General Pearl Jam Bitching

[harmless]

That's actually pretty accurate. They didn't rework the song.

I never said I expected a reworking though.

[Jorge]

That's actually pretty accurate. They didn't rework the song.

I never said I expected a reworking though.

But that's what folks mean when they talk about the fact that PJ live performances remain largely faithful to the studio versions. For that track, the tempo is different, the lyrics are flubbed and a few of the finer arrangements are very slightly altered, but from a structural and compositional level it's a fairly "accurate" performance of the song. One could easily form an opinion of it based only on the live version, and have it still hold true for the studio version.

[harmless]

That's actually pretty accurate. They didn't rework the song.

I never said I expected a reworking though.

But that's what folks mean when they talk about the fact that PJ live performances remain largely faithful to the studio versions.

Fair enough, I can take that.

For that track, the tempo is different, the lyrics are flubbed and a few of the finer arrangements are very slightly altered, but from a structural and compositional level it's a fairly "accurate" performance of the song. One could easily form an opinion of it based only on the live version, and have it still hold true for the studio version.

Well, they could, but only if it does hold true for the studio version -- and it doesn't until we've heard it. I just consider those musical subtleties, like Matt playing something interesting as opposed to something bland, Ed not screwing up his vocals, Mike playing something interesting in the instrumental parts and not coming into the outro late, as crucial elements of a song's make-up. Like, if a song is played properly, it can mean the difference between it sounding good and sounding terrible. Some people would say Matt plays songs simply different live; I think he butchers them. Some people don't hear the flubs the band makes, I think they weaken songs all the time. Think of the tempo of GTF; I couldn't care less about that song live anymore, because the tempo changes the feel of it completely. It totally relies on its laid back drum groove. I still don't really know whether Lightning Bolt will sound good if everyone shows up and plays at their best. I'm still suspecting there will be pushes at the end of the bars in the chorus, making that chorus much more tolerable.

[harmless]

I guess I'm saying I don't hate Lightning Bolt; I think it's a shoddy performance of what is probably a better song. Probably.

[verb_to_trust]

I guess I'm saying I don't hate Lightning Bolt; I think it's a shoddy performance of what is probably a better song. Probably.

But how can we know it is a shoddy performance without a studio version to base that on? We are chasing our tails here. Lets just agree to wait until Oct 15 and then decide once and for all: "Sucks" or "Meh"

[harmless]

OK, forget 'I think.' I hope.

[Thejambi]

I don't need the studio performance to hear that that performance was flawed.
General bitch, bitch, bitch!

[verb_to_trust]

I don't need the studio performance to hear that that performance was flawed.
General bitch, bitch, bitch!

This is the bitching thread, bro

[Strat]

I quickly scanned this one but:

Re: What Makes a Bad PJ Show?
Postby nevmiles » Tue Aug 13, 2013 8:54 am

MG79478 wrote:
No PJ show is bad, it's just not as good as the others. It's still better than any other concert you could be at. That being said, it is mostly about the setlist. A long setlist with killer rarities will be considered a great show, a shorter setlist with mostly greatest hits will be considered a bad show. Part of it is also the venue... being at the Gorge can kick the show up a few notches, being in Camden or Cincinatti can knock it down a few.

Then for each person, there is the factor of where they sat, and who was around them.


Agree . . I was going to say that setlist and venue/seating make a huge difference in my experience . . .

My first show in Barrie in '98 was on my birthday and was GA - so it was epic.

The next 2 I saw in 2000 were in Montreal and Toronto . . . they rank lowest on my enjoyment scale, mainly because I was in the nosebleeds . . didn't feel much/any connection to the show, even though the setlists were decent.

Then I've seen them twice at Molson Amphitheatre in Toronto in the summer (2003 and 2009) . . . both times I had pretty good seats and the atmosphere in that venue made the shows phenomenal . . . Toronto 2011 was amazing because of the setlist and the fact that I was in 10C seats and not the nosebleeds this time....... My two shows in 2005 were Kitchener and Ottawa . . . Kitchener was fun mainly because I drove down with a buddy and we stayed over and made a party of it even though I was 30 rows back on the floor . . . but Ottawa '05 wasn't as fun despite an spic setlist and length of show...... Ottawa 2011 on the other hand was more fun because I was 15 rows back on the floor . . closer to the band and felt a better connection....

So basically, a great show combines a good setlist with an awesome seating arrangement/atmosphere . . . and "bad" show comes down to the opposite for me: lousier seating and a "decent"/"poor" set . . . and the fact that I go into a PJ expecting to be blown away with an awesome set and sometimes they don't meet my expectations going in (Ottawa 2011 was kind of like that, as my brother and his buddy were there seeing PJ for the first time so I kept hoping for a show with amazing songs that they would know really well - which didn't happen)

[digster]

Well, they could, but only if it does hold true for the studio version -- and it doesn't until we've heard it. I just consider those musical subtleties, like Matt playing something interesting as opposed to something bland, Ed not screwing up his vocals, Mike playing something interesting in the instrumental parts and not coming into the outro late, as crucial elements of a song's make-up. Like, if a song is played properly, it can mean the difference between it sounding good and sounding terrible. Some people would say Matt plays songs simply different live; I think he butchers them. Some people don't hear the flubs the band makes, I think they weaken songs all the time. Think of the tempo of GTF; I couldn't care less about that song live anymore, because the tempo changes the feel of it completely. It totally relies on its laid back drum groove. I still don't really know whether Lightning Bolt will sound good if everyone shows up and plays at their best. I'm still suspecting there will be pushes at the end of the bars in the chorus, making that chorus much more tolerable.

Not to belabor the point too much, but with the Lukin comparison you have to take into account the four years between that live performance and the studio version, and the fact that the studio version is with a different drummer. With Lightning Bolt it's the same drummer and maybe as little as four months apart.

[verb_to_trust]

Well, they could, but only if it does hold true for the studio version -- and it doesn't until we've heard it. I just consider those musical subtleties, like Matt playing something interesting as opposed to something bland, Ed not screwing up his vocals, Mike playing something interesting in the instrumental parts and not coming into the outro late, as crucial elements of a song's make-up. Like, if a song is played properly, it can mean the difference between it sounding good and sounding terrible. Some people would say Matt plays songs simply different live; I think he butchers them. Some people don't hear the flubs the band makes, I think they weaken songs all the time. Think of the tempo of GTF; I couldn't care less about that song live anymore, because the tempo changes the feel of it completely. It totally relies on its laid back drum groove. I still don't really know whether Lightning Bolt will sound good if everyone shows up and plays at their best. I'm still suspecting there will be pushes at the end of the bars in the chorus, making that chorus much more tolerable.

Not to belabor the point too much, but with the Lukin comparison you have to take into account the four years between that live performance and the studio version, and the fact that the studio version is with a different drummer. With Lightning Bolt it's the same drummer and maybe as little as four months apart.

No way, it was a flawed live performance and the studio cut will reveal the greatness. With Pearl Jam songs, you can't expect a faithful rendition of the studio recording live. There are far too many sonic layers for these five humans to be expected to flesh out....plus, we all know they always make mistakes live.

[Lament]

I quickly scanned this one but:

Re: What Makes a Bad PJ Show?
Postby nevmiles » Tue Aug 13, 2013 8:54 am

MG79478 wrote:
No PJ show is bad, it's just not as good as the others. It's still better than any other concert you could be at. That being said, it is mostly about the setlist. A long setlist with killer rarities will be considered a great show, a shorter setlist with mostly greatest hits will be considered a bad show. Part of it is also the venue... being at the Gorge can kick the show up a few notches, being in Camden or Cincinatti can knock it down a few.

Then for each person, there is the factor of where they sat, and who was around them.


Agree . . I was going to say that setlist and venue/seating make a huge difference in my experience . . .

My first show in Barrie in '98 was on my birthday and was GA - so it was epic.

The next 2 I saw in 2000 were in Montreal and Toronto . . . they rank lowest on my enjoyment scale, mainly because I was in the nosebleeds . . didn't feel much/any connection to the show, even though the setlists were decent.

Then I've seen them twice at Molson Amphitheatre in Toronto in the summer (2003 and 2009) . . . both times I had pretty good seats and the atmosphere in that venue made the shows phenomenal . . . Toronto 2011 was amazing because of the setlist and the fact that I was in 10C seats and not the nosebleeds this time....... My two shows in 2005 were Kitchener and Ottawa . . . Kitchener was fun mainly because I drove down with a buddy and we stayed over and made a party of it even though I was 30 rows back on the floor . . . but Ottawa '05 wasn't as fun despite an spic setlist and length of show...... Ottawa 2011 on the other hand was more fun because I was 15 rows back on the floor . . closer to the band and felt a better connection....

So basically, a great show combines a good setlist with an awesome seating arrangement/atmosphere . . . and "bad" show comes down to the opposite for me: lousier seating and a "decent"/"poor" set . . . and the fact that I go into a PJ expecting to be blown away with an awesome set and sometimes they don't meet my expectations going in (Ottawa 2011 was kind of like that, as my brother and his buddy were there seeing PJ for the first time so I kept hoping for a show with amazing songs that they would know really well - which didn't happen)

To each his own, but there is so much in there that I vehemently disagree with. Wow.

[Sgt. Crackpot]

Well, they could, but only if it does hold true for the studio version -- and it doesn't until we've heard it. I just consider those musical subtleties, like Matt playing something interesting as opposed to something bland, Ed not screwing up his vocals, Mike playing something interesting in the instrumental parts and not coming into the outro late, as crucial elements of a song's make-up. Like, if a song is played properly, it can mean the difference between it sounding good and sounding terrible. Some people would say Matt plays songs simply different live; I think he butchers them. Some people don't hear the flubs the band makes, I think they weaken songs all the time. Think of the tempo of GTF; I couldn't care less about that song live anymore, because the tempo changes the feel of it completely. It totally relies on its laid back drum groove. I still don't really know whether Lightning Bolt will sound good if everyone shows up and plays at their best. I'm still suspecting there will be pushes at the end of the bars in the chorus, making that chorus much more tolerable.

Not to belabor the point too much, but with the Lukin comparison you have to take into account the four years between that live performance and the studio version, and the fact that the studio version is with a different drummer. With Lightning Bolt it's the same drummer and maybe as little as four months apart.

No way, it was a flawed live performance and the studio cut will reveal the greatness. With Pearl Jam songs, you can't expect a faithful rendition of the studio recording live. There are far too many sonic layers for these five humans to be expected to flesh out....plus, we all know they always make mistakes live.

Spot on, man. This was the first time the band had played the song live, plus we don't know how new the song is - months perhaps?

Back in my band days, we used to hammer out and practise our set list over and over in the rehearsal studio. Before we actually played any new songs live, we didn't know how well they would come across live. Some songs would work well, others not so good. There's also a point where you need to be sure a song is 'ready' to be played live. We had songs that took months to be ready, and some that never were ready. Sometimes we would debut a song live but then after playing it, we realised it wasn't quite 'ready' yet.

It's a funny thing because with most band's/artist's songs develop/mature over time when being played live. I remember something that Maynard or someone from Tool saying (around the time Lateralus was released) that they would rather tour an album before recording it, because they felt their songs were better after a tour because of the inherit development that happens.

This is something I'd like to see PJ do. Because obviously Lightning Bolt is either not ready, or is too 'green' at the moment. Wait to it's been played live many times over a few months or so, and I'm sure it'll sound so much better.

Or maybe PJ doesn't give a shit any more and don't practise their new songs enough.

[Jorge]

Think he was being sarcastic.

[harmless]

I don't need the studio performance to hear that that performance was flawed.
General bitch, bitch, bitch!

Well that's been kind of my point all along. It seems that some people don't want to believe that, though, so let's just wait for the album.

[Lounge Lizard]

Didn't know where to post, so here

[YouTube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RylxBtEM0sI&feature=youtu.be&t=1m58s[/YouTube]

[stip]

just to give harmless some more support, while I don't think the basic structure of a song changes all that much live, and i still think pearl jam are very good live, the live performances lose the nuance and precision and texture of studio tracks, and replace it with energy. I think most of the subtilties of studio versions are lost, but we fill in the blanks because we know the songs. that's why it is hard to judge how good a studio version will or will not be based on the live performance.

I've used this example before, but the live debut of NAIS had none of its atmosphere, and I never would have guessed how much I'd love I am mine based on the first time we heard them play that (or was that just eddie solo?). Comatose is one of my favorite pearl jam songs and crapshoot rapture was okay. If I heard insignificance for the first time live I'd dismiss it.

you know lightning bolt is a fast paced anthem, just like you know future days is a slow ballad. And you have a sense of the songs lyrics, vocal melody, etc. But it really is just a sense. The studio version doesn't exist yet to add in the little details that you'll subconsciously fill in, or provide you with the base knowledge of the song to anchor the live one.

It may not add anything. Maybe you know enough of the song to truly have a sense of what these studio tracks will feel like, and what your response will be. Maybe the studio versions will be worse. All possibilities.

But the only songs it really makes sense to use here for comparison are pearl jam songs you heard live BEFORE the album came out.

[harmless]

just to give harmless some more support, while I don't think the basic structure of a song changes all that much live, and i still think pearl jam are very good live, the live performances lose the nuance and precision and texture of studio tracks, and replace it with energy. I think most of the subtilties of studio versions are lost, but we fill the in because we know the songs. that's why it is hard to judge how good a studio version will or will not be based on the live performance.

I've used this example before, but the live debut of NAIS had none of its atmosphere, and I never would have guessed how much I'd love I am mine based on the first time we heard them play that (or was that just eddie solo?). Comatose is one of my favorite pearl jam songs and crapshoot rapture was okay. If I heard insignificance for the first time live I'd dismiss it.

you know lightning bolt is a fast paced anthem, just like you know future days is a slow ballad. And you have a sense of the songs lyrics, vocal melody, etc. But it really is just a sense. The studio version doesn't exist yet to add in the little details that you'll subconsciously fill in, or provide you with the base knowledge of the song to anchor the live one.

It may not add anything. Maybe you know enough of the song to truly have a sense of what these studio tracks will feel like, and what your response will be. Maybe the studio versions will be worse. All possibilities.

But the only songs it really makes sense to use here for comparison are pearl jam songs you heard live BEFORE the album came out.

I'm definitely allowing for the possibility that the studio versions will contain some of the same flaws, and maybe sound even worse. I'm still worried about that FD piano. So you know, those are among the huge caveats in everything I've said.

[Thejambi]

Anyyyythiiiiiing iiiiiiiiis aaaaaa reeeeeaaaaaaaaaaal pooooosiiiiiiiibiiiiiliiiiiityyyyyyyyyy!
Aw huh!

[harmless]

Yes I understayaaand.