Red Mosquito

Guys, I doubt spenno has ever felt passionately about anything in his life, so he probably finds it hard to relate.

This is definitely just me changing over the years, but I really don't go to shows anymore so much for the "connection" or "communal experience" or whatever intangible you want to name. That's not to say that I can't enjoy that aspect, but it's just not a priority anymore. I go to shows simply to hear music I love performed well in front of me.

And I'm sure this post will go entirely overlooked and later on when spenno or Kevin Davis says something similar and I agree with it I'll be called out for not speaking for myself.

Well there's differing degrees/apects to connecting at a live show. On the one extreme you have thousands upon thousands of people chanting a guitar line with Jon Bon Jovi, sorry Ed Vedder leading them on. On the other hand I recently saw Springsteen with Tom Morello and the solo for Ghost of Tom Joad had everyone on their feet (nannas too). The connection and the what-the-fuck-is-happening-i've-just-got-to-get-up was a true connection with silent, wide-eyed admiration of not only respect of Morello's craft but also an emotional connection, and not a whoop in sight. The applause afterwards and subsequent rise in intensity was a true connection of performer and audience.

I prefer a latter connection everyday of the week.

LetMeSleep wrote:I prefer a latter connection everyday of the week.

Well sure, the latter connection is a direct product of music being played at a high level of proficiency.

But what I'm over are those moments that people go "man, it was the best Betterman of all time...Ed just played a chord here and there while the crowd took over and sang it themselves".

cutuphalfdead wrote:But what I'm over are those moments that people go "man, it was the best Betterman of all time...Ed just played a chord here and there while the crowd took over and sang it themselves".

Yeah that shit annoys me too.

McParadigm wrote:I remain unapologetic about the fact that live performance stands at a distant third to songwriting and album creation, for me.

Except for certain artists whose careers have unfolded as much in live performance as in the studio (many jazz musicians, for instance), I completely agree with this.

cutuphalfdead wrote:This is definitely just me changing over the years, but I really don't go to shows anymore so much for the "connection" or "communal experience" or whatever intangible you want to name. That's not to say that I can't enjoy that aspect, but it's just not a priority anymore. I go to shows simply to hear music I love performed well in front of me.

I agree with this too.

Actually for most shows I attend I'd be thrilled if I was the only one in the audience.

theplatypus wrote:Guys, I doubt spenno has ever felt passionately about anything in his life, so he probably finds it hard to relate.

I'm really enjoying where this discussion has gone, but I feel like I should point out that my comment about Springsteen was flippant and somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

Apart from that gif of him banging his nether-regions into a camera, I've never seen any live Bruce material (I guess the Dancing in the Dark film clip doesn't count.)

Birds in Hell wrote:

theplatypus wrote:Guys, I doubt spenno has ever felt passionately about anything in his life, so he probably finds it hard to relate.

I'm really enjoying where this discussion has gone, but I feel like I should point out that my comment about Springsteen was flippant and somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

Apart from that gif of him banging his nether-regions into a camera, I've never seen any live Bruce material (I guess the Dancing in the Dark film clip doesn't count.)

dont bother, he's all sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Kevin Davis wrote:

McParadigm wrote:I remain unapologetic about the fact that live performance stands at a distant third to songwriting and album creation, for me.

Except for certain artists whose careers have unfolded as much in live performance as in the studio (many jazz musicians, for instance), I completely agree with this.

cutuphalfdead wrote:This is definitely just me changing over the years, but I really don't go to shows anymore so much for the "connection" or "communal experience" or whatever intangible you want to name. That's not to say that I can't enjoy that aspect, but it's just not a priority anymore. I go to shows simply to hear music I love performed well in front of me.

I agree with this too.

Actually for most shows I attend I'd be thrilled if I was the only one in the audience.

live shows are a distant third for me, too.


BUT, if i am at a show I usually want the experience to be more than listening to music. I can do that at home. I'm looking for the experience

I expect different things from different live shows. For example, if we hadn't met some cool people at PJ20 the show would have been less enjoyable as the band wasn't particularly amazing either night. The main reason PJ20 was so much fun was mainly the communal thing, for me at least. At this point, Pearl Jam is a band you can hit on the girl next to you while Ed flubs some lyrics or take a piss during whatever song they obviously aren't into playing anymore and not feel guilty.

There are bands where the opposite is true and the crowd around you can ruin the experience. I didn't go to the Sigur Ros show last week, but I would imagine if I did I would have been pretty annoyed being surrounded with screaming idiots while that band played.

Quickly want to point out, Bruce manages to do all that energy/kinetic/stage laps all the while playing note perfect. He is the consulate performer and to skate him never having even seen him is weak.

He does use a TelePrompter in the stage but who here doesnt wishe ed would start doing that?

I, for one, wasn't putting Bruce down. He's one of the best live acts I've seen...but even the best shows haven't held a candle to any of my hundred favorite records, in terms of how they affected me. Maybe the one exception was Neil, but his strength was never that he had any one great album so much as that he had an impossible wealth of strong material, eccentric ideas, and a willingness to do whatever his muse dictated. So there wasn't really any one record that the live show might need to compete with, and at the same time...he had the same fire and drive that night that MAKES great records. It felt less like a case of "Hey, you spent some money to come see me, so here's a show," and more like "What the fuck are you people even doing here? I'm trying to CREATE something!"

bodysnatcher wrote:I'd argue "Why doesn't pearl jam play shorter concerts?"

I'd rather have 20 supercharged songs and be done, than 20 songs of varying intensity plus 10 more songs of Ed straining and letting the crowd sing

THIS, Goddamnit! Out of the sixty-something shows I've seen, some of the best were short ones. Little Rock in 2003 was a fucking blinder, for example. Some of the longer (30 songs plus) have been amazing, too, but, overall, I would much prefer what bodysnatcher says above.

phantomanddevil wrote:

bodysnatcher wrote:I'd argue "Why doesn't pearl jam play shorter concerts?"

I'd rather have 20 supercharged songs and be done, than 20 songs of varying intensity plus 10 more songs of Ed straining and letting the crowd sing

THIS, Goddamnit! Out of the sixty-something shows I've seen, some of the best were short ones. Little Rock in 2003 was a fucking blinder, for example. Some of the longer (30 songs plus) have been amazing, too, but, overall, I would much prefer what bodysnatcher says above.

This is spot on, but sadly to a lot of the fan base going to a Pearl Jam show is like collecting baseball cards at this point. People care more about everyone else knowing they went to the longest show with the most and rarest songs and the hardest to purchase poster than seeing the band firing on all cylinders and melting people's faces off. I mean, I love hearing a good rarity as much as anyone, but unless they're gonna put the effort in to play it well (like at PJ20 with In The Moonlight or Education), I'd rather see them play a scorching Hail Hail for the billionth time.

Lament wrote:

phantomanddevil wrote:

bodysnatcher wrote:I'd argue "Why doesn't pearl jam play shorter concerts?"

I'd rather have 20 supercharged songs and be done, than 20 songs of varying intensity plus 10 more songs of Ed straining and letting the crowd sing

THIS, Goddamnit! Out of the sixty-something shows I've seen, some of the best were short ones. Little Rock in 2003 was a fucking blinder, for example. Some of the longer (30 songs plus) have been amazing, too, but, overall, I would much prefer what bodysnatcher says above.

This is spot on, but sadly to a lot of the fan base going to a Pearl Jam show is like collecting baseball cards at this point. People care more about everyone else knowing they went to the longest show with the most and rarest songs and the hardest to purchase poster than seeing the band firing on all cylinders and melting people's faces off. I mean, I love hearing a good rarity as much as anyone, but unless they're gonna put the effort in to play it well (like at PJ20 with In The Moonlight or Education), I'd rather see them play a scorching Hail Hail for the billionth time.

These guys get it.

Spenno, i ain't a Boss fan, but i've seenhim 9 or 10 times to accompany Darcy...what it is, seeing him live, is a masterclass in effective stagecraft...that's the crux of it mate.

I don't think Pearl Jam need to play shorter sets at all. I don't really have much in the way of advice for them since I've been quite happy with the shows I've seen. I can understand the frustration with them playing sloppy at times because they are capable of playing extraordinarily well, and it seems like it is due to a lack of rehearsal and not paring down the nnumber of rarities they keep busting out...but ultimately this seems more like small tweaks more than anything. I mean, at the end of the day, I still think they are a phenomenal live band in terms of the level of enjoyment I get from going to the shows. I don't collect shows like baseball cards, but I do happen to generally take the stance the longer they are stage for shows I am at, the better it is for me since I truly enjoy every moment of my chance to see them.

cutuphalfdead wrote:This is definitely just me changing over the years, but I really don't go to shows anymore so much for the "connection" or "communal experience" or whatever intangible you want to name. That's not to say that I can't enjoy that aspect, but it's just not a priority anymore. I go to shows simply to hear music I love performed well in front of me.

Well that is sad to me and from what I have read from you over the last 6 years you are one of PJ's biggest fans. The "connection" is what can make live music so great. I imagine Pearl Jam enjoys playing in front of a crowd that is there for the "connection" more than some guys who don't really want to be around a lot of people, even that crowd annyoingly sings along to the guitar part in DTE .

Birds in Hell wrote:

Lament wrote:

phantomanddevil wrote:

bodysnatcher wrote:I'd argue "Why doesn't pearl jam play shorter concerts?"

I'd rather have 20 supercharged songs and be done, than 20 songs of varying intensity plus 10 more songs of Ed straining and letting the crowd sing

THIS, Goddamnit! Out of the sixty-something shows I've seen, some of the best were short ones. Little Rock in 2003 was a fucking blinder, for example. Some of the longer (30 songs plus) have been amazing, too, but, overall, I would much prefer what bodysnatcher says above.

This is spot on, but sadly to a lot of the fan base going to a Pearl Jam show is like collecting baseball cards at this point. People care more about everyone else knowing they went to the longest show with the most and rarest songs and the hardest to purchase poster than seeing the band firing on all cylinders and melting people's faces off. I mean, I love hearing a good rarity as much as anyone, but unless they're gonna put the effort in to play it well (like at PJ20 with In The Moonlight or Education), I'd rather see them play a scorching Hail Hail for the billionth time.

These guys get it.

I'm not opposed to shorter, more focused shows, but I also like the rarity thrown in the mix. For me, I just wish they'd stop being so predictable with openers, and encores. Like if you get "Elderly Woman" to open the show (which fucking sucks), then you know you are not going to get "Long Road", "Release", "Sometimes", or "Of The Girl". Those songs should be in the main set sometimes, not just used for openers.

I also think it would be cool if they did shows where they focus on albums. For example, have a few gigs and focus on 'Vs.' songs. Play another set of gigs, and focus on 'Binaural' songs. They could still play the standards, but then mix in an additional few songs from one specific album.