Red Mosquito

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

harmless wrote:

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

I never said I expected a reworking though.

theplatypus wrote:

harmless wrote:

theplatypus wrote: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.

theplatypus wrote: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 wrote: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.

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

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)

harmless wrote: 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.

digster wrote:

harmless wrote: 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.

Strat wrote: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)

verb_to_trust wrote:

digster wrote:

harmless wrote: 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.

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

stip wrote: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.