Red Mosquito

Fuzzcharger wrote: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.

Yeah, but like Birds In Hell pointed out, Ed's got prior history of being pretty, umm...unforgiving in his grudges (I won't go as far as to say childish), so it seems to me far more likely that this has to do with Ed still being mad than Jill being super jealous.

If it were really a case of Jill being that jealous, he'd probably be like "Guys, we can't play Black anymore."

We'll obviously never know for sure, but all of the evidence points to this being a product of Ed's personality.

Lament wrote:

Fuzzcharger wrote: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.

Yeah, but like Birds In Hell pointed out, Ed's got prior history of being pretty, umm...unforgiving in his grudges (I won't go as far as to say childish), so it seems to me far more likely that this has to do with Ed still being mad than Jill being super jealous.

If it were really a case of Jill being that jealous, he'd probably be like "Guys, we can't play Black anymore."

We'll obviously never know for sure, but all of the evidence points to this being a product of Ed's personality.

i dont think Black was about beth...and he even told her to fuck off during some of the Tags...so..

Im with Stip here...im guessing he really wants to erase all comments about Beth during that era. Its a shame because some of those moments, some of those songs or tags or whatever were so honest and caring about a relationship that as a kid really mattered when most of those rock cliches just wanted to bang girls.

Still, this boot is awesome.

Obviously, I don't know (or much care) about the inner workings of the Vedder household, beyond hoping they're happy. I just think the conversation of "hey honey, we're gonna release this live album, but I mention HER on it, so I'm gonna excise it" would be infinitely more awkward than either letting it go or just picking a different performance. To me, that would have less to do with the perspective of whether your married or not and more about common sense.

VinylGuy wrote:i dont think Black was about beth

Yeah, I know he's on record that Black isn't about Beth. But if it really is a case of Jill being jealous of any previous lovers, it'd be hard not be jealous of your husband getting on stage and pouring his soul into this song about a woman who he couldn't be with despite all of his best efforts. Just another reason why I really think it's specifically about Ed's feelings towards Beth, not protecting the feelings of his current wife.

Beth probably took a shitload of Ed's money. We all know how much he loves money.

WtOB? wrote:I think the days of the chud/platypus regime are over. The people are revolting.

Some of them certainly are.

WtOB? wrote:Beth probably took a shitload of Ed's money. We all know how much he loves money.

Once the dog collar sales take off he'll have made up what he lost in the divorce settlement.

Varis wrote:

WtOB? wrote:I think the days of the chud/platypus regime are over. The people are revolting.

Some of them certainly are.

Nobody's revolting and there is no regime, Adam's life is just lacking excitement.

stip wrote:

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.

Appreciate the response, stip. This makes sense. It still doesn't sit well with me, but I guess it doesn't have to.

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?

No, not necessarily. To draw a parallel: Buying my wife flowers would be a kind gesture. That doesn't mean it would be an unkind gesture to not buy her flowers, per se--just a neutral one, and certainly anything I was hoping to convey with those flowers would be lost, or at least diminished. I don't think this is something you have to be married to understand; I think interpersonal relationships in general have a greater success rate when the people involved are just considerate enough to preemptively make these kinds of choices with the other person in mind, regardless of whether or not the other person would actually be offended by the action in question. As a practice, keeping past lovers in the past is a way of reinforcing your exclusivity to your spouse, even though a reasonable person would understand that just because you sang someone's name in a song 15 years ago doesn't mean you're still in love with them.

Not surprisingly, many of the posters here are reacting to this situation the same way many people react to situations like this--they view it in terms of how far one partner should be able to go before he's "technically" done something wrong, and therefore before the second partner is allowed to exercise her right to be hurt. In their minds, since leaving references to the ex-wife present in the recording would not likely cause the current wife to simply divorce Ed on the spot, there is therefore no reason why it should be omitted. It's the same fundamental thought process at play in situations where men deny cheating on their wives because they weren't technically having sex with their mistresses, just receiving blowjobs from them. This is a fool's logic that eliminates all gray area and completely fails (or refuses) to acknowledge the complex, sprawling abyss of human emotion at play in any situation involving relationships between breathing, thinking people, and it necessitates that a reaction to anything but the most extreme end of the spectrum must therefore be unreasonable, jealous, conniving, bitchy, shallow, or whatever other adjective you want to throw around.

If that doesn't sell you, though, I'll put it this way: You can either side with me, who is one of the classiest and most discerning people on RM, or you can side with warehouse, who is named after a Dave Matthews song and whose posts look like an eighth grade girl's text messages.

Kevin Davis wrote:If that doesn't sell you, though, I'll put it this way: You can either side with me, who is one of the classiest and most discerning people on RM, or you can side with warehouse, who is named after a Dave Matthews song and whose posts look like an eighth grade girl's text messages.

SOLD

(I still think it's kind of weird but this whole debate makes me a bit uncomfortable, so.)

It's definitely weird to listen to. Don't get me wrong, as a listener, I hate it. But I also think every couple does things that make absolutely no sense to people outside the couple, and I think a little bit of that is probably a good thing.

And again, I have no idea that that's what's happening here. My mind just goes there because it relates to it, and at this point my elaboration on it has mainly just been directed by the conversation. It could just as easily be an act of pettiness. In the end, it's not my business; I just prefer giving people the benefit of the doubt.

This is kind of weird. This happened in Lollapalooza Chile this year... at the end of Black he said "that's for Shelly".. who's that girl? who knows.. but it was removed from the official bootleg that's for sure. So remember, every time Ed mentions a girl during a show, expect it to be removed afterwards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Em6MW9MSRkQ#t=08m58s

kerrang wrote:This is kind of weird. This happened in Lollapalooza Chile this year... at the end of Black he said "that's for Shelly".. who's that girl? who knows.. but it was removed from the official bootleg that's for sure. So remember, every time Ed mentions a girl during a show, expect it to be removed afterwards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Em6MW9MSRkQ#t=08m58s

Wow, I heard that on the live stream but didn't know they removed it from the boot. He actually said Shelly during the song too so did they just cut his vocals or cut the end of the song?

I think cutting out a speaking part of Gloria Steinem introducing Beth from an old show is more forgivable than what they did to the Unplugged Oceans. They haven't altered the original performance of a song and it's not even Eddie that mentions her. I'd still rather them not do it and it seems like they've gone out of their way to be petty but it doesn't bother me as much as MTV Oceans, which I consider completely ruined.

Kevin Davis wrote:It could just as easily be an act of pettiness. In the end, it's not my business; I just prefer giving people the benefit of the doubt.

I can get on board with that. Like I mentioned before, Ed's actions towards Dave A. lead me to believe that this is an act of pettiness on Ed's part. I do think it's kind of unfair that anyone has alluded to this being Jill's fault. I doubt she's even aware of any of it.

WtOB? wrote:I think cutting out a speaking part of Gloria Steinem introducing Beth from an old show is more forgivable than what they did to the Unplugged Oceans. They haven't altered the original performance of a song and it's not even Eddie that mentions her. I'd still rather them not do it and it seems like they've gone out of their way to be petty but it doesn't bother me as much as MTV Oceans, which I consider completely ruined.

Yeah, the MTV Oceans makes me cringe. I couldn't care less about them cutting out in between song banter of any sort on these releases. Most of the time it just sounds silly anyways. That being said, I know a lot of bootleg purists are probably very upset by things like this, so more power to them.

This kinda thing tends to draw more attention to Beth if anything. From the fans anyway.

WtOB? wrote:This kinda thing tends to draw more attention to Beth if anything. From the fans anyway.

Weren't there pictures of Ed and Beth together in Place/Date? I wonder if that's why they don't sell it on the site anymore.