I Have Never Listened To The Avocado Album

[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?

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.

So the band's musical ability and creative output can increase but the live performances will still always decrease?

[Wishlist]

So the band's musical ability and creative output can increase but the live performances will still always decrease?

Uhh, yeah. God, The Beatles didn't even tour in their later years. They knew.
And you really think a fifty, sixty, seventy year old Mick Jagger and Keith Richards is really going to kill it better than they did in London in '65 when they were in their twenties?

Laziness, weaker songs, personnel changes within the band, larger venues, the influx of casual fans...these and other things come upon a band that has been around for awhile. Those things are not conducive to better live shows than when a band was young and hungry.

[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.

Here are some examples of 'latter-day' shows which stand up to or exceed many shows on the more fabled early tours:

Albany '03

Nagoya '03

Buffalo '03

Boston 2 '04

Kitchener '05

London '05

Ottawa '05

Grand Rapids '06

East Rutherford 1 '06

Zagreb '06

Dusseldorf '07

Boston 2 '08

Newark '10

[Lament]

And you really think a fifty, sixty, seventy year old Mick Jagger and Keith Richards is really going to kill it better than they did in London in '65 when they were in their twenties?

If only there were some sort of middle ground in between their early twenties and their fifties...

[Norah]

And you really think a fifty, sixty, seventy year old Mick Jagger and Keith Richards is really going to kill it better than they did in London in '65 when they were in their twenties?

If only there were some sort of middle ground in between their early twenties and their fifties...

If there is it's a complete linear decrease in quality throughout those middle years.

[Lament]

A band forms, improves until Wishlist sees them, and then begins the completely linear decline.

[stip]

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.

Reading this thread you wouldn't think that pearl jam just played a tour everyone raved about

[Lament]

Reading this thread you wouldn't think that pearl jam just played a tour everyone raved about

Everyone is wrong. It's cause they have all listened to the Avacado album.

[stip]

Also, I started seeing pearl jam in 1996, and all my favorite shows were from the 03 and 06 tours. And in terms of sound I think the 05 tour is probably the best they ever did

[EJ]

Why bother with anything after the Off Ramp show in 1990?

[Wishlist]

A band forms, improves until Wishlist sees them, and then begins the completely linear decline.

You know what, I have to be honest here. That basically sums it up perfectly.

[DeLima]

Also, I started seeing pearl jam in 1996, and all my favorite shows were from the 03 and 06 tours. And in terms of sound I think the 05 tour is probably the best they ever did

This is pretty accurate, except the 2000 tour beats all. But pretty accurate otherwise.

Stip, can you correct the spelling in the thread title?

[DeLima]

Why bother with anything after the Off Ramp show in 1990?

the Dec 22 1990 show was okay too, but after that it's pitsville.

[Lament]

A band forms, improves until Wishlist sees them, and then begins the completely linear decline.

You know what, I have to be honest here. That basically sums it up perfectly.

There's all the evidence you need that this is IlluminEddie.

[Wishlist]

Why bother with anything after the Off Ramp show in 1990?

No, first shows can be extremely weak for any band. Takes a bit of playing together to really gel into a monster force. That's when you have to catch a band. You don't catch them then you end up sitting in 80,000 seat Giants Stadium next to a drunk screaming "EVEN FLOW!" while the band plays another dull song from "Lightning Bolt."

[Lament]

Why bother with anything after the Off Ramp show in 1990?

No, first shows can be extremely weak for any band. Takes a bit of playing together to really gel into a monster force. That's when you have to catch a band. You don't catch them then you end up sitting in 80,000 seat Giants Stadium next to a drunk screaming "EVEN FLOW!" while the band plays another dull song from "Lightning Bolt."

Seriously EJ, pay attention. Pearl Jam peaked at 4:30 in the afternoon at Jones Beach in 1992 when they played a 45 minute set consisting solely of material from Ten at an ampitheatre that, depending on which point during renovation it was at, held either 8,200 or 11,200 people. Everything before then sucked, as did everything after then.

[Lament]

The earlier shows were too small. The later ones were too big. They didn't have the material from Ten down before that, but afterwards it was all tired and phoned in. But for one glorious afternoon, when Wishlist was so close that he tell which side of Ed's shorts he pulls his junk towards, Pearl Jam was magnificent.

[stip]

Also, I started seeing pearl jam in 1996, and all my favorite shows were from the 03 and 06 tours. And in terms of sound I think the 05 tour is probably the best they ever did

This is pretty accurate, except the 2000 tour beats all. But pretty accurate otherwise.

Stip, can you correct the spelling in the thread title?

the three shows I saw that tour are probably 3 of my bottom 5. But I just had bad luck

[warehouse]

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.

im not sure how you can call a band lazy when they put on 3 hour concerts routinely and play songs from every era of their 20+ year career. i'd prefer seeing a band in a small club depending on the sound, but pearl jam has played similar sized venues near me since 1998. i think LB is their best in years, but to each his own.

[stip]

i stopped caring when they changed their name from Mookie Blaylock