I was at U2 wed night..and while Bono can not hit notes like he used to they still put on one hell of show...
now I've written into the sun as well..Lisa what her face is a no talent..
but why is everyone bashing Bone and u2..they did not write the article..
You may not like U2 or Bono, but they are still relivant in today music...and contrary to what Lisa the no talent said in the article Pearl Jam is still relivant as well..just ask the houndreds of thousands that have seen Pearl Jam over the last two tours..
and not sure who it was, but it can be said again..there is a mutual repect on both bands parts..I beleive Bono said to them back in 92 that you either have to sleep with the media or tell them off..we all know which way Pearl Jam went and due to that we are still enjoying them today..with out having to listen to the media
so let say thanks to u2.thanks to Pearl Jam and fuck off to the sun..becuase two great performers who can/will make a difference in the world of music and possiably the world in general took the stage together not once but twice in 3 days (Ed at U2 on Saturday night and Bono at PJ on Monday) and had a blast with one another and showed the world (becuase everyone will have read what happened one way or another) that Rock and Roll is still alive a kicking
I actually feel kinda bad for anyone who does a PJ review like this, because you just know that they are going to get blasted by a bunch of hatemail ...
When I was younger and angrier, I wrote a pretty caustic reply to a bad concert review (one of the 1998 shows I think). The guy actually did write back and basically admitted that he liked the show a lot but figured a more negative review would "stir the pot a bit more", whatever that means. He also told me to stop taking life so seriously, and insinuated that I must be a sad, pathetic person for getting that upset about his review.
I think I told him to fuck off or something witty like that.
Ah, memories.
at least PJ doesn't play any of their songs twice during their shows
they played "I Believe in Miracles" twice , Santa Barbara 2003.
1994 : Memphis 1995 : New Orleans 1996 : Seattle
1998 : St Louis, Birmingham, Knoxville
2000 : Memphis, Nashville, St Louis
2003 : Irvine 1+2, Vegas, Bridge School 1+2, Santa Barbara
2005 : Missoula, Vancouver, Gorge 2006 : LA 1+2, Vegas
2008 : W Palm Beach, Tampa, Who Rock Honors, EV LA 2
2009 : LA 1, LA 4, EV 1 Nashville 2011 : EV Long Beach
2012: EV Vegas 1+2
2013 LA 1+2 2018 Prague, Wrigley 2 2020 Phoenix, SD
The audience knows every word, every nuance and new trick from guitarists Stone Gossard and Mike McCready, delighting in the extended solos and clever combinations of hits, album tracks and covers. From the opening riff of Indifference they knew to get their lighters out for the line "I will light the match this morning."
That's really entertaining! Name me a band where no one in the audience knows the music, and I'll show you a failure. Music is one of those things that gets more meaningful and more enjoyable with repetition. She makes it sound as if knowing the music is a bad thing.
And, BTW, I like U2. I started to hate Vertigo just because I heard it too much (tricky thing, that repetition). But I enjoy their music.
Yeah, I've gotta agree that we should keep the U2 bashing to a minimum...I mean, what's the point, especially considering the *obvious* respect that Bono & Co. have for Pearl Jam? But back to the article: I wonder if Bono would have rushed the stage, picked up the tambourine and started yelling gibberish into the mic' (or at least what sounded like gibberish from where I was sitting) for a band that wasn't relevant? If Bono, as Ms. Ladoceur (sp?) would have us believe, is the avatar of all things cutting edge in pop music today, then why would he waste his time with a bunch of washed-up, flannel-wearing, pot-smoking relics from 1992?
The answer: he wouldn't. Because Pearl Jam isn't. But if the review's point was to stir the pot, then consider it a job well done: apart from what I've read on this board, I've had at least four friends/family members approach me today saying they heard the Sun based Pearl Jam. I don't pretend to know what Ms. Ladoceur's motives are for writing what she did, but if she was trying to make some sort of point then she done good.
Steve
edited to mention that I lost my U2 virginity on Saturday, and they were utterly incredible. I won't pretend to have liked them as much as I liked Pearl Jam, but they were still amazing. Sure, Bono is a bit of a dick sometimes, but that's just part of his persona; plus, regardless as to whether or not you agree with his politics, I feel as though he should be admired for all the work he's doing--least someone in a position of power gives a damn.
Minneapolis 1998 | Jones Beach I & II, Montreal, and Toronto 2000 | Buffalo, State College, Toronto, Montreal and Hershey 2003 | Boston I & II 2004 | Thunder Bay, Kitchener, London, Hamilton, Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto 2005 | Toronto I & II 2006 | The Vic and Lollapalooza 2007 | Calgary and Toronto 2009 | PJ20 I & II, Toronto I & II, Ottawa, Calgary and Edmonton 2011 | London, Chicago, Spokane, Calgary, Vancouver and Seattle 2013 | Ottawa and Toronto I & II 2016 | Chicago I & II 2018 | Ottawa, Hamilton and Toronto 2022
Yeah, I've gotta agree that we should keep the U2 bashing to a minimum...I mean, what's the point, especially considering the *obvious* respect that Bono & Co. have for Pearl Jam? But back to the article: I wonder if Bono would have rushed the stage, picked up the tambourine and started yelling gibberish into the mic' (or at least what sounded like gibberish from where I was sitting) for a band that wasn't relevant? If Bono, as Ms. Ladoceur (sp?) would have us believe, is the avatar of all things cutting edge in pop music today, then why would he waste his time with a bunch of washed-up, flannel-wearing, pot-smoking relics from 1992?
The answer: he wouldn't. Because Pearl Jam isn't. But if the review's point was to stir the pot, then consider it a job well done: apart from what I've read on this board, I've had at least four friends/family members approach me today saying they heard the Sun based Pearl Jam. I don't pretend to know what Ms. Ladoceur's motives are for writing what she did, but if she was trying to make some sort of point then she done good.
Steve
edited to mention that I lost my U2 virginity on Saturday, and they were utterly incredible. I won't pretend to have liked them as much as I liked Pearl Jam, but they were still amazing. Sure, Bono is a bit of a dick sometimes, but that's just part of his persona; plus, regardless as to whether or not you agree with his politics, I feel as though he should be admired for all the work he's doing--least someone in a position of power gives a damn.
For every 9 great pearl jam reviews there is going to be one that drives you nuts, but really who cares what she thinks. Why does everyone focus on the bad review and more or less ignore the great ones that have been posted? The positive review threads never have any posts. If people are going to spend time emailing a critic whose opinion we could care less about, why don't you all email Jeff Miers from The Buffalo news, Chartattack or any of the other reviewers who had great reviews?
Since when are Pearl Jam's performances mediocre? Do they need to have special guests to be memorable? I'm sure people here would agree they'd rather have a show with a whole lotta rarities then a typical set with a "special guest".
As someone who's seen PJ in all size venues in all type shows, 18 total, I can say they have had some mediocre moments. Dallas 2000 was a mostly mediocre show, the band had little to no energy most of the show, Ed spoke to the crowd maybe 3 times. They pick it up a bit at the end, but mostly I'd say mediocre. Over the last 3 previous tours there have become more piss-break moments aka...Last Kiss or Soldier of Love on most nights...at least those are mine.
As for Bono & teleprompters... I think he remember the words to most songs, however after 25 years & hundreds of songs you might get a bit confused with a few, just as Ed has been know to go less high-tech & use old fashioned notebook paper on his monitors for some of the newer songs or Michael Stipe with his music stand on stage next to him all night. These guys want to get it right, perfectionism is something most musicians suffer from.
As for you bashers of U2 & the same set every night...get your facts right. The different song count on the Vertigo tour is at 78 now. They are a different band than PJ, they like the aspect of a whole show rather than a performance. There is nothing wrong with either. PJ does have their repetitive moments just as any other band on almost every night you'll get Evenflow with extended solo, Daughter with tag, Betterman now played too fast, & RVM with long middle break. It's ok I like those songs & those moments. It's like watching a movie more than once, or is that not ok?
Contrary to what most of us think about PJ, non diehards still think of Ed as a self important ego maniac who comes across as acting too cool for anything trendy. I could not agree with that at all, nor would anyone else here. PJ bashing has gone on since day one. They were called Mall-ternative, & bashed by the "underground musicians" of the 90's for cashing in on a trend. As silly as that sounds, most people on here sound the same way. This holier than thou stance you guys have is a joke. Grow up already. We all have different opinions & tastes...accept it.
You men eat your dinner
Eat your pork and beans
I eat more chicken
Than any man ever seen
The Toronto Sun is a "newspaper" that everyday puts pictures of half-naked teenaged girls. It's lost its credibility as a public medium right there. What some writer hack thought of the show and our response to it, won't lead to some public apology and retract the review. Read the review, laugh it off and realize you had a good time, and don't let some journalist tell you otherwise.
Have you ideas on how this life ends?
Toronto 10-05-2000 / Toronto 06-28-2003 / Kitchener 09-11-2005 / Hamilton 09-13-2005 / Ottawa 09-16-2005 / Toronto 09-19-2005 / Toronto 05-09-2006 / Toronto 05-10-2006 / Toronto 08-21-2009 / Montreal 09-07-2011 / Toronto 09-11-2011 / Toronto 09-12-2011 / Ottawa 09-14-2011 / London 07/16/2013 / Ottawa 05-08-2016 / Toronto 05-12-2016
I picked this piece of crap up just before leaving TO~too bad for the writer...they just don't "get it"!
oxc
~*LIVE~LOVE~LAUGH*~
*May the Peace of the Wilderness be with YOU*
He is your friend, your partner, your defender, your dog. You are his life, his love, his leader. He will be yours, faithful and true, to the last beat of his heart. You owe it to him to be worthy of such devotion.
— Unknown
Both bands approach concerts from different angles. I don't feel it's worth anyone's time to compare them (unless you're into sensational journalism).
Fine, that comment may have been a little harsh. I apologize for that but it is my opinion.
Subjectively, perhaps (I disagree)
Discoteqhe (sp?) anyone
Subjectively, perhaps (I disagree)
Calling themselves "The Greatest Band in the World" that's ALOT of hype to live up to....
Nope. Last time I checked they're getting time on modern "rock" charts.
"All Because of You" is a rock track. Be careful when you start compartmentalizing artists.
I guess I was wrong for having an opinion different than what "the charts" say. Using this theory, I can flip on 10 different radio stations that range from "Alternative" to "Soft Rock" to "Pop/Top 40" and hear U2 on each and every one of them (probably about 10 times a day too). I'm confused, which of these labels is correct?
Umm . . . you're in Canada. If you're perhaps using charts as a signifier of relevance, then perhaps you should visit http://jam.canoe.ca/Music/Charts/SINGLES.html and start counting the number of times U2 appears (and last week, U2 appeared 6 times) on Canada's singles sales charts according to Soundscan. Then do me a favour and list another artist that is listed more times.
Woah, now you can't be serious about this. First off, using the sacred "charts" to measure relevance is one of the reasons the music industry makes me sick. I guess Pearl Jam stopped being relevant a LONG time ago because I have a hard time remembering the last time one of their singles was on the "charts". Led Zeppelin couldn't have been all that relevant either since they had exactly one single crack the top 10 during the course of their career. All hail U2, Green Day and J-Lo the kings (and queens) of music relevance!!!!!
Credibility is another matter. Regardless, measures of either are relatively subjective.
Perhaps but I would prefer to discover and enjoy music I feel is relevant on my own rather than have the media decide for me by ramming it down my throat (i.e. Ipod commercials, incessant overplaying of each and every single they release, ridiculous media coverage of every single move they make, etc.) until I sing along in Spanish to Vertigo.
The fact is PJ uses lights too, just not to same elaborate extent as U2. For some people, being entertained visually is also important (and in my opinion, doesn't detract from U2's music).
PJ has lights, have you seen any bands that don't use lights for an arena concert? Based on what I know, U2's stage is a big part of what makes their shows great. I've heard people say that's what sets them apart. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that PJ's lights made the show great for them. I'm not saying visual entertainment is bad but I would prefer to judge a concert based on the bands talents not the stage designers.
Does Madonna play instruments consistently throughout her show? Have you actually been to a U2 concert?
No, I've never been so I may be a little ignorant but I have seen footage from many of their concerts. I agree, Madonna doesn't play instruments but I think many people out there (myself included) could say the same for Adam and Larry in U2. But seriously, putting the three shows side by side (PJ, U2 and Madonna) I think PJ is the one that stands alone.
I will go through some points:
1. I, as a U2 fan, would also prefer U2 mixed up their setlist more often than they do. I agree that's a fair criticism (but, again, a subjective one)--but only because I share that same opinion. I'd rather watch U2 perform Vertigo 10 times in one night than be forced to watch a lot of other stuff I've been dragged along to see over the years. And it's not as though they are playing every single song every night, much less in the exact same manner.
2. The Ipod thing is completely over-done. U2 did not accept money to appear in the commercial. It was a device for 1)increased publicity, especially in an America, and 2) for selling their music. Yes, they made money from the ipod sales. Those sales included a coupon off their music. So they're selling something directly related to their music. Who's going to buy the U2 Ipod except U2 fans who also want the U2 digital box set (and people with lots of money who like red and black ipods)? When U2 starts promoting stuff completely unrelated to music (and the causes they support), then I'll start complaining. U2 is all about being the biggest band in the land; they make no apologies for this; they didn't come out of the "I'm embarrassed to be popular" scene. But they didn't endorse Pepsi or Coke to become popular either.
No they endorse Ipod. Whether you link it to their music or not, they're still doing it. Sure they hit their peak in the "all about me 80's" and it sure shows.
3. U2 is relevant because their lyrics are still relevant; Bono and The Edge's lyrics reflect the times. Do they reflect the times better than other artists? That's for handjobs to debate. I can't be bothered with relatively subjective nonsense like that. I meet kids that love Britney Spears' music. Why should I argue with them, and, moreover, what makes them wrong? Simply because I'm bored with 4/4 time signatures? Because she rarely writes her own music? Or because he has a limited vocal range? Because she isn't proficient on any instrument? All subjective criteria . . . If you like Britney Spears, I can't go up to you and tell you that you're, objectively, wrong for liking Britney Spears. The very idea is nonsense.
Sorry to offend any Britney fans out there but liking her music is indeed wrong. I realize its all subjective but I wrote these things because they are my opinions. I don't care whether anyone or everyone agrees with it.
Also, like it or not, U2 is relevant because Bono is relevant, politically.
visit http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/18/magazine/18bono.html
(you will need to register). And don't tell me Pearl Jam never gained some press because of a stance or cause that either Vedder or the band took.
4. Concerning the teleprompter criticism, Bono still wanders around the stage completely unaided by the teleprompter. That's why he had to stop and restart "Yahweh" this past Saturday in Toronto. He started the song with the second stanza. He tries to use the teleprompter when he has a brain-freeze and can't remember lyrics. But he isn't always near the main stage. In fact, usually, he just ad-libs lines when he can't remember them. I couldn't care less if he uses a teleprompter or not--because there hasn't been a single U2 show I've been to where he hasn't adlibbed some small section of a song (or started singing lyrics to another song that he likes).
Anyway, I don't care much for the review either. I enjoyed the Pearl Jam concert in Toronto. It's too bad the reviewer didn't (and for some strange reason decided to judge it, subjectively, based on another artist's performance instead of on the own show's merit. Then again, I guess it's not that strange considering the source).
Overall, I will say that you have made some valid points and that at the same time my opinions are quite different from yours but that doesn't make either of us wrong. I guess I just know of too many people who happen to be U2 fans that crap on PJ (much the same as this "writer" does) by saying things like "Pearl Jam sucks, when was the last time they put out anything good?" just because PJ doesn't saturate the public with their music/videos/commercials. I will say that I respect U2 for what they have done (especially their earlier music) musically but for them to go around calling themselves "The Greatest Band in the World" makes me sick!!!!!
Spin me round......roll me over.......fucking circus
First thing I did when I got up Tuesday was logon to the Sun and read the review. I can't even describe the feeling I got when I read it. My emotion wandered from rage, disbelief, to defeit, then back to rage. I've been preaching about this band to anyone that will listen to me, and to have to go back to work today and have everyone walk up to me and say " I heard/read that PJ sucked" really bummed me out. I loved the show. All I did was e-mail other reviews of the show.
Trying to get people to notice what Rock Gods these guys are can get tiresome. Though I've made ALLOT of die hard fans over the years.
Discotheque was intended to be heavily produced. And it was commercially successful in Europe, where it hit #1 in most countries, including the U.K. While I don't believe that commercial success is any indicator, necessarily, of quality (any measure of quality in art is relatively subjective), the song certainly didn't kill U2's fanbase. There's a certain dance element to that song, and certainly a lot of dance songs are heavily produced. To claim "overproduc[tion]" though is mostly subjective (depending on whether the individual believes the song is good).
Calling themselves "The Greatest Band in the World" that's ALOT of hype to live up to....
I thought Bono said U2 was reapplying for the position. Regardless, they are only overhyped if you believe they aren't the world's greatest rock band (which is, again, why I believe the claim is subjective).
I guess I was wrong for having an opinion different than what "the charts" say. Using this theory, I can flip on 10 different radio stations that range from "Alternative" to "Soft Rock" to "Pop/Top 40" and hear U2 on each and every one of them (probably about 10 times a day too). I'm confused, which of these labels is correct?
None are completely accurate; that's why I said be careful when compartmentalizing artists. I heard Sting on a jazz station the other day . . .
"Miss Sarajevo" has elements of classical music in it.
I can listen to Adult Contemporary stations and sometimes catch "Wishlist" as well.
Anyway, if you consider "All Because of You" to be pop, then I think it's time some of these classifications are dropped completely.
Woah, now you can't be serious about this. First off, using the sacred "charts" to measure relevance is one of the reasons the music industry makes me sick. I guess Pearl Jam stopped being relevant a LONG time ago because I have a hard time remembering the last time one of their singles was on the "charts". Led Zeppelin couldn't have been all that relevant either since they had exactly one single crack the top 10 during the course of their career. All hail U2, Green Day and J-Lo the kings (and queens) of music relevance!!!!!
The thing is Led Zepplin had the second highest selling album total at one point (I know nothing about the sales of their singles), only second to the Beatles. While I don't believe popularity is an indication of quality, in order to be relevant culturally, the culture has to, at least, hear and know the songs. One measure of this is based on sales (singles, albums, whatever . . .). And I was told, U2's latest album has sold over 10 million copies worldwide (I believe that's probably true because they won an award for World's Best-Selling Rock Artist at the World Music Awards recently). In order to be part of the zeitgeist, the artist's song has to be heard or, (bleh) consumed, at the very least.
I don't much care for some of Michael Jackson's music, but it would be impossible for me to deny that he was 1) hugely successful at one point, and 2) influenced a number of other artists. I also know that U2 was hugely succesful, commercially, at one point as well and appear to have affected other acts (namely Coldplay in recent days). If you accept that Vedder likes some of U2's music, chances are U2 has also influenced Pearl Jam a little as well (especially if "Bad is the greatest song about addiction" that Vedder has heard).
Perhaps but I would prefer to discover and enjoy music I feel is relevant on my own rather
I also enjoy discovering music on my own, and I sympathize with your opinion here. That said what you and the reviewer (who, in my opinion, is a twit) mean by "relevant" are two completely different things. I like the song "Wash". It's relevant to me. It's not, however, relevant to any of my friends, my girlfriend, my parents, my relatives or anyone else I know extremely well. Is the song "Wash", then relevant, culturally? Has it affected an age? Is it a defining song of the times; is it part of our zietgeist? Is it, as the reviewer says, "relevant in the outside world"? Probably not . . .
than have the media decide for me by ramming it down my throat (i.e. Ipod commercials,
U2 is all about having its songs heard. But no one is ramming anything. People fail to realize they are not completely passive and incapable of acting on their own volition (I.E., turning the channel).
incessant overplaying of each and every single they release
Overplaying is again a, relatively, subjective assertion on your part. By the way, If I had a dollar for each time I heard "Wishlist" on the radio when that song first came out (or saw the "Jeremy" video . . .)
, ridiculous media coverage of every single move they make, etc.)
Bono is a big celebrity. Comes with the territory . . .
At least I don't hear him whining constantly about being one.
PJ has lights, have you seen any bands that don't use lights for an arena concert?
No.
That was my point.
Based on what I know, U2's stage is a big part of what makes their shows great. I've heard people say that's what sets them apart.
I found Elevation's lightshow to be pretty lacklustre, actually. /shrug
I would prefer to judge a concert based on the bands talents not the stage designers
And with a U2 concert, you have the opportunity to judge both.
instruments but I think many people out there (myself included) could say the same for Adam and Larry in U2
:rolleyes:
By the way, did you know Adam came up with the bassline for "New Year's Day"? It's not a complicated bassline, but, then again, it doesn't have to be.
No they endorse Ipod. Whether you link it to their music or not, they're still doing it
They're not getting paid for those commercials. They are getting paid for each U2 ipod that sells, and for their music. They are endorsing it as a vehicle to both play their music and to promote their music. Again, I feel criticism here is completely inane, but whatever.
"Well ... there I was sitting down on the couch in my pajamas with my eldest son. He was watching TV. I was doing one of my favorite things -- I was tallying up all the money I passed up in endorsements over the years, and thinking of all the fun I could have had with it. Suddenly I hear "Uno, dos, tres, catorce!" I look up. But instead of the silhouettes of the hippie wannabes bouncing around in the iPod commercial, I see my boys!
Oh, my God! They sold out!
Now ... what I know about the iPod is this: it is a device that plays music. Of course their new song sounded great, my guys are doing great, but methinks I hear the footsteps of my old tape operator Jimmy Iovine somewhere. Wily. Smart. Now, personally, I live an insanely expensive lifestyle that my wife barely tolerates. I burn money, and that calls for huge amounts of cash flow. But I also have a ludicrous image of myself that keeps me from truly cashing in. (laughter) You can see my problem. Woe is me.
So the next morning, I call up Jon Landau -- or as I refer to him, "the American Paul McGuinness" -- and I say, "Did you see that iPod thing?" And he says, "Yes." And he says, "And I hear they didn't take any money." And I said, "They didn't take any money?!" And he says, "No." I said, "Smart, wily Irish guys." (laughter) Anybody ... anybody ... can do an ad and take the money. But to do the ad and not take the money ... that's smart. That's wily. I say, "Jon, I want you to call up Bill Gates or whoever is behind this thing and float this: A red, white, and blue iPod signed by Bruce 'The Boss' Springsteen. Now remember, no matter how much money he offers, don't take it!"
-- from Bruce Springsteen's Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction speech for U2
Sure they hit their peak in the "all about me 80's" and it sure shows.
Again, subjective . . . A lot of critics feel U2 hit their peak in the early 90s with Achtung Baby.
Overall, I will say that you have made some valid points and that at the same time my opinions are quite different from yours but that doesn't make either of us wrong.
Fair enough
I guess I just know of too many people who happen to be U2 fans that crap on PJ
I love PJ's music. I would never "crap on PJ". You know, most of my U2 acquaintances have seen PJ live and like PJ a lot. /shrug
(much the same as this "writer" does) by saying things like "Pearl Jam sucks, when was the last time they put out anything good?"
Ben Rayner, of the Toronto Star, says the exact same thing constantly about U2. In fact, a few critics that blast U2 constantly say the same thing. Or they'll make the claim that U2 is no longer relevant because they are no longer popular (I don't know what planet they're on, but I guess winning "World's Best-Selling Rock Artist" at the World Music Awards means U2 is no longer popular) Except he thinks "Beautiful Day" is a great song (I think the "Beautiful Day" is merely o.k. and nothing to write home about; in fact, I disliked that song the first time I heard it . . .). Coldplay (and The White Stripes I have recently discovered) is loved by Ben Rayner. Ben Rayner fails to realize that without U2, Coldplay would probably sound a lot different (Chris Martin used to play "A Sort of Homecoming" to his former unborn child; he has actually referred to himself once as "Bono", etc. . . .)
but for them to go around calling themselves "The Greatest Band in the World" makes me sick!!!!!
I'm not sure anyone other than Bono has come close to making that claim. I sympathize with you here, somewhat. Bono is a bit of a twit at times (but I think he has a good heart. I use to believe he was a complete ass, but, in person, he was extremely nice to both me and my girlfriend. And he acted suprisingly humble).
And you have every right to hate U2's music; I'm not trying to change your mind. While I don't like Britney Spears' music, I don't go around telling her fans they're wrong for liking her music (as though it's some sort of established, objective, fact that her music is horrible, mind-numbing pap--despite the fact I believe that to be true) .
Anyway, I won't be responding further, mostly because I don't have the time.
Great post, Webslinger! Count me as another who love both bands (and Bruce Springsteen and Dave Matthews Band, for that matter)! Last week, I saw 3 PJ shows and 2 U2 shows. Does it get much better than that?
Not relavant? People in the press write stuff just to be employed. This guy is either A) selling out to get a promotion or has no idea what music is and what it does for people. I wasted 10 minutes of my life reading that garbage.
I'm usually ok with a negative review of the band, but this one gets under my skin. Saying they are no longer relevant is a load of crap. This guy overanalyzes the band...why not just look at the show as 3 hours of great rock n roll?? that's really what it comes down to, and saying bono upstaged them is just stupid. the guy was out there for 1 song.
but the fact was established years ago that u2 is way more relevant but who cares. ill take this little secret of a band anyday
Not relavant? People in the press write stuff just to be employed. This guy is either A) selling out to get a promotion or has no idea what music is and what it does for people. I wasted 10 minutes of my life reading that garbage.
I read this review after the concert as I was interested in what the critics would say (not that i particularly care what they say). It was my first Pearl Jam concert (and second concert overall ) and i really loved it.
I understand that ultimately the review is an expression of a personal opinion and tastes do differ, but the critic does not strike me as a very good journalist because she doesnt seem to be very open-minded, she seems to have made up her mind before she went. She should have listened to their CDs instead, then maybe she wouldn't say "they haven't had a hit in years". Plus, when did U2 become the touchstone for every rock show?
I like old U2 songs and respect their music but to say that Bono's appearance was the highlight of the show is a serious EXAGGERATION. (By the way, i have read a review of U2's concert in another paper and the critics weren't very kind to them either.)
The phrase "their (PJ's) activities hardly generate a mention in the media these days" sounds very shallow, i am sorry, but just because they are not on TV all the time doesnt make them any lesser musicians, what are they supposed to do to please Liisa Ladouceur: go to designers' shows, start their clothing line or date models?
Pearl Jam are true artists and very rare people in the world who wouldn't sell their souls for an extra million bucks (and everyone is a sell-out nowadays shilling for the Man). Eddie seems to be a very nice humble person and doesnt suffer any delusions of grandeur despite the fact that millions worship him (and if you want to compare that to Bono, let's say that U2's frontmen sometimes seems to have god complex).
Pearl Jam is a breath of fresh air in this sickly consumerist commercial world where you cant turn your head without being poisoned by clever marketing campaigns.
And yes they are still very much relevant. And yes, i felt a sense of occasion, a sense of danger, a sense of now, and i felt very much alive. And what does "innovative stage design" really mean and what does it bring into the show?
Comments
I was at U2 wed night..and while Bono can not hit notes like he used to they still put on one hell of show...
now I've written into the sun as well..Lisa what her face is a no talent..
but why is everyone bashing Bone and u2..they did not write the article..
You may not like U2 or Bono, but they are still relivant in today music...and contrary to what Lisa the no talent said in the article Pearl Jam is still relivant as well..just ask the houndreds of thousands that have seen Pearl Jam over the last two tours..
and not sure who it was, but it can be said again..there is a mutual repect on both bands parts..I beleive Bono said to them back in 92 that you either have to sleep with the media or tell them off..we all know which way Pearl Jam went and due to that we are still enjoying them today..with out having to listen to the media
so let say thanks to u2.thanks to Pearl Jam and fuck off to the sun..becuase two great performers who can/will make a difference in the world of music and possiably the world in general took the stage together not once but twice in 3 days (Ed at U2 on Saturday night and Bono at PJ on Monday) and had a blast with one another and showed the world (becuase everyone will have read what happened one way or another) that Rock and Roll is still alive a kicking
Peace and Love
mrmojorisinca
http://www.myspace.com/mrmojorisinca
That just pushed over the top. I'm emailing that bitch to tell her she is fuckin biased and has know idea what rock and roll is about.
When I was younger and angrier, I wrote a pretty caustic reply to a bad concert review (one of the 1998 shows I think). The guy actually did write back and basically admitted that he liked the show a lot but figured a more negative review would "stir the pot a bit more", whatever that means. He also told me to stop taking life so seriously, and insinuated that I must be a sad, pathetic person for getting that upset about his review.
I think I told him to fuck off or something witty like that.
Ah, memories.
1998 : St Louis, Birmingham, Knoxville
2000 : Memphis, Nashville, St Louis
2003 : Irvine 1+2, Vegas, Bridge School 1+2, Santa Barbara
2005 : Missoula, Vancouver, Gorge 2006 : LA 1+2, Vegas
2008 : W Palm Beach, Tampa, Who Rock Honors, EV LA 2
2009 : LA 1, LA 4, EV 1 Nashville 2011 : EV Long Beach
2012: EV Vegas 1+2
2013 LA 1+2 2018 Prague, Wrigley 2
2020 Phoenix, SD
thats true...
That's really entertaining! Name me a band where no one in the audience knows the music, and I'll show you a failure. Music is one of those things that gets more meaningful and more enjoyable with repetition. She makes it sound as if knowing the music is a bad thing.
And, BTW, I like U2. I started to hate Vertigo just because I heard it too much (tricky thing, that repetition). But I enjoy their music.
The answer: he wouldn't. Because Pearl Jam isn't. But if the review's point was to stir the pot, then consider it a job well done: apart from what I've read on this board, I've had at least four friends/family members approach me today saying they heard the Sun based Pearl Jam. I don't pretend to know what Ms. Ladoceur's motives are for writing what she did, but if she was trying to make some sort of point then she done good.
Steve
edited to mention that I lost my U2 virginity on Saturday, and they were utterly incredible. I won't pretend to have liked them as much as I liked Pearl Jam, but they were still amazing. Sure, Bono is a bit of a dick sometimes, but that's just part of his persona; plus, regardless as to whether or not you agree with his politics, I feel as though he should be admired for all the work he's doing--least someone in a position of power gives a damn.
Very well said, Steve!!!
Circle comes around each time
As someone who's seen PJ in all size venues in all type shows, 18 total, I can say they have had some mediocre moments. Dallas 2000 was a mostly mediocre show, the band had little to no energy most of the show, Ed spoke to the crowd maybe 3 times. They pick it up a bit at the end, but mostly I'd say mediocre. Over the last 3 previous tours there have become more piss-break moments aka...Last Kiss or Soldier of Love on most nights...at least those are mine.
As for Bono & teleprompters... I think he remember the words to most songs, however after 25 years & hundreds of songs you might get a bit confused with a few, just as Ed has been know to go less high-tech & use old fashioned notebook paper on his monitors for some of the newer songs or Michael Stipe with his music stand on stage next to him all night. These guys want to get it right, perfectionism is something most musicians suffer from.
As for you bashers of U2 & the same set every night...get your facts right. The different song count on the Vertigo tour is at 78 now. They are a different band than PJ, they like the aspect of a whole show rather than a performance. There is nothing wrong with either. PJ does have their repetitive moments just as any other band on almost every night you'll get Evenflow with extended solo, Daughter with tag, Betterman now played too fast, & RVM with long middle break. It's ok I like those songs & those moments. It's like watching a movie more than once, or is that not ok?
Contrary to what most of us think about PJ, non diehards still think of Ed as a self important ego maniac who comes across as acting too cool for anything trendy. I could not agree with that at all, nor would anyone else here. PJ bashing has gone on since day one. They were called Mall-ternative, & bashed by the "underground musicians" of the 90's for cashing in on a trend. As silly as that sounds, most people on here sound the same way. This holier than thou stance you guys have is a joke. Grow up already. We all have different opinions & tastes...accept it.
Eat your pork and beans
I eat more chicken
Than any man ever seen
Toronto 10-05-2000 / Toronto 06-28-2003 / Kitchener 09-11-2005 / Hamilton 09-13-2005 / Ottawa 09-16-2005 / Toronto 09-19-2005 / Toronto 05-09-2006 / Toronto 05-10-2006 / Toronto 08-21-2009 / Montreal 09-07-2011 / Toronto 09-11-2011 / Toronto 09-12-2011 / Ottawa 09-14-2011 / London 07/16/2013 / Ottawa 05-08-2016 / Toronto 05-12-2016
I'm having a huge bonfire tonight... (though not in the kitchen)
It looks as though my $0.75 CDN investment might be worthwhile after all!
I might save the front-page photo, even though it didn't raise the quality of the Sun's coverage of PJ from "mediocre to memorable".
oxc
*May the Peace of the Wilderness be with YOU*
He is your friend, your partner, your defender, your dog. You are his life, his love, his leader. He will be yours, faithful and true, to the last beat of his heart. You owe it to him to be worthy of such devotion.
— Unknown
Overall, I will say that you have made some valid points and that at the same time my opinions are quite different from yours but that doesn't make either of us wrong. I guess I just know of too many people who happen to be U2 fans that crap on PJ (much the same as this "writer" does) by saying things like "Pearl Jam sucks, when was the last time they put out anything good?" just because PJ doesn't saturate the public with their music/videos/commercials. I will say that I respect U2 for what they have done (especially their earlier music) musically but for them to go around calling themselves "The Greatest Band in the World" makes me sick!!!!!
Shows:
96/09/21 - MLG (Toronto)
98/08/22 - Molson Park (Barrie)
00/10/05 - ACC (Toronto)
03/06/28 - Molson Amphitheatre (Toronto)
05/09/13 - Copps Coliseum (Hamilton)
05/09/19 - ACC (Toronto)
I hope they keep doing solid records and never become that sort of band.
-The crazy guy with the Ramones t-shirt.
Mexico C. 12/10/05.
"There is a rose that I want to live for
although, God knows, I may not have met her"
-J. Strummer
"And you'll never know just how dark this screen could be"
Trying to get people to notice what Rock Gods these guys are can get tiresome. Though I've made ALLOT of die hard fans over the years.
"Johnny we miss, Pete your still the greatest"
Discotheque was intended to be heavily produced. And it was commercially successful in Europe, where it hit #1 in most countries, including the U.K. While I don't believe that commercial success is any indicator, necessarily, of quality (any measure of quality in art is relatively subjective), the song certainly didn't kill U2's fanbase. There's a certain dance element to that song, and certainly a lot of dance songs are heavily produced. To claim "overproduc[tion]" though is mostly subjective (depending on whether the individual believes the song is good).
I thought Bono said U2 was reapplying for the position. Regardless, they are only overhyped if you believe they aren't the world's greatest rock band (which is, again, why I believe the claim is subjective).
None are completely accurate; that's why I said be careful when compartmentalizing artists. I heard Sting on a jazz station the other day . . .
"Miss Sarajevo" has elements of classical music in it.
I can listen to Adult Contemporary stations and sometimes catch "Wishlist" as well.
Anyway, if you consider "All Because of You" to be pop, then I think it's time some of these classifications are dropped completely.
The thing is Led Zepplin had the second highest selling album total at one point (I know nothing about the sales of their singles), only second to the Beatles. While I don't believe popularity is an indication of quality, in order to be relevant culturally, the culture has to, at least, hear and know the songs. One measure of this is based on sales (singles, albums, whatever . . .). And I was told, U2's latest album has sold over 10 million copies worldwide (I believe that's probably true because they won an award for World's Best-Selling Rock Artist at the World Music Awards recently). In order to be part of the zeitgeist, the artist's song has to be heard or, (bleh) consumed, at the very least.
I don't much care for some of Michael Jackson's music, but it would be impossible for me to deny that he was 1) hugely successful at one point, and 2) influenced a number of other artists. I also know that U2 was hugely succesful, commercially, at one point as well and appear to have affected other acts (namely Coldplay in recent days). If you accept that Vedder likes some of U2's music, chances are U2 has also influenced Pearl Jam a little as well (especially if "Bad is the greatest song about addiction" that Vedder has heard).
I also enjoy discovering music on my own, and I sympathize with your opinion here. That said what you and the reviewer (who, in my opinion, is a twit) mean by "relevant" are two completely different things. I like the song "Wash". It's relevant to me. It's not, however, relevant to any of my friends, my girlfriend, my parents, my relatives or anyone else I know extremely well. Is the song "Wash", then relevant, culturally? Has it affected an age? Is it a defining song of the times; is it part of our zietgeist? Is it, as the reviewer says, "relevant in the outside world"? Probably not . . .
U2 is all about having its songs heard. But no one is ramming anything. People fail to realize they are not completely passive and incapable of acting on their own volition (I.E., turning the channel).
Overplaying is again a, relatively, subjective assertion on your part. By the way, If I had a dollar for each time I heard "Wishlist" on the radio when that song first came out (or saw the "Jeremy" video . . .)
Bono is a big celebrity. Comes with the territory . . .
At least I don't hear him whining constantly about being one.
No.
That was my point.
I found Elevation's lightshow to be pretty lacklustre, actually. /shrug
And with a U2 concert, you have the opportunity to judge both.
:rolleyes:
By the way, did you know Adam came up with the bassline for "New Year's Day"? It's not a complicated bassline, but, then again, it doesn't have to be.
They're not getting paid for those commercials. They are getting paid for each U2 ipod that sells, and for their music. They are endorsing it as a vehicle to both play their music and to promote their music. Again, I feel criticism here is completely inane, but whatever.
"Well ... there I was sitting down on the couch in my pajamas with my eldest son. He was watching TV. I was doing one of my favorite things -- I was tallying up all the money I passed up in endorsements over the years, and thinking of all the fun I could have had with it. Suddenly I hear "Uno, dos, tres, catorce!" I look up. But instead of the silhouettes of the hippie wannabes bouncing around in the iPod commercial, I see my boys!
Oh, my God! They sold out!
Now ... what I know about the iPod is this: it is a device that plays music. Of course their new song sounded great, my guys are doing great, but methinks I hear the footsteps of my old tape operator Jimmy Iovine somewhere. Wily. Smart. Now, personally, I live an insanely expensive lifestyle that my wife barely tolerates. I burn money, and that calls for huge amounts of cash flow. But I also have a ludicrous image of myself that keeps me from truly cashing in. (laughter) You can see my problem. Woe is me.
So the next morning, I call up Jon Landau -- or as I refer to him, "the American Paul McGuinness" -- and I say, "Did you see that iPod thing?" And he says, "Yes." And he says, "And I hear they didn't take any money." And I said, "They didn't take any money?!" And he says, "No." I said, "Smart, wily Irish guys." (laughter) Anybody ... anybody ... can do an ad and take the money. But to do the ad and not take the money ... that's smart. That's wily. I say, "Jon, I want you to call up Bill Gates or whoever is behind this thing and float this: A red, white, and blue iPod signed by Bruce 'The Boss' Springsteen. Now remember, no matter how much money he offers, don't take it!"
-- from Bruce Springsteen's Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction speech for U2
http://www.atu2.com/news/article.src?ID=3790
Again, subjective . . . A lot of critics feel U2 hit their peak in the early 90s with Achtung Baby.
Fair enough
I love PJ's music. I would never "crap on PJ". You know, most of my U2 acquaintances have seen PJ live and like PJ a lot. /shrug
Ben Rayner, of the Toronto Star, says the exact same thing constantly about U2. In fact, a few critics that blast U2 constantly say the same thing. Or they'll make the claim that U2 is no longer relevant because they are no longer popular (I don't know what planet they're on, but I guess winning "World's Best-Selling Rock Artist" at the World Music Awards means U2 is no longer popular) Except he thinks "Beautiful Day" is a great song (I think the "Beautiful Day" is merely o.k. and nothing to write home about; in fact, I disliked that song the first time I heard it . . .). Coldplay (and The White Stripes I have recently discovered) is loved by Ben Rayner. Ben Rayner fails to realize that without U2, Coldplay would probably sound a lot different (Chris Martin used to play "A Sort of Homecoming" to his former unborn child; he has actually referred to himself once as "Bono", etc. . . .)
I'm not sure anyone other than Bono has come close to making that claim. I sympathize with you here, somewhat. Bono is a bit of a twit at times (but I think he has a good heart. I use to believe he was a complete ass, but, in person, he was extremely nice to both me and my girlfriend. And he acted suprisingly humble).
And you have every right to hate U2's music; I'm not trying to change your mind. While I don't like Britney Spears' music, I don't go around telling her fans they're wrong for liking her music (as though it's some sort of established, objective, fact that her music is horrible, mind-numbing pap--despite the fact I believe that to be true) .
Anyway, I won't be responding further, mostly because I don't have the time.
P
E
A
R
L
J
A
M
R
O
C
K
S
!
!
!
!
"Gimli,MB 08-14-93"
"Fargo,ND 06-15-03"
"Winnipeg,MB 09-08-05"
"Thunder Bay,ON 09-09-05"
www.babysites.com/sites/leftcoastnative/
Are we bound out of obligation, Is that all we've got?
but the fact was established years ago that u2 is way more relevant but who cares. ill take this little secret of a band anyday
slow reader eh?
I understand that ultimately the review is an expression of a personal opinion and tastes do differ, but the critic does not strike me as a very good journalist because she doesnt seem to be very open-minded, she seems to have made up her mind before she went. She should have listened to their CDs instead, then maybe she wouldn't say "they haven't had a hit in years". Plus, when did U2 become the touchstone for every rock show?
I like old U2 songs and respect their music but to say that Bono's appearance was the highlight of the show is a serious EXAGGERATION. (By the way, i have read a review of U2's concert in another paper and the critics weren't very kind to them either.)
The phrase "their (PJ's) activities hardly generate a mention in the media these days" sounds very shallow, i am sorry, but just because they are not on TV all the time doesnt make them any lesser musicians, what are they supposed to do to please Liisa Ladouceur: go to designers' shows, start their clothing line or date models?
Pearl Jam are true artists and very rare people in the world who wouldn't sell their souls for an extra million bucks (and everyone is a sell-out nowadays shilling for the Man). Eddie seems to be a very nice humble person and doesnt suffer any delusions of grandeur despite the fact that millions worship him (and if you want to compare that to Bono, let's say that U2's frontmen sometimes seems to have god complex).
Pearl Jam is a breath of fresh air in this sickly consumerist commercial world where you cant turn your head without being poisoned by clever marketing campaigns.
And yes they are still very much relevant. And yes, i felt a sense of occasion, a sense of danger, a sense of now, and i felt very much alive. And what does "innovative stage design" really mean and what does it bring into the show?