Red Mosquito

harmless wrote:

gems and rhinestones wrote:Stip, I did not think about this until I read your review. I think that was a great observation on your part. I think you are right. Interesting!

This is not the work of heroes. This is a project anyone and everyone has to engage. And so while the rock star cheesiness is in the video in part because it’s playful (do you really think Danny Clinch included that because he thinks it looks cool?), and in part as a juxtaposition with how serious the problems that face us are. But I think it may also be meant to signify that there aren’t heroes that are going to make this better. There aren’t 20 people that are going to sit down in a room and solve our problems. Nor is it enough for some celebrity to draw attention to these things, since in the end a celebrity is just some silhouetted asshole jumping up and down in front of a blue screen. After all, we frequently get this footage from within a TV in the video, implying that we’re passively being dictated to, or that being a spectator is not enough. If the world is going to save itself, we’re going to have to roll up our sleeves, all of us, and get to work.

I totally agree about these satirical comments. 'Cartoony' and somewhat iconic (cliched) imagery is being used deliberately as a stylistic choice.

When I watched the video the first time, I was thinking Ed was really into it. More into it than I would have expected from him. Now I get why, thanks for pointing it out. It makes the video even way better.

We need a poll for the video.

gems and rhinestones wrote:

theplatypus wrote:

gems and rhinestones wrote:I'm the king of editing. I try to edit one out of every two posts.

I never edit posts. It makes the post look weak.

I agree! But most of my posts are in fact weak.

I was just making a joke-- the punchline being that I then proceeded to edit my post 39 times

theplatypus wrote:

gems and rhinestones wrote:

theplatypus wrote:

gems and rhinestones wrote:I'm the king of editing. I try to edit one out of every two posts.

I never edit posts. It makes the post look weak.

I agree! But most of my posts are in fact weak.

I was just making a joke-- the punchline being that I then proceeded to edit my post 39 times

Nobody knows whether Ed and the band were thinking all of these things when they created this, of course, but that goes for even the best art. I think that if a piece of work is able to stand up to scrutiny and discussion, it's succeeded. And I think this video stands up to that scrutiny. It's easily argued that the video does no more than it is trying to, but it does that very well indeed and, on the whole, for a specific audience. I've got a feeling that this (and possibly the album) will be aimed at the Backspacer audience who wants to delve a little deeper into PJ's work and themes, but with that sense of irreverence in tact. Actually, although they were pitching for it, that irreverent fun was largely missing from Backspacer (emphasis on the 'irreverent' -- there just was no sense of irony). But here I think they've achieved it better. To be honest, if this album does end up being a "rehash" of Backspacer in any way, shape or form, I will be happy as long as I think it achieves everything it sets out to. My accusation against Backspacer wasn't that it was too poppy (I listen to Calvin Harris and David Guetta) but that it lacked the satirical bite to counterbalance the shallowness.

The part where the bomb explodes as he says "Mind your manners!" is pretty funny. Lots of nice little touches like that.

stip wrote:

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?

Nah, I’m not sure you’ve heard the point, or maybe you’re not hearing it. I stated a million times that NSA, drones, QE are a couple examples of policies that a leftist could support that probably would be indicative of areas in which our current admin is missing the mark. There are plenty of others. So, when you say “specifically” or “specific issues”… you’re incorrect. For another example, unemployment… specifically black unemployment, or youth unemployment. There’s another example. Please don’t tell me it would be too hard to explain people are out of work in a video.
The point on hypocrisy is long stemmed, extending well beyond a video for a song. But, political hypocrisy seems quite apt here. That point solely has to do with affiliating the direction of this video towards someone who can actively change the current situation. To me, this is my opinion, the direction of this video was clearly directed away from the administration despite this being an obvious fit to discuss issues that would indirectly (not directly) implicate them. I would bet heavy money they actively discussed doing that when picking what to put in the vid – military, guns, oil, etc. Sure, they are still issues (and important ones), but in a sense, they are also tired clichés at this point, especially coming from PJ.

stip wrote: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.

Yeh, I don’t agree. I also don’t think it’s technical at all. Printing money is not technical. Higher prices aren’t technical either. A four year old could draw a picture to describe both.

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

Why? Because they would implicate the President? Come on.

stip wrote: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.

I’ll count what I see … – war, bombs, guns, pollution, military, pollution, money, bombs, nukes, bombing, fire, oil explosion, oil leak, oil birds, bomb explosion, hurricane, hurricane, oil, cars, glaciers, statue of liberty (gas mask), break…. Bombs, reverse bomb explosion, reverse explosion of house, reverse glacier melting, bomb, bomb, tanks, fire, military, gun, statue of liberty with gas mask, bomb, military, statue of liberty with gas mask, guns, bomb…
So, when I sum this up… I see there’s a problem with guns, pollution (specifically corporate pollution) and war. Even if we argue these problems are the same as they were under the Bush admin, which they shouldn’t be from Ed’s viewpoint, I sit and wonder, maybe take a shot at the powers that be on an issue that’s outside the Democratic platform? Or something that at least seems somewhat more relevant to 2013? I don’t know maybe sub one of the dozen bombs for a surveillance type thing… just a thought.

stip wrote: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.

I don’t know how many times I need to say this, but I’m not asking for specific. I simply thought it would be cool to make this same sort of video with a few more relevant issues to what are the big problems in 2013, that’s all. I mean problem #1 is: economy. Yet, where’s that? If we’re going to have an apocalyptic war (like you said this may be suggesting) guess what will push people to that? Perhaps, an economic meltdown? But, why’s that avoided? Hmmm.

stip wrote: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?

Nah, it’s not really. It’s seemingly a condemnation of Republican platform, circa 2004'ish.

What flavor? He’s drinking Democratic party kool-aid. He didn’t always do this, that’s why I’m voicing displeasure. He was always left of center, but I would never have thought of him as a partisan Democrat… until now. Both poltical parties SUCK. They both SUCK. Perhaps once his boy in the white house leaves, he’ll go back to his past viewpoints. I don't know.

stip wrote: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.

No problem.

stip wrote: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:

I’m not worried about being taken too seriously on a rock band’s message board, bro. See what I did there?
As for the quote you put up, that was a response to you claiming I receive my economic knowledge from internet blogs. You were wrong to insinuate that. I extended beyond that because you implied monetary policy isn’t important. You’re very wrong if you meant that. Monetary policy could arguably trump fiscal policy in terms of importance.

stip wrote: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.

You tried to present a viewpoint like Ed’s. I’m quite sure you would never pull the lever for someone right of center. I get you and Ed’s viewpoint there. My point is – once in a blue moon – there’s items where leftists and right players can agree. The total full-pride partisans won’t ever admit this because they're too busy, too vested in rooting for their team. They are blind. I fear Ed’s now in this state of partisanship. Yeh, he's my favorite lead singer... so it does kinda bother me. I'll get over it fine, but sure I'd prefer he wasn't a blind partisan.

stip wrote: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 agree with your first sentence and hope you’re right.

Just watched it, and i liked it more...Also, i re watched those little videos Soundgarden did when they released King Animal last year, were they discussed briefly about some of the songs; who wrote them, some little insight on when they did it...i hope PJ does something like this with LB.

@IlluminEddie



I don't have much more to add to this conversation, other than to say that I don't think a song that is broadly condemning the united states is somehow going easy on the president. I also don't think war and environmental collapse are Bush era issues. You are looking for something that specifically dates this video in the year 2013 so we can have no doubt that some of this is obama's fault, or at least that he didn't fix it. The problem with dating a video or a song is that it very quickly becomes dated. Beyond that I really do not, even the slightest little bit, imagine that the choices made here reflect a desire to protect obama.

IlluminEddie wrote: .To me, this is my opinion, the direction of this video was clearly directed away from the administration despite this being an obvious fit to discuss issues that would indirectly (not directly) implicate them. I would bet heavy money they actively discussed doing that when picking what to put in the vid – military, guns, oil, etc. Sure, they are still issues (and important ones), but in a sense, they are also tired clichés at this point, especially coming from PJ.

that's a fair point. Important issues, but certainly ground they've covered before. Maybe the point is that these problems transcended this particular moment, or are larger than the United States (beyond the United State's complicity in their continuation)

IlluminEddie wrote:

stip wrote: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.

Yeh, I don’t agree. I also don’t think it’s technical at all. Printing money is not technical. Higher prices aren’t technical either. A four year old could draw a picture to describe both.

by all means describe the powerful two-three second image in your head that should have been included in the video.

IlluminEddie wrote:

stip wrote: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.

I’ll count what I see … – war, bombs, guns, pollution, military, pollution, money, bombs, nukes, bombing, fire, oil explosion, oil leak, oil birds, bomb explosion, hurricane, hurricane, oil, cars, glaciers, statue of liberty (gas mask), break…. Bombs, reverse bomb explosion, reverse explosion of house, reverse glacier melting, bomb, bomb, tanks, fire, military, gun, statue of liberty with gas mask, bomb, military, statue of liberty with gas mask, guns, bomb…
So, when I sum this up… I see there’s a problem with guns, pollution (specifically corporate pollution) and war

all stuff that predates bush, continued through bush, and has lasted into Obama. None of those things remind me of Bush in particular. There are tons of iconic images from that period that could have been used if the goal was to try and pin this on Bush. It really seems like you're reaching pretty far with this.

IlluminEddie wrote: . Even if we argue these problems are the same as they were under the Bush admin, which they shouldn’t be from Ed’s viewpoint, I sit and wonder, maybe take a shot at the powers that be on an issue that’s outside the Democratic platform? Or something that at least seems somewhat more relevant to 2013? I don’t know maybe sub one of the dozen bombs for a surveillance type thing… just a thought.

the drone thing could have worked, but its absence does not necessarily mean anything significant.

IlluminEddie wrote:

stip wrote: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?

Nah, it’s not really. It’s seemingly a condemnation of Republican platform, circa 2004'ish.

I can't even follow you like 3 inches down this road. War and environmental collapse have not disappeared from the standard talking points of the left. You know what, I take that back. There is some continuity with the Republican platform circa 2004, because the people on the left that Eddie reads (or has mentioned in the past at any rate) continue to pound this point home and attach blame to Obama instead of Bush. In 2009 people may have hesitated to make that case. He owns it now.

IlluminEddie wrote: What flavor? He’s drinking Democratic party kool-aid. He didn’t always do this, that’s why I’m voicing displeasure. He was always left of center, but I would never have thought of him as a partisan Democrat… until now. Both poltical parties SUCK. They both SUCK. Perhaps once his boy in the white house leaves, he’ll go back to his past viewpoints. I don't know.

Your case for this is, to my eyes, way to thin for this to be credible. If he releases an album with a bunch of political songs and talks extensively about politics on the 2013 tour and somehow manages to dance around critiques of the current administration you'll have a much firmer leg to stand on.

IlluminEddie wrote:

stip wrote: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.

You tried to present a viewpoint like Ed’s. I’m quite sure you would never pull the lever for someone right of center. I get you and Ed’s viewpoint there. My point is – once in a blue moon – there’s items where leftists and right players can agree.

Ohhhkay?

IlluminEddie wrote: The total full-pride partisans won’t ever admit this because they're too busy, too vested in rooting for their team.

this seems pretty strawmanish to me

IlluminEddie wrote:

stip wrote: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 agree with your first sentence and hope you’re right.

let me clarify that. Eddie is partisan insofar as he hates republicans. He's been taking shots at them since Even Flow. I do not think Eddie is a partisan democrat. He is ideologically liberal, which means you're often stuck supporting democrats in general elections as the lesser of two evils. You seem to imagine Eddie as a party stalwart trying to score a vote to the 2016 nominating convention. To get from fundraising for Obama to there requires a leap that is not justifiable based on anything you've argued here

i admit I got curious and wondered what I was missing, so I read up on the fundraiser Eddie played to make money for Obama. From every report I saw Eddie wasn't really praising Obama. he was condemning Romney, in particular for the 47% comment.

stip wrote:i admit I got curious and wondered what I was missing, so I read up on the fundraiser Eddie played to make money for Obama. From every report I saw Eddie wasn't really praising Obama. he was condemning Romney, in particular for the 47% comment.

A bit like me. My default setting is hatred of the Tories but it doesn't mean adherence to Labour either.

New thought on the video:

I find it interesting that the "Self-realised and metaphysically redeemed" chorus begins the segment where 'Ed the Contemplative / Mystic' is moving away from the societal chaos and collapse and entering the woods. It reminds me of the ITW song 'Society': "Society, you're a crazy breed; I hope you're not lonely without me." For all the imagery's simplicity and cartoonishness, I feel that it contradicts the complaint that the video is irrelevant to the song. When that chorus comes around again, what I'm assuming is "God's" finger flicks him off his contemplative cloud back into the chaos. So, the disparate parts of the song (and they are disparate, thematically -- the verses rage, the chorus posits a solution) are perfectly mirrored by this video. The images themselves are there because they describe all the things that we are told we aren't allowed to be angry about by the elite. We aren't allowed to rage about social justice or politics. It's the "micro-aggression" thing: sit down and be quiet, your rage breaches the peace and everyone is polite and loving around here. This 'polite society' problem is easily found in religion.

So yeah. I still don't buy that the video is irrelevant to the lyrics. If it was, that would be OK (and conventional for a music video) but it's perfectly in line with the original intent of the song, to my mind.

But ugh, since Jorge commented on the editing being bad, I can't unsee it.

harmless wrote:

stip wrote:i admit I got curious and wondered what I was missing, so I read up on the fundraiser Eddie played to make money for Obama. From every report I saw Eddie wasn't really praising Obama. he was condemning Romney, in particular for the 47% comment.

A bit like me. My default setting is hatred of the Tories but it doesn't mean adherence to Labour either.

I'm far to the left of most establishment democrats. I vote for them because I don't have another choice. The idea that you likely wouldn't vote for a conservative somehow makes you closed minded or partisan (insofar as you vote for your team because it is your team) is often nonsense. it means that you have a fully fleshed out ideological worldview, and react accordingly. The democrats are constantly frustrating me, and I have no particular love for them. Quite a few I flat out can't stand.

But in the United States (at the national level) the most liberal republican is significantly to the right of the most conservative democrat, and so people with full realized ideological positions cannot easily cross party lines--not since the Dems and Repulicans finished their ideological sorting.

harmless wrote:New thought on the video:

I find it interesting that the "Self-realised and metaphysically redeemed" chorus begins the segment where 'Ed the Contemplative / Mystic' is moving away from the societal chaos and collapse and entering the woods. It reminds me of the ITW song 'Society': "Society, you're a crazy breed; I hope you're not lonely without me." For all the imagery's simplicity and cartoonishness, I feel that it contradicts the complaint that the video is irrelevant to the song. When that chorus comes around again, what I'm assuming is "God's" finger flicks him off his contemplative cloud back into the chaos. So, the disparate parts of the song (and they are disparate, thematically -- the verses rage, the chorus posits a solution) are perfectly mirrored by this video. The images themselves are there because they describe all the things that we are told we aren't allowed to be angry about by the elite. We aren't allowed to rage about social justice or politics. It's the "micro-aggression" thing: sit down and be quiet, your rage breaches the peace and everyone is polite and loving around here. This 'polite society' problem is easily found in religion.

So yeah. I still don't buy that the video is irrelevant to the lyrics. If it was, that would be OK (and conventional for a music video) but it's perfectly in line with the original intent of the song, to my mind.

agreed

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:

stip wrote:i admit I got curious and wondered what I was missing, so I read up on the fundraiser Eddie played to make money for Obama. From every report I saw Eddie wasn't really praising Obama. he was condemning Romney, in particular for the 47% comment.

A bit like me. My default setting is hatred of the Tories but it doesn't mean adherence to Labour either.

I'm far to the left of most establishment democrats. I vote for them because I don't have another choice. The idea that you likely wouldn't vote for a conservative somehow makes you closed minded or partisan (insofar as you vote for your team because it is your team) is often nonsense. it means that you have a fully fleshed out ideological worldview, and react accordingly. The democrats are constantly frustrating me, and I have no particular love for them. Quite a few I flat out can't stand.

But in the United States (at the national level) the most liberal republican is significantly to the right of the most conservative democrat, and so people with full realized ideological positions cannot easily cross party lines--not since the Dems and Repulicans finished their ideological sorting.

Indeed. Politics is about compromise and the hope that the concerns of a large enough group of dissenters are at least given some attention by whoever gets in. And if they're not, we put on the pressure. But I'm not an expert, just a reluctant political extremist.

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:New thought on the video:

I find it interesting that the "Self-realised and metaphysically redeemed" chorus begins the segment where 'Ed the Contemplative / Mystic' is moving away from the societal chaos and collapse and entering the woods. It reminds me of the ITW song 'Society': "Society, you're a crazy breed; I hope you're not lonely without me." For all the imagery's simplicity and cartoonishness, I feel that it contradicts the complaint that the video is irrelevant to the song. When that chorus comes around again, what I'm assuming is "God's" finger flicks him off his contemplative cloud back into the chaos. So, the disparate parts of the song (and they are disparate, thematically -- the verses rage, the chorus posits a solution) are perfectly mirrored by this video. The images themselves are there because they describe all the things that we are told we aren't allowed to be angry about by the elite. We aren't allowed to rage about social justice or politics. It's the "micro-aggression" thing: sit down and be quiet, your rage breaches the peace and everyone is polite and loving around here. This 'polite society' problem is easily found in religion.

So yeah. I still don't buy that the video is irrelevant to the lyrics. If it was, that would be OK (and conventional for a music video) but it's perfectly in line with the original intent of the song, to my mind.

agreed

You were right when (I think) you said it's meant to be just a slideshow / catalogue of real bad-world shit. For better or worse, it's not meant to be attacking any particular governments this time. But it doesn't let them off the hook either.

I think the song is about how you respond to the fact that things are bad. Do you go along with it, not think about it, or try to change it? Do you focus on yourself or focus on the world? all the video needs to establish is that things are bad.

They certainly could have made it topical. On the other hand, given the message abstracting out from particular problems makes the message purer since it removes the politics and enables you to focus on the principle. It also makes it more timeless. See also: grievance and DTE (and thematically this song is a hybrid of those two)

stip wrote:I think the song is about how you respond to the fact that things are bad. Do you go along with it, not think about it, or try to change it? Do you focus on yourself or focus on the world? all the video needs to establish is that things are bad.

They certainly could have made it topical. On the other hand, given the message abstracting out from particular problems makes the message purer since it removes the politics and enables you to focus on the principle. It also makes it more timeless. See also: grievance and DTE (and thematically this song is a hybrid of those two)

Good points. The archetypal images will resonate more as the theme of the song is pretty broad.