I Have Never Listened To The Avocado Album

[BurtReynolds]

[harmless]

why would fans have had more of a critical eye than now?

Wow.

I'll say it again: Wow.

You think fans today have just as critical an eye as they did back in the '60s? You really think the fans who rave about a Katy Perry show have the same critical eye as those who raved about an early Stones show?

Haven't you looked at a Billboard chart in the past decade? There is absolutley nothing critical about the eyes and ears of today's music fans. They friggin' put "Gangum Style" at number one for a friggin' month!

LOL yes, you bringing up a bad song by Katy Perry and Gangnam Style disproves my point about live rock bands.

[Jorge]

I defy you to name one musical act that is better live ten years after they first broke.

Radiohead.

Myriad jazz instrumentalists. And the huge majority of first-and-second-wave punk bands. Wishlist is just wrong.

[Norah]

This is getting silly.

It's gone from 'fantastic' to 'silly' in a single page?

yes

I often feel like you think that it's my posts that do this, Pete. You can be honest. Is it my posts that turn threads from fantastic to silly? Just gimme some truth.

You're over-thinking it.

[harmless]

This is getting silly.

It's gone from 'fantastic' to 'silly' in a single page?

yes

I often feel like you think that it's my posts that do this, Pete. You can be honest. Is it my posts that turn threads from fantastic to silly? Just gimme some truth.

You're over-thinking it.

[LetMeSleep]

This Wishlist guy is OK by me.

Honestly, I get it.

So how can you justify seeing PJ in 2 weeks?

He acknowledged himself that these matters are subjective; while it's true for him that he's seen the band in what he'd consider the most optimal circumstances, someone else's experience will be entirely different. If he likes the early material more than the later material, likes the way they played back then and so on, I can easily understand why seeing the band in 2014 wouldn't be that appealing.

Seeing the band now for me is still worth it. There might be a time when it won't be. We'll all draw that line where we see fit.

Yeah I get that. I feel what is being missed in all this is it's also about opportunity and access. In Australia we have only had 6 tours. That's 6 shows over 22 years and not having the chance to see a gig as amazing as 92-94 supposedly were.

I for one, and I think you're with me here, would prefer to see a subpar PJ (which still is a pretty good live band) over having a bbq or watching CSI (either a new episode or one of the classics from Season 1). And that's what it comes down to.

[Wishlist]

Interesting back and forth. But ultimately you know I am right.

- I prefer seeing bands in smallish clubs.
- I prefer seeing bands before they become bloated and lazy due to success.
- I prefer seeing bands whose current album is a winner top to bottom.

Now the opposite of that would be to see Pearl Jam in 2014 perform all the songs from "Lightning Bolt" at Giants Stadium.
You may choose that, but I think my preferences above are better.

[Birds in Hell]

This Wishlist guy is OK by me.

Honestly, I get it.

So how can you justify seeing PJ in 2 weeks?

He acknowledged himself that these matters are subjective; while it's true for him that he's seen the band in what he'd consider the most optimal circumstances, someone else's experience will be entirely different. If he likes the early material more than the later material, likes the way they played back then and so on, I can easily understand why seeing the band in 2014 wouldn't be that appealing.

Seeing the band now for me is still worth it. There might be a time when it won't be. We'll all draw that line where we see fit.

Yeah I get that. I feel what is being missed in all this is it's also about opportunity and access. In Australia we have only had 6 tours. That's 6 shows over 22 years and not having the chance to see a gig as amazing as 92-94 supposedly were.

I for one, and I think you're with me here, would prefer to see a subpar PJ (which still is a pretty good live band) over having a bbq or watching CSI (either a new episode or one of the classics from Season 1). And that's what it comes down to.

Oh, absolutely.

Hell, I saw the band in 1998 with Jack Irons but it's probably fair to say I enjoyed the two 2006 shows I saw more. The earlier performance was undoubtedly better but I was only a dumb teenager, it was outside in a huge field, the crowd was really rowdy and I was further away than I might've hoped. The two 2006 shows were in an arena but were a great deal more intimate and the band played very well. I'm very glad I had both experiences.

[Norah]

Interesting back and forth. But ultimately you know I am right.

- I prefer seeing bands in smallish clubs.
- I prefer seeing bands before they become bloated and lazy due to success.
- I prefer seeing bands whose current album is a winner top to bottom.

two out of three of those apply to pearl jam at least through the 2000 tour

[harmless]

PJ at Reading Festival 2006 was top-notch.

[LetMeSleep]

This Wishlist guy is OK by me.

Honestly, I get it.

So how can you justify seeing PJ in 2 weeks?

He acknowledged himself that these matters are subjective; while it's true for him that he's seen the band in what he'd consider the most optimal circumstances, someone else's experience will be entirely different. If he likes the early material more than the later material, likes the way they played back then and so on, I can easily understand why seeing the band in 2014 wouldn't be that appealing.

Seeing the band now for me is still worth it. There might be a time when it won't be. We'll all draw that line where we see fit.

Yeah I get that. I feel what is being missed in all this is it's also about opportunity and access. In Australia we have only had 6 tours. That's 6 shows over 22 years and not having the chance to see a gig as amazing as 92-94 supposedly were.

I for one, and I think you're with me here, would prefer to see a subpar PJ (which still is a pretty good live band) over having a bbq or watching CSI (either a new episode or one of the classics from Season 1). And that's what it comes down to.

Oh, absolutely.

Hell, I saw the band in 1998 with Jack Irons but it's probably fair to say I enjoyed the two 2006 shows I saw more. The earlier performance was undoubtedly better but I was only a dumb teenager, it was outside in a huge field, the crowd was really rowdy and I was further away than I might've hoped. The two 2006 shows were in an arena but were a great deal more intimate and the band played very well. I'm very glad I had both experiences.

I found the 98 show quite lacklustre. 95 was great but so was a show in 2009. All completely different.

[Birds in Hell]

Interesting back and forth. But ultimately you know I am right.

- I prefer seeing bands in smallish clubs.
- I prefer seeing bands before they become bloated and lazy due to success.
- I prefer seeing bands whose current album is a winner top to bottom.

Now the opposite of that would be to see Pearl Jam in 2014 perform all the songs from "Lightning Bolt" at Giants Stadium.
You may choose that, but I think my preferences above are better.

In talking about an ideal, I'd agree.

Had I seen the band play in the States a bunch of times from 1993 to 1998, I'd probably never bother going to shows now either.

[Norah]

I just don't get this assertion that the decline starts immediately, and progresses in a one way linear fashion in perpetuity. Bands very often get better, and then peak for a while, before declining. Sometimes, bands even recover from declines and get better again.

[Wishlist]

Interesting back and forth. But ultimately you know I am right.

- I prefer seeing bands in smallish clubs.
- I prefer seeing bands before they become bloated and lazy due to success.
- I prefer seeing bands whose current album is a winner top to bottom.

two out of three of those apply to pearl jam at least through the 2000 tour

That's true. But this is 2014 now. I really don't see the need to shell out $150 to see Pearl Jam play songs off of "Lightning Bolt" while surrounded by 80,000 people yelling for "Jeremy."

[Norah]

Interesting back and forth. But ultimately you know I am right.

- I prefer seeing bands in smallish clubs.
- I prefer seeing bands before they become bloated and lazy due to success.
- I prefer seeing bands whose current album is a winner top to bottom.

two out of three of those apply to pearl jam at least through the 2000 tour

That's true. But this is 2014 now. I really don't see the need to shell out $150 to see Pearl Jam play songs off of "Lightning Bolt" while surrounded by 80,000 people yelling for "Jeremy."

No one here is arguing with you on that part.

[Wishlist]

I just don't get this assertion that the decline starts immediately, and progresses in a one way linear fashion in perpetuity. Bands very often get better, and then peak for a while, before declining. Sometimes, bands even recover from declines and get better again.

I don't know why, but history shows that it does happen. Band starts off hot, becomes the thing to experience, then gets cold. Maybe they get hot again, but never reach the heat they prevously had in their earlier days.
It's not a theory I made up, it's not an assertion. It is just something we all see play out in the music business.

Very rare to find a band recover from a decline and actually become better than what they once were. Bands can decline and become BIGGER than what they once were (Genesis is an example of that), but the trajectory of a band is from hot to decline and once that decline sets in they have a hard time becoming better than they once were.

[Norah]

So when Pink Floyd was making Dark Side of the Moon they weren't better than when they were making Piper at the Gates of Dawn? When The Beatles were making Abbey Road they weren't better than when they were making Meet the Beatles?

[DeLima]

This argument has been done dozens of times on this board already. Wishlist has a point, but his hyperbole undermines him. Generally, PJ's live experience and musical output has been declining for a while. But there are plenty of post-2000 shows that are better than many of the early shows. The Kitchener 2005 show, which someone posted a video of in the PJ Video thread not long ago, is better than most the 96 shows and many of the 98 and 93 ones.

[Sgt. Crackpot]

Some bands just peak much earlier than others. You can't apply blanket rules to everything in the music industry. It's an ever evolving behemoth that will spit, gargle and swallow bands as it pleases.

[Wishlist]

So when Pink Floyd was making Dark Side of the Moon they weren't better than when they were making Piper at the Gates of Dawn? When The Beatles were making Abbey Road they weren't better than when they were making Meet the Beatles?

Uhh, I don't think you are following the conversation here. I and others here are talking about live performances. Early vs. late in career live performances.