How does Pearl Jam not extend the tour?

PearlJammer623

I HOPE the band extendS the US tour. I mean this album is fantastic. Ride the wave....stop skimboarding on the shoreline. Shity ass U2 does a 2 year tour and they are 10 years older than ed and the boys. I dont even wanna mention the fucking rolling stones..lol

SO PLEASE DO MORE THAN 16 DATE WORLD TOURS.....ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAVE A FUCKING BRILLANT VIBRANT NEW ALBUM.

Sidnum

Well maybe they just have lives that they'd like to get back to. I mean, I'll be going to more shows if they do. But I totally understand if they don't. If it works for them and they're happy with what they're doing, why not do what they want?

Pry To

U2 and the Stones go out and crank out the exact same (or really close) greatest-hits setlists night after night. Even when they play two nights in the same city, they basically play the exact same songs. They're clearly only in it for the money at this point. (Does a great artist paint the same painting over and over and over, or do they continually create new works?)

Maybe the reason Pearl Jam is able to produce vibrant new music (unlike the Stones and U2, neither of whom have made a decent record in 20+ years) is because they don't whore themselves out on huge tours. Shorter tours mean that the fans get true art, passion, a band that cares about the music, interesting setlists. As long as they continue to do this, who are we to demand anything else of them?

PureandEasy

I too was surprised that the tour for Back Spacer was so limited, but it’s their choice. I personally would love to see some more of it. It’s so kick ass live.

But I completely understand wanting to spend time with your family and do other things.

And as much as everyone here likes to think so, we are not THEIR FAMILY.

cippociappo

Passim wrote:

U2 and the Stones go out and crank out the exact same (or really close) greatest-hits setlists night after night. Even when they play two nights in the same city, they basically play the exact same songs. They're clearly only in it for the money at this point. (Does a great artist paint the same painting over and over and over, or do they continually create new works?)

Maybe the reason Pearl Jam is able to produce vibrant new music (unlike the Stones and U2, neither of whom have made a decent record in 20+ years) is because they don't whore themselves out on huge tours. Shorter tours mean that the fans get true art, passion, a band that cares about the music, interesting setlists. As long as they continue to do this, who are we to demand anything else of them?

AMEN to that

The Juggler

Passim wrote:

U2 and the Stones go out and crank out the exact same (or really close) greatest-hits setlists night after night. Even when they play two nights in the same city, they basically play the exact same songs. They're clearly only in it for the money at this point. (Does a great artist paint the same painting over and over and over, or do they continually create new works?)

Maybe the reason Pearl Jam is able to produce vibrant new music (unlike the Stones and U2, neither of whom have made a decent record in 20+ years) is because they don't whore themselves out on huge tours. Shorter tours mean that the fans get true art, passion, a band that cares about the music, interesting setlists. As long as they continue to do this, who are we to demand anything else of them?

no.

at this point in pearl jam's career with their declining sales figures, most of their income comes from touring and the boots.

this tour was incredibly short.

also--u2's last album was pretty good.

Pry To

The Jeagler wrote:

Passim wrote:

U2 and the Stones go out and crank out the exact same (or really close) greatest-hits setlists night after night. Even when they play two nights in the same city, they basically play the exact same songs. They're clearly only in it for the money at this point. (Does a great artist paint the same painting over and over and over, or do they continually create new works?)

Maybe the reason Pearl Jam is able to produce vibrant new music (unlike the Stones and U2, neither of whom have made a decent record in 20+ years) is because they don't whore themselves out on huge tours. Shorter tours mean that the fans get true art, passion, a band that cares about the music, interesting setlists. As long as they continue to do this, who are we to demand anything else of them?

no.

at this point in pearl jam's career with their declining sales figures, most of their income comes from touring and the boots.

this tour was incredibly short.

also--u2's last album was pretty good.

Is it possible that (gasp!) they don't do this just for the money? Is it possible (gasp!) that the millions of dollars they earn from short tours is more than enough? Groups like the Stones and U2 do the big cash-grab, gouging their fans for every last cent, including outrageous ticket prices that are nowhere near what PJ charges. I saw both of those groups waaaaaaaaaay back in the day, when it may have been possible that they still cared somewhat about art, but I wouldn't pay $300 to sit in the back of some massive stadium to see them play the same greatest hits setlist I saw 20 years ago. But that's just me.

Dirty Boots was as good as "Joshua Tree" or "Achtung Baby?" Seriously? Really? Ummm, okay, have fun at the show. (Or just buy yourself dinner for two and a sealed Benny box set with the money you'd save.)

I'm not being hard on you, man, I know others feel the same way. Backspacer was a short album by today's standards, but I'm not sure adding another five tracks would have automatically made it better. Sometimes less is more, IMO.

CROJAM95

Um cause a soundgarden tour is a comin

PearlJammer623

Gosh..lol Why do the same people attack every post like i insulted the meaning of life. News Flash..they aren t looking at your long posts and going thank mr enter the wild for sticking up for us..lol

We all have real jobs and cherish the time we have with our families. They are rock stars...please... its not a real 9-5 job. Going on tour for say 50 dates in 13 months is not stealing too much time away from the family. I would be that the wives actually enjoy the break of having the husbads home 24/7. Anyone who is married know what i am talking about...

All i am saying is that the album is sooooooooooo FUCKING GOOD.....dont let it pass by on such limited exposure in the states. I know the touring business is not strong in this economy, but i think pearl Jam is the exception to the rule..they will sell out everywhere.

dimitrispearljam

56 shows for support backspacer isnt sort number...in 3 continents..
see them in 2011 ...again

sunless

Haven't seen them since they toured Canada in 2005. Canada is a big place. It would be nice if they would play places like Winnipeg and Saskatoon or Regina more often. Show me some love! I'm north of the 54th parallel. It's a bloody long drive just to get to the border, nevermind get anywhere in the states to see them, and it's a 3 day drive to Toronto. Playing Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver does not satisfy all of Canada!

GL88154

Passim wrote:

The Jeagler wrote:

Passim wrote:

U2 and the Stones go out and crank out the exact same (or really close) greatest-hits setlists night after night. Even when they play two nights in the same city, they basically play the exact same songs. They're clearly only in it for the money at this point. (Does a great artist paint the same painting over and over and over, or do they continually create new works?)

Maybe the reason Pearl Jam is able to produce vibrant new music (unlike the Stones and U2, neither of whom have made a decent record in 20+ years) is because they don't whore themselves out on huge tours. Shorter tours mean that the fans get true art, passion, a band that cares about the music, interesting setlists. As long as they continue to do this, who are we to demand anything else of them?

no.

at this point in pearl jam's career with their declining sales figures, most of their income comes from touring and the boots.

this tour was incredibly short.

also--u2's last album was pretty good.

Is it possible that (gasp!) they don't do this just for the money? Is it possible (gasp!) that the millions of dollars they earn from short tours is more than enough? Groups like the Stones and U2 do the big cash-grab, gouging their fans for every last cent, including outrageous ticket prices that are nowhere near what PJ charges. I saw both of those groups waaaaaaaaaay back in the day, when it may have been possible that they still cared somewhat about art, but I wouldn't pay $300 to sit in the back of some massive stadium to see them play the same greatest hits setlist I saw 20 years ago. But that's just me.

Dirty Boots was as good as "Joshua Tree" or "Achtung Baby?" Seriously? Really? Ummm, okay, have fun at the show. (Or just buy yourself dinner for two and a sealed Benny box set with the money you'd save.)

I'm not being hard on you, man, I know others feel the same way. Backspacer was a short album by today's standards, but I'm not sure adding another five tracks would have automatically made it better. Sometimes less is more, IMO.

I paid $55 bucks for a GA field U2 ticket last year that put me inside of their stage.....which cost less then my last 10c ticket.....just saying....

Gary Carter

GL88154 wrote:

I paid $55 bucks for a GA field U2 ticket last year that put me inside of their stage.....which cost less then my last 10c ticket.....just saying....

i can bet had you saw them the next night you woulda seen the same setlist and the band go through the same motions. if thats for you then by all means dont buy pearl jam tickets. least thats one less person i have to worry bout when getting tickets.

pjsteelerfan

dimitrispearljam wrote:

56 shows for support backspacer isnt sort number...in 3 continents..
see them in 2011 ...again

This is true. I hope everyone counted the 2009 shows that supported this record too. 56 shows is not too bad. It would have been nice for them to tour the South/Midwest more and Canada. And maybe a few more stand alone shows in Europe or South America. But like D said, more shows are hopefully coming next year. Maybe we will have the EP by then.

youngster

PearlJammer623 wrote:

We all have real jobs and cherish the time we have with our families. They are rock stars...please... its not a real 9-5 job. Going on tour for say 50 dates in 13 months is not stealing too much time away from the family. I would be that the wives actually enjoy the break of having the husbads home 24/7. Anyone who is married know what i am talking about...

But you have to think that they more than likely bring their families with them when they play overseas. I remember on the Immagine in Cornice DVD that Jill and Olivia were with Ed and the band during the stop in Italy.

PearlJammer623

metsfan wrote:

GL88154 wrote:

I paid $55 bucks for a GA field U2 ticket last year that put me inside of their stage.....which cost less then my last 10c ticket.....just saying....

i can bet had you saw them the next night you woulda seen the same setlist and the band go through the same motions. if thats for you then by all means dont buy pearl jam tickets. least thats one less person i have to worry bout when getting tickets.

Why cant you just make a point and not act like a asshole...get a life metsfan...figures its a new yorker

rival.

PearlJammer623 wrote:

SO PLEASE DO MORE THAN 16 DATE WORLD TOURS.....ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAVE A FUCKING BRILLANT VIBRANT NEW ALBUM.

which album are you talking about again?

PearlJammer623

rival. wrote:

PearlJammer623 wrote:

SO PLEASE DO MORE THAN 16 DATE WORLD TOURS.....ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAVE A FUCKING BRILLANT VIBRANT NEW ALBUM.

which album are you talking about again?

lol I loved the new album. I thought it was great.

The Juggler

Passim wrote:

The Jeagler wrote:

Passim wrote:

U2 and the Stones go out and crank out the exact same (or really close) greatest-hits setlists night after night. Even when they play two nights in the same city, they basically play the exact same songs. They're clearly only in it for the money at this point. (Does a great artist paint the same painting over and over and over, or do they continually create new works?)

Maybe the reason Pearl Jam is able to produce vibrant new music (unlike the Stones and U2, neither of whom have made a decent record in 20+ years) is because they don't whore themselves out on huge tours. Shorter tours mean that the fans get true art, passion, a band that cares about the music, interesting setlists. As long as they continue to do this, who are we to demand anything else of them?

no.

at this point in pearl jam's career with their declining sales figures, most of their income comes from touring and the boots.

this tour was incredibly short.

also--u2's last album was pretty good.

Is it possible that (gasp!) they don't do this just for the money? Is it possible (gasp!) that the millions of dollars they earn from short tours is more than enough? Groups like the Stones and U2 do the big cash-grab, gouging their fans for every last cent, including outrageous ticket prices that are nowhere near what PJ charges. I saw both of those groups waaaaaaaaaay back in the day, when it may have been possible that they still cared somewhat about art, but I wouldn't pay $300 to sit in the back of some massive stadium to see them play the same greatest hits setlist I saw 20 years ago. But that's just me.

Dirty Boots was as good as "Joshua Tree" or "Achtung Baby?" Seriously? Really? Ummm, okay, have fun at the show. (Or just buy yourself dinner for two and a sealed Benny box set with the money you'd save.)

I'm not being hard on you, man, I know others feel the same way. Backspacer was a short album by today's standards, but I'm not sure adding another five tracks would have automatically made it better. Sometimes less is more, IMO.

no. it's not possible that they don't do this for the money. are you serious? obviously they are in this for the music and that is the most important thing....but yeah money is a pretty big deal to a band if they want to stay a band of that magnatude and continue to reach the same amount of people.

if money wasn't an issue, we wouldn't have seen such a big spike in pj's ticket prices over the last 10 years (still nice compared to some other bands--but a big spike none the less). they also would give albums away for free! why do you think they dont have a lable and own all the copyrights to all of their songs? MONEY.

and if you equate me saying "their last album was pretty good" to saying dirty boots was as good achtung baby...you're just a bufoon who cannot carry on actual conversation. you are not a bufoon are you?

sorry to be so hard on you.

Get_Right

welcome to the new pearl jam
short tours EVERY YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!
record or no record

I will take it!

but I feel bad for the japanese fans, they need a mini tour! Must have something to do with their whaling and fishing practices

Gary Carter

PearlJammer623 wrote:

metsfan wrote:

GL88154 wrote:

I paid $55 bucks for a GA field U2 ticket last year that put me inside of their stage.....which cost less then my last 10c ticket.....just saying....

i can bet had you saw them the next night you woulda seen the same setlist and the band go through the same motions. if thats for you then by all means dont buy pearl jam tickets. least thats one less person i have to worry bout when getting tickets.

Why cant you just make a point and not act like a asshole...get a life metsfan...figures its a new yorker

i wasn't acting act like an asshole at all. i do have a life thank you very much, i work 2 jobs and barely get 3 hours a sleep a day while you people live and breathe pearl jam.

hey nice name calling i'm sure the mods will find it as nice as i do

Gary Carter

CROJAM95 wrote:

Um cause a soundgarden tour is a comin

thank god for that

fuck pearl jam

viva la soundgarden

:P

Get_Right

metsfan wrote:

I want my $20

Gary Carter

Get_Right wrote:

I want my $20

I WANT MY MTV


you'll get if i ever decide to see those fakers that make sull hall their home

redrock

CROJAM95 wrote:

Um cause a soundgarden tour is a comin

The Juggler

now that matt will be touring with soundgarden...perhaps jack comes back and they perform with him for a few shows in the fall...preferably in east coast.

then, lets say, they boot matt from the band record the next album with jack.....then BOOOM----we get the best album since yield.

what do you think?

THIS WILL HAPPEN.

Gary Carter

The Jeagler wrote:

now that matt will be touring with soundgarden...perhaps jack comes back and they perform with him for a few shows in the fall...preferably in east coast.

then, lets say, they boot matt from the band record the next album with jack.....then BOOOM----we get the best album since yield.

what do you think?

THIS WILL HAPPEN.

i got 20 bucks that this doesnt happen

you have a better chance of the flyers winning lord stanley

Pry To

The Jeagler wrote:

and if you equate me saying "their last album was pretty good" to saying dirty boots was as good achtung baby...you're just a bufoon who cannot carry on actual conversation. you are not a bufoon are you?

sorry to be so hard on you.

I think the unspoken rule is that if you cannot actually spell the word buffoon when calling someone a buffoon, you may, in fact, be a buffoon. :?

Just sayin'.

Get_Right

metsfan wrote:

Get_Right wrote:

I want my $20

I WANT MY MTV


you'll get if i ever decide to see those fakers that make sull hall their home

thanks for the crappy song bomb!

money for nothing
chicks for free

Gary Carter

Get_Right wrote:

thanks for the crappy song bomb!

money for nothing
chicks for free

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5ZEzWwKJnY

pjl44

Passim wrote:

U2 and the Stones go out and crank out the exact same (or really close) greatest-hits setlists night after night. Even when they play two nights in the same city, they basically play the exact same songs. They're clearly only in it for the money at this point. (Does a great artist paint the same painting over and over and over, or do they continually create new works?)

Maybe the reason Pearl Jam is able to produce vibrant new music (unlike the Stones and U2, neither of whom have made a decent record in 20+ years) is because they don't whore themselves out on huge tours. Shorter tours mean that the fans get true art, passion, a band that cares about the music, interesting setlists. As long as they continue to do this, who are we to demand anything else of them?

To be fair, when you have a stage/visual setup like the Stones and U2 do, it lends itself more to consistency rather than drafting unique set lists every night. You can debate what you prefer to get out of a show, but to just cast them off as whores is kinda silly.