Oh I agree that in their prime they walked that line better. That's why it was their prime. I think where they are now reflects something of a dialectical evolution with the audience--a combination of being organically seduced by the reaction the music was getting and the effect that the long and varied setlists is going to have on what the songs sound like (less rehearsed, etc). Of course those lazy bastards playing shorter tours isn't going to help.

My point being that the overall effect doesn't actually impact the actual live show very much. What it does apparently hurt is the bootleg reproduction, because the aspect of the live show that's being emphasized is not going to be effectively captured.

and that's why you're unhappy. Which makes sense. Sounds like Kevin Davis feels the same way.


But this experience is not like being at a party. To be honest, when done right (and they do it well) it is something much more akin to a revival. There is something a lot more profound, almost quasi-religious happening. The sublimation of the self into something larger, through the shared participatory experience of music. There are rock concert cliches in there as well (the drinking is stupid, but lets be honest, every time someone on this board uses pot slang to talk about how cool it is to smoke a joint they're doing the exact same thing), but no one is leaving a pearl jam concert thinking that this was awesome because Eddie toasted them with his bottle of wine.


And that shared experience does matter. Not only in terms of the crowd, but because of the relationship it creates with the band. Kevin Davis is a talented musician. Maybe he just wants to show up and watch a master craftsmen ply his trade. But I have no musical talent of my own, and so being invited into the process means something to me.

Ironically enough, I am taking ellie to the circus today. I sure hope they have dancing bears. Apparently it'll be just as good as a pearl jam concert. Or I'll just be too stupid or easily amused to notice the difference.

Don't pretend that comparing their willingly-chosen approach to their shows as "assuming the role of dancing bears" is synonymous with saying "watching Pearl Jam is literally an identical experience to..."

If you want to accuse him of hyperbole, which is not an unreasonable accusation, then it can be done without distorting his arguments.

This whole argument is fundamentally hyperbolic since, reading it, you would assume pearl jam has no idea how to play their music anymore and every show is 3 hours of that satan's bed from the 2003 tour.

Ed might be able to remember the words and hit the notes if he stops trying to spell "Lets Party" with his arms.

McParadigm wants you to know he doesn't care about live shows, but I'd imagine people who do put all the more emphasis on them when the band is putting out decent (not INCREDIBLE) records like every four years, and that impacts their willingness to settle for something other than what most engaged them.

McParadigmatwork thinks that picture is funny. I'm only so-so on it.

Lord, no.



Not exactly, but in the ballpark. It is possible for crowd enthusiasm to cross over into obnoxious hooligan territory, and generally I wish people who choose to disregard the performance altogether in favor of an asinine personal conversation would just go to the lobby, but I appreciate that a certain level of enthusiasm contributes to the appeal of the concert experience, and I have no interest in being the sourpuss that denies everyone their fun. What I don't relate to is this idea that generating that type of environment somehow means they're less obligated to fulfill their primary role as musicians, as if they only have so much energy to dole out and if Ed's going to use some of it to get the crowd pumped, well, that's that much less he's going to have when it comes time to remember the words to "Swallowed Whole." Like I said before, it's an excuse. They're musicians. Taking them to task for their music is in no circumstance unreasonable.



That was a truly disastrous performance, and the kind of thing they've rarely replicated since--usually when a song is going down that road they have the good sense to just abandon it altogether. But from 2008 or so on, there have definitely been shows where that same general sense of unpreparedness has stretched across entire concerts, no single song as ridden with errors perhaps, but a barrage of several equally noticeable technical mistakes in every song. Personally I find that a lot more frustrating than an otherwise fine-tuned performance with one totally ad-libbed rarity thrown in in the spirit of fun.

I apologize for being condescending before, and hope you can realize that my hyperbole was to make a point. But I would pose this question--what is a musician's job, exactly, if not to come to work prepared to perform his music? I suspect you're going to say their job is to provide entertainment to the crowd, but wouldn't you agree that the musical aspect is what makes this particular form of entertainment unique from other forms of entertainment? At what point is technical incompetence not redeemed by the simple fact that you're at a Pearl Jam show and Pearl Jam shows are awesome?

IM currently spinning the Constitution Hall 98 show. Man alive. At times I agree with stip and other times I agree with everyone else. Im somewhere in the middle on it all but listening to this show you understand how amazing the band was live. At this point in their career the fan enthusiasm was something that could not be separated from the show because the performances were so good. Now the fan participation and enthusiasm comes from Ed "being a drunken bafoon and being lazy and toasting wine like a 16 year old". Whereas "in their prime" the fan could literally not help but have a transcendental experience due to how incredible the band were performing their craft.

I disagree with the idea that the benefits of a solid, even great musical performance extends only to those who are able to tell the difference. I think though that non-musical person may not be able to tell you why, stacking decently-played songs one on top of the other for hours at a time is going to lead to thinking the show was decent for many people. They may not be able to explain why a tight, intense performance of Rearviewmirror got them to a higher place than a perfunctory or sloppy one, but I do think it will.

I honestly feel like they do it the way they do it cause they can. They have a pretty insular fanbase (and perhaps that's why, at least so far, you haven't seen that wellspring of a new generation of concertgoers checking the band out in the way Springsteen has enjoyed for the past decade or so); the overwhelming majority of people at any given show, I'd speculate, are already 'in the tank' so to speak. After all, when it comes to long and varied setlists, it's not like 10 and 15 years ago they were playing the same hour-and-a-half set every night. The shows have expanded in terms of their range and length, but it's not night and day.

And I guess I just disagree that the way they play the songs doesn't impact the live show very much; how could the music they play not impact it? I think in my last post I may say why I feel that way a bit better.

So true, my friend.

oh, most definitely.

To be clear, I'm not questioning someone not being into this current live product. I just think we should be clear about what it is and what it isn't.

I don't think we disagree all that much. I'm more than happy to admit that pearl jam is not as good live as they once were, and that the principle factor is the musicianship (since, if anything, the crowd/interaction/chemistry part is probably even better). I still think pearl jam will, on a good night, put on a show as good as anyone, and my point about the music is that, in the moment, when you're there, you won't notice the things that might become glaringly obvious listening to a boot that is stripped of 'being there live' dynamics that are so integral. But there is still a decline because, when they were at their best, and all these cylinders are firing together, they were better than anyone.

the ed as a drunken buffoon thing is also, I think, more than a little overstated. Not that it isn't there at times, but it's hardly a controlling thing. And VERY FEW people, I suspect, are there because they are attracted to it.

Shit, if anything I notice far fewer 'Eddie' chants than I used to.

Well, I think technical incompetence is WAY overstated. And again, I think that Pearl Jam shows circa 2013 (really starting in 2003 you see this dramatic shift) is the music as a shared give and take, with the audience as participant rather than the audience as listener. It's a balance, and if you tip too far in one direction it simply won't be fun anymore. But the audience as participant model does mean that the technical precision you're talking about is only one factor in play.

One of my very favorite early pearl jam shows was Mansfield I or II (I forget) from 1998. I think eddie came out and said like 10 words to the audience the entire main set. It was intense. But by the shows I saw in 2003 (esp MSG II) the whole thing had transformed, and become (or was becoming) something different in its entirety. And frankly, at least for me, something that felt more profound when it was at its best. When the shows moved from concert to revival.

And there are nights they do that better than others. Just like when it was more about listening to the music there were still bad shows. I have pretty poor memories of the 2000 tour because none of the three shows I saw were particularly remarkable. It happens.

I don't think that's universally true - the things that bother me about the band's performances on the bootlegs also stood out to me in person when I last saw them (and that had never happened before).

Obviously that won't be the case for everyone but it's not as though every audience member is so entranced by the experience of being at a Pearl Jam show that they throw all their critical faculties out of the window for those two or three hours.

What is questionable is how much you can tell about it in most of the venues. Otherwise what somebody said earlier is absolutely true IMO. You may not have the technical knowledge or be able to properly articulate the quality of a performance even if you understand it.

I think a band of 50 year olds that plays 3 hour shows with varying setlists isn't going to give performances of exceptional quality. The basic concept of their shows is compromising the quality even without everything else.
Pearl Jam is delivering live exactly what is expected of them which doesn't mean that the criticism directed at the live shows isn't legitimate. I think most acts who have certain reputations about their shows stick to the formula for whatever reason. I think they do it even when it isn't completely rewarding to them as performers. Why the hell would Ed be playing theatres? It's not like he couldn't score festival gigs as a solo performer. On the other hand i do think they are going for the experience that those big shows are to them too. Those big audiences having those huge collective reactions to them is something that inevitably gets to them.

I was surprised at how honest Tina Turner was in an interview about her last tour that she when she was 69. She said she did it for the money, her voice wasn't what it used to be and had issues with hitting certain notes and had to rely on some tricks, was in physical pain but put on the Tina Turner show she has a reputation for, legs included. But I've seen footage of the same 69 year old Tina Turner with teary eyes because of the way the crowd reacted to her. And if Tina Turner didn't get used to that at 69 (and this is someone who, at least in Europe, sold out everything you can sell out 2 days in a row on regular basis) who the hell does?

I think they feel a responsibility to stick to what they're famous for. PJ has the reputation for the pseudo mystic experience like live shows, how good they are technically becomes secondary. Giving the majority what is paying for ironically isn't a good performance but "the experience" that the shows are is. Not knowing what their playing next is a huge part of that for PJ as is Ed being "the Eddie Vedder". It's terribly ironic that most of the people paying for over expensive tickets consider they got their money worth because they got their experience and would probably be disappointed in qualitatively better shows because of the compromises this kind of show would inevitably need.

As for me i don't see the downside of bands and singers performing in a way that does them justice and makes me feel like i haven't wasted a non irrelevant amount of money. I couldn't care less if they play the same setlist on the show before and after the one i attend or if they shorten their setlists for that mater if that makes them better.