Unlistenable 2010 bootlegs

pdalowsky

OGT92 wrote:

StuffnJunk wrote:

and it looks like PJ listens to what is said on this board (Black Red Yellow @ MSG), so if enough is said on here about how bad these are, maybe they will put out a better quality product after the next tour

Or maybe they will say fuck 'em, they don't appreciate what we do, so no more bootleg program. And also they are definately better than audience recordings.

thats my concern too

you cant stop people voicing their opinions on a product they have shelled out for and are not happy with i guess.

I think if you emailed Kufala they would address it with the mixing source,

To me they sound just fine.....but with a live bootleg I dont expect a perfect recording.....Im one of those just happy to get them.......

ski4

OGT92 wrote:

StuffnJunk wrote:

and it looks like PJ listens to what is said on this board (Black Red Yellow @ MSG), so if enough is said on here about how bad these are, maybe they will put out a better quality product after the next tour

Or maybe they will say fuck 'em, they don't appreciate what we do, so no more bootleg program. And also they are definately better than audience recordings.

i hear that
sack up people enjoy them
and to think some one might say these sound worse than an audience recording just is rediculous.
come on, really ....... better than a audience recording?
that's silly

this is a live recording.
maybe this goes beyond post production issues.
enjoy it for what it is.

Ledbetterman10

ski4 wrote:

OGT92 wrote:

StuffnJunk wrote:

and it looks like PJ listens to what is said on this board (Black Red Yellow @ MSG), so if enough is said on here about how bad these are, maybe they will put out a better quality product after the next tour

Or maybe they will say fuck 'em, they don't appreciate what we do, so no more bootleg program. And also they are definately better than audience recordings.

i hear that
sack up people enjoy them
and to think some one might say these sound worse than an audience recording just is rediculous.
come on, really ....... better than a audience recording?
that's silly

this is a live recording.
maybe this goes beyond post production issues.
enjoy it for what it is.

I enjoy it for what it is: a souvenir from the shows I attended. But I'm done collecting other shows or caring how this Even Flow sounds compared to that Even Flow because these boots really do sound bad. See in 2000, Pearl Jam released 72 LIVE ALBUMS and called them 'bootlegs' because it sounded cool. Now...they're literally just releasing bootlegs.

And don't get me started on the burn-to-order CDR crap. They should totally scrap that idea and put whatever money is saved toward the actual recording, mixing, and mastering of the shows. The 2000 series was awesome. In 2003, you had to put a sticker of the setlist onto the package but at least they were still professionally manufactured CDs. But it numbs my mind that people would pay for these CDRs. You could grab them on mp3@256kbps for $9.99 and then do whatever you want with them. I think that paying for a piece of cardboard and a burnt CD is idiotic....especially when the sound quality is so poor.

AmherstJammer

I just got Buffalo through MSG and they are A+ AMAZING!!!! I couldn't be happier with the quality. Can't wait for the Europe boots!!!!!

rival.

Ledbetterman10 wrote:

I enjoy it for what it is: a souvenir from the shows I attended. But I'm done collecting other shows or caring how this Even Flow sounds compared to that Even Flow because these boots really do sound bad. See in 2000, Pearl Jam released 72 LIVE ALBUMS and called them 'bootlegs' because it sounded cool. Now...they're literally just releasing bootlegs.

agreed. i usually pick up the shows i attend as kind of a souvenir. but when push comes to shove... if i am reaching for a boot it is going to be from the 2000 series.

John Briggs 2008

In 2005 people said they wanted flac. In 2006 people said they wanted physical cds. In 2008 the band made it all possible in 3 formats. MP3, Flac and physical cds. There is no way the band could really afford to do what they did in 2000, 2003. It was not cost effective at all. They found a company (Kufala) who could provide this in the most superior quality possible with the best quality service while keeping in line with the band's eco interests and being cost effective. With all that said, the band has taken all our wants, needs and requests to heart and provided it to us. The quality may differ from one tour to the next but regardless of our personal opinions, they are a far cry from a audience bootleg any day and a hell of a lot cheaper than it was years back to buy them as illegal boots. They provide excellent recordings to us as souvenirs of the shows we were at and missed.

As fans and consumers, we have a right and an invested interest to provide our views, likes, dislikes of these products but we must also realize that Pearl Jam has done more than it's fair share to meet us half way. They can't please all of us all the time but they can please most of us most of the time when it comes to the things we want. I am not aware of any band who goes as far as they do for there fans continuously as they do and have over the years. We as fans are spoiled rotten to the core and that's okay. It means the band is doing something right. They are not perfect and have tried different things to find success for there fans and will continue to do so and that's important to them and provides better opportunities to us as fans.

So, if people think something is idiotic then that's there right but when a majority asks for something and gets it then that's not idiotic. It's a band with a business model who tries within there means to reasonably make it happen. If we as fans and consumers continue to provide such feedback that is constructive and respectful then the band will do as they always have and try to improve what they can based on our feedback. Just keep that in mind my fellow fans and freaks.

i_lov_it

PJFAN13 wrote:

I remember the day where you'd go to a record shop, there would be some cool random PJ boot in the case - with a pricetag of between $35-$50...roll the dice, pick it up - just to have it sound like it was recorded thru an answering machine during an earthquake...

I'm Guilty of That!...lol :P

ManOfTheHour75

John Briggs 2008 wrote:

In 2005 people said they wanted flac. In 2006 people said they wanted physical cds. In 2008 the band made it all possible in 3 formats. MP3, Flac and physical cds. There is no way the band could really afford to do what they did in 2000, 2003. It was not cost effective at all. They found a company (Kufala) who could provide this in the most superior quality possible with the best quality service while keeping in line with the band's eco interests and being cost effective. With all that said, the band has taken all our wants, needs and requests to heart and provided it to us. The quality may differ from one tour to the next but regardless of our personal opinions, they are a far cry from a audience bootleg any day and a hell of a lot cheaper than it was years back to buy them as illegal boots. They provide excellent recordings to us as souvenirs of the shows we were at and missed.

As fans and consumers, we have a right and an invested interest to provide our views, likes, dislikes of these products but we must also realize that Pearl Jam has done more than it's fair share to meet us half way. They can't please all of us all the time but they can please most of us most of the time when it comes to the things we want. I am not aware of any band who goes as far as they do for there fans continuously as they do and have over the years. We as fans are spoiled rotten to the core and that's okay. It means the band is doing something right. They are not perfect and have tried different things to find success for there fans and will continue to do so and that's important to them and provides better opportunities to us as fans.

So, if people think something is idiotic then that's there right but when a majority asks for something and gets it then that's not idiotic. It's a band with a business model who tries within there means to reasonably make it happen. If we as fans and consumers continue to provide such feedback that is constructive and respectful then the band will do as they always have and try to improve what they can based on our feedback. Just keep that in mind my fellow fans and freaks.

You make an excellent point.

TheRealDanPatch

John Briggs 2008 wrote:

In 2005 people said they wanted flac. In 2006 people said they wanted physical cds. In 2008 the band made it all possible in 3 formats. MP3, Flac and physical cds. There is no way the band could really afford to do what they did in 2000, 2003. It was not cost effective at all. They found a company (Kufala) who could provide this in the most superior quality possible with the best quality service while keeping in line with the band's eco interests and being cost effective. With all that said, the band has taken all our wants, needs and requests to heart and provided it to us. The quality may differ from one tour to the next but regardless of our personal opinions, they are a far cry from a audience bootleg any day and a hell of a lot cheaper than it was years back to buy them as illegal boots. They provide excellent recordings to us as souvenirs of the shows we were at and missed.

As fans and consumers, we have a right and an invested interest to provide our views, likes, dislikes of these products but we must also realize that Pearl Jam has done more than it's fair share to meet us half way. They can't please all of us all the time but they can please most of us most of the time when it comes to the things we want. I am not aware of any band who goes as far as they do for there fans continuously as they do and have over the years. We as fans are spoiled rotten to the core and that's okay. It means the band is doing something right. They are not perfect and have tried different things to find success for there fans and will continue to do so and that's important to them and provides better opportunities to us as fans.

So, if people think something is idiotic then that's there right but when a majority asks for something and gets it then that's not idiotic. It's a band with a business model who tries within there means to reasonably make it happen. If we as fans and consumers continue to provide such feedback that is constructive and respectful then the band will do as they always have and try to improve what they can based on our feedback. Just keep that in mind my fellow fans and freaks.

Exactly what he said!!

StuffnJunk

having listened to them again, they aren't as bad as i made them sound in my last post, but

a) they are definitely worse than past years, i don't get all the hate for 2008, they are much better than these

b) Stone is way too low in the mix, which to me is a huge offense (its why the ACL broadcast sucked IMO)

c) some songs are worse than others in terms of the 'recorded in a garbage can" kinda sound

heyjose

I agree with much of what has been said here. I'm grateful for the opportunity to hear a fairly decent quality recording of these shows, but forking out the cash to do so each time and getting a sub-par product in return... that does suck, and I don't think the band would prefer it that way either.

Can anyone tell me which 2010 ones are worth buying?

So far have Columbus, Cleveland and MSG2, and Columbus is the best sounding by far.

John Briggs 2008

heyjose wrote:

I agree with much of what has been said here. I'm grateful for the opportunity to hear a fairly decent quality recording of these shows, but forking out the cash to do so each time and getting a sub-par product in return... that does suck, and I don't think the band would prefer it that way either.

Can anyone tell me which 2010 ones are worth buying?

So far have Columbus, Cleveland and MSG2, and Columbus is the best sounding by far.

Exactly what makes them subpar?

Paul Andrews

I've got all the shows I've been to these last 12 months: 2010 - MSG2 and Newark; 2009 - LA3, LA4, Perth, Melbourne & Sydney and they sound fine to me. I have the 2003 Penn State cds, Perth 2003, 2006 and others and I think the boots from this year shit all over it in sound quality and mix. As I've previously posted, given the speed these come out and the fact they were never meant to be as good as LOTL, Philly or the DVDs I'm pretty damn happy with them and the fact that PJ makes the effort to provide these to their fans.

The argument that 'we're paying for these - they should be better' is hardly valid given the circumstances. The sound is awesome compared to the best audience bootlegs I've heard. We're paying for a BOOTLEG of a show and the wages and materials consumed getting that tape from the desk to the cd or mp3 and distributed to us. For $10 a download, I can't imagine these are hugely profitable and probably do little more than keep a few people in employment and a small royalty to the band. I don't imagine they sell thousands upon thousands of each show like they would with an album. Most people who I talk to who go to PJ shows as casual fans don't even know PJ offer this product.

Sure if your business is audio or you are a real conosur you can find fault with the recording or levels in the mix - probably justifyably, but to call them unlistenable or really bag them heavily you lose all credibility in your argument. They are BOOTLEGS and need to be seen as such, they are not albums that producers and mixers spend weeks slaving over - they are jigged up desk mixes. I someone can find a better audience recording than any of these boots I think we all need to worship at the feet of whoever recorded it.

To me it would be like me giving the under 13 soccer team I coach a roast at half time because they were not as good as the Brazilian men's team.

Eraserhead

Mine sound fine, so I'm OK.

ManOfTheHour75

Paul Andrews wrote:

I've got all the shows I've been to these last 12 months: 2010 - MSG2 and Newark; 2009 - LA3, LA4, Perth, Melbourne & Sydney and they sound fine to me. I have the 2003 Penn State cds, Perth 2003, 2006 and others and I think the boots from this year shit all over it in sound quality and mix. As I've previously posted, given the speed these come out and the fact they were never meant to be as good as LOTL, Philly or the DVDs I'm pretty damn happy with them and the fact that PJ makes the effort to provide these to their fans.

The argument that 'we're paying for these - they should be better' is hardly valid given the circumstances. The sound is awesome compared to the best audience bootlegs I've heard. We're paying for a BOOTLEG of a show and the wages and materials consumed getting that tape from the desk to the cd or mp3 and distributed to us. For $10 a download, I can't imagine these are hugely profitable and probably do little more than keep a few people in employment and a small royalty to the band. I don't imagine they sell thousands upon thousands of each show like they would with an album. Most people who I talk to who go to PJ shows as casual fans don't even know PJ offer this product.

Sure if your business is audio or you are a real conosur you can find fault with the recording or levels in the mix - probably justifyably, but to call them unlistenable or really bag them heavily you lose all credibility in your argument. They are BOOTLEGS and need to be seen as such, they are not albums that producers and mixers spend weeks slaving over - they are jigged up desk mixes. I someone can find a better audience recording than any of these boots I think we all need to worship at the feet of whoever recorded it.

To me it would be like me giving the under 13 soccer team I coach a roast at half time because they were not as good as the Brazilian men's team.

I completely disagree!

So for the fact that Pearl Jam makes the effort to provide bootlegs of their shows means that we should all just shut up and be happy with what they give us?

You don't need to be in the business of audio to realize the mix of these bootlegs are poor. My biggest complaint and it always has been is that they used to be so much better! If you went to your favorite restaurant and always ordered a delicious juicy steak and then all of a sudden they started to serve you a chewy dried up chunk of meat would you complain or just be thankful for your food?

You make the argument that these are just bootlegs and not meant to sound great. You go on to say it's not like people actually spent time working on them. Really?

I'm a little confused about your comment that the 2010 bootlegs shit all over the 03 and 06 bootlegs. Is that even good thing?

Then you say they are not meant to be as good as LO2L or the Philly boots. Are you kidding me. The Philly boots are an embarrassment in sound quality compared to LO2L.

Oh well, that being said I'm glad you're happy with them.

BLACK35

I think they sound absolutely fine. Do you people really find that they sound that horrible? I love that they are only $17, if I have to pay $50 because some people think that they need to sound better, I probqably wouldn't buy as many as I do. For the price they are, they sound great, I enjoy them every day I'm in the truck driving aaround with PJ cranked

John Briggs 2008

The argument that 'we're paying for these - they should be better' is hardly valid given the circumstances.

That's not valid in itself Paul. If you pay for something and are not happy with it then you as a consumer have a right and responsibility to express that concern, like, dislike etc. It's the reason why people bother to buy things to begin with. So that statement is an opinion you have a right to and as a consumer you expressed your side as well but to state the oppose is invalid? Come on now. Be fair. Read my post a few posts up.

Paul Andrews

John Briggs 2008 wrote:

The argument that 'we're paying for these - they should be better' is hardly valid given the circumstances.

That's not valid in itself Paul. If you pay for something and are not happy with it then you as a consumer have a right and responsibility to express that concern, like, dislike etc. It's the reason why people bother to buy things to begin with. So that statement is an opinion you have a right to and as a consumer you expressed your side as well but to state the oppose is invalid? Come on now. Be fair. Read my post a few posts up.

I think you've taken my quote a little out of context (or I didn't make myself clear enough - or both). I agree the customer has a right to be satisfied with the product and if dissatisfied a right to redress. If a product is no performing as explainted, faulty etc... I'm the wrong person for a retailer to fuck with in selling sub-par products, believe me. I can be the quintessential bush lawyer who always gets ny consumer rights.

The point I was trying to make is that we need to remember what these products are, they are desk recorded bootlegs that are remixed and not live albums and as such, we're getting what we paid for fair and simple. Given the price and sales of these items, I doubt there is a massive profit being made and the fac tthe band is making these available is worth more to me than a perceived sound quality issue. I acknowledge that the sound is never going to be up there with a properly produced live album (look at what kiss had to do on Alive 1 to manage that) and onviously some people prefer the older boots. But I feel they are fine.

To me it is like comparing Image in a Cornice to Touring Band. One is a professionally shot film and the other is a 'bootleg'. In both cases, (Bootleg series and Touring Bnad) the positives far outweigh the negatives.

But that's just my opinion, and opinions are like arseholes and I've been called an arsehole many, many times

John Briggs 2008

Paul Andrews wrote:

John Briggs 2008 wrote:

The argument that 'we're paying for these - they should be better' is hardly valid given the circumstances.

That's not valid in itself Paul. If you pay for something and are not happy with it then you as a consumer have a right and responsibility to express that concern, like, dislike etc. It's the reason why people bother to buy things to begin with. So that statement is an opinion you have a right to and as a consumer you expressed your side as well but to state the oppose is invalid? Come on now. Be fair. Read my post a few posts up.

I think you've taken my quote a little out of context (or I didn't make myself clear enough - or both). I agree the customer has a right to be satisfied with the product and if dissatisfied a right to redress. If a product is no performing as explainted, faulty etc... I'm the wrong person for a retailer to fuck with in selling sub-par products, believe me. I can be the quintessential bush lawyer who always gets ny consumer rights.

The point I was trying to make is that we need to remember what these products are, they are desk recorded bootlegs that are remixed and not live albums and as such, we're getting what we paid for fair and simple. Given the price and sales of these items, I doubt there is a massive profit being made and the fac tthe band is making these available is worth more to me than a perceived sound quality issue. I acknowledge that the sound is never going to be up there with a properly produced live album (look at what kiss had to do on Alive 1 to manage that) and onviously some people prefer the older boots. But I feel they are fine.

To me it is like comparing Image in a Cornice to Touring Band. One is a professionally shot film and the other is a 'bootleg'. In both cases, (Bootleg series and Touring Bnad) the positives far outweigh the negatives.

But that's just my opinion, and opinions are like arseholes and I've been called an arsehole many, many times

Live shows being mixed and produced for retail. It has nothing to do with where or how. The band has set expectations with these products and people hold them to it. Some are a bit over zealous but most comments and feedback are worthwhile and even spot on. Again, people have valid points and regardless of how they are made does not invalidate consumer expectations within reason. I personally don't have an issue with the shows but the bulk of complaints have been informative and constructive. People expressed there likes and dislikes in 2005 and 2006 and even in 2008 in similar regards and it's through feedback that the band has improved it's quality and products. As far as arseholes goes. Takes one to know one so how ya doing? See you at the next Arsehole meeting.

Paul Andrews

Yeah, I must admit, my remarks are aimed more at the 'these are unlistanable' or 'totally shit' kind remarks than the contructive and justifiable. I feel I got my money's worth and that in no way negates the notion that well intended feedback and constructive criticism can help create a better product in the long run for all of us. If Stone is too low or lost in the mix then that is an issue.

I just wish the desk recordings and remixings my band did back in the day sounded half as good as these and I know how much effort went into trying to make them sound as good as we got them.