Red Mosquito

Please stay.

CopperTom wrote:

Lament wrote:

Hugh Mungus wrote:I wasn't there for any of them but shitting on those shows is really getting old. Whenever someone wants to talk about how terrible Pearl jam is now points to these shows. It's annoying.

It is the worst when people who think Pearl Jam isn't good point to an example of an instance where they weren't good to prove that they're not good.

It's even worse when they only point to the same shows over and over to prove their point. I feel this is an example of bandwagoning more than actual belief. How many people can list actual and specific deficiencies with these shows? I'd love a LAL: Spectrum discussion.

I was at night 4, and there were quite a few deficiencies. Ed's voice was shot, the setlist was completely out of whack and quite messy, the first encore sucked the life right out of the room and "Alive" was an abortion. It didn't have some of the train wreck performances that nights 2 and 3 had, but it was the single weirdest show I've ever seen of any band and it doesn't hold up well on the bootleg. What really makes the shows stand out is the quality of the performance relative to the hype they were given going in.

But some of the harping on those shows is overblown - I think we'd hate the PJ20 shows more if there were official boots.

matt reeder wrote:

CopperTom wrote:

Lament wrote:

Hugh Mungus wrote:I wasn't there for any of them but shitting on those shows is really getting old. Whenever someone wants to talk about how terrible Pearl jam is now points to these shows. It's annoying.

It is the worst when people who think Pearl Jam isn't good point to an example of an instance where they weren't good to prove that they're not good.

It's even worse when they only point to the same shows over and over to prove their point. I feel this is an example of bandwagoning more than actual belief. How many people can list actual and specific deficiencies with these shows? I'd love a LAL: Spectrum discussion.

I was at night 4, and there were quite a few deficiencies. Ed's voice was shot, the setlist was completely out of whack and quite messy, the first encore sucked the life right out of the room and "Alive" was an abortion. It didn't have some of the train wreck performances that nights 2 and 3 had, but it was the single weirdest show I've ever seen of any band and it doesn't hold up well on the bootleg. What really makes the shows stand out is the quality of the performance relative to the hype they were given going in.

But some of the harping on those shows is overblown - I think we'd hate the PJ20 shows more if there were official boots.

I didn't know a set list could be considered messy. Messy, no. Unusual, yes. Couldn't the first encore comment be used for almost all modern PJ formulaic set lists? No hyped shows ever live up to the hype. I didn't realize night 3 featured train wrecks. Which performances, again? Why are these shows held to a higher standard?

Once the PJ20 shows are released, no one will mention these shows. Just like no one mentions the Boston 2003 nowadays.

CopperTom wrote:

matt reeder wrote:

CopperTom wrote:

Lament wrote:

Hugh Mungus wrote:I wasn't there for any of them but shitting on those shows is really getting old. Whenever someone wants to talk about how terrible Pearl jam is now points to these shows. It's annoying.

It is the worst when people who think Pearl Jam isn't good point to an example of an instance where they weren't good to prove that they're not good.

It's even worse when they only point to the same shows over and over to prove their point. I feel this is an example of bandwagoning more than actual belief. How many people can list actual and specific deficiencies with these shows? I'd love a LAL: Spectrum discussion.

I was at night 4, and there were quite a few deficiencies. Ed's voice was shot, the setlist was completely out of whack and quite messy, the first encore sucked the life right out of the room and "Alive" was an abortion. It didn't have some of the train wreck performances that nights 2 and 3 had, but it was the single weirdest show I've ever seen of any band and it doesn't hold up well on the bootleg. What really makes the shows stand out is the quality of the performance relative to the hype they were given going in.

But some of the harping on those shows is overblown - I think we'd hate the PJ20 shows more if there were official boots.

I didn't know a set list could be considered messy. Messy, no. Unusual, yes. Couldn't the first encore comment be used for almost all modern PJ formulaic set lists? No hyped shows ever live up to the hype. I didn't realize night 3 featured train wrecks. Which performances, again? Why are these shows held to a higher standard?

Once the PJ20 shows are released, no one will mention these shows. Just like no one mentions the Boston 2003 nowadays.

Were you there for night 4? Because the first encore let the air out of the room. It was really awkward - lots of slow songs nobody wanted to hear. They totally lost the crowd.

How was the setlist awkward? Because it was hit > hit > super rare song > hit > album track > hit > super rare song. All the way through. It didn't flow well, and it was really weird. There's a reason I much preferred the other show I saw in 2009, despite the fact that show was 90 minutes shorter.

TouringReg wrote:I agree the Halloween show was a mess, but the first and third shows in Philly that year I thought were good in person.

The first and third shows were definitely the best of the four--I remember listening to the first one not long ago and thinking it was about par for the course for 2009, nothing especially egregious. I'd take any of them over a 2013 show, crappy sounding bootlegs and all.

Kevin Davis wrote:

TouringReg wrote:I agree the Halloween show was a mess, but the first and third shows in Philly that year I thought were good in person.

The first and third shows were definitely the best of the four--I remember listening to the first one not long ago and thinking it was about par for the course for 2009, nothing especially egregious. I'd take any of them over a 2013 show, crappy sounding bootlegs and all.

Indeed.

Bootleg sound issues aside, the band's performances were of a significantly higher standard in 2009-2010 than in 2013.

matt reeder wrote:

CopperTom wrote:

matt reeder wrote:

CopperTom wrote:

Lament wrote:

Hugh Mungus wrote:I wasn't there for any of them but shitting on those shows is really getting old. Whenever someone wants to talk about how terrible Pearl jam is now points to these shows. It's annoying.

It is the worst when people who think Pearl Jam isn't good point to an example of an instance where they weren't good to prove that they're not good.

It's even worse when they only point to the same shows over and over to prove their point. I feel this is an example of bandwagoning more than actual belief. How many people can list actual and specific deficiencies with these shows? I'd love a LAL: Spectrum discussion.

I was at night 4, and there were quite a few deficiencies. Ed's voice was shot, the setlist was completely out of whack and quite messy, the first encore sucked the life right out of the room and "Alive" was an abortion. It didn't have some of the train wreck performances that nights 2 and 3 had, but it was the single weirdest show I've ever seen of any band and it doesn't hold up well on the bootleg. What really makes the shows stand out is the quality of the performance relative to the hype they were given going in.

But some of the harping on those shows is overblown - I think we'd hate the PJ20 shows more if there were official boots.

I didn't know a set list could be considered messy. Messy, no. Unusual, yes. Couldn't the first encore comment be used for almost all modern PJ formulaic set lists? No hyped shows ever live up to the hype. I didn't realize night 3 featured train wrecks. Which performances, again? Why are these shows held to a higher standard?

Once the PJ20 shows are released, no one will mention these shows. Just like no one mentions the Boston 2003 nowadays.

Were you there for night 4? Because the first encore let the air out of the room. It was really awkward - lots of slow songs nobody wanted to hear. They totally lost the crowd.

How was the setlist awkward? Because it was hit > hit > super rare song > hit > album track > hit > super rare song. All the way through. It didn't flow well, and it was really weird. There's a reason I much preferred the other show I saw in 2009, despite the fact that show was 90 minutes shorter.

Yes. I think plenty of shows have first encores that feature slow songs that let the air out of the room. This certainly isn't specific to this run of shows. IMO Just Breathe > The End is the worst possible start of an encore.

There isn't a typical way to arrange these rarities into the set. Only Spectrum 4, PJ20 1 and PJ20 2 are really in this category. I don't think Spectrum 4 was arranged any worse than those two shows. I thought Out of My Mind and Whip It were placed well. Was there a more appropriate arrangement of this selection of songs?

Birds in Hell wrote:

Kevin Davis wrote:

TouringReg wrote:I agree the Halloween show was a mess, but the first and third shows in Philly that year I thought were good in person.

The first and third shows were definitely the best of the four--I remember listening to the first one not long ago and thinking it was about par for the course for 2009, nothing especially egregious. I'd take any of them over a 2013 show, crappy sounding bootlegs and all.

Indeed.

Bootleg sound issues aside, the band's performances were of a significantly higher standard in 2009-2010 than in 2013.

I disagree. There is nothing wrong with the bands performances from 2013. At least from the boots I've heard. Ed sounds significantly worse, I'll give you that. Vancouver, Hartford, Philly and Charlottesville 2013 are better than the majority of shows from 09-10.

CopperTom wrote:

matt reeder wrote:

CopperTom wrote:

matt reeder wrote:

CopperTom wrote:

Lament wrote:

Hugh Mungus wrote:I wasn't there for any of them but shitting on those shows is really getting old. Whenever someone wants to talk about how terrible Pearl jam is now points to these shows. It's annoying.

It is the worst when people who think Pearl Jam isn't good point to an example of an instance where they weren't good to prove that they're not good.

It's even worse when they only point to the same shows over and over to prove their point. I feel this is an example of bandwagoning more than actual belief. How many people can list actual and specific deficiencies with these shows? I'd love a LAL: Spectrum discussion.

I was at night 4, and there were quite a few deficiencies. Ed's voice was shot, the setlist was completely out of whack and quite messy, the first encore sucked the life right out of the room and "Alive" was an abortion. It didn't have some of the train wreck performances that nights 2 and 3 had, but it was the single weirdest show I've ever seen of any band and it doesn't hold up well on the bootleg. What really makes the shows stand out is the quality of the performance relative to the hype they were given going in.

But some of the harping on those shows is overblown - I think we'd hate the PJ20 shows more if there were official boots.

I didn't know a set list could be considered messy. Messy, no. Unusual, yes. Couldn't the first encore comment be used for almost all modern PJ formulaic set lists? No hyped shows ever live up to the hype. I didn't realize night 3 featured train wrecks. Which performances, again? Why are these shows held to a higher standard?

Once the PJ20 shows are released, no one will mention these shows. Just like no one mentions the Boston 2003 nowadays.

Were you there for night 4? Because the first encore let the air out of the room. It was really awkward - lots of slow songs nobody wanted to hear. They totally lost the crowd.

How was the setlist awkward? Because it was hit > hit > super rare song > hit > album track > hit > super rare song. All the way through. It didn't flow well, and it was really weird. There's a reason I much preferred the other show I saw in 2009, despite the fact that show was 90 minutes shorter.

Yes. I think plenty of shows have first encores that feature slow songs that let the air out of the room. This certainly isn't specific to this run of shows. IMO Just Breathe > The End is the worst possible start of an encore.

There isn't a typical way to arrange these rarities into the set. Only Spectrum 4, PJ20 1 and PJ20 2 are really in this category. I don't think Spectrum 4 was arranged any worse than those two shows. I thought Out of My Mind and Whip It were placed well. Was there a more appropriate arrangement of this selection of songs?

The problem I have is this: it was a greatest hits setlist with a bunch of super rarities. If the performance was good enough, I could have excused all of that. The problem was that it wasn't. It was a mediocre performance that was not satisfying to me in most ways. Even the second show I went to in 2003, despite being maybe the worst show of the Riot Act tour, was light years better than Philly IV. Why? Because the band was tight and the set flowed reasonably well, and because instead of spending all their rehearsal time learning how to play "Out of My Mind", 2003 Pearl Jam was able to nail "Light Years" and "Present Tense" even when Ed was throwing up in a bucket behind the stage in between songs.

I don't like underrehearsed Pearl Jam, I don't like sloppy Pearl Jam and I didn't like that show. I especially hated the setlist, which contained every single one of my least favorite Pearl Jam songs. I could have excused that if the performance was tight. It wasn't.

Hugh Mungus wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

Kevin Davis wrote:

TouringReg wrote:I agree the Halloween show was a mess, but the first and third shows in Philly that year I thought were good in person.

The first and third shows were definitely the best of the four--I remember listening to the first one not long ago and thinking it was about par for the course for 2009, nothing especially egregious. I'd take any of them over a 2013 show, crappy sounding bootlegs and all.

Indeed.

Bootleg sound issues aside, the band's performances were of a significantly higher standard in 2009-2010 than in 2013.

I disagree. There is nothing wrong with the bands performances from 2013. At least from the boots I've heard. Ed sounds significantly worse, I'll give you that. Vancouver, Hartford, Philly and Charlottesville 2013 are better than the majority of shows from 09-10.

While I haven't heard hardly any of the 2013 boots, there's no way they're even going to come close to the godlike level PJ were playing at by the end of the Australian tour. The Brisbane-Auckland-Christchurch run blows away anything else they've done since and it isn't even close, Lima 2011 aside. Do I need to put my 2009 Australia comp again?

Hugh Mungus wrote:

Lament wrote:

Hugh Mungus wrote:I wasn't there for any of them but shitting on those shows is really getting old. Whenever someone wants to talk about how terrible Pearl jam is now points to these shows. It's annoying.

It is the worst when people who think Pearl Jam isn't good point to an example of an instance where they weren't good to prove that they're not good.

Hey, really good post!
Yeah, it makes a lot of sense for people who think Pearl Jam isn't good to spend all their time talking about instances where they weren't good so they can prove to everyone why they're not good anymore.
Seriously, what a waste of fucking time. When 99% of a few peoples posts are negative maybe it's time they move on. Clearly some of you are over Pearl Jam and that's totally ok but I don't understand why you would spend so much time talking about how shitty they are.

PEARL JAM, BRO. PEARL. JAM.



Is that better? God forbid people listen to music with a critical ear.

CopperTom wrote:

Hugh Mungus wrote:I wasn't there for any of them but shitting on those shows is really getting old. Whenever someone wants to talk about how terrible Pearl jam is now points to these shows. It's annoying.

It's beyond annoying at this point. I thought it was annoying when people kept ripping Boston 03 too. That lasted until the Spectrum shows were released. Move on. There's plenty of other shows to be extremely over-critical of folks. Night 3 is a very good show. Night 4 is a very fun show that's hard not to enjoy.

I was there...I witnessed it in person...so I feel that I have the right to point out how utterly abysmal those performances were. Show #3 was especially awful. But ultimately, it doesn't matter, because the Jamily still thinks those are the greatest shows they ever played, and it's totally based on senseless hype. If anything, it's proof that most Pearl Jam fans are idiots who can't tell a good performance from a bad one.

And if you want me to talk about other crappy shows, I have no reference point because I totally abandoned live Pearl Jam after those Philly shows. The fact that people I trust think they are even worse today, proves that I made the right decision.

CopperTom wrote:I didn't realize night 3 featured train wrecks. Which performances, again?

Are you deaf? The middle of the main set is one long, prolonged trainwreck. Every song sounds like it hadn't been played or rehearsed in years. Some of them are the worst performances of those songs of all time, and all in the same show. Definitely the lowest point of Pearl Jam that I personally witnessed.

Parting Ways was pretty good.

cutuphalfdead wrote:Parting Ways was pretty good.

Parting Ways was really good. I haven't listened to these shows in a long time, but I don't remember night 3 being that bad other than some of the songs they hadn't played in a long time (Deep, Habit) and it certainly wasn't that noticeable in person. That was my 25th show at the time and I walked out of The Spectrum right now thinking it was one of the best shows I had seen.

Regarding the flow of the Halloween show, I agree it was strange but it's probably tough to pace a 40 song setlist. My buddy and I were first row around center ice . We thought it the air went out of the building after the main set, right before the encore. Everyone sat down after the main set (I think it was about 22 songs). I'm guessing alot of people were seeing multiple shows that week and were just tired at that point (I think they Friday show ended around 11:45 pm). The sit down acoustic set was nice, but it was also an opportunity to sit and chill out for a bit.

Matt Reeder said they played all of his least favorite songs on Halloween. This happened to me on night 2 of The Spectrum run. With some exceptions (of the top of my head, Grievance, Push Me, Pull Me, Speed of Sound, Blood) I didn't give a shit about that set list. It was like they weren't playing hits so casual fans didn't care but they were also playing all the album tracks that weren't rare enough for 10C members to care either. Probably in my bottom 5 for shows I've seen.

I was at all 4 Spectrum shows. Almost all of the performances sucked, save a few from night 3 (mostly in the first encore)

Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote:

CopperTom wrote:I didn't realize night 3 featured train wrecks. Which performances, again?

Are you deaf? The middle of the main set is one long, prolonged trainwreck. Every song sounds like it hadn't been played or rehearsed in years. Some of them are the worst performances of those songs of all time, and all in the same show. Definitely the lowest point of Pearl Jam that I personally witnessed.

I thought the community consensus, RM included, was that Spectrum 3 was one of the better 2009 shows. None of those performances were the worst of all time and I am not deaf.

Lament wrote:

Hugh Mungus wrote:

Lament wrote:

Hugh Mungus wrote:I wasn't there for any of them but shitting on those shows is really getting old. Whenever someone wants to talk about how terrible Pearl jam is now points to these shows. It's annoying.

It is the worst when people who think Pearl Jam isn't good point to an example of an instance where they weren't good to prove that they're not good.

Hey, really good post!
Yeah, it makes a lot of sense for people who think Pearl Jam isn't good to spend all their time talking about instances where they weren't good so they can prove to everyone why they're not good anymore.
Seriously, what a waste of fucking time. When 99% of a few peoples posts are negative maybe it's time they move on. Clearly some of you are over Pearl Jam and that's totally ok but I don't understand why you would spend so much time talking about how shitty they are.

PEARL JAM, BRO. PEARL. JAM.



Is that better? God forbid people listen to music with a critical ear.

You think because of my post I think everything Pearl Jam does is good? I am critical of them whenever I think it's warranted.
My point was why do people spend so much time here talking about how shitty they are?
I think Justin Beiber sucks but I don't spend time on his message boards talking about how shitty he is. THAT WOULD BE A WASTE OF TIME.
As far as listening to music with a critical ear, I tend to just listen to music that I like.

cutuphalfdead wrote:Parting Ways was pretty good.

Parting Ways & Gonna See My Friend on Night #3 were fantastic, but the low points of that show were the lowest of the whole run.

Since we're talking about 2009, here's how the shows break down:

Christchurch
Auckland
Brisbane
----------------------
LA IV
Ridgefield
Melbourne
----------------------
Salt Lake City
Berlin
Perth
Adelaide
------------------------
Everything else

matt reeder wrote:Since we're talking about 2009, here's how the shows break down:

Christchurch
Auckland
Brisbane
----------------------
LA IV
Ridgefield
Melbourne
----------------------
Salt Lake City
Berlin
Perth
Adelaide
------------------------
Everything else

You didn't like the Chicago shows? I remember liking them in-person and the bootlegs being pretty good especially compared to the crap we were used to from 2008. If I recall, night 1 was pretty tight for 2009 Pearl Jam.