Red Mosquito

Ok but then rank those shows higher. Individual performances of songs don't change the songs as they are on the record, nor the sequencing of those songs on said record.

epilogue wrote:Ok but then rank those shows higher. Individual performances of songs don't change the songs as they are on the record, nor the sequencing of those songs on said record.

maybe I will.

Live performances can certainly make you reassess your thoughts on an album; that definitely happened with me and the S/T record.

epilogue wrote:Ok but then rank those shows higher. Individual performances of songs don't change the songs as they are on the record, nor the sequencing of those songs on said record.

I'm with you on this.

I LOVE the 2000 shows and the Binaural sessions as a whole....but the actual album that we got is maybe 6 or 7 on my list.

digster wrote:Live performances can certainly make you reassess your thoughts on an album.

I'll never understand this. But if it works for you then who the hell am I to argue?

Binaural




Yield
Vitalogy
No Code
Vs
Riot Act
Gigaton
S/T
Ten
Backspacer
Bolt

Yield - I don't ever see this changing. This is the best thing they've ever made.

Vitalogy
No Code
Vs
Binaural
Ten
Riot Act
Gigaton
Pearl Jam
Backspacer

epilogue wrote:

digster wrote:Live performances can certainly make you reassess your thoughts on an album.

I'll never understand this. But if it works for you then who the hell am I to argue?

Sometimes I think it just takes hearing a song presented in a different way (maybe a live version, maybe an alternate arrangement, maybe a cover -- anything, really) before your ears become attuned to its virtues, but once those virtues register with you, they become evident in all versions of the song.

Kevin Davis wrote:

epilogue wrote:

digster wrote:Live performances can certainly make you reassess your thoughts on an album.

I'll never understand this. But if it works for you then who the hell am I to argue?

Sometimes I think it just takes hearing a song presented in a different way (maybe a live version, maybe an alternate arrangement, maybe a cover -- anything, really) before your ears become attuned to its virtues, but once those virtues register with you, they become evident in all versions of the song.

Well said. I agree

Kevin Davis wrote:

epilogue wrote:

digster wrote:Live performances can certainly make you reassess your thoughts on an album.

I'll never understand this. But if it works for you then who the hell am I to argue?

Sometimes I think it just takes hearing a song presented in a different way (maybe a live version, maybe an alternate arrangement, maybe a cover -- anything, really) before your ears become attuned to its virtues, but once those virtues register with you, they become evident in all versions of the song.

I totally understand that on the song level. But I can't see how that changes an album.

epilogue wrote:

Kevin Davis wrote:

epilogue wrote:

digster wrote:Live performances can certainly make you reassess your thoughts on an album.

I'll never understand this. But if it works for you then who the hell am I to argue?

Sometimes I think it just takes hearing a song presented in a different way (maybe a live version, maybe an alternate arrangement, maybe a cover -- anything, really) before your ears become attuned to its virtues, but once those virtues register with you, they become evident in all versions of the song.

I totally understand that on the song level. But I can't see how that changes an album.

I mean, those performances enhance your appreciation of the songs, the songs are what make up the album...I don't think it's any more complex than that. It doesn't change the album, but there are countless things that might cause a person's perception of an album to change over time; I don't know why the idea of learning to appreciate its songs by way of live performances (especially with a band like Pearl Jam who make their live recordings so widely available), and then going back to the album that originally featured those songs with a newfound appreciation for them, would seem like an unusually weird one. For dad to say, "You know, I had Binaural pretty low, but I just spent a bunch of time engaging with some really great versions of those songs, and I think it's a better collection of tunes than I've given it credit for being" -- that seems totally reasonable to me.

Binaural and S/T were both albums I developed a much greater appreciation for through my engagement with their songs on live bootlegs. It wasn't that I thought the songs were flat-out bad in their studio versions but were somehow conversely great songs when performed live, and it wasn't that the live versions were simply good performances of bad songs; it was that the live versions tapped into something in the songs themselves, things that were probably always there even in the studio versions that I initially liked less, which I didn't register intellectually or emotionally for one reason or another (maybe something in the production obscured these qualities, maybe the performances weren't strong enough on record to bring them out -- could be anything). However, after having that "a-ha" moment, I was able to go back to the studio recordings with that new baseline appreciation for the songs themselves, now processing them in the context of the records and all the unique framework that entails, and so on and so forth.

I think it sounds more precious and complicated than it really is -- for me anyway, it was just something that kind of happened organically as part of my natural rhythm of listening to the band during those years, and certainly if you don't really indulge in the live bootlegs (and I feel like you've said you don't really), I wouldn't expect you to have this experience. But I've experienced it with virtually every artist to whom I listen at a level beyond just the studio records (PJ, Dylan, Miles Davis, Grateful Dead, Neil Young, etc.) -- the studio versions illuminate the live versions, the live versions illuminate the studio versions, the outtakes illuminate the finished product, the finished products illuminate the demos, etc. Ultimately it's all one story, any one chapter capable of making any of the other chapters feel richer, fuller, better.

That was a long but greatly appreciated post. I agree pretty strongly with all of that.

Like I said, it doesn't make sense to me, but I'm not here to tell anyone how to listen to or appreciate or engage with music. I'm glad y'all have that kind of experience.I think my intellectual and emotional process with music is just different.

Kevin Davis wrote:

epilogue wrote:

Kevin Davis wrote:

epilogue wrote:

digster wrote:Live performances can certainly make you reassess your thoughts on an album.

I'll never understand this. But if it works for you then who the hell am I to argue?

Sometimes I think it just takes hearing a song presented in a different way (maybe a live version, maybe an alternate arrangement, maybe a cover -- anything, really) before your ears become attuned to its virtues, but once those virtues register with you, they become evident in all versions of the song.

I totally understand that on the song level. But I can't see how that changes an album.

I mean, those performances enhance your appreciation of the songs, the songs are what make up the album...I don't think it's any more complex than that. It doesn't change the album, but there are countless things that might cause a person's perception of an album to change over time; I don't know why the idea of learning to appreciate its songs by way of live performances (especially with a band like Pearl Jam who make their live recordings so widely available), and then going back to the album that originally featured those songs with a newfound appreciation for them, would seem like an unusually weird one. For dad to say, "You know, I had Binaural pretty low, but I just spent a bunch of time engaging with some really great versions of those songs, and I think it's a better collection of tunes than I've given it credit for being" -- that seems totally reasonable to me.

Binaural and S/T were both albums I developed a much greater appreciation for through my engagement with their songs on live bootlegs. It wasn't that I thought the songs were flat-out bad in their studio versions but were somehow conversely great songs when performed live, and it wasn't that the live versions were simply good performances of bad songs; it was that the live versions tapped into something in the songs themselves, things that were probably always there even in the studio versions that I initially liked less, which I didn't register intellectually or emotionally for one reason or another (maybe something in the production obscured these qualities, maybe the performances weren't strong enough on record to bring them out -- could be anything). However, after having that "a-ha" moment, I was able to go back to the studio recordings with that new baseline appreciation for the songs themselves, now processing them in the context of the records and all the unique framework that entails, and so on and so forth.

I think it sounds more precious and complicated than it really is -- for me anyway, it was just something that kind of happened organically as part of my natural rhythm of listening to the band during those years, and certainly if you don't really indulge in the live bootlegs (and I feel like you've said you don't really), I wouldn't expect you to have this experience. But I've experienced it with virtually every artist to whom I listen at a level beyond just the studio records (PJ, Dylan, Miles Davis, Grateful Dead, Neil Young, etc.) -- the studio versions illuminate the live versions, the live versions illuminate the studio versions, the outtakes illuminate the finished product, the finished products illuminate the demos, etc. Ultimately it's all one story, any one chapter capable of making any of the other chapters feel richer, fuller, better.

Very well spoken - bravo

I feel I can't really fully assess a PJ record UNTIL I hear how the songs morph and grow onstage. Mainly due to the fact that we've been getting official live recordings since Vs. with Live In Atlanta. (Ten - counting the b-sides from the Oceans single). And, it was Unplugged and the Even Flow video that hooked me to begin with.

KD's post is spot on how I feel. However, I did - just now - realize I had Binaural at #5 (still do), and not #7, so my counting could use some work. I do tend to favor live versions of their songs, which I know should have no bearing on a Rank the Albums thread. It's just how my brain operates. Had I listened to a boot featuring Binaural songs after...2006?...I might change my ranking. Who knows.

I shouldn't knock anyone else's ranking of an album and how they connect with it either.

Yeah there’s nothing to knock. The difference in the songs isn’t as stark as say a Grateful Dead but there’s an element of energy and nuance you can grasp live that illuminates the songs in different ways. I can remember that I heard Grievance live first from the Letterman performance and was initially disappointed in the studio version for not being as straight away rocker, but I came over time to appreciate the things happening in the studio version while still holding on to the adrenaline of the live performance.

liebzz wrote:Yeah there’s nothing to knock. The difference in the songs isn’t as stark as say a Grateful Dead but there’s an element of energy and nuance you can grasp live that illuminates the songs in different ways. I can remember that I heard Grievance live first from the Letterman performance and was initially disappointed in the studio version for not being as straight away rocker, but I came over time to appreciate the things happening in the studio version while still holding on to the adrenaline of the live performance.

It's also fun to go back and listen to an album after vegging out on shows. I agree theres no wrong way to experience the art - it's ultimately up to the listener.
.

To be clear, my saying I don't understand that approach (live versions making an album better) was not a value judgement. I hope no one thinks I'm saying that experience is stupid or wrong or weird or anything like that. Apologies if that came through.

I simply meant to say that it's different than my way of experiencing the music and being that it's a foreign approach/concept to me, I simply don't understand how it works for y'all. Literally, I don't think I'll ever understand it -- not because it's wrong and my way is better or anything, but because I can't wrap my head around how it works for you since it doesn't work for me.

However, I can appreciate the approach. It just doesn't work for me. And I've tried. This obviously isn't the first time this kind of thing has come up. Again, I apologize if what I said came off as condescending or snooty or judgmental. That was not at all what I was trying to say.

I totally respect where y'all are coming from and I wish I was able to access what you're talking about. It sounds like a pretty great way to engage with an artist.

epilogue wrote:To be clear, my saying I don't understand that approach (live versions making an album better) was not a value judgement. I hope no one thinks I'm saying that experience is stupid or wrong or weird or anything like that. Apologies if that came through.

I simply meant to say that it's different than my way of experiencing the music and being that it's a foreign approach/concept to me, I simply don't understand how it works for y'all. Literally, I don't think I'll ever understand it -- not because it's wrong and my way is better or anything, but because I can't wrap my head around how it works for you since it doesn't work for me.

However, I can appreciate the approach. It just doesn't work for me. And I've tried. This obviously isn't the first time this kind of thing has come up. Again, I apologize if what I said came off as condescending or snooty or judgmental. That was not at all what I was trying to say.

I totally respect where y'all are coming from and I wish I was able to access what you're talking about. It sounds like a pretty great way to engage with an artist.

I didn’t take it that way at all. We all experience things in different ways and it’s often amazing that we end up in the same place, at least with this band.

liebzz wrote:

epilogue wrote:To be clear, my saying I don't understand that approach (live versions making an album better) was not a value judgement. I hope no one thinks I'm saying that experience is stupid or wrong or weird or anything like that. Apologies if that came through.

I simply meant to say that it's different than my way of experiencing the music and being that it's a foreign approach/concept to me, I simply don't understand how it works for y'all. Literally, I don't think I'll ever understand it -- not because it's wrong and my way is better or anything, but because I can't wrap my head around how it works for you since it doesn't work for me.

However, I can appreciate the approach. It just doesn't work for me. And I've tried. This obviously isn't the first time this kind of thing has come up. Again, I apologize if what I said came off as condescending or snooty or judgmental. That was not at all what I was trying to say.

I totally respect where y'all are coming from and I wish I was able to access what you're talking about. It sounds like a pretty great way to engage with an artist.

I didn’t take it that way at all. We all experience things in different ways and it’s often amazing that we end up in the same place, at least with this band.

It really is remarkable