Red Mosquito

warehouse wrote:i think ed's voice is far worse live than anything the band does. even when they speed everything up.

While I agree that it's deteriorated, and that their sped up songs are annoying, it doesn't really impact my experience at their shows much. Partly that's because I'm older. I sit in seats now. I have a family. My expectations are undoubtedly different. But the average member of Pearl Jam is close to 50 years old, and they are still able to knock out a fresh version of Why Go? That's not just respectable, it's remarkable. Expecting a band this far in to still be as transcendent as the early years is lunacy. No band can live up to that. I saw Neil Young recently and for the first time was embarrassed for him. Give up already, dude! I'm a big believer in his late career records, too. It's just next to impossible to sustain that kind of live energy that he used to have. I repeat what I've said here before: Pearl Jam is probably as close to doing that as any other 20 year-old band ever.

Pearl Jam has always had aspects to them that annoyed me live. Ed swearing at arbitrary moments where it added nothing, and always changing perfectly good lyrics. Their inability to perform certain songs with the same musicality as on the albums (this has been going on for quite some time). They have always seemed to cherish being raw over being polished, which I think has limited their growth. Bands like Radiohead, at least for a moment in time (I'm thinking OK Computer era) were able to be crazy energetic and insanely polished at the same time for entire concerts. Pearl Jam used to be able to do that as well. Still, even now, at their best moments, they can whip it up pretty good.

stip wrote:

Lament wrote:The last time I brought someone along to see Pearl Jam and they told me "That was amazing" was 2005. I can't remember the last time I was conversing with a non-die hard who had recently seen them and told me it was amazing. No one ever tells me "they were bad," but for the last eight or nine years the reaction has been pretty muted from my experience.

(2005 was the last time I saw them and thought they were incredible as well)

we're just dueling anecdotal stories, but (I said this in some other thread the other day) I brought a non-diehard to the Brooklyn II show. It was his first time seeing pearl jam. the National and Arcade Fire are his two favorite bands. He saw each of them within a month or so of the PJ show and said that the PJ one was the best of the bunch, by more than a little bit.

I took 1304.6 people to the last Buenos Aires show and they all thought it was the worst

Birds in Hell wrote:I don't think anyone's arguing that there aren't people who still really enjoy, even to "woah, dude!" levels, Pearl Jam shows.

My point is that I think they're playing worse now, from a musical perspective, than they have at any other time in their career. I don't think that's really debatable. The Australian shows from 2003 are probably the previous low-point but at least Ed's voice was in considerably better shape then.

Okay, fair enough.

theplatypus wrote:

stip wrote:

Lament wrote:The last time I brought someone along to see Pearl Jam and they told me "That was amazing" was 2005. I can't remember the last time I was conversing with a non-die hard who had recently seen them and told me it was amazing. No one ever tells me "they were bad," but for the last eight or nine years the reaction has been pretty muted from my experience.

(2005 was the last time I saw them and thought they were incredible as well)

we're just dueling anecdotal stories, but (I said this in some other thread the other day) I brought a non-diehard to the Brooklyn II show. It was his first time seeing pearl jam. the National and Arcade Fire are his two favorite bands. He saw each of them within a month or so of the PJ show and said that the PJ one was the best of the bunch, by more than a little bit.

I took 1304.6 people to the last Buenos Aires show and they all thought it was the worst

Not enough soccer chants?

theplatypus wrote:I took 1304.6 people to the last Buenos Aires show and they all thought it was the worst

487.3 of them said "I started daydreaming about the time Jorge took me to see the Goo Goo Dolls halfway through to spare myself the pain of Pearl Jam."

191.8 of said "It sucked, but after that killer Lenny Kravitz show that Jorge took us too, everything is bound to suck in comparison. Man is Lenny Kravitz great. Not just at music. He's a great actor too."

Considering what's happened with Sleight of Hand, I can understand why they seem to be making a conscious effort to put songs on albums that they can actually play live. That said, I wish them all the best with My Father's Son.

aurynsdad wrote:I saw Neil Young recently and for the first time was embarrassed for him. Give up already, dude!

I saw Neil Young and Crazy Horse play last year and it was most amazing, quasi-transcendent live musical experience of my life, bar none.

Diff'rent strokes, eh?

Birds in Hell wrote:

aurynsdad wrote:I saw Neil Young recently and for the first time was embarrassed for him. Give up already, dude!

I saw Neil Young and Crazy Horse play last year and it was most amazing, quasi-transcendent live musical experience of my life, bar none.

Diff'rent strokes, eh?

Well, I've seen him/them probably more times than I've seen PJ, and this was at Outside Lands in SF. I'm glad to hear that they can still pound it out. I was mostly bummed by how he extended the ending of a song so long, and so repetitively that it just seemed like an old senile guy losing his way as opposed to that epic Neil kind of thing.

Birds in Hell wrote: quasi-transcendent

I like that even at your most effusive you're like "alright, let's not lose our heads here."

theplatypus wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote: quasi-transcendent

I like that even at your most effusive you're like "alright, let's not lose our heads here."

aurynsdad wrote:I was mostly bummed by how he extended the ending of a song so long, and so repetitively

Well...yeah, exactly!

I could listen to those guys jam on three chords for a week.

I got a bit thorugh aurynsdad post until he to talking about Neil. You are serious? Ive seen an acoustic show, 2 shows with the horse and 2 with his other compadres. No chance in hell that guy should give it up.

Sorry. I see its already been covered. Carry on

Lament wrote:It's been a long time since a Pearl Jam show felt like anything other than an alright to pretty good time. I used to try to see them as much as possible on any given tour because I knew I'd have an experience that couldn't be replaced by just going to see another band I liked. Now that's not the case. I'll still see them if they come near me, but I don't see the point in seeing them multiple times per tour or travelling solely to see them. The experience of seeing them over the past several years is no different than that of seeing any band I like. They've fallen hard from the ranks of the transcendent for me. I've seen plenty of shows that wrecked me and blew my mind over the past 7-8 years, but none of them were Pearl Jam.

I feelz ya bro.

Lament wrote:I should actually be applauding you for summing up everything that is wrong with the internet in one very concise statement.

I'm that stubborn off the interwebs, too. Point is that we're not debating facts here. You can't tell me I'm wrong about an opinion. It's all subjective, my man.

I appreciate the props, though

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Lament wrote:It's been a long time since a Pearl Jam show felt like anything other than an alright to pretty good time. I used to try to see them as much as possible on any given tour because I knew I'd have an experience that couldn't be replaced by just going to see another band I liked. Now that's not the case. I'll still see them if they come near me, but I don't see the point in seeing them multiple times per tour or travelling solely to see them. The experience of seeing them over the past several years is no different than that of seeing any band I like. They've fallen hard from the ranks of the transcendent for me. I've seen plenty of shows that wrecked me and blew my mind over the past 7-8 years, but none of them were Pearl Jam.

I feelz ya bro.

Chicago 1 in 2009 was a phenomenal show, IMO. I think it's my favorite show of theirs I've seen, and I saw 'em in 1992, 2000, and 2006. I don't really know the full story (or particularly care) but I guess a friend of the band died and the show/setlist was a tribute of sorts. Fantastic setlist, genuine emotion from all parties, playing songs they wanted to play, or so it seemed, "hometown" show. Loved it. I've seen them a bunch of times since then, mainly because that show was so great. They've never been nearly as good. (Chicago 2 from that year was pretty spectacular, too.)

SET 1
Long Road
Corduroy
Why Go
God's Dice
Dissident
Elderly Woman Behind The Counter In A Small Town
Sad
The Fixer
Given To Fly
Come Back
Even Flow
Save You
In Hiding
Man Of The Hour
Insignificance
Got Some
Spin The Black Circle

ENCORE 1
Love Reign O'er Me
Life Wasted
The Real Me
Alive

ENCORE 2
The Needle and The Damage Done
Rats
Supersonic
Smile
Rearviewmirror
Yellow Ledbetter

PryTo wrote:Chicago 1 in 2009 was a phenomenal show, IMO.

I'm glad you enjoyed it. I was there too, and though it was pretty good, but nothing special. The other people I was there were generally unimpressed.

Iholdthepain wrote:You can't tell me I'm wrong about an opinion.

The very same reason that this statement is true is the very same reason why saying "I'm correct. It's an opinion." as you did earlier is a logical fallacy. By definition an opinion is something which is incapable of reaching the level of certainty to be deemed either correct or incorrect.

Lament wrote:

Iholdthepain wrote:You can't tell me I'm wrong about an opinion.

The very same reason that this statement is true is the very same reason why saying "I'm correct. It's an opinion." as you did earlier is a logical fallacy. By definition an opinion is something which is incapable of reaching the level of certainty to be deemed either correct or incorrect.

Right. It's irony... If it's not based on fact, and it's my opinion, then I'm right (in my mind)... Your opinion may be completely different, and it's right (in your mind). All this to say I could be correct that I thought a PJ show was a train wreck, and random casual concertgoer may think it was the greatest rock show they've ever seen. He's correct, too. I guess I thought the irony would be self-explanatory.

It's cool, I'm just being a stickler. While neither opinion in the above scenario is wrong, neither is correct either. They're statements that are devoid of correct/incorrect values.

But whatever. I like you (so far), so I'll drop it.

So like...hair metal, bros. Right?

Honestly, if Pearl Jam made a straight up hair metal album in 2014, 95% of the dude-bro segment of the fanbase (which is a huge segment of the fanbase) would think it was the greatest thing ever. If they went out and covered Pour Some Sugar on Me or Welcome to the Jungle or Livin' on a Prayer at every show for the rest of their lives, most of this fanbase would fucking love it.

Lament wrote:It's cool, I'm just being a stickler. While neither opinion in the above scenario is wrong, neither is correct either. They're statements that are devoid of correct/incorrect values.

But whatever. I like you (so far), so I'll drop it.

So like...hair metal, bros. Right?

Honestly, if Pearl Jam made a straight up hair metal album in 2014, 95% of the dude-bro segment of the fanbase (which is a huge segment of the fanbase) would think it was the greatest thing ever. If they went out and covered Pour Some Sugar on Me or Welcome to the Jungle or Livin' on a Prayer at every show for the rest of their lives, most of this fanbase would fucking love it.

I bet it would turn out something like this:



BTW, I like you, too. But it's mainly because of your avatar.