Red Mosquito

This team is not accepting any more members at the moment.

Heathen wrote:

stip wrote:

Lounge Lizard wrote:

harmless wrote:I'm not sure this means much but it's interesting. My mate and the lead singer of my old band likes this song and video and has some hope for the album. He jumped off the boat at Yield.

what was not to like about Yield? I undersdtand jumping ship at No Code, but Yield?

i know quite a few people who got off at yield. A lot of anthems that, for many were pale retreads of far more effective earlier songs. You wont find that view expressed much here, but then again we're the ones who stuck around

What Yield songs are anthems besides GTF?

I am using that term pretty broadly for big mid temp rock songs.

Lament wrote:I can't wait to hear people either complain that there's nothing on the record that addresses the NSA situation or conversely, try to argue that something on the record IS addressing the NSA situation. The story broke on June 6th. Mind Your Manners dropped a month later. There is virtually no way Ed's work on this record wasn't all but finished when the story broke.

i think illumineddie (and certainly me) were using that as shorthand for the general rise of the national security/surveillance state.

stip wrote:just a blanket response to illumineddie. I am on an ipad and haven't really figured out how to quote effectively on this thing.

others have said this, but you seem to have two very specific political axes to grind.

This isn't true. I don’t have any political axes to grind at all. You’re not listening. My axe to grind is hypocrisy. And the irony is this song (lyrics) are all about that.

stip wrote:One of which Eddie did not touch (QE) which I doubt he A: thinks is a problem and B: probably wouldn't bring up anyway. It's a bit arcane for a rock song outside of something you'd hear on a tea party youtube channel.

No. I mentioned QE is one thing he could have discussed that would run counter to the guy in the White House’s agenda. QE was simply an example.

stip wrote:The NSA stuff is totally legit, but it is quite specific, and I (and seemingly others here) don't think it is appropriate for this song. This is not a song about the bad things that are happening. it is a song about the appropriate RESPONSE to the bad things hat are happening. The bad things are a backdrop for that larger point. Could there have been more contemporary stock footage in the video. Sure. Would that have made it better? Probably. But it's not like that was Bush era footage either.

You crack me up. I’m glad the NSA got through the stip “legit” stamp of approval. If you read through this thread, your point on others here don’t think it’s appropriate for this song. A few people agreed that he should be talking about this stuff. But, who cares what people here think anyway.
My point was the NSA stuff is another “EXAMPLE” of something he could discuss that’s not 100% party platform shit of the guy in the big white house.

stip wrote:Would that have made it better? Probably. But it's not like that was Bush era footage either.

I disagree. It’s pretty much exactly Bush era footage, with maybe a contemporary hurricane tossed in instead of Katrina.

stip wrote:And even if the current events were more important, any political song that exists today dealing with war, ecological collapse, etc. is going to contain an implicit critique of the current administration because they are the ones in charge.

I kinda agree here, but my sole point is that he’s purposely being vague with the video content. One may ask, if that’s true, why? I’d respond because he doesn’t want to implicate the guy in the big white house who has all the power who he fancies so much. The irony, of course, is the song’s lyrics are all about standing up for something, despite people with power disagreeing. He’s acting out exactly what the song’s lyrics are preaching against in that sense.

stip wrote:EV only mentioned Bush once in a song, and it was not a particularly graceful song, so I hope he doesn't ever do it again. As you said, he is often naieve about this stuff, or at least oversimplifies, and so the more he stays away from specifics the better. Rock songs are not the best place for serious public policy discussions anyway. At best, they can point out the need for them.

I agree Bushleaguer was not graceful. I’ve said repetitively that there was no need to call Obama out by name. I would have disliked that actually. I’ve said that he didn’t need to name him over and over. All I was saying was focus on one policy in which he disagreed. One. As for oversimplifying, I’m game with that.
I just think tackling some contemporary issues would be good.

stip wrote:I think you are making very specific condemnations about eddie's alleged cowardice, hypocrisy, etc. because he is not taking on the NSA. And he may not. He may never say anything else political on this record for all we know (or something that can be construed as political about obama, anyway, which I guess is your point). But we've only heard one song and seen one video where it was even a possibility. No tour, no album, no interviews. When would he have done it? (for people who listen to the solo show boots, did he say anything there) At an Obama fundraiser during the general election. That would have been stupid from his perspective since he was trying to raise money to defeat Romney who likely, on every issue obama cares about, would have been far worse. There are times to take the moral stand on principle, and there are times to work to do the maximum amount of good (or minimize harm) in concrete ways. Both have value.

Well, let’s be straight, this video (think making this video), provided a perfect opportunity to toss in maybe one small item that showed he’s not completely drinking the kool-aid. This was a perfect chance. You’re saying, well we didn’t hear everything – album and tour. I agree. But, based on this opportunity and the past 6 years of deafening silence, I’m betting we have a good idea of what the answer is. He’s going to stay mute. Then again, if Romney was in and was doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING, I think we’d be seeing a 100% reversal in this mute approach. To me, anyone how would follow that approach shows their ignorance.

stip wrote: If at the end of a record and this tour he never talks about these things we can revisit this question. You might be right. But what you are describing right now makes as much sense as being mad at eddie for not mentioning Sandy Hook, not criticizing inequality, or anything like that.

No, it’s not equivalent. The point isn’t about Eddie bringing up the NSA thing. Or drones. Or QE. It’s about him bringing up not ONE THING in which Obama would disapprove. ONE. Anything… that runs counter to the agenda of the guy in the big White House. That’s my point. It’s not bringing up a specific item, like you’re trying to paint it. It’s actually quite broad. I’m saying – anything. Drones, QE and NSA seem like areas he could do this, that’s all and still maintain his “leftist” viewpoint.

stip wrote:The specific song doesn't require it (and works better without it) and the video is going for apocalyptic 'end of the world' images that the nsa stuff wouldn't have fallen under. Again, I'm sorry this wasn't the song/video YOU wanted, but these simply aren't reasonable critiques to make of this song. They are possibly reasonable critiques to be made about eddie/pearl jam inc. in several months.

You have no idea what it would be like with it to make the call on better or worse. Jt’s a counterfactual. And ummm… I think the apocalyptic “end of the world” images including drones or the surveillance state would be 100% appropriate. My critiques are very reasonable. I’m saying – in a song about standing to hypocrisy, don’t be a hypocrite when making the video by purposefully excluding items (that are quite relevant in 2013) that could potentially look as if you’re saying the guy in the white house now may be partially to blame for the environment in which we live. As for waiting to make this call, I think we already have an idea to predict total behavior.

stip wrote:as far as the credential stuff, yes it is obnoxious as hell. It is patronizing.

Yeh it was douche-like.

stip wrote: But that was something you brought up first,

I didn’t say I’m a PhD first. I wouldn’t do that. In fact, I only said something regarding this because you said I obtained all my knowledge from economics blogs. You, my friend started the negative implications regarding my education on an issue (economics). After you said that I simply responded I’m quite well read in this area (economics) and probably have a better background than you and Mr Vedder… which it turns out is true.

stip wrote:in reference to your classified secret knowledge that only you had which invalidated my ability to participate in this conversation (the economics part of it, anyway). If we are going to play that game lets just put our cards on the table. For someone so worried about the nsa I figured you'd be into that.

Yeh, I never said I had a classified secret knowledge, ever… bro, you’re rewriting history. You were immediately upset that I brought up QE-to-infinity, and pretended this was some sort of code word… except the fact is, every news outlet imaginable has used that same term. Just pick up any paper. As for putting cards on the table, I don’t think that’s necessary. I think everyone deserves an opinion, PhD or not. I don’t see why credentials needed to be placed. Sorry if I’m not even slightly impressed.

stip wrote:But now that we've finished waving our credential dicks in the air, lets just do this. I'll stop talking about QE, since you outrank me. In return you stop talking about elections and politics. We can share the NSA, since i"m feeling magnanimous. Plus I doubt we disagree.

Nah, I can talk about elections and politics. So can guy X who didn’t waste time getting a degree in a social science. You can talk QE. So can guy Y who didn’t waste time getting a degree in a social science. I don’t see a purpose in pretending like you need a doctoral degree in a social science to engage in a discussion. Maybe it’s just that I’m not intimidated by alternative opinions and don’t feel the need to squash them.

stip wrote:you asked a question. I offered a response. You advanced an argument in a public forum. I think it's wrong, and responded explaining why. the fact that people are not agreeing with you does not make you persecuted. you can't martyr yourself when no one is trying to burn you.

I did ask a question and to be fair you engaged… you didn’t really answer it though, probably because you can’t. Which, maybe in retrospect, I shouldn’t have asked it all because I can’t get the answer here.
I should know better. I like to discuss politics with people who aren’t partisans. I don’t like to engage with partisans because they tend to not even be able to identify their own partisanship. Ed seems extra-partisan these days, that’s all. Obviously, this bothers me.
I think if one can’t honestly agree there though (that Ed’s partisan), than, it’s not worth discussing further because that person probably has their own partisan issues.

I'm fine with agreeing to disagree at this point.

I see IlluminEddie just responded so I'll get to that in a second but I was just coming to this thread to post something on Obama and the politics of this album.

We may get quite specific things targeting an individual, but thinking back on the catalog we only get that with Bu$hleaguer and World Wide Suicide, and a lot of that may just be due to the visceral hatred that Eddie felt towards Bush, which went beyond any one particular policy issue. Bush was just the embodiment of everything Eddie hated. So even if there are things he doesn't like about Obama, or policies he loathes, I'm not sure we'll get that. And I doubt that is because of the fundraising.

For politically engaged individuals your response to what you don't like around you is heavily influenced by what you think about the people in power. This isn't a partisanship thing, keep in mind. It has a lot more to do with ideology and psychology. If you hate the person in power it is easy to embody everything you hate into that one person (in Eddie's case, Bush). You think if you can just get rid of that one asshole everything will be okay. You see the same thing existing on the right today with Obama--the way in which everything people don't like is somehow all tied directly back to him--with the assumption that if we just replace him everything will be okay.

The night Obama was elected I got a bunch of calls from friends asking me how excited I was. And I was glad Obama won, but most of the problems that exist in the United States are structural--they go far beyond who is in an office and actually shape how the person in office responds. And part of me was depressed because you had all these cheering people thinking the millennium had come, and it hadn't, and they were going to get so cynical as a result. That's not to say who holds that office is irrelevant--different people will respond in different ways, but the acceptable boundaries within which you can formulate a response are often beyond the president's control (this is not an apology for obama either--there are plenty of things he could have done better within those boundaries). And so when it is your guy in charge, and you're disappointed, you are more likely to start to see the problems as structural. If this guy, who you believe meant well, makes all the same mistakes, maybe the problems go deeper than one person, and so you respond the same way.

Or maybe he's just a hypocritical asshole who said what he had to in order to get elected. I personally don't believe that (and I voted for obama, but i did not donate money or campaign for him this time, and I did both of those things in 2008), but that doesn't make it true.

Heathen wrote:

Lament wrote:

Heathen wrote:

Lament wrote:

Heathen wrote:What Yield songs are anthems besides GTF?

In Hiding.

I don't see it. To me there is some kind of restraint on most of Yield that makes it a very non-anthemic album.

Really? I think In Hiding is every bit as anthemic (structurally speaking) as Given to Fly. An instantly recognizable guitar riff to open the song, then a build of tension from the verse to the pre-chorus before the release of a giant, shout along along chorus. And then they do it all over again. Just like in Given to Fly.

Structurally speaking maybe, but it doesn't feel like an anthem.

u should hear them play it in philly live w/ the whole crowd singing the chorus. im sure it will feel like an anthem w/ that many people singing together at once.

im pretty much in love w/ MYM at this point. the video is pretty cool, except for the parts where there's a silhouette of eddie vedder w/ his mic stand dancing. can we stop making this guy look like a douche bag? its not as bad as the uke songs promos, but still, its fuckin lame.

IlluminEddie wrote:

stip wrote:just a blanket response to illumineddie. I am on an ipad and haven't really figured out how to quote effectively on this thing.

others have said this, but you seem to have two very specific political axes to grind.

This isn't true. I don’t have any political axes to grind at all. You’re not listening. My axe to grind is hypocrisy. And the irony is this song (lyrics) are all about that.

I am listening, quite carefully. your charge of hypocrisy seems to be stemming from the fact that the song's video did not specifically, in a readily identifiable way, address a specific issue, which you have established as the benchmark for the band's integrity. They did not mention THIS thing, and therefore are hypocrites. What have I not heard?

IlluminEddie wrote:

stip wrote:One of which Eddie did not touch (QE) which I doubt he A: thinks is a problem and B: probably wouldn't bring up anyway. It's a bit arcane for a rock song outside of something you'd hear on a tea party youtube channel.

No. I mentioned QE is one thing he could have discussed that would run counter to the guy in the White House’s agenda. QE was simply an example.

and my point is that this is a pretty shitty topic for a song and or video. I think it's reasonable to suggest that anything which requires a technical vocabulary to understand, or requires background reading, makes it inappropriate. And since they are making a music video this is no small consideration.

IlluminEddie wrote:

stip wrote:The NSA stuff is totally legit, but it is quite specific, and I (and seemingly others here) don't think it is appropriate for this song. This is not a song about the bad things that are happening. it is a song about the appropriate RESPONSE to the bad things hat are happening. The bad things are a backdrop for that larger point. Could there have been more contemporary stock footage in the video. Sure. Would that have made it better? Probably. But it's not like that was Bush era footage either.

You crack me up. I’m glad the NSA got through the stip “legit” stamp of approval. If you read through this thread, your point on others here don’t think it’s appropriate for this song. A few people agreed that he should be talking about this stuff. But, who cares what people here think anyway.
My point was the NSA stuff is another “EXAMPLE” of something he could discuss that’s not 100% party platform shit of the guy in the big white house.

and once again, my point is that your EXAMPLES are not necessarily the best choices for this particular medium of expression.

IlluminEddie wrote:

stip wrote:Would that have made it better? Probably. But it's not like that was Bush era footage either.

I disagree. It’s pretty much exactly Bush era footage, with maybe a contemporary hurricane tossed in instead of Katrina.

Is it? What in particular? Since it is pretty much exactly bush era footage, instead of stock footage, it should be easy for you to point this out. While you are doing so please indicate what in particular should prompt the viewer to equate what they're watching with the years 2001-2008.

IlluminEddie wrote:

stip wrote:And even if the current events were more important, any political song that exists today dealing with war, ecological collapse, etc. is going to contain an implicit critique of the current administration because they are the ones in charge.

I kinda agree here, but my sole point is that he’s purposely being vague with the video content. One may ask, if that’s true, why? I’d respond because he doesn’t want to implicate the guy in the big white house who has all the power who he fancies so much.

Because the point of the video is not to level a specific critique, but to establish that things are bad because the song is about the response to it. And again, in all of the videos pearl jam has ever made, and in all the songs they've ever written for that matter, there are maybe two-three examples ever of him being specific. Eddie does most of that crap while they're on tour. He is ALWAYS purposefully vague. Even during the Bush era he was purposefully vague, and the times he wasn't are usually shit. I wanted Bushleaguer to be awesome and was disappointed when it sucked. He's better off not trying that again. But that song was an outlier anyway. There is no real change of behavior here.

IlluminEddie wrote:

stip wrote:I think you are making very specific condemnations about eddie's alleged cowardice, hypocrisy, etc. because he is not taking on the NSA. And he may not. He may never say anything else political on this record for all we know (or something that can be construed as political about obama, anyway, which I guess is your point). But we've only heard one song and seen one video where it was even a possibility. No tour, no album, no interviews. When would he have done it? (for people who listen to the solo show boots, did he say anything there) At an Obama fundraiser during the general election. That would have been stupid from his perspective since he was trying to raise money to defeat Romney who likely, on every issue obama cares about, would have been far worse. There are times to take the moral stand on principle, and there are times to work to do the maximum amount of good (or minimize harm) in concrete ways. Both have value.

Well, let’s be straight, this video (think making this video), provided a perfect opportunity to toss in maybe one small item that showed he’s not completely drinking the kool-aid.

the whole damn video is a condemnation of our country and our times. This song would not have been written in early 2009. Eddie gave interviews saying as much. And now we have a return of the political vitriol that was absent from the last several years. Is it because he hates George Bush's paintings? What kool aid, precisely, is he drinking?

IlluminEddie wrote:

stip wrote:as far as the credential stuff, yes it is obnoxious as hell. It is patronizing.

Yeh it was douche-like.

stip wrote: But that was something you brought up first,

I didn’t say I’m a PhD first. I wouldn’t do that. In fact, I only said something regarding this because you said I obtained all my knowledge from economics blogs. You, my friend started the negative implications regarding my education on an issue (economics).

I was dismissive, that's true, and I should not have been. I have an axe to grind with this issue and brought it into this thread, which I should not have done. So I apologize for that.

IlluminEddie wrote:

stip wrote:in reference to your classified secret knowledge that only you had which invalidated my ability to participate in this conversation (the economics part of it, anyway). If we are going to play that game lets just put our cards on the table. For someone so worried about the nsa I figured you'd be into that.

Yeh, I never said I had a classified secret knowledge, ever… bro, you’re rewriting history.

First off, if you want anyone to take you seriously you're going to have to promise to never use the word bro again.


secondly, I have no idea why I would have drawn that conclusion from this comment:

IlluminEddie wrote:I can assure you, I have more education (both in this area via formal schooling and work) than yourself and Mr. Vedder combined.
Outside of the patronizing, printing money is extremely problematic, whether you like it or not. Those who don’t understand monetary policy have a tendency to undervalue its importance and think fiscal policy (president and congress) are more powerful than they actually are.

IlluminEddie wrote:

stip wrote:you asked a question. I offered a response. You advanced an argument in a public forum. I think it's wrong, and responded explaining why. the fact that people are not agreeing with you does not make you persecuted. you can't martyr yourself when no one is trying to burn you.

I did ask a question and to be fair you engaged… you didn’t really answer it though, probably because you can’t.

Or I wrote several pages answering it, going point by point, and because you didn't like the answer, assumed that I ignored you. But to be fair, at least you then didn't dismiss a dissenting opinion by assuming that, because it doesn't agree with you it is therefore partisan bullshit and not to be taken seriously.

IlluminEddie wrote: Which, maybe in retrospect, I shouldn’t have asked it all because I can’t get the answer here.
I should know better. I like to discuss politics with people who aren’t partisans. I don’t like to engage with partisans because they tend to not even be able to identify their own partisanship

yup. it's a good thing that didn't happen.

IlluminEddie wrote: I think if one can’t honestly agree there though (that Ed’s partisan), than, it’s not worth discussing further because that person probably has their own partisan issues.

Ed is most definitely partisan. No one denied that. Having said that, just because you've taken a side does not mean you have a slavering loyalty to that side. There is a lot of ground to cover between 'I am on the left' to 'i will never critique the president'. I think you're taking a much larger leap then is currently justified

i love the video!

I guess I can't really wrap my brain around how it's possible that a song and a video that basically says our country and our world is in a tub of shit right now is in any way complimentary to the current occupant of the White House. It's not Bushleaguer but it's clearly not Rock Around Barack either.

gems and rhinestones wrote:i love the video!

This happened a few times but I didn't bother to quote them as I'm on my phone.

You edited the post?

Lament wrote:

Heathen wrote:

Lament wrote:

Heathen wrote:What Yield songs are anthems besides GTF?

In Hiding.

I don't see it. To me there is some kind of restraint on most of Yield that makes it a very non-anthemic album.

Really? I think In Hiding is every bit as anthemic (structurally speaking) as Given to Fly. An instantly recognizable guitar riff to open the song, then a build of tension from the verse to the pre-chorus before the release of a giant, shout along along chorus. And then they do it all over again. Just like in Given to Fly.

Faithfull is another one. Anthemic chorus.

What makes everyone so certain this is video is anything other than some stock footage trying to ape the DTE video because hey, people thought that was cool back in the day, right? Without a singular target like Bush for someone as uneducated as Eddie to target with his 'political and social commentary' we end up with a Backspacer. I don't really expect anything different this time around.

The final verdict for me is still a bunch of contrived outrage because this motorheady song Mike brought in dictated it.

Without a singular target we end up with 7 out of their 9 albums.

harmless wrote:Without a singular target we end up with 7 out of their 9 albums.

They had other targets in their younger days. Ticketmaster, their own fame, ect. ect.

verb_to_trust wrote:

harmless wrote:Without a singular target we end up with 7 out of their 9 albums.

They had other targets in their younger days. Ticketmaster, their own fame, ect. ect.

So dte was a response to ticketmaster? Grievance and insignificance were responses to their own fame? Backspacer was full of political commentary?

stip wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

harmless wrote:Without a singular target we end up with 7 out of their 9 albums.

They had other targets in their younger days. Ticketmaster, their own fame, ect. ect.

So dte was a response to ticketmaster? Grievance and insignificance were responses to their own fame? Backspacer was full of political commentary?

Should I have listed them all for you stip?

verb_to_trust wrote:

stip wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

harmless wrote:Without a singular target we end up with 7 out of their 9 albums.

They had other targets in their younger days. Ticketmaster, their own fame, ect. ect.

So dte was a response to ticketmaster? Grievance and insignificance were responses to their own fame? Backspacer was full of political commentary?

Should I have listed them all for you stip?

If I understand you, you were saying that pearl jam has not written songs that were broad based social commentary outside of the context of the bush administration or their own personal issues. I also don't understand how backspacer is a political record other than the noticeable absence of political commentary after the previous two records. And even during the Riot Act/ST years many of EV's political/social songs were about things beyond Bush.

Without a singular target like Bush for someone as uneducated as Eddie to target with his 'political and social commentary' we end up with a Backspacer. I don't really expect anything different this time around.

what precisely did I miss?

The imagery and ideas of this video are bold, bright, iconic and yes, OTT, because so is 1) iconic political punk imagery and 2) iconic religious imagery. Both of these things offer ideas in decidedly unsubtle, accessible and highly stylised ways. It'd be easy to call Sex Pistols "God Save the Queen" or "Anarchy In the UK" artwork naive and juvenile.

stip wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

stip wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

harmless wrote:Without a singular target we end up with 7 out of their 9 albums.

They had other targets in their younger days. Ticketmaster, their own fame, ect. ect.

So dte was a response to ticketmaster? Grievance and insignificance were responses to their own fame? Backspacer was full of political commentary?

Should I have listed them all for you stip?

If I understand you, you were saying that pearl jam has not written songs that were broad based social commentary outside of the context of the bush administration or their own personal issues. I also don't understand how backspacer is a political record other than the noticeable absence of political commentary after the previous two records. And even during the Riot Act/ST years many of EV's political/social songs were about things beyond Bush.

Without a singular target like Bush for someone as uneducated as Eddie to target with his 'political and social commentary' we end up with a Backspacer. I don't really expect anything different this time around.

what precisely did I miss?

I'm not saying Backspacer is a political record, quite the opposite. And with Eddie still rocking around Barack, Lightning Bolt isn't going to be one either if I had to guess. Without the boogeyman in the White House, we are going to get another album about riding high amongst waves. The 'outrage' in the MYM video seems contrived to me...

verb_to_trust wrote:

stip wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

stip wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

harmless wrote:Without a singular target we end up with 7 out of their 9 albums.

They had other targets in their younger days. Ticketmaster, their own fame, ect. ect.

So dte was a response to ticketmaster? Grievance and insignificance were responses to their own fame? Backspacer was full of political commentary?

Should I have listed them all for you stip?

If I understand you, you were saying that pearl jam has not written songs that were broad based social commentary outside of the context of the bush administration or their own personal issues. I also don't understand how backspacer is a political record other than the noticeable absence of political commentary after the previous two records. And even during the Riot Act/ST years many of EV's political/social songs were about things beyond Bush.

Without a singular target like Bush for someone as uneducated as Eddie to target with his 'political and social commentary' we end up with a Backspacer. I don't really expect anything different this time around.

what precisely did I miss?

I'm not saying Backspacer is a political record, quite the opposite. And with Eddie still rocking around Barack, Lightning Bolt isn't going to be one either if I had to guess. Without the boogeyman in the White House, we are going to get another album about riding high amongst waves. The 'outrage' in the MYM video seems contrived to me...

This is like the pot calling the kettle contrived.