Red Mosquito

LetMeSleep wrote:Harmless, I'm guessing that the O2 show you were elevated fisrt or second tier? Where were you for Reading? Was there a stand to a side?

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:

harmless wrote:

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:I read up to "anthemic songs that take off live". Sorry. That's not all I mean by a song that works live, and I wish it wasn't all Pearl Jam meant.

This tour has made it pretty clear what I think they mean. They are writing songs that will make for amazing live experiences once everyone knows the songs and are able to really commit to them as an audience. What will be the most fun for the audience to share with the band, which, frankly, is what makes the LIVE pearl jam experience so incredible (this is not just a sing along. It is also singing along). What makes this tricky in real time is people aren't necessarily as familiar or invested in the songs the first time they're played. When you've been sitting on a song for 10-20 years it'll just mean a lot more to the audience. So the songs from L-bolt that they're playing live will probably be great a tour or two from now, when they are old standbys for the audience. But right now the songs are written for audience participation and commitment while the audience doesn't actually know their part yet.

If that makes sense.

It does.

Edit: but if you're right, I still think they're thinking in the short-term, which in the end won't contribute a great deal to their lasting legacy.

Actually, given the way pjs rep is now built in part on the strength of the live shows they might be helping their legacy


Plus, there is no way albums like riot act or binaural are going to build a legacy either. Those are fans records

harmless wrote:

LetMeSleep wrote:Harmless, I'm guessing that the O2 show you were elevated fisrt or second tier? Where were you for Reading? Was there a stand to a side?

There was an elevated stand right at the back of the field, if I remember rightly, or near to it.

LetMeSleep wrote:

harmless wrote:

LetMeSleep wrote:Harmless, I'm guessing that the O2 show you were elevated fisrt or second tier? Where were you for Reading? Was there a stand to a side?

There was an elevated stand right at the back of the field, if I remember rightly, or near to it.

And your others shows? I'm interested from a sound perspective.

harmless wrote:

LetMeSleep wrote:

harmless wrote:

LetMeSleep wrote:Harmless, I'm guessing that the O2 show you were elevated fisrt or second tier? Where were you for Reading? Was there a stand to a side?

There was an elevated stand right at the back of the field, if I remember rightly, or near to it.

And your others shows? I'm interested from a sound perspective.

Oh, OK. For the O2 show I was center-balcony (so at the back). I think at Wembley arena, I was to the right of the stage, about halfway back. And at Reading, I was right at the back, or more or less. The sound was pretty bad at the O2, but that was more to do with shitty P.A. than my spot. Wembley Arena was better, if I remember rightly, but I found Matt's bass drum obscured everything (and I think the boot reflects that, but I could be wrong). The Reading sound was pretty much perfect, and the performance was top notch.

LetMeSleep wrote:

harmless wrote:

LetMeSleep wrote:

harmless wrote:

LetMeSleep wrote:Harmless, I'm guessing that the O2 show you were elevated fisrt or second tier? Where were you for Reading? Was there a stand to a side?

There was an elevated stand right at the back of the field, if I remember rightly, or near to it.

And your others shows? I'm interested from a sound perspective.

Oh, OK. For the O2 show I was center-balcony (so at the back). I think at Wembley arena, I was to the right of the stage, about halfway back. And at Reading, I was right at the back, or more or less. The sound was pretty bad at the O2, but that was more to do with shitty P.A. than my spot. Wembley Arena was better, if I remember rightly, but I found Matt's bass drum obscured everything (and I think the boot reflects that, but I could be wrong). The Reading sound was pretty much perfect, and the performance was top notch.

Yeah 2nd tier O2 can get a bit muddy. I thought the sound was ok for that show but not as good as when I've seen shows either on the floor or first tier.

I found Wembley to be a lot more boomy like a shed (wasn't PJ I saw there. Still kicking myself for missing that show). Earls Court suffers from that too.

Best PJ sound I had was Syd Ent Cent in 95 followed by the SheBu gig in 09. But I couldn't see shit in SheBu Empire. Wish I was taller.

harmless wrote:

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:

harmless wrote:

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:I read up to "anthemic songs that take off live". Sorry. That's not all I mean by a song that works live, and I wish it wasn't all Pearl Jam meant.

This tour has made it pretty clear what I think they mean. They are writing songs that will make for amazing live experiences once everyone knows the songs and are able to really commit to them as an audience. What will be the most fun for the audience to share with the band, which, frankly, is what makes the LIVE pearl jam experience so incredible (this is not just a sing along. It is also singing along). What makes this tricky in real time is people aren't necessarily as familiar or invested in the songs the first time they're played. When you've been sitting on a song for 10-20 years it'll just mean a lot more to the audience. So the songs from L-bolt that they're playing live will probably be great a tour or two from now, when they are old standbys for the audience. But right now the songs are written for audience participation and commitment while the audience doesn't actually know their part yet.

If that makes sense.

It does.[/quote

Edit: but if you're right, I still think they're thinking in the short-term, which in the end won't contribute a great deal to their lasting legacy.

Actually, given the way pjs rep is now built in part on the strength of the live shows they might be helping their legacy


Plus, there is no way albums like riot act or binaural are going to build a legacy either. Those are fans records

I think there are arguments on both sides. But personally, the effort they went to to make studio albums has been diminishing. Yes, they've cemented a legacy in terms of the live show, and they're currently building on it. But in my opinion, they won't be remembered for more than a few truly great studio records. They are obviously fine with this, and so are (most of) the fans.

harmless wrote:

LetMeSleep wrote:

harmless wrote:

LetMeSleep wrote:

harmless wrote:

LetMeSleep wrote:Harmless, I'm guessing that the O2 show you were elevated fisrt or second tier? Where were you for Reading? Was there a stand to a side?

There was an elevated stand right at the back of the field, if I remember rightly, or near to it.

And your others shows? I'm interested from a sound perspective.

Oh, OK. For the O2 show I was center-balcony (so at the back). I think at Wembley arena, I was to the right of the stage, about halfway back. And at Reading, I was right at the back, or more or less. The sound was pretty bad at the O2, but that was more to do with shitty P.A. than my spot. Wembley Arena was better, if I remember rightly, but I found Matt's bass drum obscured everything (and I think the boot reflects that, but I could be wrong). The Reading sound was pretty much perfect, and the performance was top notch.

Yeah 2nd tier O2 can get a bit muddy. I thought the sound was ok for that show but not as good as when I've seen shows either on the floor or first tier.

I found Wembley to be a lot more boomy like a shed (wasn't PJ I saw there. Still kicking myself for missing that show). Earls Court suffers from that too.

Best PJ sound I had was Syd Ent Cent in 95 followed by the SheBu gig in 09. But I couldn't see shit in SheBu Empire. Wish I was taller.

Wish you was a baller?

harmless wrote:

LetMeSleep wrote:

harmless wrote:

LetMeSleep wrote:

harmless wrote:

LetMeSleep wrote:Harmless, I'm guessing that the O2 show you were elevated fisrt or second tier? Where were you for Reading? Was there a stand to a side?

There was an elevated stand right at the back of the field, if I remember rightly, or near to it.

And your others shows? I'm interested from a sound perspective.

Oh, OK. For the O2 show I was center-balcony (so at the back). I think at Wembley arena, I was to the right of the stage, about halfway back. And at Reading, I was right at the back, or more or less. The sound was pretty bad at the O2, but that was more to do with shitty P.A. than my spot. Wembley Arena was better, if I remember rightly, but I found Matt's bass drum obscured everything (and I think the boot reflects that, but I could be wrong). The Reading sound was pretty much perfect, and the performance was top notch.

Yeah 2nd tier O2 can get a bit muddy. I thought the sound was ok for that show but not as good as when I've seen shows either on the floor or first tier.

I found Wembley to be a lot more boomy like a shed (wasn't PJ I saw there. Still kicking myself for missing that show). Earls Court suffers from that too.

Best PJ sound I had was Syd Ent Cent in 95 followed by the SheBu gig in 09. But I couldn't see shit in SheBu Empire. Wish I was taller.

Wish you was a baller?

LetMeSleep wrote:

harmless wrote:

LetMeSleep wrote:

harmless wrote:

LetMeSleep wrote:

harmless wrote:

LetMeSleep wrote:Harmless, I'm guessing that the O2 show you were elevated fisrt or second tier? Where were you for Reading? Was there a stand to a side?

There was an elevated stand right at the back of the field, if I remember rightly, or near to it.

And your others shows? I'm interested from a sound perspective.

Oh, OK. For the O2 show I was center-balcony (so at the back). I think at Wembley arena, I was to the right of the stage, about halfway back. And at Reading, I was right at the back, or more or less. The sound was pretty bad at the O2, but that was more to do with shitty P.A. than my spot. Wembley Arena was better, if I remember rightly, but I found Matt's bass drum obscured everything (and I think the boot reflects that, but I could be wrong). The Reading sound was pretty much perfect, and the performance was top notch.

Yeah 2nd tier O2 can get a bit muddy. I thought the sound was ok for that show but not as good as when I've seen shows either on the floor or first tier.

I found Wembley to be a lot more boomy like a shed (wasn't PJ I saw there. Still kicking myself for missing that show). Earls Court suffers from that too.

Best PJ sound I had was Syd Ent Cent in 95 followed by the SheBu gig in 09. But I couldn't see shit in SheBu Empire. Wish I was taller.

Wish you was a baller?

There's not a silent snow in there, is there?

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:

harmless wrote:

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:I read up to "anthemic songs that take off live". Sorry. That's not all I mean by a song that works live, and I wish it wasn't all Pearl Jam meant.

This tour has made it pretty clear what I think they mean. They are writing songs that will make for amazing live experiences once everyone knows the songs and are able to really commit to them as an audience. What will be the most fun for the audience to share with the band, which, frankly, is what makes the LIVE pearl jam experience so incredible (this is not just a sing along. It is also singing along). What makes this tricky in real time is people aren't necessarily as familiar or invested in the songs the first time they're played. When you've been sitting on a song for 10-20 years it'll just mean a lot more to the audience. So the songs from L-bolt that they're playing live will probably be great a tour or two from now, when they are old standbys for the audience. But right now the songs are written for audience participation and commitment while the audience doesn't actually know their part yet.

If that makes sense.

It does.[/quote

Edit: but if you're right, I still think they're thinking in the short-term, which in the end won't contribute a great deal to their lasting legacy.

Actually, given the way pjs rep is now built in part on the strength of the live shows they might be helping their legacy


Plus, there is no way albums like riot act or binaural are going to build a legacy either. Those are fans records

I think there are arguments on both sides. But personally, the effort they went to to make studio albums has been diminishing. Yes, they've cemented a legacy in terms of the live show, and they're currently building on it. But in my opinion, they won't be remembered for more than a few truly great studio records. They are obviously fine with this, and so are (most of) the fans.

I agree, and I'd love for them to make another 1-2undisputed classics, and it think they could. But yield, binaural, and riot act are going to be irrelevant for legacy purposes outside of their fan base

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:

harmless wrote:

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:I read up to "anthemic songs that take off live". Sorry. That's not all I mean by a song that works live, and I wish it wasn't all Pearl Jam meant.

This tour has made it pretty clear what I think they mean. They are writing songs that will make for amazing live experiences once everyone knows the songs and are able to really commit to them as an audience. What will be the most fun for the audience to share with the band, which, frankly, is what makes the LIVE pearl jam experience so incredible (this is not just a sing along. It is also singing along). What makes this tricky in real time is people aren't necessarily as familiar or invested in the songs the first time they're played. When you've been sitting on a song for 10-20 years it'll just mean a lot more to the audience. So the songs from L-bolt that they're playing live will probably be great a tour or two from now, when they are old standbys for the audience. But right now the songs are written for audience participation and commitment while the audience doesn't actually know their part yet.

If that makes sense.

It does.[/quote

Edit: but if you're right, I still think they're thinking in the short-term, which in the end won't contribute a great deal to their lasting legacy.

Actually, given the way pjs rep is now built in part on the strength of the live shows they might be helping their legacy


Plus, there is no way albums like riot act or binaural are going to build a legacy either. Those are fans records

I think there are arguments on both sides. But personally, the effort they went to to make studio albums has been diminishing. Yes, they've cemented a legacy in terms of the live show, and they're currently building on it. But in my opinion, they won't be remembered for more than a few truly great studio records. They are obviously fine with this, and so are (most of) the fans.

I agree, and I'd love for them to make another 1-2undisputed classics, and it think they could. But yield, binaural, and riot act are going to be irrelevant for legacy purposes outside of their fan base

LetMeSleep wrote:Just a Clerks reference. There's been a lot of not-so-subtle innuendo amongst middle aged men here recently.

Anders wrote:

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:

harmless wrote:

stip wrote:

harmless wrote:I read up to "anthemic songs that take off live". Sorry. That's not all I mean by a song that works live, and I wish it wasn't all Pearl Jam meant.

This tour has made it pretty clear what I think they mean. They are writing songs that will make for amazing live experiences once everyone knows the songs and are able to really commit to them as an audience. What will be the most fun for the audience to share with the band, which, frankly, is what makes the LIVE pearl jam experience so incredible (this is not just a sing along. It is also singing along). What makes this tricky in real time is people aren't necessarily as familiar or invested in the songs the first time they're played. When you've been sitting on a song for 10-20 years it'll just mean a lot more to the audience. So the songs from L-bolt that they're playing live will probably be great a tour or two from now, when they are old standbys for the audience. But right now the songs are written for audience participation and commitment while the audience doesn't actually know their part yet.

If that makes sense.

It does.[/quote

Edit: but if you're right, I still think they're thinking in the short-term, which in the end won't contribute a great deal to their lasting legacy.

Actually, given the way pjs rep is now built in part on the strength of the live shows they might be helping their legacy


Plus, there is no way albums like riot act or binaural are going to build a legacy either. Those are fans records

I think there are arguments on both sides. But personally, the effort they went to to make studio albums has been diminishing. Yes, they've cemented a legacy in terms of the live show, and they're currently building on it. But in my opinion, they won't be remembered for more than a few truly great studio records. They are obviously fine with this, and so are (most of) the fans.

I agree, and I'd love for them to make another 1-2undisputed classics, and it think they could. But yield, binaural, and riot act are going to be irrelevant for legacy purposes outside of their fan base

I don't think it's possible for Pearl Jam to make an undisputed classic for the casual fan. If Ten was released for the first time now, it would sell less than No Code/Yield did. However, they can probably make an undisputed classic for their fans. That would require a drastic change in approach from the last decade.

LetMeSleep wrote:Just a Clerks reference. There's been a lot of not-so-subtle innuendo amongst middle aged men here recently.