Red Mosquito

Lament wrote:

warehouse wrote:

Lament wrote:

warehouse wrote:

Lament wrote:

stip wrote:Also, I think pearl jam is better than led zeppelin

I was waiting for someone to come out and say this so I could agree with them (well, separate from the OP's lengthy assessments, which I'm not entirely sure weren't meant to mock us). In my heart I knew it'd be you, stip.

do u like the fixer too?

I like it more than anything DMB has ever done. By a country mile.

problem solved, you have a terrible taste in music. hell, my screen name alone is better than most pearl jam songs.

I think being told I have terrible taste in music by you is the single greatest endorsement of my tastes imaginable. Thank you, sir.

any time. when you get over the hipster opinion of dmb, check em out.

McParadigm wrote:

warehouse wrote:

McParadigm wrote:Zeppelin and The Who are great examples of how transient and ultimately insignificant live music becomes, as time moves on. They were amazing live bands, yeah...but what does that even mean, now? Some great live albums? Bootlegs? DVDs? Five minutes of aural heaven in the form of My Generation on Leeds, and thank goodness for it, but it'll always be the same five minutes of aural heaven, now...just like a really good studio cut.

Fortunately, both bands made incredible studio albums that will outlive any of the remaining members. Live shows unquestionably help a band achieve whatever prominence and legend they have...but it's the records that matter, in the end.

tell that to the grateful dead

Workingman's Dead. What a record.

Yes...and American Beauty is solid too...I always say GD is best live band of all time, and Pink Floyd is the greatest studio band of all time...

Django Butterworth wrote:Ed also forgets lyrics regularly and I think PJ is guilty of the over the top live moments too.

Even Flow drum solo? Terrible. That seemingly endless "jam" in the middle of RVM? UGH.

And Boom single handledly ruined Crazy Mary for many years...

I like Crazy Mary, with or without Boom. (Haha... I can't live, with or without Boom.)

I agree with everything else here though.

McParadigm wrote:

warehouse wrote:

McParadigm wrote:Zeppelin and The Who are great examples of how transient and ultimately insignificant live music becomes, as time moves on. They were amazing live bands, yeah...but what does that even mean, now? Some great live albums? Bootlegs? DVDs? Five minutes of aural heaven in the form of My Generation on Leeds, and thank goodness for it, but it'll always be the same five minutes of aural heaven, now...just like a really good studio cut.

Fortunately, both bands made incredible studio albums that will outlive any of the remaining members. Live shows unquestionably help a band achieve whatever prominence and legend they have...but it's the records that matter, in the end.

tell that to the grateful dead

Workingman's Dead. What a record.

career defining

melonhead4 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

warehouse wrote:

McParadigm wrote:Zeppelin and The Who are great examples of how transient and ultimately insignificant live music becomes, as time moves on. They were amazing live bands, yeah...but what does that even mean, now? Some great live albums? Bootlegs? DVDs? Five minutes of aural heaven in the form of My Generation on Leeds, and thank goodness for it, but it'll always be the same five minutes of aural heaven, now...just like a really good studio cut.

Fortunately, both bands made incredible studio albums that will outlive any of the remaining members. Live shows unquestionably help a band achieve whatever prominence and legend they have...but it's the records that matter, in the end.

tell that to the grateful dead

Workingman's Dead. What a record.

Yes...and American Beauty is solid too...I always say GD is best live band of all time, and Pink Floyd is the greatest studio band of all time...

I agree that it's ultimately a band's studio work which will define how good they were for all time.

warehouse wrote:hipster

Every time I see someone say this I just want to give them a cookie and some milk and sit in them in the corner and tell them that everything is going to be alright.

You're cute, warehouse.

Lament wrote:

warehouse wrote:hipster

Every time I see someone say this I just want to give them a cookie and some milk and sit in them in the corner and tell them that everything is going to be alright.

You're cute, warehouse.

ur strange boss.

warehouse wrote:

Lament wrote:

warehouse wrote:hipster

Every time I see someone say this I just want to give them a cookie and some milk and sit in them in the corner and tell them that everything is going to be alright.

You're cute, warehouse.

ur strange boss.

Lament wrote:

warehouse wrote:

Lament wrote:

warehouse wrote:hipster

Every time I see someone say this I just want to give them a cookie and some milk and sit in them in the corner and tell them that everything is going to be alright.

You're cute, warehouse.

ur strange boss.

harmless wrote:

Lament wrote:

warehouse wrote:

Lament wrote:

warehouse wrote:hipster

Every time I see someone say this I just want to give them a cookie and some milk and sit in them in the corner and tell them that everything is going to be alright.

You're cute, warehouse.

ur strange boss.

harmless wrote:
I agree that it's ultimately a band's studio work which will define how good they were for all time.

This is, or should be, obvious.

Mine wrote:

harmless wrote:
I agree that it's ultimately a band's studio work which will define how good they were for all time.

This is, or should be, obvious.

I agree. But there's a surprising amount of PJ fans who will judge their albums (positively and negatively) based on the apparent fact that they are "really a live band anyway". Which is moot, because all bands are live bands, if they play live.

harmless wrote:

Mine wrote:

harmless wrote:
I agree that it's ultimately a band's studio work which will define how good they were for all time.

This is, or should be, obvious.

I agree. But there's a surprising amount of PJ fans who will judge their albums (positively and negatively) based on the apparent fact that they are "really a live band anyway". Which is moot, because all bands are live bands, if they play live.

Those fans aren't exactly paying them a compliment. It's like saying their music more or less sucks but they put on a great show.

Also ever since reading people whore themselves for tickets i have a really hard time taking a certain kind of compliments seriously.

As objective as I can be - anyone here actually old enough to truly compare? - I think Pearl Jam, and by alot. The reason I say this is the simple math of how long PJ has been a great band. Let's say Led Zep had a 2-3 better years than PJ, that still doesn't stack up for PJ being a consistently stupendously great live band for over 20 straight years. So, yeah, Zep could have been better for a time, but Bonham fucked up and OD'd and we could never see how crappy they probably would have been in 1988, or 1997, or 2005 (btw I have the Celebration Day DVD and it rocks but that was one gig not a tour and they could save it all for that one show). To do it show after show, tour after tour, for years on end, and be mindblowing the whole time - the honor of that goes to PJ. The only act that deserves a better standing than PJ in this regard is Springsteen, who's like the Babe Ruth of live rock performers. PJ comes second.

Zep has the better studio accomplishments, PJ has consistently really good B+/A- on record but are not known for their ingenuity or genre bending goodness like say a Radiohead. So there.

McParadigm wrote:Zeppelin and The Who are great examples of how transient and ultimately insignificant live music becomes, as time moves on. They were amazing live bands, yeah...but what does that even mean, now? Some great live albums? Bootlegs? DVDs? Five minutes of aural heaven in the form of My Generation on Leeds, and thank goodness for it, but it'll always be the same five minutes of aural heaven, now...just like a really good studio cut.

Fortunately, both bands made incredible studio albums that will outlive any of the remaining members. Live shows unquestionably help a band achieve whatever prominence and legend they have...but it's the records that matter, in the end.

I see your point, but I gotta disagree. Live creates the whole culture around the band, and also allows you to view the band in different contexts. The live success of PJ could not happen without good records. They're about mixing up setlists, and the whole thing wouldn't work if it weren't for a really good back catalogue. Their live show would be much less good if the material weren't good to start with. It shows off their depth and diversity and just how many solid songs PJ has, that they can go that deep and get that strong of a reaction from such obscure songs really shows off the fact that the band have an exceptional catalogue.

Tuolumne wrote:As objective as I can be - anyone here actually old enough to truly compare? - I think Pearl Jam, and by alot. The reason I say this is the simple math of how long PJ has been a great band. Let's say Led Zep had a 2-3 better years than PJ, that still doesn't stack up for PJ being a consistently stupendously great live band for over 20 straight years. So, yeah, Zep could have been better for a time, but Bonham fucked up and OD'd and we could never see how crappy they probably would have been in 1988, or 1997, or 2005 (btw I have the Celebration Day DVD and it rocks but that was one gig not a tour and they could save it all for that one show). To do it show after show, tour after tour, for years on end, and be mindblowing the whole time - the honor of that goes to PJ. The only act that deserves a better standing than PJ in this regard is Springsteen, who's like the Babe Ruth of live rock performers. PJ comes second.

Zep has the better studio accomplishments, PJ has consistently really good B+/A- on record but are not known for their ingenuity or genre bending goodness like say a Radiohead. So there.

Yes, everyone here is.

I think you're drastically overrating how good PJ has been at points. They were really great from about 98 to 03 or so, but otherwise they've been solid to very good. Some of those shows around Vs are pretty awesome too.

Oh, Jimmy wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:As objective as I can be - anyone here actually old enough to truly compare? - I think Pearl Jam, and by alot. The reason I say this is the simple math of how long PJ has been a great band. Let's say Led Zep had a 2-3 better years than PJ, that still doesn't stack up for PJ being a consistently stupendously great live band for over 20 straight years. So, yeah, Zep could have been better for a time, but Bonham fucked up and OD'd and we could never see how crappy they probably would have been in 1988, or 1997, or 2005 (btw I have the Celebration Day DVD and it rocks but that was one gig not a tour and they could save it all for that one show). To do it show after show, tour after tour, for years on end, and be mindblowing the whole time - the honor of that goes to PJ. The only act that deserves a better standing than PJ in this regard is Springsteen, who's like the Babe Ruth of live rock performers. PJ comes second.

Zep has the better studio accomplishments, PJ has consistently really good B+/A- on record but are not known for their ingenuity or genre bending goodness like say a Radiohead. So there.

Yes, everyone here is.

I think you're drastically overrating how good PJ has been at points. They were really great from about 98 to 03 or so, but otherwise they've been solid to very good. Some of those shows around Vs are pretty awesome too.

Well, if your going to go THAT deep, then we'll definitely never know. I'm not thinking by soundboard quality, show by show instrumental and vocal performance. I'm thinking by the reaction the shows and tours left to the fans. I'm not talking about something shallow like tour grosses either. I'm talking about how the live shows have carried and kept the band at a certain point of relevancy. Any PJ fan can argue about technical things like Ed's vocals or Mike leads or overall stage presence and energy energy (the energy is much better now than it was in 96-00 IMO, vocals were better then) and there's valid arguments for each. But the live aspect still matters for PJ now, just like it has mattered for Springsteen now and 30 years ago. I don't own any Springsteen bootlegs, just a couple of DVDs, but you can't argue with how his shows and tours resonate. That's one thing I can judge without having to sift through thousands of bootlegs.

Tuolumne wrote:

Oh, Jimmy wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:As objective as I can be - anyone here actually old enough to truly compare? - I think Pearl Jam, and by alot. The reason I say this is the simple math of how long PJ has been a great band. Let's say Led Zep had a 2-3 better years than PJ, that still doesn't stack up for PJ being a consistently stupendously great live band for over 20 straight years. So, yeah, Zep could have been better for a time, but Bonham fucked up and OD'd and we could never see how crappy they probably would have been in 1988, or 1997, or 2005 (btw I have the Celebration Day DVD and it rocks but that was one gig not a tour and they could save it all for that one show). To do it show after show, tour after tour, for years on end, and be mindblowing the whole time - the honor of that goes to PJ. The only act that deserves a better standing than PJ in this regard is Springsteen, who's like the Babe Ruth of live rock performers. PJ comes second.

Zep has the better studio accomplishments, PJ has consistently really good B+/A- on record but are not known for their ingenuity or genre bending goodness like say a Radiohead. So there.

Yes, everyone here is.

I think you're drastically overrating how good PJ has been at points. They were really great from about 98 to 03 or so, but otherwise they've been solid to very good. Some of those shows around Vs are pretty awesome too.

Well, if your going to go THAT deep, then we'll definitely never know. I'm not thinking by soundboard quality, show by show instrumental and vocal performance. I'm thinking by the reaction the shows and tours left to the fans. I'm not talking about something shallow like tour grosses either. I'm talking about how the live shows have carried and kept the band at a certain point of relevancy. Any PJ fan can argue about technical things like Ed's vocals or Mike leads or overall stage presence and energy energy (the energy is much better now than it was in 96-00 IMO, vocals were better then) and there's valid arguments for each. But the live aspect still matters for PJ now, just like it has mattered for Springsteen now and 30 years ago. I don't own any Springsteen bootlegs, just a couple of DVDs, but you can't argue with how his shows and tours resonate. That's one thing I can judge without having to sift through thousands of bootlegs.

how many Led Zep shows have you attended?

how old is old enough?