Red Mosquito

theplatypus wrote:

darth_vedder wrote:Lots of words here team. What's the gist?

Haha, perfect summary!

I've said it once and I'll say it again, the 2003 tour was the beginning of the end of the old Pearl Jam, and the beginning of the beginning of the new Pearl Jam. The 2003 tour to me is when Pearl Jam became self aware of what their live shows were like. It's like they knew how good they were, and decided to just celebrate that fact. Pearl Jam shows went from being deliberate performances where the audience was almost an afterthought, to "Pearl Jam: The Celebration". I think I've got this out in more detail in the 03 tour thread in Live, but I've always thought it was the attitude that they developed in the 03 tour that led to their downfall throughout the next decade.

cutuphalfdead wrote:I've said it once and I'll say it again, the 2003 tour was the beginning of the end of the old Pearl Jam, and the beginning of the beginning of the new Pearl Jam. The 2003 tour to me is when Pearl Jam became self aware of what their live shows were like. It's like they knew how good they were, and decided to just celebrate that fact. Pearl Jam shows went from being deliberate performances where the audience was almost an afterthought, to "Pearl Jam: The Celebration". I think I've got this out in more detail in the 03 tour thread in Live, but I've always thought it was the attitude that they developed in the 03 tour that led to their downfall throughout the next decade.

"Downfall" is so overdramatic it makes me laugh. Looking at almost any 20 plus year band (Stones, Aerosmith, etc) makes me realize that if PJ had a downturn, it was pretty minimal. I think splitting up songwriting prevented any real spells of writers block. I remember the 1998 and 2000 tours quite well. The 1998 tour they played typically 22 songs. They were just starting to sweat. Alot of people bitched that they didn't have as much energy. But people romanticize it like it's perfect. 2000, the band was stock still, lots of crowds were resultingly less energetic. It's still PJ, so the shows always rocked, but there were weaknesses. If the band came out now and played a measly 22 songs, we'd all be asking for our money back.

People are so caught up in the media-contrived BS of a "peak" moment for bands. That's media bullshit cause everyone needs a narrative and story to tell, and it's hard for people to tell stories without having steep archs like "back when they ruled, before they sucked" or "the comeback". It's too difficult for people to simply say, "yeah they're consistent", it's just too boring to say that I get it. FOr people on a fan forum to just say "they're consistent" would probably ruin some pople's fun but it's what I think is true. The truth with PJ is that they are a remarkabley consistent band. Compare PJ 20 years in to the Stones or REM or Metallica 20 years in and the fall off is pretty light.

Tuolumne wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:I've said it once and I'll say it again, the 2003 tour was the beginning of the end of the old Pearl Jam, and the beginning of the beginning of the new Pearl Jam. The 2003 tour to me is when Pearl Jam became self aware of what their live shows were like. It's like they knew how good they were, and decided to just celebrate that fact. Pearl Jam shows went from being deliberate performances where the audience was almost an afterthought, to "Pearl Jam: The Celebration". I think I've got this out in more detail in the 03 tour thread in Live, but I've always thought it was the attitude that they developed in the 03 tour that led to their downfall throughout the next decade.

"Downfall" is so overdramatic it makes me laugh. Looking at almost any 20 plus year band (Stones, Aerosmith, etc) makes me realize that if PJ had a downturn, it was pretty minimal. I think splitting up songwriting prevented any real spells of writers block. I remember the 1998 and 2000 tours quite well. The 1998 tour they played typically 22 songs. They were just starting to sweat. Alot of people bitched that they didn't have as much energy. But people romanticize it like it's perfect. 2000, the band was stock still, lots of crowds were resultingly less energetic. It's still PJ, so the shows always rocked, but there were weaknesses. If the band came out now and played a measly 22 songs, we'd all be asking for our money back.

People are so caught up in the media-contrived BS of a "peak" moment for bands. That's media bullshit cause everyone needs a narrative and story to tell, and it's hard for people to tell stories without having steep archs like "back when they ruled, before they sucked" or "the comeback". It's too difficult for people to simply say, "yeah they're consistent", it's just too boring to say that I get it. FOr people on a fan forum to just say "they're consistent" would probably ruin some pople's fun but it's what I think is true. The truth with PJ is that they are a remarkabley consistent band. Compare PJ 20 years in to the Stones or REM or Metallica 20 years in and the fall off is pretty light.

Isn't it all about context?

I identify and agree with Stip in this thread....and I assume that's partly because we are about the same age (36) and literally grew up with the band. I think that gives old fart likes us a different perspective - not a better perspective or anything like that - just different.

I value pretty much everyone's opinion here, and think it's cool that younger guys and girls in their 20s or early 30s discovered Pearl Jam after it made it big.

I go back to my R.E.M. analogy...it sucks that they retired. At least Pearl Jam's still going strong and producing songs that I enjoy.

The first half of S/T is great music - I listened to it today on my drive to work.

No, Pearl Jam has definitely had a downfall. The degradation in quality from 10 years ago to now is a lot more than minimal.

Coach wrote: I go back to my R.E.M. analogy...it sucks that they retired. At least Pearl Jam's still going strong and producing songs that I enjoy.

yup. all i really want

cutuphalfdead wrote:No, Pearl Jam has definitely had a downfall. The degradation in quality from 10 years ago to now is a lot more than minimal.

Live or studio?

*edit. Seems like live from the context. I think 05 and 06 are two of their very best tours. I haven't heard very much since then but what i have heard hasn't made me desperate to seek out boots, so maybe that says something.

"i think they are better now than 10 years ago. and though this will piss off badmusic (though he's always pissed off), the critical reception seems to bear that out."

I SAW THAT STIP. WHY DID YOU DELETE IT

LOL

so which one is it, the media is fabricating the downfall or their critical reception is better now?

you apologists need to get your story straight

cutuphalfdead wrote:I've said it once and I'll say it again, the 2003 tour was the beginning of the end of the old Pearl Jam, and the beginning of the beginning of the new Pearl Jam. The 2003 tour to me is when Pearl Jam became self aware of what their live shows were like. It's like they knew how good they were, and decided to just celebrate that fact. Pearl Jam shows went from being deliberate performances where the audience was almost an afterthought, to "Pearl Jam: The Celebration". I think I've got this out in more detail in the 03 tour thread in Live, but I've always thought it was the attitude that they developed in the 03 tour that led to their downfall throughout the next decade.

didnt someone make this same point and explained it was b/c of roskilde?

warehouse wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:I've said it once and I'll say it again, the 2003 tour was the beginning of the end of the old Pearl Jam, and the beginning of the beginning of the new Pearl Jam. The 2003 tour to me is when Pearl Jam became self aware of what their live shows were like. It's like they knew how good they were, and decided to just celebrate that fact. Pearl Jam shows went from being deliberate performances where the audience was almost an afterthought, to "Pearl Jam: The Celebration". I think I've got this out in more detail in the 03 tour thread in Live, but I've always thought it was the attitude that they developed in the 03 tour that led to their downfall throughout the next decade.

didnt someone make this same point and explained it was b/c of roskilde?

yes.

Lament wrote:In reading a lot of commentary regarding PJ20 it came to my attention that people who either took a break from Pearl Jam during this era or didn't get into them until afterwards don't seem to really grasp the magnitude of that summer and beyond. The Yield era was the first time that it really felt like the band wasn't on the brink of breaking up, and in the aftermath of Roskilde it all of the sudden seemed more real than ever that the band may be done. People seem to forget the uncertainty regarding them ever playing live again after the tragedy. Vigilant fans remembered Ed's comments in the wake of the Smashing Pumpkins concert tragedy a few years earlier that if something like that were to ever happen at a Pearl Jam show they would never be able to carry on as a band (and this was a time when they were still putting a high value on walking it like they talked it). Supposedly Thurston Moore (Sonic Youth was the opening act for the first US leg of the upcoming tour) was telling people he expected the tour to be cancelled and Pearl Jam to quit. Pete Townshend said he spoke with Ed (having had the same thing happen to the Who in 1979) and was left with no impression of what Pearl Jam was going to do.

Even when the US tour went on as scheduled, I feel like every fan went into those shows feeling like it could be the last time they ever saw them. It was several weeks into the tour before it started feeling like maybe this wasn't the end. Some of those shows from the end of August till early November were among the tightest, most focused the band ever played. This is (to me at least), the point where everything changed. The next time they were on the road (2003), they discovered the value of nostalgia, and their shows slowly became what they are today. The 2000 tour really seems like the final go-round of the old Pearl Jam. I guess the Binaural era really was one you had to live through to really understand.

wait, is the OP a girl?! OMG a girl!

The gist is, I started another incomprehensible thread.

Heathen wrote:LOL

so which one is it, the media is fabricating the downfall or their critical reception is better now?

you apologists need to get your story straight

different apologists, different stories

stip wrote:

Heathen wrote:LOL

so which one is it, the media is fabricating the downfall or their critical reception is better now?

you apologists need to get your story straight

different apologists, different stories

Stip, what do you think of R.E.M.'s "The Apologist?" It's now in my head.

I dont like listening to the songs on Self Titled or Backspacer that much.

stip wrote:Shouldn't you be comparing those songs you listed to The End, Parachutes, Just Breathe, Man of the Hour, Come Back, Speed of Sound, etc?

Plus pearl jam always had songs like Supersonic. That's not new. Remember Mankind?

I didn't compare those songs to The End/Parachutes/Man of the Hour/etc. because the OP's original sentiment (which I now see was in reference to live performances and not studio output) appeared to be that "naysayers" biggest problem was too high of a value on old, manic material and a dismissal of current, mature material. I used those sets of songs because I actually think that's fundamentally incorrect; the majority of "naysayers" place the highest premium on pre-2003 mature material and the lowest on post-2003 manic material. The most derided post-2003 material has always seemed to be the "hey look, we still rock!" stuff, not stuff like Man of the Hour or Parachutes or The End. Is anyone complaining that they don't "rock" anymore? It seems to me like "naysayers" would probably prefer the band put less of a premium on trying to prove they can still "rock."

To compare Immortality/Off He Goes/All Those Yesterdays/etc. to The End/Parachutes/Just Breathe would be appropriate if it seemed the OP's original sentiment appeared to be about the quality of material from pre-2003 vs. post-2003, but it appeared to be about the style of the music preferred by "naysayers," and therefore seemed to be a very backward assessment of what "naysayers" expected stylistically from this band. While "naysayers" might raise flags to the actual quality of a song like Just Breathe or Come Back or The End, and I don't think any of them are either surprised that the band is making music that sounds like those songs or wishes that they wouldn't or thinks that they could be improved if they rocked more. As I pointed out in my second post, I think most "naysayers" would actually say with regards to almost any album that the best moments are usually the more mature pieces and the most derided/dismissed at the manic, rocking numbers. This is a band who's mature side was embraced pretty early on, dating back to stuff like Oceans/Indifference/Nothingman/Immortality/etc.

Coach wrote:

stip wrote:

Heathen wrote:LOL

so which one is it, the media is fabricating the downfall or their critical reception is better now?

you apologists need to get your story straight

different apologists, different stories

Stip, what do you think of R.E.M.'s "The Apologist?" It's now in my head.

Its on Up so he probably hates it.