I think there has been a balance struck that has contributed to both the longevity of the band, and the output of each and every show. if they want/need time off I don't read it as them not loving music. Just recharging batteries. it has to be exhausting playing a leg of a tour at this age.
do people think that the 1996 version would have flown into nyc and played forest hills? Serious question I don't know.
agree. I think these shorter tours have been great for the level of energy, quality of the shows and Ed's voice. 2003 was great but no doubt when you go on a 70 date tour there is gonna be some duds in there just because you are tired or not feeling it. I'd rather have 10-15 kick ass shows every 12 months than 70 one year with duds thrown in then nothing for 3 or 4 years. right now I think it's a nice mix.
I think there has been a balance struck that has contributed to both the longevity of the band, and the output of each and every show. if they want/need time off I don't read it as them not loving music. Just recharging batteries. it has to be exhausting playing a leg of a tour at this age.
do people think that the 1996 version would have flown into nyc and played forest hills? Serious question I don't know.
agree. I think these shorter tours have been great for the level of energy, quality of the shows and Ed's voice. 2003 was great but no doubt when you go on a 70 date tour there is gonna be some duds in there just because you are tired or not feeling it. I'd rather have 10-15 kick ass shows every 12 months than 70 one year with duds thrown in then nothing for 3 or 4 years. right now I think it's a nice mix.
100% on board with this. Folks that can't travel or don't want to travel miss out, but for those of us that enjoy letting Pearl Jam decide what awesome destinations (Costa Rica, Amsterdam, Prague, Oslo, Lincoln Nebraska) we get to go to each year it works out great.
I think there has been a balance struck that has contributed to both the longevity of the band, and the output of each and every show. if they want/need time off I don't read it as them not loving music. Just recharging batteries. it has to be exhausting playing a leg of a tour at this age.
do people think that the 1996 version would have flown into nyc and played forest hills? Serious question I don't know.
I think there was more of a chance THEN than now days.
Didn't Curtis Management already said no back in Feb? Why the hell is this still going on? If Curtis say's no, that means NO! Done! Finish! Adios muchacho!
well said
IBTL
Ron: I just don't feel like going out tonight
Sammi: Wanna just break up?
I think there has been a balance struck that has contributed to both the longevity of the band, and the output of each and every show. if they want/need time off I don't read it as them not loving music. Just recharging batteries. it has to be exhausting playing a leg of a tour at this age.
do people think that the 1996 version would have flown into nyc and played forest hills? Serious question I don't know.
agree. I think these shorter tours have been great for the level of energy, quality of the shows and Ed's voice. 2003 was great but no doubt when you go on a 70 date tour there is gonna be some duds in there just because you are tired or not feeling it. I'd rather have 10-15 kick ass shows every 12 months than 70 one year with duds thrown in then nothing for 3 or 4 years. right now I think it's a nice mix.
i agree100%..plus the quality of the shows now is unreal and 3 hours shows.. 2003 was 2 hours show and they was 12 years younger..
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
I think there has been a balance struck that has contributed to both the longevity of the band, and the output of each and every show. if they want/need time off I don't read it as them not loving music. Just recharging batteries. it has to be exhausting playing a leg of a tour at this age.
do people think that the 1996 version would have flown into nyc and played forest hills? Serious question I don't know.
agree. I think these shorter tours have been great for the level of energy, quality of the shows and Ed's voice. 2003 was great but no doubt when you go on a 70 date tour there is gonna be some duds in there just because you are tired or not feeling it. I'd rather have 10-15 kick ass shows every 12 months than 70 one year with duds thrown in then nothing for 3 or 4 years. right now I think it's a nice mix.
i agree100%..plus the quality of the shows now is unreal and 3 hours shows.. 2003 was 2 hours show and they was 12 years younger..
it d be nice if they went from 10-15 shows a year to 30 to 40 spread out over two or three "tours". i'm not thinking the quality of the show would go down at all.
I think there has been a balance struck that has contributed to both the longevity of the band, and the output of each and every show. if they want/need time off I don't read it as them not loving music. Just recharging batteries. it has to be exhausting playing a leg of a tour at this age.
do people think that the 1996 version would have flown into nyc and played forest hills? Serious question I don't know.
agree. I think these shorter tours have been great for the level of energy, quality of the shows and Ed's voice. 2003 was great but no doubt when you go on a 70 date tour there is gonna be some duds in there just because you are tired or not feeling it. I'd rather have 10-15 kick ass shows every 12 months than 70 one year with duds thrown in then nothing for 3 or 4 years. right now I think it's a nice mix.
i agree100%..plus the quality of the shows now is unreal and 3 hours shows.. 2003 was 2 hours show and they was 12 years younger..
it d be nice if they went from 10-15 shows a year to 30 to 40 spread out over two or three "tours". i'm not thinking the quality of the show would go down at all.
seems they have a way to control their energy by the way the choose touring ..dont forget,they write music,they play benefit sows,they doing side project,they play shows with other bands,they tour as welll as matt..so..seems they doing the right thing and are happy with it and they quality is in max level...travelng,changing countries and continents,preparing,and all that..is noit easy at all...
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
I think there has been a balance struck that has contributed to both the longevity of the band, and the output of each and every show. if they want/need time off I don't read it as them not loving music. Just recharging batteries. it has to be exhausting playing a leg of a tour at this age.
do people think that the 1996 version would have flown into nyc and played forest hills? Serious question I don't know.
agree. I think these shorter tours have been great for the level of energy, quality of the shows and Ed's voice. 2003 was great but no doubt when you go on a 70 date tour there is gonna be some duds in there just because you are tired or not feeling it. I'd rather have 10-15 kick ass shows every 12 months than 70 one year with duds thrown in then nothing for 3 or 4 years. right now I think it's a nice mix.
i agree100%..plus the quality of the shows now is unreal and 3 hours shows.. 2003 was 2 hours show and they was 12 years younger..
it d be nice if they went from 10-15 shows a year to 30 to 40 spread out over two or three "tours". i'm not thinking the quality of the show would go down at all.
seems they have a way to control their energy by the way the choose touring ..dont forget,they write music,they play benefit sows,they doing side project,they play shows with other bands,they tour as welll as matt..so..seems they doing the right thing and are happy with it and they quality is in max level...travelng,changing countries and continents,preparing,and all that..is noit easy at all...
It's not easy? My ass
These guys have it easy. Real Fucking easy
Take me piece by piece..... Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
I think there has been a balance struck that has contributed to both the longevity of the band, and the output of each and every show. if they want/need time off I don't read it as them not loving music. Just recharging batteries. it has to be exhausting playing a leg of a tour at this age.
do people think that the 1996 version would have flown into nyc and played forest hills? Serious question I don't know.
agree. I think these shorter tours have been great for the level of energy, quality of the shows and Ed's voice. 2003 was great but no doubt when you go on a 70 date tour there is gonna be some duds in there just because you are tired or not feeling it. I'd rather have 10-15 kick ass shows every 12 months than 70 one year with duds thrown in then nothing for 3 or 4 years. right now I think it's a nice mix.
i agree100%..plus the quality of the shows now is unreal and 3 hours shows.. 2003 was 2 hours show and they was 12 years younger..
it d be nice if they went from 10-15 shows a year to 30 to 40 spread out over two or three "tours". i'm not thinking the quality of the show would go down at all.
seems they have a way to control their energy by the way the choose touring ..dont forget,they write music,they play benefit sows,they doing side project,they play shows with other bands,they tour as welll as matt..so..seems they doing the right thing and are happy with it and they quality is in max level...travelng,changing countries and continents,preparing,and all that..is noit easy at all...
I am pretty sure they could keep their energy up playing thirty five shows a year or the equal of ten percent of the calendar year. They can rest the other 90% of the year.
I think there has been a balance struck that has contributed to both the longevity of the band, and the output of each and every show. if they want/need time off I don't read it as them not loving music. Just recharging batteries. it has to be exhausting playing a leg of a tour at this age.
do people think that the 1996 version would have flown into nyc and played forest hills? Serious question I don't know.
agree. I think these shorter tours have been great for the level of energy, quality of the shows and Ed's voice. 2003 was great but no doubt when you go on a 70 date tour there is gonna be some duds in there just because you are tired or not feeling it. I'd rather have 10-15 kick ass shows every 12 months than 70 one year with duds thrown in then nothing for 3 or 4 years. right now I think it's a nice mix.
i agree100%..plus the quality of the shows now is unreal and 3 hours shows.. 2003 was 2 hours show and they was 12 years younger..
it d be nice if they went from 10-15 shows a year to 30 to 40 spread out over two or three "tours". i'm not thinking the quality of the show would go down at all.
seems they have a way to control their energy by the way the choose touring ..dont forget,they write music,they play benefit sows,they doing side project,they play shows with other bands,they tour as welll as matt..so..seems they doing the right thing and are happy with it and they quality is in max level...travelng,changing countries and continents,preparing,and all that..is noit easy at all...
I am pretty sure they could keep their energy up playing thirty five shows a year or the equal of ten percent of the calendar year. They can rest the other 90% of the year.
Pretty sure The Who is playing more shows in the USA the last couple tours than Pearl Jam has played in the last 5-6 tours combined.
Take me piece by piece..... Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
I think there has been a balance struck that has contributed to both the longevity of the band, and the output of each and every show. if they want/need time off I don't read it as them not loving music. Just recharging batteries. it has to be exhausting playing a leg of a tour at this age.
do people think that the 1996 version would have flown into nyc and played forest hills? Serious question I don't know.
agree. I think these shorter tours have been great for the level of energy, quality of the shows and Ed's voice. 2003 was great but no doubt when you go on a 70 date tour there is gonna be some duds in there just because you are tired or not feeling it. I'd rather have 10-15 kick ass shows every 12 months than 70 one year with duds thrown in then nothing for 3 or 4 years. right now I think it's a nice mix.
i agree100%..plus the quality of the shows now is unreal and 3 hours shows.. 2003 was 2 hours show and they was 12 years younger..
it d be nice if they went from 10-15 shows a year to 30 to 40 spread out over two or three "tours". i'm not thinking the quality of the show would go down at all.
seems they have a way to control their energy by the way the choose touring ..dont forget,they write music,they play benefit sows,they doing side project,they play shows with other bands,they tour as welll as matt..so..seems they doing the right thing and are happy with it and they quality is in max level...travelng,changing countries and continents,preparing,and all that..is noit easy at all...
I am pretty sure they could keep their energy up playing thirty five shows a year or the equal of ten percent of the calendar year. They can rest the other 90% of the year.
Pretty sure The Who is playing more shows in the USA the last couple tours than Pearl Jam has played in the last 5-6 tours combined.
Sixty year old something bruce tours like no other and plays three hour plus shows. I love Pearl jam but they are freaking lazy when it comes to touring.
I think there has been a balance struck that has contributed to both the longevity of the band, and the output of each and every show. if they want/need time off I don't read it as them not loving music. Just recharging batteries. it has to be exhausting playing a leg of a tour at this age.
do people think that the 1996 version would have flown into nyc and played forest hills? Serious question I don't know.
agree. I think these shorter tours have been great for the level of energy, quality of the shows and Ed's voice. 2003 was great but no doubt when you go on a 70 date tour there is gonna be some duds in there just because you are tired or not feeling it. I'd rather have 10-15 kick ass shows every 12 months than 70 one year with duds thrown in then nothing for 3 or 4 years. right now I think it's a nice mix.
i agree100%..plus the quality of the shows now is unreal and 3 hours shows.. 2003 was 2 hours show and they was 12 years younger..
it d be nice if they went from 10-15 shows a year to 30 to 40 spread out over two or three "tours". i'm not thinking the quality of the show would go down at all.
seems they have a way to control their energy by the way the choose touring ..dont forget,they write music,they play benefit sows,they doing side project,they play shows with other bands,they tour as welll as matt..so..seems they doing the right thing and are happy with it and they quality is in max level...travelng,changing countries and continents,preparing,and all that..is noit easy at all...
Look, I like some of you guys a lot, really, but please let it rest. We've got comparisons to dating violence, serious criminal activity and let's not forget my favourite, saying the same damn thing again and again about it. It really needs to stop. I think all that can be said has been and its over.
hollld on to the thread.....
Oh please let it rain today.
Those that can be trusted can change their mind.
0
Options
hedonist
standing on the edge of forever Posts: 24,524
Here we are now - entertain us!
Maybe they live a charmed life but they've paid their dues. I don't know what their daily lives consist of - does anyone here?
I think there has been a balance struck that has contributed to both the longevity of the band, and the output of each and every show. if they want/need time off I don't read it as them not loving music. Just recharging batteries. it has to be exhausting playing a leg of a tour at this age.
do people think that the 1996 version would have flown into nyc and played forest hills? Serious question I don't know.
agree. I think these shorter tours have been great for the level of energy, quality of the shows and Ed's voice. 2003 was great but no doubt when you go on a 70 date tour there is gonna be some duds in there just because you are tired or not feeling it. I'd rather have 10-15 kick ass shows every 12 months than 70 one year with duds thrown in then nothing for 3 or 4 years. right now I think it's a nice mix.
I'm totally on board with the band taking time off to keep this train rolling, but if you think they play better on short tours I don't know what to tell you. Pretty much every tour from 2007-2012 was pretty sloppy with one or two gems thrown in. The more this band plays the better they are. There's a reason folks love those tours from 98-2003 and 2005 (last tour where the majority of shows were above average)
I know only doing a few shows a year is how it is now but let's be realistic they're much better if they get out and tour instead of quick runs.
"What can you expect when you're on top? You know? It's like Napoleon. When he was the king, you know, people were just constantly trying to conquer him, you know, in the Roman Empire. So, it's history repeating itself all over again."
I think there has been a balance struck that has contributed to both the longevity of the band, and the output of each and every show. if they want/need time off I don't read it as them not loving music. Just recharging batteries. it has to be exhausting playing a leg of a tour at this age.
do people think that the 1996 version would have flown into nyc and played forest hills? Serious question I don't know.
agree. I think these shorter tours have been great for the level of energy, quality of the shows and Ed's voice. 2003 was great but no doubt when you go on a 70 date tour there is gonna be some duds in there just because you are tired or not feeling it. I'd rather have 10-15 kick ass shows every 12 months than 70 one year with duds thrown in then nothing for 3 or 4 years. right now I think it's a nice mix.
i agree100%..plus the quality of the shows now is unreal and 3 hours shows.. 2003 was 2 hours show and they was 12 years younger..
it d be nice if they went from 10-15 shows a year to 30 to 40 spread out over two or three "tours". i'm not thinking the quality of the show would go down at all.
seems they have a way to control their energy by the way the choose touring ..dont forget,they write music,they play benefit sows,they doing side project,they play shows with other bands,they tour as welll as matt..so..seems they doing the right thing and are happy with it and they quality is in max level...travelng,changing countries and continents,preparing,and all that..is noit easy at all...
I am pretty sure they could keep their energy up playing thirty five shows a year or the equal of ten percent of the calendar year. They can rest the other 90% of the year.
Pretty sure The Who is playing more shows in the USA the last couple tours than Pearl Jam has played in the last 5-6 tours combined.
The guys in The Who apparently need the money. Not sure what they've done with the rest of it up to this point.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
I think there has been a balance struck that has contributed to both the longevity of the band, and the output of each and every show. if they want/need time off I don't read it as them not loving music. Just recharging batteries. it has to be exhausting playing a leg of a tour at this age.
do people think that the 1996 version would have flown into nyc and played forest hills? Serious question I don't know.
agree. I think these shorter tours have been great for the level of energy, quality of the shows and Ed's voice. 2003 was great but no doubt when you go on a 70 date tour there is gonna be some duds in there just because you are tired or not feeling it. I'd rather have 10-15 kick ass shows every 12 months than 70 one year with duds thrown in then nothing for 3 or 4 years. right now I think it's a nice mix.
i agree100%..plus the quality of the shows now is unreal and 3 hours shows.. 2003 was 2 hours show and they was 12 years younger..
it d be nice if they went from 10-15 shows a year to 30 to 40 spread out over two or three "tours". i'm not thinking the quality of the show would go down at all.
seems they have a way to control their energy by the way the choose touring ..dont forget,they write music,they play benefit sows,they doing side project,they play shows with other bands,they tour as welll as matt..so..seems they doing the right thing and are happy with it and they quality is in max level...travelng,changing countries and continents,preparing,and all that..is noit easy at all...
I am pretty sure they could keep their energy up playing thirty five shows a year or the equal of ten percent of the calendar year. They can rest the other 90% of the year.
Pretty sure The Who is playing more shows in the USA the last couple tours than Pearl Jam has played in the last 5-6 tours combined.
The guys in The Who apparently need the money. Not sure what they've done with the rest of it up to this point.
Who cares what they did with their money. The point is, they are playing a full tour!
I think there has been a balance struck that has contributed to both the longevity of the band, and the output of each and every show. if they want/need time off I don't read it as them not loving music. Just recharging batteries. it has to be exhausting playing a leg of a tour at this age.
do people think that the 1996 version would have flown into nyc and played forest hills? Serious question I don't know.
agree. I think these shorter tours have been great for the level of energy, quality of the shows and Ed's voice. 2003 was great but no doubt when you go on a 70 date tour there is gonna be some duds in there just because you are tired or not feeling it. I'd rather have 10-15 kick ass shows every 12 months than 70 one year with duds thrown in then nothing for 3 or 4 years. right now I think it's a nice mix.
i agree100%..plus the quality of the shows now is unreal and 3 hours shows.. 2003 was 2 hours show and they was 12 years younger..
it d be nice if they went from 10-15 shows a year to 30 to 40 spread out over two or three "tours". i'm not thinking the quality of the show would go down at all.
seems they have a way to control their energy by the way the choose touring ..dont forget,they write music,they play benefit sows,they doing side project,they play shows with other bands,they tour as welll as matt..so..seems they doing the right thing and are happy with it and they quality is in max level...travelng,changing countries and continents,preparing,and all that..is noit easy at all...
I am pretty sure they could keep their energy up playing thirty five shows a year or the equal of ten percent of the calendar year. They can rest the other 90% of the year.
Pretty sure The Who is playing more shows in the USA the last couple tours than Pearl Jam has played in the last 5-6 tours combined.
The guys in The Who apparently need the money. Not sure what they've done with the rest of it up to this point.
Who cares what they did with their money. The point is, they are playing a full tour!
Aren't you even just the least bit interested as to why they would need money at this point?
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
I think there has been a balance struck that has contributed to both the longevity of the band, and the output of each and every show. if they want/need time off I don't read it as them not loving music. Just recharging batteries. it has to be exhausting playing a leg of a tour at this age.
do people think that the 1996 version would have flown into nyc and played forest hills? Serious question I don't know.
agree. I think these shorter tours have been great for the level of energy, quality of the shows and Ed's voice. 2003 was great but no doubt when you go on a 70 date tour there is gonna be some duds in there just because you are tired or not feeling it. I'd rather have 10-15 kick ass shows every 12 months than 70 one year with duds thrown in then nothing for 3 or 4 years. right now I think it's a nice mix.
i agree100%..plus the quality of the shows now is unreal and 3 hours shows.. 2003 was 2 hours show and they was 12 years younger..
it d be nice if they went from 10-15 shows a year to 30 to 40 spread out over two or three "tours". i'm not thinking the quality of the show would go down at all.
seems they have a way to control their energy by the way the choose touring ..dont forget,they write music,they play benefit sows,they doing side project,they play shows with other bands,they tour as welll as matt..so..seems they doing the right thing and are happy with it and they quality is in max level...travelng,changing countries and continents,preparing,and all that..is noit easy at all...
I am pretty sure they could keep their energy up playing thirty five shows a year or the equal of ten percent of the calendar year. They can rest the other 90% of the year.
Pretty sure The Who is playing more shows in the USA the last couple tours than Pearl Jam has played in the last 5-6 tours combined.
Sixty year old something bruce tours like no other and plays three hour plus shows. I love Pearl jam but they are freaking lazy when it comes to touring.
I think there has been a balance struck that has contributed to both the longevity of the band, and the output of each and every show. if they want/need time off I don't read it as them not loving music. Just recharging batteries. it has to be exhausting playing a leg of a tour at this age.
do people think that the 1996 version would have flown into nyc and played forest hills? Serious question I don't know.
agree. I think these shorter tours have been great for the level of energy, quality of the shows and Ed's voice. 2003 was great but no doubt when you go on a 70 date tour there is gonna be some duds in there just because you are tired or not feeling it. I'd rather have 10-15 kick ass shows every 12 months than 70 one year with duds thrown in then nothing for 3 or 4 years. right now I think it's a nice mix.
i agree100%..plus the quality of the shows now is unreal and 3 hours shows.. 2003 was 2 hours show and they was 12 years younger..
it d be nice if they went from 10-15 shows a year to 30 to 40 spread out over two or three "tours". i'm not thinking the quality of the show would go down at all.
seems they have a way to control their energy by the way the choose touring ..dont forget,they write music,they play benefit sows,they doing side project,they play shows with other bands,they tour as welll as matt..so..seems they doing the right thing and are happy with it and they quality is in max level...travelng,changing countries and continents,preparing,and all that..is noit easy at all...
I am pretty sure they could keep their energy up playing thirty five shows a year or the equal of ten percent of the calendar year. They can rest the other 90% of the year.
Pretty sure The Who is playing more shows in the USA the last couple tours than Pearl Jam has played in the last 5-6 tours combined.
The guys in The Who apparently need the money. Not sure what they've done with the rest of it up to this point.
Who cares what they did with their money. The point is, they are playing a full tour!
only in specific countries tho..3-4 europeans and at usa and canada.same the venues.. .and thats all
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
I've grown up with this band. I started listening to them when I was 10 and have never found another band that has even come close. It was a sad day FOR ME when I realised that the band I fell in love with was no longer the fiery, angry, passionate, creative machine that produced those first 5-7 records. But over the last 5 years it has become obvious that they are not the same band. Some of the songs on the last few records are amazing, and some of their shows in the last 5 years have been epic, but nothing will compare with masterpieces like No Code or the best shows from 95-2000.
That's OK, it's normal and I appreciate why it has happened. But is seems obvious that they are still playing Pearl Jam shows for the fans and we should just be happy that we get to see them at all. They could easily just hang it up, and enjoy being creative with their other friends without the pressure of a huge fan base (us).
I'm sure they enjoy playing together and seeing old friends (fans, crew, each other) but you're all kidding yourselves if you think they're going to play another 70 show world tour (or even 40). I don't think they'd enjoy it they way they did 15 years ago and I don't think it would be good for the band, the fans or the music.
One thing that seems obvious to me is that they don't really enjoy spending loads of time writing music together. To be honest, they don't seem to want to spend much time together at all. They all have other social groups now that obviously make them feel more creative than they feel with each other. Why else would they all be spending so much time doing other projects? And most of them have families that they need to raise (no amount of money can replace time spent with your wife and kids).
I am not bitter about any of this. Just the opposite, it makes me happy to see these guys enjoying their lives so much. The last thing I'd want is for them to keep playing 70 show tours because they have nothing else to live for, only to burn out like so many great bands have. At this point, I'd almost feel guilty if they weren't pacing themselves.
They are not the same band they were 10 years ago, certainly not the same as they were in 2000. It would be AMAZING if they all came together for JUST ONE MORE record where they all sit down together and write, TOGETHER. For me, that would be much more impressive and exciting than a full on tour.
But imagine how hard that must be? To keep the creative juices flowing, tour after tour, record after record, for 25 years? Hell I've only been alive for 31 and I already feel like my best and brightest years are behind me (I'm currently the guy from "Sleight of Hand").
Their music still does the same thing for me as it did 15 years ago, and I still love listening to, and directing, their latest bootlegs. I will absolutely pay any amount of money to see them when they tour Europe. But I'm managing my expectations for sure, and spending more time looking for other, younger, more energetic bands to follow. I will never find another band like Pearl Jam, but I'm not sure that is a bad thing!
I think there has been a balance struck that has contributed to both the longevity of the band, and the output of each and every show. if they want/need time off I don't read it as them not loving music. Just recharging batteries. it has to be exhausting playing a leg of a tour at this age.
do people think that the 1996 version would have flown into nyc and played forest hills? Serious question I don't know.
agree. I think these shorter tours have been great for the level of energy, quality of the shows and Ed's voice. 2003 was great but no doubt when you go on a 70 date tour there is gonna be some duds in there just because you are tired or not feeling it. I'd rather have 10-15 kick ass shows every 12 months than 70 one year with duds thrown in then nothing for 3 or 4 years. right now I think it's a nice mix.
i agree100%..plus the quality of the shows now is unreal and 3 hours shows.. 2003 was 2 hours show and they was 12 years younger..
it d be nice if they went from 10-15 shows a year to 30 to 40 spread out over two or three "tours". i'm not thinking the quality of the show would go down at all.
seems they have a way to control their energy by the way the choose touring ..dont forget,they write music,they play benefit sows,they doing side project,they play shows with other bands,they tour as welll as matt..so..seems they doing the right thing and are happy with it and they quality is in max level...travelng,changing countries and continents,preparing,and all that..is noit easy at all...
I am pretty sure they could keep their energy up playing thirty five shows a year or the equal of ten percent of the calendar year. They can rest the other 90% of the year.
Pretty sure The Who is playing more shows in the USA the last couple tours than Pearl Jam has played in the last 5-6 tours combined.
The guys in The Who apparently need the money. Not sure what they've done with the rest of it up to this point.
Who cares what they did with their money. The point is, they are playing a full tour!
only in specific countries tho..3-4 europeans and at usa and canada.same the venues.. .and thats all
the who are playing 41 shows this year....i'll take that from pj any day of the week.
I think there has been a balance struck that has contributed to both the longevity of the band, and the output of each and every show. if they want/need time off I don't read it as them not loving music. Just recharging batteries. it has to be exhausting playing a leg of a tour at this age.
do people think that the 1996 version would have flown into nyc and played forest hills? Serious question I don't know.
agree. I think these shorter tours have been great for the level of energy, quality of the shows and Ed's voice. 2003 was great but no doubt when you go on a 70 date tour there is gonna be some duds in there just because you are tired or not feeling it. I'd rather have 10-15 kick ass shows every 12 months than 70 one year with duds thrown in then nothing for 3 or 4 years. right now I think it's a nice mix.
i agree100%..plus the quality of the shows now is unreal and 3 hours shows.. 2003 was 2 hours show and they was 12 years younger..
it d be nice if they went from 10-15 shows a year to 30 to 40 spread out over two or three "tours". i'm not thinking the quality of the show would go down at all.
seems they have a way to control their energy by the way the choose touring ..dont forget,they write music,they play benefit sows,they doing side project,they play shows with other bands,they tour as welll as matt..so..seems they doing the right thing and are happy with it and they quality is in max level...travelng,changing countries and continents,preparing,and all that..is noit easy at all...
I am pretty sure they could keep their energy up playing thirty five shows a year or the equal of ten percent of the calendar year. They can rest the other 90% of the year.
Pretty sure The Who is playing more shows in the USA the last couple tours than Pearl Jam has played in the last 5-6 tours combined.
The guys in The Who apparently need the money. Not sure what they've done with the rest of it up to this point.
Who cares what they did with their money. The point is, they are playing a full tour!
only in specific countries tho..3-4 europeans and at usa and canada.same the venues.. .and thats all
the who are playing 41 shows this year....i'll take that from pj any day of the week.
The who also just postponed a few dates since Rogers voice could not take the stress
...got a mind full of questions and a teacher in my soul...
Comments
IBTL
Sammi: Wanna just break up?
2003 was 2 hours show and they was 12 years younger..
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
My ass
These guys have it easy.
Real Fucking easy
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
Nothing wrong with Pearl Jam choosing when to play shows, where, and how. They don't owe us anything
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
Those that can be trusted can change their mind.
Maybe they live a charmed life but they've paid their dues. I don't know what their daily lives consist of - does anyone here?
I know only doing a few shows a year is how it is now but let's be realistic they're much better if they get out and tour instead of quick runs.
It's lucky they can get out there and earn more.
I'll take what I can get.
.and thats all
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
That's OK, it's normal and I appreciate why it has happened. But is seems obvious that they are still playing Pearl Jam shows for the fans and we should just be happy that we get to see them at all. They could easily just hang it up, and enjoy being creative with their other friends without the pressure of a huge fan base (us).
I'm sure they enjoy playing together and seeing old friends (fans, crew, each other) but you're all kidding yourselves if you think they're going to play another 70 show world tour (or even 40). I don't think they'd enjoy it they way they did 15 years ago and I don't think it would be good for the band, the fans or the music.
One thing that seems obvious to me is that they don't really enjoy spending loads of time writing music together. To be honest, they don't seem to want to spend much time together at all. They all have other social groups now that obviously make them feel more creative than they feel with each other. Why else would they all be spending so much time doing other projects? And most of them have families that they need to raise (no amount of money can replace time spent with your wife and kids).
I am not bitter about any of this. Just the opposite, it makes me happy to see these guys enjoying their lives so much. The last thing I'd want is for them to keep playing 70 show tours because they have nothing else to live for, only to burn out like so many great bands have. At this point, I'd almost feel guilty if they weren't pacing themselves.
They are not the same band they were 10 years ago, certainly not the same as they were in 2000. It would be AMAZING if they all came together for JUST ONE MORE record where they all sit down together and write, TOGETHER. For me, that would be much more impressive and exciting than a full on tour.
But imagine how hard that must be? To keep the creative juices flowing, tour after tour, record after record, for 25 years? Hell I've only been alive for 31 and I already feel like my best and brightest years are behind me (I'm currently the guy from "Sleight of Hand").
Their music still does the same thing for me as it did 15 years ago, and I still love listening to, and directing, their latest bootlegs. I will absolutely pay any amount of money to see them when they tour Europe. But I'm managing my expectations for sure, and spending more time looking for other, younger, more energetic bands to follow. I will never find another band like Pearl Jam, but I'm not sure that is a bad thing!