Vault #3 - Constitution Hall, 9-19-1998 (vinyl, cd, digital)

[Lament]

I forgot how cool Ed looked in those days.

[bodysnatcher]

This kinda thing tends to draw more attention to Beth if anything. From the fans anyway.

Weren't there pictures of Ed and Beth together in Place/Date? I wonder if that's why they don't sell it on the site anymore.

i think that came out before their divorce. theory: DISPROVEN.

[Lament]

I had no idea there was such a killer bootleg video of this. This is probably better than the Montreal 98 video I watched to death that year.

[WtOB?]

I made a Live on Two Legs DVD compilation once which obviously had Daughter from this show on it sync'd up with the CD version, but I also popped Soldier of Love on sync'd up with the Last Kiss b-side audio in place of Untitled because there's no footage of it. I never got around to sharing it but I should have.

[Fuzzcharger]

I made a Live on Two Legs DVD compilation once which obviously had Daughter from this show on it sync'd up with the CD version, but I also popped Soldier of Love on sync'd up with the Last Kiss b-side audio in place of Untitled because there's no footage of it. I never got around to sharing it but I should have.

It's never too late.

[WtOB?]

I made a Live on Two Legs DVD compilation once which obviously had Daughter from this show on it sync'd up with the CD version, but I also popped Soldier of Love on sync'd up with the Last Kiss b-side audio in place of Untitled because there's no footage of it. I never got around to sharing it but I should have.

It's never too late.

I guess not. I don't really know how I'd share it though with this shitty internet o' mine. I also made a Live on Ten Legs one.

[Fuzzcharger]

I made a Live on Two Legs DVD compilation once which obviously had Daughter from this show on it sync'd up with the CD version, but I also popped Soldier of Love on sync'd up with the Last Kiss b-side audio in place of Untitled because there's no footage of it. I never got around to sharing it but I should have.

It's never too late.

I guess not. I don't really know how I'd share it though with this shitty internet o' mine. I also made a Live on Ten Legs one.

I have no skills in that area otherwise I'd be happy to help, sorry.

[Birds in Hell]

Matt's playing in 1998 is so much more sympathetic to the material than it would be on subsequent tours. Listening to Black and RVM, the fills and changes in dynamics he works into the songs are fantastic.

Yeah, his drumming in 98 was noticeably excellent (to me as compared to now-a-days). The drums in GtF from "Lo2L" is probably the main thing that got me into PJ in a big big way. Listenning to him here is again fantastic.

The huge difference to me is how focused and engaged the entire band sound when playing, well, everything, but particularly the songs which are so frequently rushed through these days, eg. Given to Fly, Corduroy, Better Man, RVM, etc.

They're really performing those songs and I'm sure having Matt learning on the job is a large part of that; they were forced to rethink how to play their entire catalogue (up to that point) all over again. There's a kind of unconscious second-nature quality to the way they tackle a lot of their most played material these days that, while in other bands might lead to a more carefree and adventurous approach, seems to result in a kind of thoughtless thrash to the finish line with these guys. I don't hear that same sense of engagement, the little flourishes that really make the songs push and pull where they need to.

[WtOB?]

Those days are gone. Never to return.

[stupidmop]

Those songs were only 5 years old at the most then though, they probably weren't as sick of playing them. Not to say that they're sick of playing all thier songs now, but the 600th time playing a song probably doesnt feel as special to them either.

This problem would be solved if they had awesome new music to play in a focused and engaged manner, of course.

[broken iris]

Important Fact: My high school graduation was held at Constitution Hall.

Important Fact #2: My tape of Ed's preset version of 'Patriot' from this show was widely circulated at the time and is probably the only thing of any value I have ever contributed to the PJ fan base.

[evenslow]

Just a quick reminder that none of you really know anything about this topic you've been talking about for days.

[Strat]

They should have just released MInneapolis, MN 98 instead. I agree!

This is a great show though.

[warehouse]

as a husband, I understand and respect why he would do it.

As a non-husband, I don't. Could a married person explain this to me? If this is a gesture of respect, would leaving the performances untouched be considered a gesture of disrespect?

No, not necessarily. To draw a parallel: Buying my wife flowers would be a kind gesture. That doesn't mean it would be an unkind gesture to not buy her flowers, per se--just a neutral one, and certainly anything I was hoping to convey with those flowers would be lost, or at least diminished. I don't think this is something you have to be married to understand; I think interpersonal relationships in general have a greater success rate when the people involved are just considerate enough to preemptively make these kinds of choices with the other person in mind, regardless of whether or not the other person would actually be offended by the action in question. As a practice, keeping past lovers in the past is a way of reinforcing your exclusivity to your spouse, even though a reasonable person would understand that just because you sang someone's name in a song 15 years ago doesn't mean you're still in love with them.

Not surprisingly, many of the posters here are reacting to this situation the same way many people react to situations like this--they view it in terms of how far one partner should be able to go before he's "technically" done something wrong, and therefore before the second partner is allowed to exercise her right to be hurt. In their minds, since leaving references to the ex-wife present in the recording would not likely cause the current wife to simply divorce Ed on the spot, there is therefore no reason why it should be omitted. It's the same fundamental thought process at play in situations where men deny cheating on their wives because they weren't technically having sex with their mistresses, just receiving blowjobs from them. This is a fool's logic that eliminates all gray area and completely fails (or refuses) to acknowledge the complex, sprawling abyss of human emotion at play in any situation involving relationships between breathing, thinking people, and it necessitates that a reaction to anything but the most extreme end of the spectrum must therefore be unreasonable, jealous, conniving, bitchy, shallow, or whatever other adjective you want to throw around.

If that doesn't sell you, though, I'll put it this way: You can either side with me, who is one of the classiest and most discerning people on RM, or you can side with warehouse, who is named after a Dave Matthews song and whose posts look like an eighth grade girl's text messages.

dave matthews > eddie vedder

[Thejambi]

as a husband, I understand and respect why he would do it.

As a non-husband, I don't. Could a married person explain this to me? If this is a gesture of respect, would leaving the performances untouched be considered a gesture of disrespect?

No, not necessarily. To draw a parallel: Buying my wife flowers would be a kind gesture. That doesn't mean it would be an unkind gesture to not buy her flowers, per se--just a neutral one, and certainly anything I was hoping to convey with those flowers would be lost, or at least diminished. I don't think this is something you have to be married to understand; I think interpersonal relationships in general have a greater success rate when the people involved are just considerate enough to preemptively make these kinds of choices with the other person in mind, regardless of whether or not the other person would actually be offended by the action in question. As a practice, keeping past lovers in the past is a way of reinforcing your exclusivity to your spouse, even though a reasonable person would understand that just because you sang someone's name in a song 15 years ago doesn't mean you're still in love with them.

Not surprisingly, many of the posters here are reacting to this situation the same way many people react to situations like this--they view it in terms of how far one partner should be able to go before he's "technically" done something wrong, and therefore before the second partner is allowed to exercise her right to be hurt. In their minds, since leaving references to the ex-wife present in the recording would not likely cause the current wife to simply divorce Ed on the spot, there is therefore no reason why it should be omitted. It's the same fundamental thought process at play in situations where men deny cheating on their wives because they weren't technically having sex with their mistresses, just receiving blowjobs from them. This is a fool's logic that eliminates all gray area and completely fails (or refuses) to acknowledge the complex, sprawling abyss of human emotion at play in any situation involving relationships between breathing, thinking people, and it necessitates that a reaction to anything but the most extreme end of the spectrum must therefore be unreasonable, jealous, conniving, bitchy, shallow, or whatever other adjective you want to throw around.

If that doesn't sell you, though, I'll put it this way: You can either side with me, who is one of the classiest and most discerning people on RM, or you can side with warehouse, who is named after a Dave Matthews song and whose posts look like an eighth grade girl's text messages.

dave matthews > eddie vedder

He sure is taller.

[warehouse]

and a better guitar player. and more creative writer at this point.

[evenslow]

and a better guitar player. and more creative writer at this point.

Where to begin?

Well, just to narrow it down, I'm more than confident in putting Vedder's Into the Wild and/or Uke Songs up against Some Devil.

[warehouse]

and a better guitar player. and more creative writer at this point.

Where to begin?

Well, just to narrow it down, I'm more than confident in putting Vedder's Into the Wild and/or Uke Songs up against Some Devil.

dave matthews has been playing guitar far longer than the release of his solo album. honestly, i dont even think their guitar playing is debatable. dave matthews owns eddie vedder.

[Strat]

Guitar skills are a moot point if your songs suck

[warehouse]

Guitar skills are a moot point if your songs suck

agreed, but most of the people here dont know dmb's catalog well enough to realize all the great songs they have.