Red Mosquito

Good point, but hasn't the band (Jeff?) already said they don't do this anymore because of the internets?

That's another thing that bothers me about this band. They'll say something like "We don't play new material on the road because of quality control" but think nothing of getting plastered before a show and playing like shit.

cutuphalfdead wrote:That's another thing that bothers me about this band. They'll say something like "We don't play new material on the road because of quality control" but think nothing of getting plastered before a show and playing like shit.

true. anyway, the quality control issue is basically irrelevant since they release every show on official bootlegs. if only they'd give a shit about actually using the studio as an instrument that'd make sense but what we get live is not that different from what they put on albums (save for a few layers of backing vocals and the occasional interresting overdub).

mastaflatch wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:That's another thing that bothers me about this band. They'll say something like "We don't play new material on the road because of quality control" but think nothing of getting plastered before a show and playing like shit.

true. anyway, the quality control issue is basically irrelevant since they release every show on official bootlegs. if only they'd give a shit about actually using the studio as an instrument that'd make sense but what we get live is not that different from what they put on albums (save for a few layers of backing vocals and the occasional interresting overdub).

Basically, these guys are full of shit.

liebzz wrote:I agree with those stating the increase in time between albums. I understand different priorities and choosing their direction carefully (we hope), but taking all this time just results in fans becoming disinterested.

Kevin Shields disagrees.

I understand the "not playing new songs because of the internet" thing. Especially when you were a huge band that started before the internet age and having to adapt. And, let's be honest, this isn't the most adaptable band. As an artist in general, no one wants the world to see unfinished work. If you were a smaller band that played a new song at a show, and a video got passed around a fanbase online, whatever. But if Pearl Jam plays a new song at a show, it's on some corner of Rolling Stone, Spin, etc etc. For better or worse.

That being said, chud's comment about contradicting that stance by playing wasted... spot on.

bodysnatcher wrote:I understand the "not playing new songs because of the internet" thing. Especially when you were a huge band that started before the internet age and having to adapt. And, let's be honest, this isn't the most adaptable band. As an artist in general, no one wants the world to see unfinished work. If you were a smaller band that played a new song at a show, and a video got passed around a fanbase online, whatever. But if Pearl Jam plays a new song at a show, it's on some corner of Rolling Stone, Spin, etc etc. For better or worse.

Radiohead is the perfect example of why this argument is bullshit. PJ is entertaining the thought that their new songs are way more precious than they're supposed to be, thus creating completely disproportionate expectations for new stuff when they could be much more exciting live and releasing better albums that aren't fixed at the last minute - or overcooked.

mastaflatch wrote:

bodysnatcher wrote:I understand the "not playing new songs because of the internet" thing. Especially when you were a huge band that started before the internet age and having to adapt. And, let's be honest, this isn't the most adaptable band. As an artist in general, no one wants the world to see unfinished work. If you were a smaller band that played a new song at a show, and a video got passed around a fanbase online, whatever. But if Pearl Jam plays a new song at a show, it's on some corner of Rolling Stone, Spin, etc etc. For better or worse.

Radiohead is the perfect example of why this argument is bullshit. PJ is entertaining the thought that their new songs are way more precious than they're supposed to be, thus creating completely disproportionate expectations for new stuff when they could be much more exciting live and releasing better albums that aren't fixed at the last minute - or overcooked.

No, I get that. And i'm not defending PJ... I'm just saying that they are so damn stubborn and unadaptable that I understand their fairly ignorant stance on it. Each artist has their way of doing it, for right or wrong. I think most people would agree Radiohead would be in the "right" camp

mastaflatch wrote:

bodysnatcher wrote:I understand the "not playing new songs because of the internet" thing. Especially when you were a huge band that started before the internet age and having to adapt. And, let's be honest, this isn't the most adaptable band. As an artist in general, no one wants the world to see unfinished work. If you were a smaller band that played a new song at a show, and a video got passed around a fanbase online, whatever. But if Pearl Jam plays a new song at a show, it's on some corner of Rolling Stone, Spin, etc etc. For better or worse.

Radiohead is the perfect example of why this argument is bullshit. PJ is entertaining the thought that their new songs are way more precious than they're supposed to be, thus creating completely disproportionate expectations for new stuff when they could be much more exciting live and releasing better albums that aren't fixed at the last minute - or overcooked.

"Fixed" and overcooked...perfectly stated. That's a huge problem I have with the last two records. Too much fixing, don't like the production. They need to go way more organic, instead of getting less organic. That's why Into the Wild worked so much better (on the songs that were actually fleshed out). I feel as a band ages they need to become more organic and not more plastic. Just doesn't suit them well.

bodysnatcher wrote:

mastaflatch wrote:

bodysnatcher wrote:I understand the "not playing new songs because of the internet" thing. Especially when you were a huge band that started before the internet age and having to adapt. And, let's be honest, this isn't the most adaptable band. As an artist in general, no one wants the world to see unfinished work. If you were a smaller band that played a new song at a show, and a video got passed around a fanbase online, whatever. But if Pearl Jam plays a new song at a show, it's on some corner of Rolling Stone, Spin, etc etc. For better or worse.

Radiohead is the perfect example of why this argument is bullshit. PJ is entertaining the thought that their new songs are way more precious than they're supposed to be, thus creating completely disproportionate expectations for new stuff when they could be much more exciting live and releasing better albums that aren't fixed at the last minute - or overcooked.

No, I get that. And i'm not defending PJ... I'm just saying that they are so damn stubborn and unadaptable that I understand their fairly ignorant stance on it. Each artist has their way of doing it, for right or wrong. I think most people would agree Radiohead would be in the "right" camp

yeah i agree, sorry if my post sounded hostile

cutuphalfdead wrote:That's another thing that bothers me about this band. They'll say something like "We don't play new material on the road because of quality control" but think nothing of getting plastered before a show and playing like shit.

mastaflatch wrote:

bodysnatcher wrote:

mastaflatch wrote:

bodysnatcher wrote:I understand the "not playing new songs because of the internet" thing. Especially when you were a huge band that started before the internet age and having to adapt. And, let's be honest, this isn't the most adaptable band. As an artist in general, no one wants the world to see unfinished work. If you were a smaller band that played a new song at a show, and a video got passed around a fanbase online, whatever. But if Pearl Jam plays a new song at a show, it's on some corner of Rolling Stone, Spin, etc etc. For better or worse.

Radiohead is the perfect example of why this argument is bullshit. PJ is entertaining the thought that their new songs are way more precious than they're supposed to be, thus creating completely disproportionate expectations for new stuff when they could be much more exciting live and releasing better albums that aren't fixed at the last minute - or overcooked.

No, I get that. And i'm not defending PJ... I'm just saying that they are so damn stubborn and unadaptable that I understand their fairly ignorant stance on it. Each artist has their way of doing it, for right or wrong. I think most people would agree Radiohead would be in the "right" camp

yeah i agree, sorry if my post sounded hostile

jerkface!

guys, i'm just pumped that a thread I started reached 8 pages instead of 8 replies

stompbox wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote: Without albums there isn't a product to play live.

You can play new material on the road that is not recorded (or not yet).... Pearl Jam did that in the early years.

they also didn't have a lot of material.

Maybe bands don't make mistakes?

that headband is a fairly big mistake

Nevermind....bands do make mistakes:

bodysnatcher wrote:guys, i'm just pumped that a thread I started reached 8 pages instead of 8 replies

A biggest mistake thread is like catnip for us.

Have we started ranking these mistakes yet?