Red Mosquito

I truly have no preference. Good shows come in all shapes and sizes. I just want a good show.

Strat wrote:I truly have no preference. Good shows come in all shapes and sizes. I just want a good show.

To me, the issue with a 24 song set list today, verses a 24 song set list in 2000, is these set lists rely so much more on Ten and the radio hits. Which is great for the party atmosphere and the casual fan, but really limits the variety for someone who is going to see multiple shows.

You are lucky if you get more than one song per album from anything other than Ten, Vs, Vitalogy - plus Yield if you remove DTE and GTF - while in 2000 and 2003 the sets were still evenly split amongst all albums.

So while a 30 song set may have been sloppy, at least there was more chance for variety.

Strat wrote:I truly have no preference. Good shows come in all shapes and sizes. I just want a good show.

Have you ever been to a bad PJ show?

wease wrote:

Strat wrote:I truly have no preference. Good shows come in all shapes and sizes. I just want a good show.

Have you ever been to a bad PJ show?

I wouldn't say it was a bad show, but I didn't enjoy the last time I saw the band at all (2014).

wease wrote:

Strat wrote:I truly have no preference. Good shows come in all shapes and sizes. I just want a good show.

Have you ever been to a bad PJ show?

"bad". No, certainly not.

But definitely been to some unmemorable, forgetful ones.

Im older now as well. Some things in life just dont impact me the same way they did when i was 18 or 25. Im old and tired now and just want a fun evening. Its why im okay with pearl jam the way they are these days. More celebratory. I dont need to be emotionally pummeled and changed the same way.

But the above comment is correct. It is unfortunate that the variety of songs isn't as vast as it was with similar set list lengths. You're guaranteed to hear the hits and i understand why. They have 20,000 other people to think about that pay a lot of money to see them.

Maybe someday they'l do a fan club small club tour or something where we can expect the unexpected and dive more deep into their catalogue again.

its a damn shame they dont play Insignificance/Grievance/Rival/ etc.etcc...add in your own favorites - every night. We're lucky to get 1 off No Code, Binaural etc...

Oh well. Going tomorrow night and really looking forward to it.

wease wrote:

Strat wrote:I truly have no preference. Good shows come in all shapes and sizes. I just want a good show.

Have you ever been to a bad PJ show?

i ve been to 10 shows and every one of them were awesome while some was just the best show i ever saw

Also, the idea that pearl jam are sloppy is way overstated. I think the band still plays pretty tight and aggressively. Its ed that makes it seem like they are sloppy because he now lacks this sort of punctuality with his vocals. He kind of swerves in and out of the rhythm, adds syllables, lags behind, and adds in a bunch of yea yea yea's.

But when he is focused and stays at the mic - Still nothing better for me.

At least he hate jon bonjovi. Oof

VinylGuy wrote:

wease wrote:

Strat wrote:I truly have no preference. Good shows come in all shapes and sizes. I just want a good show.

Have you ever been to a bad PJ show?

i ve been to 10 shows and every one of them were awesome while some was just the best show i ever saw

Yea, for me, every show is aw between 1995 and 2006 was absolutely mind blowing and the best shows ive seen. Because of that they get a pass from me and i dont care.

We are circling around to my point though I think. I would say for me the shows have always been spectacular and even as they evolved from really 1996-2010, I enjoyed nearly every one of those shows like an imprint on my permanent memory. And I enjoyed the shows I have seen since then, even if not to quite the same degree - but always a great show. Part of any great live show is the unpredictability and the sense that anything can happen which Pearl Jam have always been better at as the shows lengthen.

Man, times have changed -- I didn't even know a tour was going on until I saw this thread. Cool!

I like the shorter sets. The elements of the set that have caused it to balloon into a 3-hour behemoth -- 5-6 covers per night, the EV solo performances ("Imagine" etc.), the sit-down encore, the obligatory rarities for the setlist chasers -- have not served the performance quality well IMO. Not that individual performances, shows, etc. haven't been really enjoyable or even great, but if that's the excess that gets stripped away by this current format, I'm all for it. An emphasis on the core catalog, with allowances for some reasonable variation and the occasional wacky indulgence, has always been the sweet spot for PJ.

And I don't agree that the element of excitement is diminished by this. During the marathon era, the surprise/rarity became part of the formula, which of course took the surprise/rarity out of it. Pre-2013 or so, that bristling sense that "anything could happen" was simultaneously grounded and heightened by the far greater likelihood that nothing would happen -- you'd get a great show that was different from the night before, but not necessarily a deluge of super-rarities or impulsive covers or a show stretched out to State College lengths. For me, the excitement in setlist-watching never came from knowing that everything was on the table; it was having some sense of what was off the table, and suddenly seeing the rules of the game change while you were watching.

I don't expect it's suddenly going to be 1998 again, but I think this is a good decision.

Kevin Davis wrote:Man, times have changed -- I didn't even know a tour was going on until I saw this thread. Cool!

I like the shorter sets. The elements of the set that have caused it to balloon into a 3-hour behemoth -- 5-6 covers per night, the EV solo performances ("Imagine" etc.), the sit-down encore, the obligatory rarities for the setlist chasers -- have not served the performance quality well IMO. Not that individual performances, shows, etc. haven't been really enjoyable or even great, but if that's the excess that gets stripped away by this current format, I'm all for it. An emphasis on the core catalog, with allowances for some reasonable variation and the occasional wacky indulgence, has always been the sweet spot for PJ.

And I don't agree that the element of excitement is diminished by this. During the marathon era, the surprise/rarity became part of the formula, which of course took the surprise/rarity out of it. Pre-2013 or so, that bristling sense that "anything could happen" was simultaneously grounded and heightened by the far greater likelihood that nothing would happen -- you'd get a great show that was different from the night before, but not necessarily a deluge of super-rarities or impulsive covers or a show stretched out to State College lengths. For me, the excitement in setlist-watching never came from knowing that everything was on the table; it was having some sense of what was off the table, and suddenly seeing the rules of the game change while you were watching.

I don't expect it's suddenly going to be 1998 again, but I think this is a good decision.

Well done. But I would posit that the core catalogue is large enough to stretch to that 2.5-3 hour mark much in the way Springsteen, McCartney, and countless others do without playing the same exact set every night.

liebzz wrote:

Kevin Davis wrote:Man, times have changed -- I didn't even know a tour was going on until I saw this thread. Cool!

I like the shorter sets. The elements of the set that have caused it to balloon into a 3-hour behemoth -- 5-6 covers per night, the EV solo performances ("Imagine" etc.), the sit-down encore, the obligatory rarities for the setlist chasers -- have not served the performance quality well IMO. Not that individual performances, shows, etc. haven't been really enjoyable or even great, but if that's the excess that gets stripped away by this current format, I'm all for it. An emphasis on the core catalog, with allowances for some reasonable variation and the occasional wacky indulgence, has always been the sweet spot for PJ.

And I don't agree that the element of excitement is diminished by this. During the marathon era, the surprise/rarity became part of the formula, which of course took the surprise/rarity out of it. Pre-2013 or so, that bristling sense that "anything could happen" was simultaneously grounded and heightened by the far greater likelihood that nothing would happen -- you'd get a great show that was different from the night before, but not necessarily a deluge of super-rarities or impulsive covers or a show stretched out to State College lengths. For me, the excitement in setlist-watching never came from knowing that everything was on the table; it was having some sense of what was off the table, and suddenly seeing the rules of the game change while you were watching.

I don't expect it's suddenly going to be 1998 again, but I think this is a good decision.

Well done. But I would posit that the core catalogue is large enough to stretch to that 2.5-3 hour mark much in the way Springsteen, McCartney, and countless others do without playing the same exact set every night.

I'm not sure there are really 'countless' headline acts out there playing 3+ hour sets; McCartney or Springsteen are the absolute exception. I can't speak for Springsteen, but McCartney's band is full of seasoned session pros and I don't get the impression they're changing things up on the fly. It's a polished and rehearsed production, something very much outside of Pearl Jam's wheelhouse.

My last PJ show was possibly the worst show they've ever played, but I'm not going to talk about it because somebody always gets butthurt.

Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote:My last PJ show was possibly the worst show they've ever played, but I'm not going to talk about it because somebody always gets butthurt.

What show?

Birds in Hell wrote:I will be honestly disappointed if they start playing two encore, 3+ hour shows again.

Shortening the sets and cutting out all the sloppy covers seems like one of the unambiguously positive decisions the band has made in recent years, it feels like an acknowledgement the shows had become unfocused and it was time to reign things back in.

They haven't done much to impress me over the last few years, but this has done it.

I don't know what other bands/artists you guys are basing your comparisons on but 22-23 songs over 2+ hours is a still a really long concert by any measure, and I would wager significantly longer than most band's headlining sets.

yeah I don't get some of the complaints here...most headlining acts at PJ's level do 19-20 songs or so and at most 2 hours...with few if any changes to the setlist each night

Monkey_Driven wrote:

Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote:My last PJ show was possibly the worst show they've ever played, but I'm not going to talk about it because somebody always gets butthurt.

What show?

Philly 2009 and he's right.

Philly 2009 was a great night. They flubbed a few songs but I think more the antics on stage were a little weird.

State College 2003 to me always seemed like the sloppy overrated one.

In the meantime, I am pretty sure Foo Fighters (when they were playing), Metallica, Dave Matthews Band, and Phish all play that or close to it. Other than Phish, which seems like the Wild West every night, they all have core sets with a few other songs mixed in.

I am not even opposed to them playing moderately familiar sets, but I think the last time they regularly played 22-23 songs a night was the Vs. tour.

lol, with the exception of maybe the first encore on night 3, the entire philly 09 run was hot garbage

I really do not like these shorter sets. I was hoping they’d pull out some riot act/avocado deep cuts with the anniversaries passing and coming up. But that seems like a pipe dream now. I’ll have to listen to the shows to see if this feeling sticks. But I have zero reason to travel for a show now. And now that I’m in Florida, it’s likely they will never be here again.