Crowdsourcing "Unlikely to Happen"

1…5791011

Comments

  • PJfanwillneverleave1
    PJfanwillneverleave1 Posts: 12,885
    I think the last thing they want is to become a rent-a-band.
  • pjhawks
    pjhawks Posts: 12,964
    MayDay10 said:

    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.
  • bootlegger10
    bootlegger10 Posts: 16,263
    pjhawks said:

    MayDay10 said:

    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.
  • whispering hands
    whispering hands Under your skin Posts: 13,527
    MayDay10 said:

    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.
  • Gary Carter
    Gary Carter Posts: 14,077
    demetrios said:

    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?

  • Last-12-Exit
    Last-12-Exit Charleston, SC Posts: 8,661
    It's not happening. This should end. As quickly as possible.
  • dimitrispearljam
    dimitrispearljam Posts: 139,725
    pjhawks said:

    MayDay10 said:

    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.....”
  • mcgruff10
    mcgruff10 New Jersey Posts: 29,146
    dimitrispearljam said:

    pjhawks said:

    MayDay10 said:

    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'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • dimitrispearljam
    dimitrispearljam Posts: 139,725
    mcgruff10 said:

    dimitrispearljam said:

    pjhawks said:

    MayDay10 said:

    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.....”
  • SPEEDY MCCREADY
    SPEEDY MCCREADY Posts: 26,953
    dimitrispearljam said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    dimitrispearljam said:

    pjhawks said:

    MayDay10 said:

    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.....
  • ForceofNature101
    ForceofNature101 Posts: 1,295
    Crowdsourcing is us kind of throwing money at them and going "play for us!"

    Nothing wrong with Pearl Jam choosing when to play shows, where, and how. They don't owe us anything
  • mcgruff10
    mcgruff10 New Jersey Posts: 29,146
    dimitrispearljam said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    dimitrispearljam said:

    pjhawks said:

    MayDay10 said:

    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'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • SPEEDY MCCREADY
    SPEEDY MCCREADY Posts: 26,953
    mcgruff10 said:

    dimitrispearljam said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    dimitrispearljam said:

    pjhawks said:

    MayDay10 said:

    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.....
  • mcgruff10
    mcgruff10 New Jersey Posts: 29,146
    SPEEDY MCCREADY said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    dimitrispearljam said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    dimitrispearljam said:

    pjhawks said:

    MayDay10 said:

    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'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • mcgruff10
    mcgruff10 New Jersey Posts: 29,146
    SPEEDY MCCREADY said:

    dimitrispearljam said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    dimitrispearljam said:

    pjhawks said:

    MayDay10 said:

    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
    Agreed.
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • FoxyRedLa
    FoxyRedLa Lauren / MI Posts: 4,810
    2-feign-reluctance said:

    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.

    :whistle: hollld on to the thread..... :lol:
    Oh please let it rain today.
    Those that can be trusted can change their mind.
  • hedonist
    hedonist 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?
  • PJfanwillneverleave1
    PJfanwillneverleave1 Posts: 12,885
    edited May 2015
    Maybe this last SA tour is their going out with a bang and Pearl Jam will be over.
    Post edited by PJfanwillneverleave1 on
  • reedrothchild
    reedrothchild Posts: 635
    pjhawks said:

    MayDay10 said:

    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."
  • justam
    justam Posts: 21,415
    This crowd fund topic has become like other train-wreck threads of old. Lately I've checked it to see if there's anything new and humorous in here.
    &&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Categories