Crowdsourcing "Unlikely to Happen"
Comments
-
The guys in The Who apparently need the money. Not sure what they've done with the rest of it up to this point.SPEEDY MCCREADY said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
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.dimitrispearljam said:
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...mcgruff10 said:
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.dimitrispearljam said:
i agree100%..plus the quality of the shows now is unreal and 3 hours shows..pjhawks said:
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.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.
2003 was 2 hours show and they was 12 years younger..my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
Who cares what they did with their money. The point is, they are playing a full tour!oftenreading said:
The guys in The Who apparently need the money. Not sure what they've done with the rest of it up to this point.SPEEDY MCCREADY said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
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.dimitrispearljam said:
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...mcgruff10 said:
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.dimitrispearljam said:
i agree100%..plus the quality of the shows now is unreal and 3 hours shows..pjhawks said:
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.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.
2003 was 2 hours show and they was 12 years younger..I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
Everybody needs money to live!
It's lucky they can get out there and earn more.&&&&&&&&&&&&&&0 -
Aren't you even just the least bit interested as to why they would need money at this point?mcgruff10 said:
Who cares what they did with their money. The point is, they are playing a full tour!oftenreading said:
The guys in The Who apparently need the money. Not sure what they've done with the rest of it up to this point.SPEEDY MCCREADY said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
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.dimitrispearljam said:
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...mcgruff10 said:
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.dimitrispearljam said:
i agree100%..plus the quality of the shows now is unreal and 3 hours shows..pjhawks said:
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.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.
2003 was 2 hours show and they was 12 years younger..
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
Exactly. Hahahamcgruff10 said:
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.SPEEDY MCCREADY said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
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.dimitrispearljam said:
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...mcgruff10 said:
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.dimitrispearljam said:
i agree100%..plus the quality of the shows now is unreal and 3 hours shows..pjhawks said:
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.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.
2003 was 2 hours show and they was 12 years younger..0 -
who are we to question this bands touring plans.....they do what they are happy doing and they earned that right.
I'll take what I can get.0 -
only in specific countries tho..3-4 europeans and at usa and canada.same the venues..mcgruff10 said:
Who cares what they did with their money. The point is, they are playing a full tour!oftenreading said:
The guys in The Who apparently need the money. Not sure what they've done with the rest of it up to this point.SPEEDY MCCREADY said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
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.dimitrispearljam said:
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...mcgruff10 said:
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.dimitrispearljam said:
i agree100%..plus the quality of the shows now is unreal and 3 hours shows..pjhawks said:
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.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.
2003 was 2 hours show and they was 12 years younger..
.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.....”0 -
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!0 -
the who are playing 41 shows this year....i'll take that from pj any day of the week.dimitrispearljam said:
only in specific countries tho..3-4 europeans and at usa and canada.same the venues..mcgruff10 said:
Who cares what they did with their money. The point is, they are playing a full tour!oftenreading said:
The guys in The Who apparently need the money. Not sure what they've done with the rest of it up to this point.SPEEDY MCCREADY said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
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.dimitrispearljam said:
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...mcgruff10 said:
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.dimitrispearljam said:
i agree100%..plus the quality of the shows now is unreal and 3 hours shows..pjhawks said:
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.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.
2003 was 2 hours show and they was 12 years younger..
.and thats allI'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
The who also just postponed a few dates since Rogers voice could not take the stressmcgruff10 said:
the who are playing 41 shows this year....i'll take that from pj any day of the week.dimitrispearljam said:
only in specific countries tho..3-4 europeans and at usa and canada.same the venues..mcgruff10 said:
Who cares what they did with their money. The point is, they are playing a full tour!oftenreading said:
The guys in The Who apparently need the money. Not sure what they've done with the rest of it up to this point.SPEEDY MCCREADY said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
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.dimitrispearljam said:
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...mcgruff10 said:
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.dimitrispearljam said:
i agree100%..plus the quality of the shows now is unreal and 3 hours shows..pjhawks said:
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.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.
2003 was 2 hours show and they was 12 years younger..
.and thats all...got a mind full of questions and a teacher in my soul...0 -
Exactlypdalowsky said:who are we to question this bands touring plans.....they do what they are happy doing and they earned that right.
I'll take what I can get.
...got a mind full of questions and a teacher in my soul...0 -
Good post rtwilli4
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.
Post edited by MayDay10 on0 -
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.MayDay10 said:Good post rtwilli4
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 ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
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).mcgruff10 said:
the who are playing 41 shows this year....i'll take that from pj any day of the week.dimitrispearljam said:
only in specific countries tho..3-4 europeans and at usa and canada.same the venues..mcgruff10 said:
Who cares what they did with their money. The point is, they are playing a full tour!oftenreading said:
The guys in The Who apparently need the money. Not sure what they've done with the rest of it up to this point.SPEEDY MCCREADY said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
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.dimitrispearljam said:
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...mcgruff10 said:
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.dimitrispearljam said:
i agree100%..plus the quality of the shows now is unreal and 3 hours shows..pjhawks said:
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.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.
2003 was 2 hours show and they was 12 years younger..
.and thats all
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.0 -
yes..cos most of them are at usa...i take better per year,15 pj in europe or at austtralia or South Americamcgruff10 said:
the who are playing 41 shows this year....i'll take that from pj any day of the week.dimitrispearljam said:
only in specific countries tho..3-4 europeans and at usa and canada.same the venues..mcgruff10 said:
Who cares what they did with their money. The point is, they are playing a full tour!oftenreading said:
The guys in The Who apparently need the money. Not sure what they've done with the rest of it up to this point.SPEEDY MCCREADY said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
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.dimitrispearljam said:
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...mcgruff10 said:
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.dimitrispearljam said:
i agree100%..plus the quality of the shows now is unreal and 3 hours shows..pjhawks said:
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.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.
2003 was 2 hours show and they was 12 years younger..
.and thats all
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.....”0 -
i like pj shows in the usdimitrispearljam said:
yes..cos most of them are at usa...i take better per year,15 pj in europe or at austtralia or South Americamcgruff10 said:
the who are playing 41 shows this year....i'll take that from pj any day of the week.dimitrispearljam said:
only in specific countries tho..3-4 europeans and at usa and canada.same the venues..mcgruff10 said:
Who cares what they did with their money. The point is, they are playing a full tour!oftenreading said:
The guys in The Who apparently need the money. Not sure what they've done with the rest of it up to this point.SPEEDY MCCREADY said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
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.dimitrispearljam said:
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...mcgruff10 said:
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.dimitrispearljam said:
i agree100%..plus the quality of the shows now is unreal and 3 hours shows..pjhawks said:
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.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.
2003 was 2 hours show and they was 12 years younger..
.and thats all
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 I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
True, plus Stone has a 6 week old infant. There is a life outside of pleasing us freaks.pdalowsky said:who are we to question this bands touring plans.....they do what they are happy doing and they earned that right.
I'll take what I can get.
www.cluthelee.com0 -
top comment on one of the 'articles'
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.0 -
but they haven't had a 70 show tour since 2006....not sure how this can even be a debate.pjhawks said:
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).mcgruff10 said:
the who are playing 41 shows this year....i'll take that from pj any day of the week.dimitrispearljam said:
only in specific countries tho..3-4 europeans and at usa and canada.same the venues..mcgruff10 said:
Who cares what they did with their money. The point is, they are playing a full tour!oftenreading said:
The guys in The Who apparently need the money. Not sure what they've done with the rest of it up to this point.SPEEDY MCCREADY said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
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.dimitrispearljam said:
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...mcgruff10 said:
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.dimitrispearljam said:
i agree100%..plus the quality of the shows now is unreal and 3 hours shows..pjhawks said:
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.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.
2003 was 2 hours show and they was 12 years younger..
.and thats all
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.
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'll ride the wave where it takes me......0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help