore.

[Ms Harmless]

I’d really love to get into a nuanced discussion about the dangers of billionaires and why capitalism will be the death of us all, but I am too exhausted after a long day and need to eat some of my feelings first. It doesn’t help that I mostly post here from my phone.

So instead here is a couple of oldies but goodies:

Billionaire philanthropy scam
https://youtu.be/KWNQuzkSqSM?si=[yt]RRKUhh0ReebOn0bS[/yt]

John Oliver on wealth inequality
https://youtu.be/LfgSEwjAeno?si=[yt]jFgA1zJv0eVyGJKT[/yt]

[Ms Harmless]

https://vocaroo.com/1gOtuLFjam5X

the melody Ed is singing at about 1.40 of this is delicious

[Val]

https://vocaroo.com/1gOtuLFjam5X

the melody Ed is singing at about 1.40 of this is delicious

i love 2:15

[Val]

https://vocaroo.com/1gOtuLFjam5X

the melody Ed is singing at about 1.40 of this is delicious

i love 2:15

Also, 2:45

[Val]

Actually, the chorus is going to be pretty good from I'm hearing in the door clip.

"Co-ho-mbing through the wrecka-hage!.."

It's got a pleasant ascending melody.

[Got Some]

Nice

Long Way/Seven o’clock/Fallout today kind of vibe

[Ms Harmless]

he didn't rail against that person, he railed against Ticketmaster and that has caused people to think he was Karl Marx

The fact is that the Eddie that wrote Soon Forget could’ve used his current self as the reference to that song.

The problem with Soon Forget is that Eddie could have used 2000s era Eddie as a reference. Already a millionaire many many many times over. It was an inauthentic song from jump. I've never really liked it. You probably helped me figure out why.

When you sell 10 million copies of your record in 1992, by 1993 you are part of the elite.

Also that song, and many of Ed's issues, were not really as simple as "you have money you're bad"

exactly

yep, everything is more complicated than that

now, I don't think you can be a good person and a Billionnaire, but Ed isn't

Mind you I disagree with that premise entirely, but what kind of mental gymnastics must you have to use where billionaire = can’t be a good person while $100 millionaire = can be a good person?

we have to draw the line somewhere, and the fact is there is a point where hoarding that much money is immoral in itself

anyway, Ed is far down the list of people I want to morally and ethically emulate; Ed isn't one of the best people in terms of his politics or practices, but he's not the worst either, and he's all the better for speaking out against the worst

Since his net worth is calculated at roughly $100 million, where would the threshold be where he should be castigated into the likes of the wealthy elites who’s money should be redistributed for the betterment of humanity? I’m genuinely curious. I don’t believe that to be a solution to solving anything, but if I did $100 million seems like it would exceed the standard of needing to be redistributed.

it's the wrong way to think about it - wealthy elite is shorthand for people use their money/power/influence to constrain the lives and opportunities of others. It's not a price tag.

So who is the arbiter of making that decision? Is it purely subjective? Couldn’t this same argument be made by someone with a completely different worldview than you to justify a person’s use of their amassed wealth?

This is where people who make the argument lose me. I believe it was ms harmless who started it with the you can’t be a good person and be a billionaire statement. A family making $40,000 annually can take that same logic and say a person making $500,000 a year is incapable of being a good person. If it’s subjective to the views of the person making that statement than it’s merely personal platitudes on display.

it's not about every individual with that much money being a monster, it's about extreme global structural wealth inequality and the fact that 1. I don't think a just economy should allow anyone to get that rich, 2. nobody is a billionnaire without having been born into generational wealth amassed through exploitation (eg. Musk, apartheid diamonds), 3. anyone who holds onto that kind of money *knows* that they are collectively responsible for maintaining global wealth inequality and the poverty of the Exploited World (if they redistributed that money we could cancel African debt / stop climate change, you name it), but does it anyway

we just shouldn't be allowing anyone to become that rich

these are just my own convictions, I'm not calling you a bad person if you disagree

[spike]

#2 isn’t correct

[Ms Harmless]

I don't expect you to agree with me, but the assertion "this isn't correct" doesn't make it incorrect

[Ms Harmless]

that much wealth requires the continual exploitation of the poor and otherwise marginalised

[epilogue]

Wild that there are 17 pages devoted to a song that will be released in fewer days.

In fairness, 10 of the pages were about the societal dangers of income inequality and Eddie Vedder's moral compass.

[scrub12]

[oneway23]

And yet, the thread title is still entirely appropriate.

[Coach]

This one keeps getting better.

Listened through my car audio through the phone, sounds great to me.

[stip]

Finally did a headphone listen of the clip. This should be good. I am assuming this is a verse into chorus

[Tj]

Wow I can't get enough of this. I to think it's a verse and such a melodic wonderful one. I hope ,but I'm sure it won't be constructed as a double verse song.

[Tj]

Interesting that I get Mac vibes. Stone mentioned the Cure.Reviews mentioned U2. Tom Petty as also been mentioned. It setting up to be cornucopia of 80s pop rock. Ed is obviously into such music

[Ms Harmless]

Finally did a headphone listen of the clip. This should be good. I am assuming this is a verse into chorus

it sounds great