10c / Pearl Jam should be ashamed for not being honest about Petty shows

markinsand

bacchanal wrote:

i'm not sure how many festival shows u have been to but in the like 100 I have ben to I have NEVER heard a full set from any band......tool, smashing pumpkins, beastie boys...u name it....I didnt get tickets to these shows for that reason alone...not to sound I told U so ish...

i wouldn't call 2 bands a festival show...

bootlegger10

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

Nice to be idealistic, but its way too easy to state a goal without knowing the reality of a situation

???? Well, they play Pittsburgh and Cinci. Why not run through Nashville and Indy, down into North Carolina and Atlanta, then jet out to the west. Or just scrap Cinci and Pittsburgh and start off in the south for two weeks. This whole "too hot" in the south thing is crap. They are playing a ton more indoor shows than outdoor this tour. It's not hard to envision a week where they play 4 shows in Indy, Nashville, Milwaukee, and Denver instead of opening for Tom Petty for 6 shows. Not hard at all. You're just trying to prove a point that you can't.

markinsand

bottom line is they can do what they want though...

bootlegger10

Faceless Man wrote:

bottom line is they can do what they want though...

I'm becoming more and more amazed the band has made it this long. It seems as we get more and more interviews that Ed is a huge control freak. I wonder who was pushing for these shows.

TheVoiceInsideMyHead

First of all, I'd like to see some evidence supporting the contention that PJ was EVER meant to be the headliner at any of these 6 shows. As far back as I can remember the 10C spelled out in PLAIN ENGLISH that PJ would be on first and THEN Tom Petty.

Second, I love that people are using THIS THREAD to reiterate the tired, beaten dead and buried "Please Play the South" bitchfest. Give it a break, will ya? They're not coming there, not in '06 at least, no matter how you beg and cry.

And third, and perhaps most amusing, are the people who actually LEFT after Pearl Jam, lest their fragile ears be subjected to good music by *gasp* another artist? I don't feel sorry for any of you, not one bit. You are the LUCKY ones, you get to see not one but TWO great American rock bands. And yet you are so self-absorbed that you think somehow Pearl Jam owes you something they didn't deliver on, so you walk away from half the fucking show. It's priceless.

markinsand

TheVoiceInsideMyHead wrote:

First of all, I'd like to see some evidence supporting the contention that PJ was EVER meant to be the headliner at any of these 6 shows. As far back as I can remember the 10C spelled out in PLAIN ENGLISH that PJ would be on first and THEN Tom Petty.

Second, I love that people are using THIS THREAD to reiterate the tired, beaten dead and buried "Please Play the South" bitchfest. Give it a break, will ya? They're not coming there, not in '06 at least, no matter how you beg and cry.

And third, and perhaps most amusing, are the people who actually LEFT after Pearl Jam, lest their fragile ears be subjected to good music by *gasp* another artist? I don't feel sorry for any of you, not one bit. You are the LUCKY ones, you get to see not one but TWO great American rock bands. And yet you are so self-absorbed that you think somehow Pearl Jam owes you something they didn't deliver on, so you walk away from half the fucking show. It's priceless.

you make solid points...

i remember A LOT of confusion with who headlines etc... but I think most if it was drummed up by the posters...

I agree with your last point... you can't walk out on Petty...

red mos

TheVoiceInsideMyHead wrote:

First of all, I'd like to see some evidence supporting the contention that PJ was EVER meant to be the headliner at any of these 6 shows. As far back as I can remember the 10C spelled out in PLAIN ENGLISH that PJ would be on first and THEN Tom Petty.

Second, I love that people are using THIS THREAD to reiterate the tired, beaten dead and buried "Please Play the South" bitchfest. Give it a break, will ya? They're not coming there, not in '06 at least, no matter how you beg and cry.

And third, and perhaps most amusing, are the people who actually LEFT after Pearl Jam, lest their fragile ears be subjected to good music by *gasp* another artist? I don't feel sorry for any of you, not one bit. You are the LUCKY ones, you get to see not one but TWO great American rock bands. And yet you are so self-absorbed that you think somehow Pearl Jam owes you something they didn't deliver on, so you walk away from half the fucking show. It's priceless.

I agree with you to some extent. What I don't agree with is that you think that us in the South are whining bastards. This is not the case. At one point I hoped that the PJ/ petty shows would make it down here, since Tom is comimg here. We just want to see Pearl jam, as everyone else does, and people rag on the South for complaining. I wish Pearl jam and Tom Petty were both playing here cause we would at least get to see 2 kick ass bands, and we would have at least gotten to see PJ after a three year absence, even if the sets were shorter. You are right in regards to the people who left during Petty coming here to bitch. They knew going in that these 6 shows were going to be split 90 minutes sets. Why someone would shell out 400 bucks and then leave after PJ and then come and bitch about it is beyond me.

npalmer100

I've got to weigh in here with two observations:

1) There was no indication that PJ was the opening band. The difference between happy PJ fans and (some) unhappy ones is a full set and one encore (of course two is better, but they always have something interesting in the first one. Tonight's set list, Sad and SOH notwithstanding, didn't contain any big surprises.) Because Petty was in the headlining position, he got the full set and one encore. 10c should have indicated that PJ was the opening band.

2) Tonight's show apparently lasted 4 hours (7:30-11:30). That's 240 minutes. PJ played for 80. Either that's a damn slow set change or else PJ can hardly be called a "Co" headliner. They're an opening band. At least Ed should do a pre-set beforehand so at least those that show up early get something like equal PJ time.

JOEJOEJOE

bootlegger10 wrote:

???? Well, they play Pittsburgh and Cinci. Why not run through Nashville and Indy, down into North Carolina and Atlanta, then jet out to the west. Or just scrap Cinci and Pittsburgh and start off in the south for two weeks. This whole "too hot" in the south thing is crap. They are playing a ton more indoor shows than outdoor this tour. It's not hard to envision a week where they play 4 shows in Indy, Nashville, Milwaukee, and Denver instead of opening for Tom Petty for 6 shows. Not hard at all. You're just trying to prove a point that you can't.

Again, you are making suggestions that you think make sense, yet you don't have the assumed expertise of an organization that has been touring for 15 years.

For whatever reason, the band is doing things as they please, and you may never know their reasoning.

How many major bands have you managed, and for how many major touring acts have you booked shows?

solat9

The set change did take an incredibly long time, almost an hour before Petty came on and Pearl Jam got off.

ii44

Do you have any idea how many people would have bitch-slapped their own mothers to get into this show?

You realize you were there. In. The. Building. Right?

And those punk-ass motherfuckers who walked out on Tom Petty-- good God! You have no idea what you missed.


Name another fanclub that does more for their fans. I dare ya! It'll take a while.

I mean-- you'd have to be freaking nuts to think both bands could play a full set and get off the stage by 12.00.

Unfuckingbelievable.

MNJAMMER

All I know is that I felt like I was kicked in the nuts when PJ was done playing for the night.

holtz

ii44 wrote:

And those punk-ass motherfuckers who walked out on Tom Petty-- good God! You have no idea what you missed.

I stayed for Petty, they didn't miss much.

drolly

holtz wrote:

I stayed for Petty, they didn't miss much.

Ha! Exactly. I have nothing against Petty. I have a few Petty cd's. But sitting through some of the Petty show felt like listening to a PJ concert where they play nothing but Betterman. Is Petty good music? Sure, but it means absolutely nothing to me, just a bunch of radio hits. Except in concert you get to see him throw down some Michael Jackson dancing in every song. So yeah, you might've missed that. Big loss. Just did nothing for me and the reason I bought the ticket was to see PJ, not Petty. I was willing to pay the increased ticket price to see a full PJ show and then see some Petty as an added bonus to make it worth the money. Not roughly half a PJ set and then watch Petty dance around on stage.

As for those who keep saying/asking for proof that 10c originally said Petty would be opening, I don't have a whole lot of help for you. Those news updates have been removed from the 10c page and my memory fails me in trying to find the site that displays archived pages from specific dates. While I am not positive for the St. Paul and Denver shows, I am ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that the Summerfest shows were originally displayed as Tom Petty opening because the 10c page stated that "the Summerfest grounds open at 12pm", the Marcus Ampitheater opens its gates at 6:30pm and that "Tom Petty is expected to take the stage at 7:30pm". If I do figure out how to bring up the archived page from around that time, I will post it on here. Either way, the reason for the increased ticket price was because both artists were to play full sets, of which an 80 minute PJ set is not.

drolly

MNJAMMER wrote:

All I know is that I felt like I was kicked in the nuts when PJ was done playing for the night.

When the RITFW chords hit at 8:52, I shared the same feeling. Couldn't believe I dropped that much money on tonight's concert, more of the same tomorrow, and the hotel/travel/work costs to get up here for a couple of days.

Veddernarian

For the 6 cities that are co-headlining, I guess, when it is raining vaginas, you get hit in the head by a penis. I think they DID say full show at the outset when tix went on sale. I was skeptical and glad LA wasn't under the PJ/Petty curse. I think more recently, Jeff Ament said in an interview (search all my articles if you want to muddle through a quagmire) that the sets would be 90 minutes. I'm not sure what happened to the extra 10. I actually thought the PJ/Petty encore would be more like the PJ/ Robert Plant encore #2 at HOB. Where both were there in force playing covers like RITFW, standards and Prtty songs. Surprised to see just Ed in 1/2 of a song. So, looking at the aftermath... This was a Petty show with PJ opening. Like with the Rolling Stones. You see, with the Pearl Jam Caste System, I'm an "untouchable" with a 10c# 25XXXX and I am cursed with *NEVER-EVER* getting a good seat. So in a sick way, unfortunately, seeing people travel, who have extremely low 10c numbers, being bumped back behind Petty fans makes me laugh. Just like that show with the ticket mess up that 10c apologised for made me laugh. On a good note, you get to see entertainment for 3+ hours. If, of course, if you like Petty. I do. But I wouldn't want to see such a combo show where PJ gets squeezed out. By the way, if you are squeezed to 80-90 minutes, and you have all these great b-sides and rarities, etc., WHY THE F*K WOULD YOU PLAY A TRAINWRECK LIKE RITFW!!?!? I mean, like, that's ok after a 2:15hr PJ show in encore#2, but I certainly would have stayed within my own catalog in a time squeese. Or did Neil renounce ownership, and PJ legally adopt RITFW? I'm hoping for the best in LA. I see the main poster's point. He is a PJ fan and say a 80minute concert. I totally see what he is feeling. Don't blame him. Especially you who have seen zillions of shows.

red mos

Not to be an ass, but everyone knew what they were getting when they bought these tickets. I cannot believe people would shell out this kind of money, then miss the petty set, then come here and complain! A co headlining tour is 90 minutes PER band. Tom Petty is a good solid rock performer. I agree PJ shows are better because there is a somewhat different set every night with the exception of the staples. I have a few Petty dvds and he puts on a good show. I am seeing him in August, and from this setlist he is playing I will be satisfied. The only thing I sympaphise with people on is that they had to pay double for a co headling tour. But I ask, "Why the hell would some pay for both and leave after PJ? enjoy the full package. Ok, now I am prepared to get reamed, bring it on, but I have made a good well rounded solid statement from all this evenings posting.

drolly

red mos wrote:

Not to be an ass, but everyone knew what they were getting when they bought these tickets. I cannot believe people would shell out this kind of money, then miss the petty set, then come here and complain! A co headlining tour is 90 minutes PER band.The only thing I sympaphise with people on is that they had to pay double for a co headling tour. But I ask, "Why the hell would some pay for both and leave after PJ? enjoy the full package. Ok, now I am prepared to get reamed, bring it on, but I have made a good well rounded solid statement from all this evenings posting.

I'm not going to ream, just remind. No, we obviously did not know this was going to happen when we bought the tickets. First of all, we were told Petty was opening, not PJ, which was changed after the fact. Second, we assured time and time again that because we were paying double, both bands would play their normal full sets. Like I've said before, I could live with paying double and getting a full PJ show, because I figure I could listen to enough of Petty's show to get my money's worth. However, this wasn't even close to a co-headlining show. This really wasn't any different than PJ opening for the Rolling Stones, only that show was always a straightforward opening act, not disguised as a co-headlining, full sets show.

Eliot Rosewater

Gators76 wrote:

18 songs is a full set for %99.9 other bands. How can someone expect 2 hours and 25-30 songs for an OPENING or CO headlining act.

Come on....stranger things have happened. I don't see what the big fucking deal would be if PJ did play a regular show instead of this 1/2 full bullshit. Seriously, it's only for a handful of dates...just make the entire show longer to accomodate. That's my opinion.

Gators76 wrote:

I would be pissed if this were the only show I was going to see. But its not like each act is going to play 2 hours. It sucks for the people that this is the only show they will get to.

Yeah, I'd be pissed too....wait, I am pissed. I'm going to both Denver shows because 10C assured me that they'd be "full sets"....which may or may not be 80 minutes of music. All I know is it's a fucking deceiving way to communicate this shit. So instead of three shows in San Fran, I chose Denver because it's closer...even though the tickets cost me twice as much. I am catching the Vegas show later in the week but I'm still pissed about the obvious deception from the Ten Club....I love them and will forgive them, but I certainly expected more from them.

Boof

I actually enjoyed Petty's performance but had he sucked I believe the sentence,
"I paid $100 for a warm up band?" come to mind.

Pearl Jam was just the warm up for Tom Petty. It was blatently obvious.

How they have this as a double bill is a bit of a joke unless the bands switched off.