Pitchfork Review of Pearl Jam Lolla Show

lukins fridge

Hey fans,

Pitchfork routinely bashes Pearl Jam's albums, but as most good music fans will attest, their live show's can't be beat. It was nice to hear someone from that site finally give some credit. Looks like Rodman came on stage ...did anyone get a picture!

(note: I just copied the PJ part. There are more reviews of everything and some cool pictures over there).

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/page/news/44680-lollapalooza-report-sunday-matthew-solarski

Pearl Jam [AT&T Stage; 8 p.m.]

I won't pretend; I've barely thought about Pearl Jam, let alone listened to them, in this century. And so it was with a mix of morbid curiosity and nostalgia that I approached this, Lollapalooza 2007's culminating moment. Nostalgia ultimately won over, but first came the awe: There were A TON of people gathered on the south end of Grant Park, a panoramic sea of heads and colors, a spectacle unto itself. A steady stream of people left throughout this two-hour-plus set, but that vast mass of bodies never seemed to shrink. Tens and tens of thousands, numbers which, in my experience, only turn out at major sporting events-- a somewhat horrifying realization from which sprung a question: Can music really have meaning in a setting such as this?

As Eddie Vedder and band tore into "Why Go", it triggered for me a chain of Pearl Jam memories and associations: The band's unsuccessful attempt to trump Ticketmaster, Vedder's refusals to accept awards on principle, that kick-ass Todd McFarlane-animated video for "Do the Evolution", and so on. And when Eddie began "Elderly Woman Behind the Counter in a Small Town" and everyone around me started singing along, I found myself singing too, surprised to find I knew and remembered pretty much all the lyrics. This would happen again with "Not For You", "Alive", and "Better Man". As a child of alternative rock radio, there are some things you'll just never shake.

Eddie's still a man of indie ethics too. He twice paid his respects to fellow Lollapalooza performers Patti Smith and Iggy Pop, two figures he described as "teachers." Mid-set he called attention to the campaign to save nearby Lake Michigan from BP Amoco's nefarious waste-dumping practices and suggested we think twice before buying BP gas. And then, um, Pearl Jam played a little song that went "Don't go/ To BP Amoco!" Goofy for sure, but also charming in its way.

Later Eddie morphed the outro to "Daughter" into "Another Brick in the Wall", which he further spun into some sort of indictment against our sitting president. And the second and final encore no doubt had the conservative Pearl Jam fans out there (I suspect there were more than a few) squirming: Eddie first called a wheelchair-bound Iraq War veteran onstage to say a few words against the war, then joined Friday night headliner Ben Harper for a (pretty lifeless, I'm sorry to say) acoustic protest tune. With the rest of Pearl Jam and Harper, Vedder capped it all off with-- what else-- a cover of "Rockin' in the Free World". Some 30 people soon joined the onstage orgy, although I wasn't close enough to discern precisely whom (word is Dennis Rodman was among them?!). Hell, Eddie even danced for a bit with the sign language interpreter.

I could tell you Pearl Jam have lost their edge with age (and they probably have, but is that at all surprising?). I could tell you their best songs remain their earliest songs, from that astoundingly fertile period when this band put out albums that spawned four or five radio hits apiece. I could tell you I was a tiny bit disappointed Eddie didn't climb the scaffolding during "Even Flow" like his does in the video, but that Mike McCready playing an entire solo with the guitar slung behind his head was pretty damned bad-ass (as were the fireworks that ignited the nearby sky soon after).

But when things reach this cultural level, nothing I say is going to matter in the least. This isn't music as art, or music as expression, or even music as spectacle (indeed, the complete lack of visual accoutrements, for one, contrasted sharply with Muse and Daft Punk, who had closed out this same stage the two previous nights). When it reaches this level, this is, fundamentally, music as ritual. Music for a bunch of once-or-twice-a-year concert-goers to mingle to, music for diehards to pump their firsts to, music for people who don't get out much to marvel at, music for lifelong and casual fans alike to sing along to. And there ain't nothing wrong with that. Let the Pearl Jam fans have their Pearl Jam

GraySaturday

Yup it was Dennis Rodman.. I don't have any pictures of it though, my camera was acting up. However, Eddie got on his shoulders at the end.

luvisatower

"But when things reach this cultural level, nothing I say is going to matter in the least. This isn't music as art, or music as expression, or even music as spectacle (indeed, the complete lack of visual accoutrements, for one, contrasted sharply with Muse and Daft Punk, who had closed out this same stage the two previous nights). When it reaches this level, this is, fundamentally, music as ritual. Music for a bunch of once-or-twice-a-year concert-goers to mingle to, music for diehards to pump their firsts to, music for people who don't get out much to marvel at, music for lifelong and casual fans alike to sing along to. And there ain't nothing wrong with that. Let the Pearl Jam fans have their Pearl Jam"

EXACTLY!
well said from those indie snobs at pitchfork (no offense to any indie snobs intended)
and we pearl jam fans will most certainly have our pearl jam

tschav

when pitchfork and jim derogatis say good things about Pearl Jam, you know it was a great show

the derogatis article:
http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/derogatis/496665,derolollablog.article

OpeningBand4theSun

I Find The Review Pretty Good

pearl13

lukins fridge wrote:

Music for a bunch of once-or-twice-a-year concert-goers to mingle to, music for diehards to pump their firsts to, music for people who don't get out much to marvel at, music for lifelong and casual fans alike to sing along to. And there ain't nothing wrong with that. Let the Pearl Jam fans have their Pearl Jam

A bit condescending there. But for a Pitchfork review, it's good.

michaeljamesmccabe

Pitchfork is a bunch of pretentious, rambling douche bags that don’t like ANYTHING that someone else likes. They try to get attention by being negative creeps, and it’s pointless.

This article is a back handed compliment by some snobby little “fragile boy” who thinks the height of music appreciation is listening to his Ipod with oversized headphones. Ass-hats like Solarski think that being critical of everything makes them a good critic. It’s sad and pathetic.

If someone doesn’t understand or appreciate Pearl Jam at this point, then they have no business writing anything for a music related mag or website.

Anyone that has paid attention to music, Lollapalooza, live acts, touring bands, or concert grosses over the past 20 years, would KNOW that Pearl Jam at Grant Park was going to be awe-inspiring and one of the best shows on the planet. To be act surprised and not have any anticipation for the show, just demonstrates how out of touch and irrelevant Solarski and assholes like him are.

joecon40

I was third row center, and I was able to get some good pictures, including one with ed singing while perched atop rodmans shoulders

guitar_davey

michaeljamesmccabe wrote:

This article is a back handed compliment by some snobby little “fragile boy” who thinks the height of music appreciation is listening to his Ipod with oversized headphones. Ass-hats like Solarski think that being critical of everything makes them a good critic. It’s sad and pathetic.
quote]

I'll be devil's advocate here: shouldn't an honest critic criticize?

DP

lukins fridge

michaeljamesmccabe wrote:

Pitchfork is a bunch of pretentious, rambling douche bags that don’t like ANYTHING that someone else likes. They try to get attention by being negative creeps, and it’s pointless.

This article is a back handed compliment by some snobby little “fragile boy” who thinks the height of music appreciation is listening to his Ipod with oversized headphones. Ass-hats like Solarski think that being critical of everything makes them a good critic. It’s sad and pathetic.

If someone doesn’t understand or appreciate Pearl Jam at this point, then they have no business writing anything for a music related mag or website.

Anyone that has paid attention to music, Lollapalooza, live acts, touring bands, or concert grosses over the past 20 years, would KNOW that Pearl Jam at Grant Park was going to be awe-inspiring and one of the best shows on the planet. To be act surprised and not have any anticipation for the show, just demonstrates how out of touch and irrelevant Solarski and assholes like him are.

I don't want to turn this into yet another Pitchfork argument...and I do agree with you to an extent. But I - as a music fan - do appreciate alot about Pitchfork. Yeah, they bash albums I love. But they've introduced me to a lot of new, good music. And it's the only good source for actual music news.

I'm just happy they finally complimented my favorite band and had a bit of a realization, i guess.

jimed14

guitar_davey wrote:

I'll be devil's advocate here: shouldn't an honest critic criticize?

DP

indeed ...

I get put off by people who get upset over bad reviews, mediocre reviews or hell ... even unimformed reviews ...

it's all one person's opinion ... who gives a rat's ass what anyone else thinks ... and I think that's what the writer is trying to get across here ... for the most part, we (PJ fans) don't care what pitchfork thinks, or, anyone else for that matter.

funny, I think he/she actually puts themselves down ... being able to sing all those classic PJ tunes, and now, not having any current reference to their new material ... well, why? Why hasn't this reviewer gone out and listened to the new albums? Isn't this person just admitting that they only follow the crowd and listen to what's spoon fed to them on the radio?

michaeljamesmccabe

There used to be a time when people would go to shows, and then write about the experience and the music, and the whole scene. They would figure out what is so special about a concert (or event) and explain what they liked about it. Then, they would save their criticism for the end of the article.

These days, those that write for music sites or magazines, talk about what they don't like first. This sucks because blah, blah. This is derivative of that and therefore is invalid. It’s really just a bitch session.

I agree that once in awhile they’ll turn me on to something that I haven’t heard. But, it’s a lot less than the new sounds that I discover on my own, or that my friends turn me on to.

So, I think that most rock mags and websites try to be note-able for being assholes and over-critical. That seems to be the new standard and it’s sad. Personally, I used to look to those sites and mags for things that I could get into or celebrate, not to collectively rip on.

soulsinging

michaeljamesmccabe wrote:

There used to be a time when people would go to shows, and then write about the experience and the music, and the whole scene. They would figure out what is so special about a concert (or event) and explain what they liked about it. Then, they would save their criticism for the end of the article.

These days, those that write for music sites or magazines, talk about what they don't like first. This sucks because blah, blah. This is derivative of that and therefore is invalid. It’s really just a bitch session.

I agree that once in awhile they’ll turn me on to something that I haven’t heard. But, it’s a lot less than the new sounds that I discover on my own, or that my friends turn me on to.

So, I think that most rock mags and websites try to be note-able for being assholes and over-critical. That seems to be the new standard and it’s sad. Personally, I used to look to those sites and mags for things that I could get into or celebrate, not to collectively rip on.

it's universal PR behavior. negativity gets so much more attention than positivity. it's why political campaigns rely on attack ads... "this guy is evil" catches more attention than "here is what i will do for you." the news is full of murder and tragedy, not charity or positive community developments. people who hate howard stern listen to him more becos they get off on their moral outrage. and rock critics know a scathing attack on a popular band will ensure that more people recognize their name than would if they wrote a glowing review that people forget the day after reading it.

ajedigecko

funny, I think he/she actually puts themselves down ... being able to sing all those classic PJ tunes, and now, not having any current reference to their new material ... well, why? Why hasn't this reviewer gone out and listened to the new albums? Isn't this person just admitting that they only follow the crowd and listen to what's spoon fed to them on the radio? per jimed14



perfect and well said.

lukins fridge

joecon40 wrote:

I was third row center, and I was able to get some good pictures, including one with ed singing while perched atop rodmans shoulders

check you PM's

somebodyelsessky2020

sounds like this guy tried his best to be a hater and is in denial...he's probably listening to pearl jam right now. wonder what he'd think if he saw them on a great night?

lukins fridge

somebodyelse'ssky wrote:

sounds like this guy tried his best to be a hater and is in denial...he's probably listening to pearl jam right now. wonder what he'd think if he saw them on a great night?

yeah, wonder what he would have thought if he was w/me at the borgata or wachovia center in '05, or the spectrum or holmdel in '03.

this just in - best live band on the planet, buddy.

janegosford

I give this review a 6.7598670

scratched vinyl

I actually really like this review. As snobbish as they are, Pitchfork reviews are always a good read. And this is by no means a bad review, especially by their standards! I thought it was pretty powerful for an article written by someone who hasn't thought of Pearl Jam it ten years.