Not really. You're trying to argue here that live music, that is music performed by professional musicians in a live setting, doesn't exceed music on a Youtube video when done well. That's just not true. You can desperately want to see a band live because they're excellent musicians. It's about more than tingles and goosebumps and atmosphere, especially if you enjoy the experience of analysing the musicians' playing as they go. I used to be able to do this with far more of PJ's performances than now, when I have to forgive a bunch of fuck ups (which I DO hear live, even if you don't) in order to fully enjoy a night which may be a 10 / 10 in other respects. But for me, musicianship is obviously higher up on the list of what makes a great gig than it is for you. And that's fine.stip wrote:My issue is this. When people talk about whether or not a band is good live they are usually (I think) talking about the experience of seeing that band perform live. And the musical performance is obviously a critical part of that. But it is not the only part. If it wasn't, then we could really just get by with listening to bootlegs and calling it a day. The bootlegs will probably be the best document of how accurately songs were played, what notes were missed, etc. And if what you really want to hear is a band playing some songs then the bootlegs will be fine. And clearly pearl jam isn't as good on that front as they used to be.
It kind of IS the entirety of the live performance, in that Pearl Jam are a band, consisting of musicians, who play music. I don't just go to watch them for tingly atmosphere and to see friends. For that, I could go to a concert featuring excellent musicians, or even the IMAX, or the zoo. The musicianship is what *creates* that excitement for me. If it's not there, neither will my imagination be there.stip wrote:But that's not the entirety of the live performance. If it was I would be correct and we could just stay home and listen to bootlegs and not need to go to a show ever again. The experience of hearing it in person is woven into what live music is. This is why the bootlegs are not enough. And a lot goes into the experience that cannot be captured by a bootleg. The resonance of a singer's voice, for instance. But even more important is the feeling of being there, the way in which existing in that moment, participating in it, helps amplify the experience. This is why almost everyone raved about the shows they went to on the forums and didn't start griping about them until later.
I care. There is a diminished atmosphere for me if my possibly-overly-analytical ears (which I can't help owning) hear them make repeated mistakes. I start to think "Matt's speeding this song up / Ed forgot a verse / Ed is drunk / Mike pulled a wrong chord." And that doesn't add up to a great live band performance for me, even if at the end of the night I can say I had fun.stip wrote:The experience of being there is something that the artist helps to create. The interactions with the audience, the ability to take the audience on a journey, to control their emotions, to build up energy and offer a release, to create the sense that you are a part of something larger than yourself. And Pearl Jam does that masterfully well. The devotion to that aspect of the live performance probably undercuts the playing. Pearl Jam is regularly playing 30+ song sets with a vast array of material they are drawing on. It means that they will not be able to go all out on every single song. It means that songs could be rehearsed better. And you'll hear that on a bootleg. But when you're there in the moment you don't care because part of the excitement is not knowing what is coming next. It could be anything.
Again, I do notice those mistakes when I'm there. The boots just exaggerate them. And when I hear new boots, of shows I haven't seen, the sloppy performances don't feel like a big surprise based on what little PJ I myself have seen live.stip wrote:You said yourself you don't notice mistakes because you're pumped to be there. My point is that you're pumped for a reason. And that reason is an integral part of what live music is. What I take issue with is a definition of live music that excludes the live part. That the live experience is somehow illusory and the truth is in the bootleg. The bootleg is an incomplete document, an imperfect reproduction, even if there are elements of live music that it reproduces perfectly.
I agree. PJ are reliant on a faithful, long-standing and mostly passionate audience who get high on the atmosphere. Ed is a bumbling fool of a showman these days but on the whole, these guys have always been fairly warm and friendly and crushworthy. That's what people love about them and I don't take any of that away. It just doesn't all equal "great live band" for me. It equals phenomenon. It equals "some of the best years of my life". It can equal "community". But it doesn't equal great live band, and when there are so many other bands who play spectacular live shows and are now becoming seasoned pros (I'm looking at you, Sigur Ros), it's THEM that have me salivating when I think of one day seeing them live. PJ, if and when I see them again, will tick some boxes. But they won't tick the "Holy fuck great musicianship" box, and THAT'S the box I want ticked primarily when I go to a concert. Other people are different. You're different. And that's fine.stip wrote:Pearl jam plays more and more to that aspect of live music. Perhaps once upon a time they could do both. But I'm not arguing pearl jam is in their prime. I am saying that pearl jam today focuses on making sure that your concert experience is amazing. And near as I can tell, they are still enormously successful at hitting that mark.
