I see it as pacing themselves myself. Would we rather they went out with a bang and did 100 dates in 2004, 2005, and 2006 then called it quits and we are all hoping for 1 show here and there like fans of RATM?
For me this is perfect. They are still playing, with enough frequency that a little effort and I can see them every year or every other or so... Shows IMO are spectacular. I think this pacing allows them to play well into this 3rd decade.
I see it as pacing themselves myself. Would we rather they went out with a bang and did 100 dates in 2004, 2005, and 2006 then called it quits and we are all hoping for 1 show here and there like fans of RATM?
For me this is perfect. They are still playing, with enough frequency that a little effort and I can see them every year or every other or so... Shows IMO are spectacular. I think this pacing allows them to play well into this 3rd decade.
no one is saying play 100 dates a year but asking for 35 to 45 shows a year doesn't seem like a drastic request. play 15 shows...have 3 months off. play another 15 shows.....take another 3 months off. last leg....15 shows...take the year off. not too hard.
It could look a little something like this:
leg 1: march (15 shows) leg 2: july (15 shows) leg 3: November (15 shows)
I think the band could recover in 3 months and then kick ass 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.
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.
true but the Who took years where they didn't play at all. how many shows did the Who play in the 1990s? Even Bruce had a period after the Tunnel of Love album where he didn't tour all that much (if my memory serves me correctly).
I'll ask you guys again, would you rather have a 70 show tour for one year then nothing for 3 or 4 years? spread out some shows year-to-year is better for the fans and better for the groups long term togetherness. not sure how this is even a debate.
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.
yes..cos most of them are at usa...i take better per year,15 pj in europe or at austtralia or South America as i said,the who plays lately always at usa-canada and 4-5 countries at europe i prefer pj ,who plays atleast at 4 continents often
"...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...
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.
yes..cos most of them are at usa...i take better per year,15 pj in europe or at austtralia or South America as i said,the who plays lately always at usa-canada and 4-5 countries at europe i prefer pj ,who plays atleast at 4 continents often
dan-sheffer 13h ago Very much so! The Who will be there ....no reason for the band to turn down the fans! Reply
No need for you to try to make it a band vs fans issue. Actually its really un-fucking fair. "the band" just gave you a number of reasons they would have to 'turn down the fans'. Accept it and move on.
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.
true but the Who took years where they didn't play at all. how many shows did the Who play in the 1990s? Even Bruce had a period after the Tunnel of Love album where he didn't tour all that much (if my memory serves me correctly).
I'll ask you guys again, would you rather have a 70 show tour for one year then nothing for 3 or 4 years? spread out some shows year-to-year is better for the fans and better for the groups long term togetherness. not sure how this is even a debate.
but they haven't had a 70 show tour since 2006....not sure how this can even be a debate. no one is saying 70 shows. but to perform 45 shows in a year.....actually work on stage for approximately 150 hours? come on.
Sure, I would prefer if they were all energized and driven to constantly create as a band and output a record every 2 years or so and tour like the Allmans. But that isn't who they are. They seem to keep energized by the pacing we have seen. I do think a typical show takes a lot more out of EV than it does many other bands who have extensive touring. He puts a lot into it and pushes his vocal chords. How many times have you heard about him getting sick when they get going on tour?
At this point it is what it is... and I am very thankful there are opportunities for me to see them live nearly every year or so. I'm yet to see a bad show.
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.
true but the Who took years where they didn't play at all. how many shows did the Who play in the 1990s? Even Bruce had a period after the Tunnel of Love album where he didn't tour all that much (if my memory serves me correctly).
I'll ask you guys again, would you rather have a 70 show tour for one year then nothing for 3 or 4 years? spread out some shows year-to-year is better for the fans and better for the groups long term togetherness. not sure how this is even a debate.
but they haven't had a 70 show tour since 2006....not sure how this can even be a debate. no one is saying 70 shows. but to perform 45 shows in a year.....actually work on stage for approximately 150 hours? come on.
They are pacing themselves?
Haha
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.
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.
true but the Who took years where they didn't play at all. how many shows did the Who play in the 1990s? Even Bruce had a period after the Tunnel of Love album where he didn't tour all that much (if my memory serves me correctly).
I'll ask you guys again, would you rather have a 70 show tour for one year then nothing for 3 or 4 years? spread out some shows year-to-year is better for the fans and better for the groups long term togetherness. not sure how this is even a debate.
but they haven't had a 70 show tour since 2006....not sure how this can even be a debate. no one is saying 70 shows. but to perform 45 shows in a year.....actually work on stage for approximately 150 hours? come on.
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.
PJ of 95/96 took more chances they didn't have to have safety nets & i totally get why they are the way they are as a band they've earned it no doubt .....To me back then it all seemed so unplanned ....
since when did this band become circus monkeys that are expected to perform at the will of the circus owner? seriously, they are self employed, and like any self employed person, they can show up when and if they fucking want to. most bands tour more than they do because most bands haven't been doing this for 25 years. and those that have, have wasted their money and need it in order to survive, or their egos require them to be in front of 15K people 200 days a year.
I'm 40 years old. I cannot fucking imagine the rigors of touring for 2 weeks at a time, nevermind what some people here expect. and these guys are up to 10 years older than I am. they say shift work takes 5-10 years off your life span. can you imagine what 20 years of constant travel and 2 or 3 plus hours of performance (and wine) would do to you?
and back to the crowd fund thing.....if the band management came out and said "unlikely", then give it up. he wasn't obligated to respond at all. since he did, that means it ain't happening.
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.
PJ of 95/96 took more chances they didn't have to have safety nets & i totally get why they are the way they are as a band they've earned it no doubt .....To me back then it all seemed so unplanned ....
and then roskilde happened.......everything is now precisely planned for a very good reason.
I agree. I don't want or expect the band to tour more than they do or feel like. I love PJ shows as much as any of you, I get ridiculously excited when I can get to one, and I have gone to what most people would consider extreme lengths to get to a show (as many of you have). But it's not an actual addiction, lol. I don't suffer from withdrawal when they aren't touring. And that might be because I allow myself to obsess over other bands as well, so I can go see any number of shows all through the year for my "fix". Meanwhile, I like to think that Pearl Jam is doing exactly what feels right to them, and as fans of the band, that is what we should all be satified with (in reality... in your dreams they tour all the time). The last thing I'd like to see is for any member of the band feeling dissatisfied about how things are with the band and not want to tour as much as the rest, because at this point all it would probably take is for one member to say "no more", and they would very possibly just decide to disband or go on an indefinite hiatus.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
since when did this band become circus monkeys that are expected to perform at the will of the circus owner? seriously, they are self employed, and like any self employed person, they can show up when and if they fucking want to. most bands tour more than they do because most bands haven't been doing this for 25 years. and those that have, have wasted their money and need it in order to survive, or their egos require them to be in front of 15K people 200 days a year.
I'm 40 years old. I cannot fucking imagine the rigors of touring for 2 weeks at a time, nevermind what some people here expect. and these guys are up to 10 years older than I am. they say shift work takes 5-10 years off your life span. can you imagine what 20 years of constant travel and 2 or 3 plus hours of performance (and wine) would do to you?
and back to the crowd fund thing.....if the band management came out and said "unlikely", then give it up. he wasn't obligated to respond at all. since he did, that means it ain't happening.
since when did this band become circus monkeys that are expected to perform at the will of the circus owner? seriously, they are self employed, and like any self employed person, they can show up when and if they fucking want to. most bands tour more than they do because most bands haven't been doing this for 25 years. and those that have, have wasted their money and need it in order to survive, or their egos require them to be in front of 15K people 200 days a year.
I'm 40 years old. I cannot fucking imagine the rigors of touring for 2 weeks at a time, nevermind what some people here expect. and these guys are up to 10 years older than I am. they say shift work takes 5-10 years off your life span. can you imagine what 20 years of constant travel and 2 or 3 plus hours of performance (and wine) would do to you?
and back to the crowd fund thing.....if the band management came out and said "unlikely", then give it up. he wasn't obligated to respond at all. since he did, that means it ain't happening.
since when did this band become circus monkeys that are expected to perform at the will of the circus owner? seriously, they are self employed, and like any self employed person, they can show up when and if they fucking want to. most bands tour more than they do because most bands haven't been doing this for 25 years. and those that have, have wasted their money and need it in order to survive, or their egos require them to be in front of 15K people 200 days a year.
I'm 40 years old. I cannot fucking imagine the rigors of touring for 2 weeks at a time, nevermind what some people here expect. and these guys are up to 10 years older than I am. they say shift work takes 5-10 years off your life span. can you imagine what 20 years of constant travel and 2 or 3 plus hours of performance (and wine) would do to you?
and back to the crowd fund thing.....if the band management came out and said "unlikely", then give it up. he wasn't obligated to respond at all. since he did, that means it ain't happening.
Completely agree.
These guys (PJ that is) are in a spot where they don't have to do shit unless they really want to. And good for them.
I'm on the push to 40 and if I didn't have to work I sure as hell wouldn't, or I would when I wanted to, or when convienent. Who wouldn't?
since when did this band become circus monkeys that are expected to perform at the will of the circus owner? seriously, they are self employed, and like any self employed person, they can show up when and if they fucking want to. most bands tour more than they do because most bands haven't been doing this for 25 years. and those that have, have wasted their money and need it in order to survive, or their egos require them to be in front of 15K people 200 days a year.
I'm 40 years old. I cannot fucking imagine the rigors of touring for 2 weeks at a time, nevermind what some people here expect. and these guys are up to 10 years older than I am. they say shift work takes 5-10 years off your life span. can you imagine what 20 years of constant travel and 2 or 3 plus hours of performance (and wine) would do to you?
and back to the crowd fund thing.....if the band management came out and said "unlikely", then give it up. he wasn't obligated to respond at all. since he did, that means it ain't happening.
very well said
"...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.....”
since when did this band become circus monkeys that are expected to perform at the will of the circus owner? seriously, they are self employed, and like any self employed person, they can show up when and if they fucking want to. most bands tour more than they do because most bands haven't been doing this for 25 years. and those that have, have wasted their money and need it in order to survive, or their egos require them to be in front of 15K people 200 days a year.
I'm 40 years old. I cannot fucking imagine the rigors of touring for 2 weeks at a time, nevermind what some people here expect. and these guys are up to 10 years older than I am. they say shift work takes 5-10 years off your life span. can you imagine what 20 years of constant travel and 2 or 3 plus hours of performance (and wine) would do to you?
and back to the crowd fund thing.....if the band management came out and said "unlikely", then give it up. he wasn't obligated to respond at all. since he did, that means it ain't happening.
Great post! I'm sure we would all love a 40+ show tour but I agree with hughs post and would do the same thing if I were in the bands position.
you 40 year olds act like you're 80! hit up the gym!
Yeah, does the 40 year old realize his social security wont kick in for another 30 years? Meaning ya better get used to your 9 to 5.... 40 hour a week schedule.
And maybe, just maybe, other bands still do full blown tours, because they LOVE TOURING. Maybe its not because they are broke and wasted all their money. Maybe they just enjoy playing live music.......
Take me piece by piece..... Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
you 40 year olds act like you're 80! hit up the gym!
Yeah, does the 40 year old realize his social security wont kick in for another 30 years? Meaning ya better get used to your 9 to 5.... 40 hour a week schedule.
And maybe, just maybe, other bands still do full blown tours, because they LOVE TOURING. Maybe its not because they are broke and wasted all their money. Maybe they just enjoy playing live music.......
i don't know......3 hour shows seem to suggest the band enjoys playing live music. But who the fuck LOVES touring? I have never met one person, even people who like their job, who enjoy the travel that comes along with it. it's exhausting. and not to mention you are away from your kids. maybe 80's bands who are just in it for the hookers and blow.
you 40 year olds act like you're 80! hit up the gym!
Yeah, does the 40 year old realize his social security wont kick in for another 30 years? Meaning ya better get used to your 9 to 5.... 40 hour a week schedule.
And maybe, just maybe, other bands still do full blown tours, because they LOVE TOURING. Maybe its not because they are broke and wasted all their money. Maybe they just enjoy playing live music.......
i don't know......3 hour shows seem to suggest the band enjoys playing live music. But who the fuck LOVES touring? I have never met one person, even people who like their job, who enjoy the travel that comes along with it. it's exhausting. and not to mention you are away from your kids. maybe 80's bands who are just in it for the hookers and blow.
Pearl Jam plays 15 shows a year in the USA?? Right? Since 2006, they average about 15 shows a year?
They can absolutely do whatever they want...I get that But dear lord.....These guys really aren't over doing anything here....hehehe
Hell, if anything, they are more rested than the other 250 billion hard working folks, on this planet....hehehehehe
Take me piece by piece..... Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
Comments
I see it as pacing themselves myself. Would we rather they went out with a bang and did 100 dates in 2004, 2005, and 2006 then called it quits and we are all hoping for 1 show here and there like fans of RATM?
For me this is perfect. They are still playing, with enough frequency that a little effort and I can see them every year or every other or so... Shows IMO are spectacular. I think this pacing allows them to play well into this 3rd decade.
It could look a little something like this:
leg 1: march (15 shows)
leg 2: july (15 shows)
leg 3: November (15 shows)
I think the band could recover in 3 months and then kick ass again.
I'll ask you guys again, would you rather have a 70 show tour for one year then nothing for 3 or 4 years? spread out some shows year-to-year is better for the fans and better for the groups long term togetherness. not sure how this is even a debate.
as i said,the who plays lately always at usa-canada and 4-5 countries at europe
i prefer pj ,who plays atleast at 4 continents often
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
dan-sheffer 13h ago
Very much so! The Who will be there ....no reason for the band to turn down the fans!
Reply
No need for you to try to make it a band vs fans issue. Actually its really un-fucking fair. "the band" just gave you a number of reasons they would have to 'turn down the fans'. Accept it and move on.
no one is saying 70 shows. but to perform 45 shows in a year.....actually work on stage for approximately 150 hours? come on.
At this point it is what it is... and I am very thankful there are opportunities for me to see them live nearly every year or so. I'm yet to see a bad show.
Haha
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
I'm 40 years old. I cannot fucking imagine the rigors of touring for 2 weeks at a time, nevermind what some people here expect. and these guys are up to 10 years older than I am. they say shift work takes 5-10 years off your life span. can you imagine what 20 years of constant travel and 2 or 3 plus hours of performance (and wine) would do to you?
and back to the crowd fund thing.....if the band management came out and said "unlikely", then give it up. he wasn't obligated to respond at all. since he did, that means it ain't happening.
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
Plus solo tours, side projects, a major documentary, multiple concert films, hundreds of bootlegs...
I think they are doing it perfectly
Last: SEA2 08/10/2018
Next: ??
http://expressobeans.com/members/collections.php?id=29417
“I think you won, but I enjoyed the fight” - EV
Last: SEA2 08/10/2018
Next: ??
http://expressobeans.com/members/collections.php?id=29417
“I think you won, but I enjoyed the fight” - EV
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
These guys (PJ that is) are in a spot where they don't have to do shit unless they really want to. And good for them.
I'm on the push to 40 and if I didn't have to work I sure as hell wouldn't, or I would when I wanted to, or when convienent. Who wouldn't?
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
Meaning ya better get used to your 9 to 5.... 40 hour a week schedule.
And maybe, just maybe, other bands still do full blown tours, because they LOVE TOURING. Maybe its not because they are broke and wasted all their money. Maybe they just enjoy playing live music.......
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
www.headstonesband.com
Since 2006, they average about 15 shows a year?
They can absolutely do whatever they want...I get that
But dear lord.....These guys really aren't over doing anything here....hehehe
Hell, if anything, they are more rested than the other 250 billion hard working folks, on this planet....hehehehehe
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....