Which bootleg are you listening to?
- Simple Torture
- I Have A Third Nipple
- Posts: 21687
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 7:41 am
- Location: Cumberland, RI
Re: Which bootleg are you listening to?
I'm listening to Montreal 2000 right now and got to Betterman, and was shocked that the track length is 3:53. Unbelievable nowadays.
McParadigm wrote:lol
- oasisfan35
- Rank This Poster
- Posts: 4780
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:07 pm
Re: Which bootleg are you listening to?
2010-05-21 New York
My lord is this a rough one.
My lord is this a rough one.
absinthe makes the heart grow fonder...
-
liebzz
- I've been POOSSTTIiiEEnngeeaahh
- Posts: 10608
- Joined: Thu January 03, 2013 7:55 pm
Re: Which bootleg are you listening to?
Rough? I would confidently say this is the best show I have ever attended, including 21 other Pearl Jam shows and every other band I have seen. This show was incredible.oasisfan35 wrote:2010-05-21 New York
My lord is this a rough one.
According to my set list.fm stats I am at 190 concerts by 104 different artists, but I know it is more than that because there are shows I couldn’t find there. Point is I must have seen some decent bands in there. None approach the magic of that night.
- E.H. Ruddock
- Guys, I am not a moderator! I swear to God! Why does everyone think I'm a moderator?
- Posts: 52023
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:48 pm
Re: Which bootleg are you listening to?
Might listen to the Midtown Music Festival set from 2012 next. For a festival, it was a good show.
Clouuuuds Rolll byyy...BANG BANG BANG BANG
- VinylGuy
- jeeeesus relax already
- Posts: 43421
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:10 pm
Re: Which bootleg are you listening to?
2008 and 2010 are the two worst tours in my opinion.oasisfan35 wrote:2010-05-21 New York
My lord is this a rough one.
BONE FUCKIN´ TOMAHAWK.
- Birds in Hell
- 10Club Complaint Department
- Posts: 16296
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 9:38 pm
Re: Which bootleg are you listening to?
A show which is amazing in person doesn't always translate particularly well to the recorded medium.liebzz wrote:Rough? I would confidently say this is the best show I have ever attended, including 21 other Pearl Jam shows and every other band I have seen. This show was incredible.oasisfan35 wrote:2010-05-21 New York
My lord is this a rough one.
According to my set list.fm stats I am at 190 concerts by 104 different artists, but I know it is more than that because there are shows I couldn’t find there. Point is I must have seen some decent bands in there. None approach the magic of that night.
I find the 2010 bootlegs almost unlistenable in general because of the mixing, anyway.
- Strat
- Waiting for HVAC Repairman
- Posts: 35417
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:48 pm
- Location: Twin City Kisses
Re: Which bootleg are you listening to?
Yes, which is super unfortunate because there were a few great shows. The mixing is atrocious though.Birds in Hell wrote:A show which is amazing in person doesn't always translate particularly well to the recorded medium.liebzz wrote:Rough? I would confidently say this is the best show I have ever attended, including 21 other Pearl Jam shows and every other band I have seen. This show was incredible.oasisfan35 wrote:2010-05-21 New York
My lord is this a rough one.
According to my set list.fm stats I am at 190 concerts by 104 different artists, but I know it is more than that because there are shows I couldn’t find there. Point is I must have seen some decent bands in there. None approach the magic of that night.
I find the 2010 bootlegs almost unlistenable in general because of the mixing, anyway.
-
raven2001
- A Return To Form
- Posts: 173
- Joined: Sun October 16, 2016 4:19 pm
Re: Which bootleg are you listening to?
I'm currently doing the 2005 tour in chronological order, Kitchener is next. So far I liked Calgary the best. When they are good, they are REALLY good on that tour but almost every show has plenty of rough tracks, too. So I can't agree with all the people that say that they were so tight on that tour. Not really. Australia or Europe 2006, that's tight in comparison. I like the 2005 setlists better but performancewise it isn't even close...
- oasisfan35
- Rank This Poster
- Posts: 4780
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:07 pm
Re: Which bootleg are you listening to?
The mix definitely isn't helping as it really is quite poor. That said, I was at this show as well and wouldn't put it anywhere near the best PJ show I've seen let alone other artists. Different strokes I suppose though the fact that Ed sounds exhausted from the start is a fairly objective statement.Strat wrote:Yes, which is super unfortunate because there were a few great shows. The mixing is atrocious though.Birds in Hell wrote:A show which is amazing in person doesn't always translate particularly well to the recorded medium.liebzz wrote:Rough? I would confidently say this is the best show I have ever attended, including 21 other Pearl Jam shows and every other band I have seen. This show was incredible.oasisfan35 wrote:2010-05-21 New York
My lord is this a rough one.
According to my set list.fm stats I am at 190 concerts by 104 different artists, but I know it is more than that because there are shows I couldn’t find there. Point is I must have seen some decent bands in there. None approach the magic of that night.
I find the 2010 bootlegs almost unlistenable in general because of the mixing, anyway.
absinthe makes the heart grow fonder...
- VinylGuy
- jeeeesus relax already
- Posts: 43421
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:10 pm
Re: Which bootleg are you listening to?
2006 were really tight, but in 2005 they really found a new live setting. Most of the tour is just great.raven2001 wrote:I'm currently doing the 2005 tour in chronological order, Kitchener is next. So far I liked Calgary the best. When they are good, they are REALLY good on that tour but almost every show has plenty of rough tracks, too. So I can't agree with all the people that say that they were so tight on that tour. Not really. Australia or Europe 2006, that's tight in comparison. I like the 2005 setlists better but performancewise it isn't even close...
BONE FUCKIN´ TOMAHAWK.
-
liebzz
- I've been POOSSTTIiiEEnngeeaahh
- Posts: 10608
- Joined: Thu January 03, 2013 7:55 pm
Re: Which bootleg are you listening to?
I don’t think he sounded tired. I thought they were firing on all cylinders, the band was on fire much of the night, the energy in the room was phenomenal. It could have been my seat location that helped - seats close but side stage on Mike’s Side, but I cannot remember enjoying a show as much as this. I am not sure they e ever had a good recording at MSG and perhaps that makes the shows age poorly for folks, but this is the last show that I saw from them where I felt they were on a mission to tear the place down. I’ve seen them put in good shows since but this was quite special.oasisfan35 wrote:The mix definitely isn't helping as it really is quite poor. That said, I was at this show as well and wouldn't put it anywhere near the best PJ show I've seen let alone other artists. Different strokes I suppose though the fact that Ed sounds exhausted from the start is a fairly objective statement.Strat wrote:Yes, which is super unfortunate because there were a few great shows. The mixing is atrocious though.Birds in Hell wrote:A show which is amazing in person doesn't always translate particularly well to the recorded medium.liebzz wrote:Rough? I would confidently say this is the best show I have ever attended, including 21 other Pearl Jam shows and every other band I have seen. This show was incredible.oasisfan35 wrote:2010-05-21 New York
My lord is this a rough one.
According to my set list.fm stats I am at 190 concerts by 104 different artists, but I know it is more than that because there are shows I couldn’t find there. Point is I must have seen some decent bands in there. None approach the magic of that night.
I find the 2010 bootlegs almost unlistenable in general because of the mixing, anyway.
- Norah
- Poster of the Year
- Posts: 37454
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:04 pm
- Location: September 2020 Poster of the Month
Re: Which bootleg are you listening to?
And Ed still sang the first verse that tour.Simple Torture wrote:I'm listening to Montreal 2000 right now and got to Betterman, and was shocked that the track length is 3:53. Unbelievable nowadays.
- oasisfan35
- Rank This Poster
- Posts: 4780
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:07 pm
Re: Which bootleg are you listening to?
MSG is not a fantastic room acoustically by any means, bands affinity for it used to puzzle me until I equated it to money. I'm glad you had a good time and there is certainly an energy that can often come with the Garden.liebzz wrote:I don’t think he sounded tired. I thought they were firing on all cylinders, the band was on fire much of the night, the energy in the room was phenomenal. It could have been my seat location that helped - seats close but side stage on Mike’s Side, but I cannot remember enjoying a show as much as this. I am not sure they e ever had a good recording at MSG and perhaps that makes the shows age poorly for folks, but this is the last show that I saw from them where I felt they were on a mission to tear the place down. I’ve seen them put in good shows since but this was quite special.oasisfan35 wrote:The mix definitely isn't helping as it really is quite poor. That said, I was at this show as well and wouldn't put it anywhere near the best PJ show I've seen let alone other artists. Different strokes I suppose though the fact that Ed sounds exhausted from the start is a fairly objective statement.Strat wrote:Yes, which is super unfortunate because there were a few great shows. The mixing is atrocious though.Birds in Hell wrote:A show which is amazing in person doesn't always translate particularly well to the recorded medium.liebzz wrote:Rough? I would confidently say this is the best show I have ever attended, including 21 other Pearl Jam shows and every other band I have seen. This show was incredible.oasisfan35 wrote:2010-05-21 New York
My lord is this a rough one.
According to my set list.fm stats I am at 190 concerts by 104 different artists, but I know it is more than that because there are shows I couldn’t find there. Point is I must have seen some decent bands in there. None approach the magic of that night.
I find the 2010 bootlegs almost unlistenable in general because of the mixing, anyway.
absinthe makes the heart grow fonder...
- Wendy Carlos's Twin
- Future Drummer
- Posts: 2809
- Joined: Sat January 05, 2013 9:37 am
Re: Which bootleg are you listening to?
I'm doing the same thing now and you're right. They are not super tight on this tour, and the mixing/sound quality of the boots is strange too. Not like I remembered. But I'm sure there is a good 2-CD comp here like the Europe 2000 one.raven2001 wrote:I'm currently doing the 2005 tour in chronological order, Kitchener is next. So far I liked Calgary the best. When they are good, they are REALLY good on that tour but almost every show has plenty of rough tracks, too. So I can't agree with all the people that say that they were so tight on that tour. Not really. Australia or Europe 2006, that's tight in comparison. I like the 2005 setlists better but performancewise it isn't even close...
- oasisfan35
- Rank This Poster
- Posts: 4780
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:07 pm
Re: Which bootleg are you listening to?
I like the 2005 tour quite a bit, the band just seemed to be playing at a solid comfort level with all their material and the energy was there. The 2006 tour had the necessary inclusion of the new material, which certainly had its and peaks and valleys, but it forced the band to work and that paid off by the later Euro/Aussie legs.Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote:I'm doing the same thing now and you're right. They are not super tight on this tour, and the mixing/sound quality of the boots is strange too. Not like I remembered. But I'm sure there is a good 2-CD comp here like the Europe 2000 one.raven2001 wrote:I'm currently doing the 2005 tour in chronological order, Kitchener is next. So far I liked Calgary the best. When they are good, they are REALLY good on that tour but almost every show has plenty of rough tracks, too. So I can't agree with all the people that say that they were so tight on that tour. Not really. Australia or Europe 2006, that's tight in comparison. I like the 2005 setlists better but performancewise it isn't even close...
absinthe makes the heart grow fonder...
- lowlight79
- Future Drummer
- Posts: 2083
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:04 pm
- Location: Heathrow, FL
Re: Which bootleg are you listening to?
5/21/10 was one of the best shows I've ever seen. The bootlegs for 2008 and 2010 don't do the shows any favors.VinylGuy wrote:2008 and 2010 are the two worst tours in my opinion.oasisfan35 wrote:2010-05-21 New York
My lord is this a rough one.
- CopperTom
- Champion of RM
- Posts: 10821
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 11:19 pm
- Location: Northeastern Pennsylvania
Re: Which bootleg are you listening to?
I had it my #7 In my latest attended show rankings.lowlight79 wrote:5/21/10 was one of the best shows I've ever seen. The bootlegs for 2008 and 2010 don't do the shows any favors.VinylGuy wrote:2008 and 2010 are the two worst tours in my opinion.oasisfan35 wrote:2010-05-21 New York
My lord is this a rough one.
emanon wrote:I think I either need to drink less to become more alert, or more so as not to care.
- Birds in Hell
- 10Club Complaint Department
- Posts: 16296
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 9:38 pm
Re: Which bootleg are you listening to?
The mixing on the 2005 boots is really strange.Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote:I'm doing the same thing now and you're right. They are not super tight on this tour, and the mixing/sound quality of the boots is strange too. Not like I remembered. But I'm sure there is a good 2-CD comp here like the Europe 2000 one.raven2001 wrote:I'm currently doing the 2005 tour in chronological order, Kitchener is next. So far I liked Calgary the best. When they are good, they are REALLY good on that tour but almost every show has plenty of rough tracks, too. So I can't agree with all the people that say that they were so tight on that tour. Not really. Australia or Europe 2006, that's tight in comparison. I like the 2005 setlists better but performancewise it isn't even close...
- ridleybradout
- Future Drummer
- Posts: 2551
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 10:33 pm
- Location: Rand McNally
Re: Which bootleg are you listening to?
My enjoyment of the 2005 tour has always been soured by the mixing on the boots. Matt's snare sound in particular really grates on me.Birds in Hell wrote:The mixing on the 2005 boots is really strange.Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote:I'm doing the same thing now and you're right. They are not super tight on this tour, and the mixing/sound quality of the boots is strange too. Not like I remembered. But I'm sure there is a good 2-CD comp here like the Europe 2000 one.raven2001 wrote:I'm currently doing the 2005 tour in chronological order, Kitchener is next. So far I liked Calgary the best. When they are good, they are REALLY good on that tour but almost every show has plenty of rough tracks, too. So I can't agree with all the people that say that they were so tight on that tour. Not really. Australia or Europe 2006, that's tight in comparison. I like the 2005 setlists better but performancewise it isn't even close...
- Simple Torture
- I Have A Third Nipple
- Posts: 21687
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 7:41 am
- Location: Cumberland, RI
Re: Which bootleg are you listening to?
IIRC, these ones were released the day after the show. In 2003 it was just a soundboard feed that they released immediately, pro mixes were a few weeks later.Birds in Hell wrote:The mixing on the 2005 boots is really strange.Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote:I'm doing the same thing now and you're right. They are not super tight on this tour, and the mixing/sound quality of the boots is strange too. Not like I remembered. But I'm sure there is a good 2-CD comp here like the Europe 2000 one.raven2001 wrote:I'm currently doing the 2005 tour in chronological order, Kitchener is next. So far I liked Calgary the best. When they are good, they are REALLY good on that tour but almost every show has plenty of rough tracks, too. So I can't agree with all the people that say that they were so tight on that tour. Not really. Australia or Europe 2006, that's tight in comparison. I like the 2005 setlists better but performancewise it isn't even close...
McParadigm wrote:lol