Red Mosquito

I've said it before and I'll say it again: 2003 was the tour when Pearl Jam became self aware when it came to their concerts, which set the stage for the destruction of what made them great. Fortunately, they had another 3 years of solid performing left in them before the ship really started to sink.

cutuphalfdead wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again: 2003 was the tour when Pearl Jam became self aware when it came to their concerts, which set the stage for the destruction of what made them great. Fortunately, they had another 3 years of solid performing left in them before the ship really started to sink.

Self aware how? In what way? What changed?

(Thanks, Kevin Davis, for the extended answer. The 2000 tour seems to be the one that everyone agrees was great, so maybe I'll spin a few shows and see what's what.)

I think 2003 was when Pearl Jam realized the celebratory aspect that their concerts had taken on and started trying to construct them with that awareness in mind. Take the "Boston Experiment" that year, prior to 2003 the most epic Pearl Jam shows weren't designed to be that way, they more or less just happened. I'm not saying 2003 sucked, or those Mansfield shows sucked either. On the contrary, they were very good. But it was this awareness that led to Pearl Jam spending the next 10 years trying to be Pearl Jam instead of just being Pearl Jam, and they're worse off because of it.

cutuphalfdead wrote:I think 2003 was when Pearl Jam realized the celebratory aspect that their concerts had taken on and started trying to construct them with that awareness in mind. Take the "Boston Experiment" that year, prior to 2003 the most epic Pearl Jam shows weren't designed to be that way, they more or less just happened. I'm not saying 2003 sucked, or those Mansfield shows sucked either. On the contrary, they were very good. But it was this awareness that led to Pearl Jam spending the next 10 years trying to be Pearl Jam instead of just being Pearl Jam, and they're worse off because of it.

Add to that the reissue revisionist aspect and you have a band that second guesses every aspect/step they take (Like a stoner walking through a crowded area).

Thanks. I'm interested in how they went from the group we see in Touring Band to the group we see today. It's a pretty significant change, methinks. I wonder how much leaving Epic had to do with it. Without a major label, they could do whatever they wanted, but they also had to assume more financial liability. I think that impacted their sound and approach to touring, merch and so on.

LetMeSleep wrote: the reissue revisionist aspect

Does this refer to something beyond all of the rerecording that was done for Lost Dogs?

PryTo wrote:

LetMeSleep wrote: the reissue revisionist aspect

Does this refer to something beyond all of the rerecording that was done for Lost Dogs?

Remember when Eddie Vedder would sing "oh Beth" in early live versions of Oceans?

Yeah, no one does because apparently that never happened.

Ah, the Unplugged thing. Forgot about that. Any other revisions in the box sets?

"small my table sits just two...meandbeth" from Oprheum 94 is edited

Those reissues plus PJ20 in tandem with the festival circuit tours, I think has led the band to be very aware of themselves and their legacy.

Agreed. I wonder who's driving the ship, though. I assume Ed removed the Beth references and wanted to redo a lot of his vocals. But I wonder if the intense focus on the early years (and ignoring much of the post-2000 material) was a calculated decision and if so who made it. Because whether it's PJ20, the reissues, or the setlists, the focus really seems to be on Ten-Vitalogy, with some attention paid to Yield. Most of the rest is not forgotten entirely but downplayed quite a bit. I suppose we'll see if they go ahead with the rest of the reissues as planned. But I really wonder who's behind these decisions. It's worth mentioning that whoever is behind it (if anyone is steering the ship at all, that is) has turned the band into a money making machine.

PryTo wrote:It's worth mentioning that whoever is behind it (if anyone is steering the ship at all, that is) has turned the band into a money making machine.

Seriously though - for every decision that turns lapsed fans into fanbois, they're alienating just as many disgruntled fans of the 'middle years', not to mention potential new fans. It always bewilders me why after being so pro-taping/trading, PJ is now so tight-arsed about allowing their festival sets being televised/webcast. There have been times that an entire festival has been webcast, with PJ the only abstainers (Made In Phili comes to mind). Free exposure like that is what builds bands' fanbases. Perhaps they're embarrassed that Ed forgets the words to Do The Evolution every second night and don't want the casual fans to know, or know that the 'in the flesh' experience the excellent Bruce article above talks about no longer translates for PJ via video.

KD, Chud and LetMeSleep have summed up the bootleg experience of the past decade or so really well. The 2000 tour is definitely the gold standard for both consistency and variation. If you haven't heard many shows from this tour, I recommend starting with this and then seeking out individual shows from there

Playing a smaller number of songs really well worked so much better than playing 160+ songs a tour, but only 30 of them consistently well. It also allowed space for improvs and spontaneity, the energy for which is now devoted to remembering how the hell to play tonight's Cinderella that hasn't been played for 5 years.

The 2000, 2003 and 2006 tours each have a very distinct feel to them, and lend themselves to compilation-making and discussions over best versions etc. From 2008 onwards however, it's more about listening to a whole tour in order to find one version of each song that is played to a higher level and in some way captures what we all know the band is capable of if they put the effort in.

cutuphalfdead wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again: 2003 was the tour when Pearl Jam became self aware when it came to their concerts, which set the stage for the destruction of what made them great. Fortunately, they had another 3 years of solid performing left in them before the ship really started to sink.

I agree. Do you think they have allowed themselves to be influenced by their own official bootlegs?
They are aware the shows are not just about that night's venue, but the people who will buy the bootleg and listen and listen.
The shows have possibly lost some of that intimacy, where it was just the band and the crowd that night and they played songs and we listened.

chinofstone wrote:Do you think they have allowed themselves to be influenced by their own official bootlegs?

If that was the case you'd think they'd focus on technical proficiency of their playing instead of party atmosphere of the show. The former is what translates to bootlegs, not the latter.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

chinofstone wrote:Do you think they have allowed themselves to be influenced by their own official bootlegs?

If that was the case you'd think they'd focus on technical proficiency of their playing instead of party atmosphere of the show. The former is what translates to bootlegs, not the latter.

You'd think, yes.
I do think Ed is aware that what he says is no longer contained, for the most part, in the building that night. He does a lot more talking.

ridleybradout wrote: If you haven't heard many shows from this tour, I recommend starting with this and then seeking out individual shows from there.

Thanks! This is fantastic, just what I was looking for. I've got a trip to D.C. this weekend and this will give me something to do on the flight there/back. Much appreciated!

Worchester #1 2013
NAIS

PryTo wrote:A serious question for you bootleg fans. Is it just the setlists and the energy of the performance, or is there some other variation that you're listening for?

For me it's all about the quality of the sound and performances. That is why I love the boots from 2000-2006, when their original soundman was still on board and the band were at their peak as live performers. After 2006, it goes downhill fast. I have the full 2000 & 2003 bootleg sets, but I haven't purchased a new bootleg in years, after getting burned too many times by lousy sound and lousy performances.

For the "full concert" experience, there are a handful of shows from 2000-2006 that are a cut above the rest. It would be foolish to not listen to at least some of those.

I go through cycles of thinking what's good and what's bad with the band performing lately. I remember a DJ on krock here in NY back in 2000 was bitching that they were like statues on tour, didn't move, didn't interact and it made for a pretty boring show. IMO, the band was more focused back from 1998-2003 because they just weren't into it as much. Stone hinted at this back in PJ 20. They weren't that popular in the music scene, there album sales had already trended downwards and they were really getting no attention. Maybe this in way helped thrive to become a great live band indirectly.

I think what CHUD said about 2003 can be very true. It all really started with Boston 2003, then the 2005 canada tour they started having fun and wanted to be happy again. The single decision that I think has hurt them is the one to do less shows, but do some every year. I would mind if they took a break after 2014 and didn't come back for two years when they get nominated into the ROR hall of fame. Come back, do a 77 show tour of the states, europe, Asia and Aussie, but it will never happen.

I think the 2005 tour was incredible.