Red Mosquito

B wrote:I agree that it's fairly unlikely,

Yes it is.

B wrote:but then again, how likely is it that Ed or his wife feel strongly enough about these passing utterances as to force the mixers to cover them up or cut them prior to releasing an iconic performance.

More likely than the other thing.

theplatypus wrote:

B wrote:I agree that it's fairly unlikely, but then again, how likely is it that Ed or his wife feel strongly enough about these passing utterances as to force the mixers to cover them up or cut them prior to releasing an iconic performance.

More likely.

i just don't get why not release a different show. but whatevs, i'm not even ordering the thing

Pretty goos show so far, You can hear Jeff which is crazy. When did Matt change his drum set with PJ? I fell that was when his sound and speed changed.

lowlight79 wrote:Pretty goos show so far, You can hear Jeff which is crazy. When did Matt change his drum set with PJ? I fell that was when his sound and speed changed.

He uses the same Ayotte kit in 2000 and 2001 but with coated skins (they are clear in 1998, like they were for Soundgarden), then he changed to Yamaha Birch Custom in 2002.

I cant see any situation where simply mentioning someones first name in a song would be grounds for any legal barring.

lowlight79 wrote:Pretty goos show so far, You can hear Jeff which is crazy. When did Matt change his drum set with PJ? I fell that was when his sound and speed changed.

Jeff is so clear in the mix...im very very glad with it.

Also Mikey´s guitar is doing some incredible things there...he had such a strong tour in 1998, followed with his amazing work in the 2000 tour.

VinylGuy wrote:

lowlight79 wrote:Pretty goos show so far, You can hear Jeff which is crazy. When did Matt change his drum set with PJ? I fell that was when his sound and speed changed.

Jeff is so clear in the mix...im very very glad with it.

Also Mikey´s guitar is doing some incredible things there...he had such a strong tour in 1998, followed with his amazing work in the 2000 tour.

can we get a 2 word review?

@SkitchP wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:

lowlight79 wrote:Pretty goos show so far, You can hear Jeff which is crazy. When did Matt change his drum set with PJ? I fell that was when his sound and speed changed.

Jeff is so clear in the mix...im very very glad with it.

Also Mikey´s guitar is doing some incredible things there...he had such a strong tour in 1998, followed with his amazing work in the 2000 tour.

can we get a 2 word review?

SO GOOD.

There you have it, are you masturbating with it?

These kids..

thanks for that, vinylguy. Chuds got you all wrong.

@SkitchP wrote:thanks for that, vinylguy. Chuds got you all wrong.

Yeah, its a shame. Wait...mm..yeah, well its a shame.

I think the days of the chud/platypus regime are over. The people are revolting.

Birds in Hell wrote:

warehouse wrote:

Thurman Murman wrote:There's just no way that Ed and his wife sit around listening to Pearl Jam shows.

I'd say its more likely that the girl really hurt Ed, and misguided or not he wanted to remove the memory of her from that recording.

which is lame

Agreed. Whether the above is the case or if it were done with an intention not to hurt the feelings of Ed's current wife, neither scenario is terribly complimentary to anyone involved.

When Ed sang her name in those songs, he effectively made it part of the performance. Regardless of which explanation for the removal is accurate, the end result is that the release is weakened by the omission. Not fatally, it's still enjoyable to listen to (and I'd prefer editing or deleting than whatever black magic they tried to work on that version of Oceans from Unplugged), but I think it's a legitimate complaint.

I agree that the overall product is weakened by the alteration; all I'm saying is that, as a husband, I understand and respect why he would do it.

I wish luck to anyone who really thinks that a gesture of respect towards one's spouse should take a backseat to one's concern over whether or not one's decisions in regards to a concert recording might be perceived as "lame."

Kevin Davis wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

warehouse wrote:

Thurman Murman wrote:There's just no way that Ed and his wife sit around listening to Pearl Jam shows.

I'd say its more likely that the girl really hurt Ed, and misguided or not he wanted to remove the memory of her from that recording.

which is lame

Agreed. Whether the above is the case or if it were done with an intention not to hurt the feelings of Ed's current wife, neither scenario is terribly complimentary to anyone involved.

When Ed sang her name in those songs, he effectively made it part of the performance. Regardless of which explanation for the removal is accurate, the end result is that the release is weakened by the omission. Not fatally, it's still enjoyable to listen to (and I'd prefer editing or deleting than whatever black magic they tried to work on that version of Oceans from Unplugged), but I think it's a legitimate complaint.

I agree that the overall product is weakened by the alteration; all I'm saying is that, as a husband, I understand and respect why he would do it.

I wish luck to anyone who really thinks that a gesture of respect towards one's spouse should take a backseat to one's concern over whether or not one's decisions in regards to a concert recording might be perceived as "lame."

Good thing Ed & Beth didn't have any kids...

Kevin Davis wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

warehouse wrote:

Thurman Murman wrote:There's just no way that Ed and his wife sit around listening to Pearl Jam shows.

I'd say its more likely that the girl really hurt Ed, and misguided or not he wanted to remove the memory of her from that recording.

which is lame

Agreed. Whether the above is the case or if it were done with an intention not to hurt the feelings of Ed's current wife, neither scenario is terribly complimentary to anyone involved.

When Ed sang her name in those songs, he effectively made it part of the performance. Regardless of which explanation for the removal is accurate, the end result is that the release is weakened by the omission. Not fatally, it's still enjoyable to listen to (and I'd prefer editing or deleting than whatever black magic they tried to work on that version of Oceans from Unplugged), but I think it's a legitimate complaint.

I agree that the overall product is weakened by the alteration; all I'm saying is that, as a husband, I understand and respect why he would do it.

I wish luck to anyone who really thinks that a gesture of respect towards one's spouse should take a backseat to one's concern over whether or not one's decisions in regards to a concert recording might be perceived as "lame."

does ur wife read the board?

Kevin Davis wrote:as a husband, I understand and respect why he would do it.

As a non-husband, I don't. Could a married person explain this to me? If this is a gesture of respect, would leaving the performances untouched be considered a gesture of disrespect?

theplatypus wrote:

Kevin Davis wrote:as a husband, I understand and respect why he would do it.

As a non-husband, I don't. Could a married person explain this to me? If this is a gesture of respect, would leaving the performances untouched be considered a gesture of disrespect?

Unless you want to not have sex for a long time it's a good idea not to bring up things about old girlfriends regularly.

However I'm not sure that 'out of respect' theory is even the reason for these edits.

Fuzzcharger wrote:Unless you want to not have sex for a long time it's a good idea not to bring up things about old girlfriends regularly.\

Yeah, but it's not like Ed is sitting at dinner with saying "Let me tell you about Beth..." I wonder if Ed is one of those dudes who goes through his old photos and cuts his ex's face out of them.

Lament wrote:I wonder if Ed is one of those dudes who goes through his old photos and cuts his ex's face out of them.

Ex-drummers, yes - ref. Unplugged DVD cover.

Lament wrote:

Fuzzcharger wrote:Unless you want to not have sex for a long time it's a good idea not to bring up things about old girlfriends regularly.\

Yeah, but it's not like Ed is sitting at dinner with saying "Let me tell you about Beth..." I wonder if Ed is one of those dudes who goes through his old photos and cuts his ex's face out of them.

Sure but maybe his wife gets super jealous really easily and one 90's vault reissue each year is enough to set her off. I don't know. Just putting a possibility out there.

theplatypus wrote:

Kevin Davis wrote:as a husband, I understand and respect why he would do it.

As a non-husband, I don't. Could a married person explain this to me? If this is a gesture of respect, would leaving the performances untouched be considered a gesture of disrespect?

I think KD's point (and I agree) is that relationship dynamics are tricky. Knowing nothing about them, it is entirely possible that references to an old partner, gestures of love, etc. are hurtful. Maybe beth is a raw wound in the household. The issue here is whether or not the existing references are painful for someone (either Ed or Jill), and if they are, it is understandable that you'd privilege either your own mental well being and/or especially the mental well being and happiness of your partner over what some people on the internet think.



I would assume either way that they wouldn't go through the trouble of all this unless some principle (ed, jill, both) were really made uncomfortable by the references. Someone must really care. I'm not saying it's not annoying from a fan/historian/completest perspective. But if I was in Ed's situation I think I'd also prioritize the people I love.