Red Mosquito

Lament wrote:

stip wrote:it does feel kinda pointless. I'm guessing he really liked the film and this was meant to be a gift of sorts. When does the Rod part happen?

The original version is in the opening. The Rod versions is in the closing credits. I can't stress how little sense it makes in the context of the movie.

that may be. I can see myself disliking this more if I saw the movie. I like christian bale, so I'm sure i'll see this once it's out of theaters. I'll report back!

He says dear___ twice, only the second one is 'dear rod' which makes less hilarious i guess. Still silly, the only people who are gonna notice the change are pearl jam fans who stuck around for the end credits.

If the movies kinda sucky its probably a good this he didnt attatch an albums worth of songs to it.

Rodlease was probably kept in as a consolation prize for dumping Ed's soundtrack from the movie. The director probably figured everyone would be out the door by the time the new vocal kicked in, so no harm done.

I don't think it's unreasonable to think that one of the most disappointing things an artist you respect can do is alter a piece of work that has a deep, almost religious meaning to many people in the name of shoehorning it into a different setting two decades down the road.

No one is selling their entire collection or demanding Ed be hung or declaring their entire career moot. But to me this is a pretty big artistic deal. This is a pretty huge taboo for some of us. It's one thing to put out new music that we don't care for, but to go back and make silly, trivial changes to stuff we've lived with for years in the name of...well, you decide if you think it was for art's sake or commerce's sake. But yeah, I think it's pretty reasonable to find this one of the most disappointing things they've done.

I wouldn't have that much of an issue if this conversation was just about whether or not it was a stupid artistic decision. But the fact that otherwise intelligent people probably seriously believe that a man worth 90 million dollars altered a word in a song in a film he wrote a soundtrack for (and so obviously felt invested in the story and had some personal attachment to) in a movie that hasn't cleared 10 million dollars for a PAY DAY is just so stupid that it makes it hard to credit the legit point.

also, the fact that it was a re-recorded/rearranged version of the song makes me care a lot less. it's not like the actual release was altered, or that this is the version that is now going to appear in concert, or that the change invalidates the message.

Oh I'll make damn sure I have my "Play Rodlease" sign at the next show.

JK about the money thing. He probably thought it wasn't a retarded idea at the time. To me its just a lame little thing in a succession of lame little things that reinforce my opinion that he is now a lame little guy that probably can't write anything that isn't lame at this point. It may be because he is stupid rich and insulated, or maybe the alcohol is starting to kill his brain, or maybe its his wife. Who knows.

that was not good...

Whatever his reason for doing it is, I think it's fair to wonder about his artistic intentions in 2013 if he's willing to go back and alter a piece of this magnitude twenty-two years after the fact just to sneak in the name of a fictional character from a movie. I find it to be a very objectionable move on his part. I'd feel the same way if any of my favorite artists did this, and would have told you so before this happened if you asked. I draw the parallel to the Elton John song because that happened when I was young and was formulating a lot of my personal views on art and the act of creating, and that was one of the first big instances of seeing something happen and thinking "Wow, an artist doing that to one of his best loved and most emotionally enduring pieces of work really rubs me the wrong way. I don't respect that." So in turn, I don't respect Ed doing this, and don't think it's wrong to view it as a sign of where his artistic intentions and integrity reside in 2013, especially as (like you pointed out, with $90 million in the back) he's a guy who can more than afford to have "artistic integrity."

Stip's having a mental breakdown when only about a handful of people expressed their opinion that this was pretty weak. And then he's like WHY DO I GET CALLED AN APOLOGIST

That was good...He sounds pretty good...and wtf?? he does this everytime they play this one live....dear John?? dear Rod?? Can you see this now?? Nothing new here folks..you think he did this for money?? They are not releasing this as a single with Rihanna doing a rap bridge or something..

Jeez, this place..

Lament wrote:Whatever his reason for doing it is, I think it's fair to wonder about his artistic intentions in 2013 if he's willing to go back and alter a piece of this magnitude twenty-two years after the fact just to sneak in the name of a fictional character from a movie. I find it to be a very objectionable move on his part. I'd feel the same way if any of my favorite artists did this, and would have told you so before this happened if you asked. I draw the parallel to the Elton John song because that happened when I was young and was formulating a lot of my personal views on art and the act of creating, and that was one of the first big instances of seeing something happen and thinking "Wow, an artist doing that to one of his best loved and most emotionally enduring pieces of work really rubs me the wrong way. I don't respect that." So in turn, I don't respect Ed doing this, and don't think it's wrong to view it as a sign of where his artistic intentions and integrity reside in 2013, especially as (like you pointed out, with $90 million in the back) he's a guy who can more than afford to have "artistic integrity."

I am just devil's advocating here, since we never heard the soundtrack. Release is 22 years old. He just wrote a whole soundtrack to this movie. We don't know the songs, so I'm speculating, but my guess is that he ended up really developing an attatchment to the story and the characters, and it probably helped make a song that, 22 years out, may evoke less than it once did feel special again. Or failing that, maybe release is a song that is situationaly special. He likes singing it in certain places, for certain people, and maybe this character makes him feel that way.

This could still be totally lame, though. I'm trying to imagine how I'd feel if this was alive or corduroy (I love release as a song, but feel no particular attachment to it beyond it being a tremendous song). I probably would care if it fundamentally altered the meaning of the song. A thing like this (like Alive was now addressed to someone concrete) I can't say. It'd probably annoy me a bit. If the song was rerecorded I'd feel better about it, since it's not like it is revising history. It is using the past to inform the present


Having said all that, this certainly feels unnecessary, and it's not like it is a change for the better. But my guess is that he did it precisely because he WAS moved by the story and that it meant something to him. I suspect it was probably motivated by a kind of 'artistic integrity', even if the instincts didn't lead him somewhere good.

theplatypus wrote:Stip's having a mental breakdown when only about a handful of people expressed their opinion that this was pretty weak. And then he's like WHY DO I GET CALLED AN APOLOGIST

I am having a breakdown, but this thread is just a symptom.


The first 6 months of kids just really fucking sucks. 5 months next week.

VinylGuy wrote:That was good...He sounds pretty good...and wtf?? he does this everytime they play this one live....dear John?? dear Rod?? Can you see this now?? Nothing new here folks..you think he did this for money?? They are not releasing this as a single with Rihanna doing a rap bridge or something..

Jeez, this place..

be honest, how long until something like that happens?

The first time Ed sat and watched Bambi with his daughter, he left halfway through to go into his studio and wept through an intense, solo acoustic version of Release with the line altered to "Dear Bambi's mom..."

did you like Skipping, lament?

BurtReynolds wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:That was good...He sounds pretty good...and wtf?? he does this everytime they play this one live....dear John?? dear Rod?? Can you see this now?? Nothing new here folks..you think he did this for money?? They are not releasing this as a single with Rihanna doing a rap bridge or something..

Jeez, this place..

be honest, how long until something like that happens?

You guys need to relax a little...Anyway, Im looking forward to the movie.

Removed. Lament beat me to it.

stip wrote:did you like Skipping, lament?

Not personally, but it seemed to draw a really genuine emotional response from people I knew at the time who had kids, so I chalked it up to just being something that was so far out my realm of experience to appreciate the nuances of (not unlike how to an extent I think people who don't "get" Thumbing My Way maybe just haven't lived in that really desolate place that the narrator in the song inhabits). Part of me wanted to think "Well, if it were a better song he would've MADE me understand what it feels like," but I think that was probably the point of it, that it's meant to be something that you have to have lived to appreciate it, like a wink and a nod to other parents.

TL; DR - No.

stip wrote:The first 6 months of kids just really fucking sucks.

Really?

I mean, kids aren't always easy, but I've always found every stage of being a parent immensely rewarding and joyful to such an extent that it vastly overshadows any temporary frustrations.

But yeah, re: Rodlease:

theplatypus wrote:

Lament wrote:"Dear Rod."

Baaaaahahahaha