Anyone else think Pearl Jam opening for U2 is lame?

stonewastheprblm

soulsinging wrote:

180 minutes? what pearl jam shows are you at? that's 3 hours. they dont play anywhere near that on a nightly basis. the longest show ever was state college at about 3.5. they play maybe 2.5 hours each night. close to it anyway. u2 plays at least 2.

General Admission floor seats for U2's last two tours have been $50. I saw 17 shows and was front row for 10 of them and it cost me less than 10c tickets for any of the 10 shows I saw this tour.

The length of show is about the same for both bands. When you say U2 plays for an 90 minutes and PJ plays for 3 hours it just a blatant lie that discredits anything you say.

While I love Pearl Jam Im pretty sure the Albany 03 and Asheville 04 shows I attended were shorter than any of the U2 shows I have seen.

nukeboot

soulsinging wrote:

180 minutes? what pearl jam shows are you at? that's 3 hours. they dont play anywhere near that on a nightly basis. the longest show ever was state college at about 3.5. they play maybe 2.5 hours each night. close to it anyway. u2 plays at least 2.

Hey! Don't let facts and numbers get in the way of a good argument!

soulsinging

stonewastheprblm wrote:

General Admission floor seats for U2's last two tours have been $50. I saw 17 shows and was front row for 10 of them and it cost me less than 10c tickets for any of the 10 shows I saw this tour.

The length of show is about the same for both bands. When you say U2 plays for an 90 minutes and PJ plays for 3 hours it just a blatant lie that discredits anything you say.

While I love Pearl Jam Im pretty sure the Albany 03 and Asheville 04 shows I attended were shorter than any of the U2 shows I have seen.

i didnt say that, this guy did. ive not seen u2 but i know from people who have and dvd's that they top out over 2 hours and pearl jam, on a nightly basis, plays about the exact same. sure, there ahve been pearl jam shows that stretch to 3 hours, but that is the exception rather than the rule.

surferdude

takingpunches wrote:

Fuck record sales and "success", pearl jam is flat out a more versatile(sp?) and talented band.

Please explain how anyone can possibly think that Pearl Jam is more versatile than U2.

U2 started as post-punk band - Boy,
did a partial landscape album - The Unforgettable Fire,
made the best record of the '80's - Joshua Tree,
completely reinvented their sound for - Achtung Baby,
pushed technology and dance beats to their rock n' roll limits - Zooropa and Pop,
then came around back to basics for All That You Can't Leave Behind and How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb.

Pearl Jam's sound is no where near as versatile. Fuck I love Pearl Jam but I am at least aware of what they are a straight ahead rock band that has made one experimental album - No Code.

nukeboot

surferdude wrote:

Please explain how anyone can possibly think that Pearl Jam is more versatile than U2.

U2 started as post-punk band - Boy,
did a partial landscape album - The Unforgettable Fire,
made the best record of the '80's - Joshua Tree,
completely reinvented their sound for - Achtung Baby,
pushed technology and dance beats to their rock n' roll limits - Zooropa and Pop,
then came around back to basics for All That You Can't Leave Behind and How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb.

Pearl Jam's sound is no where near as versatile. Fuck I love Pearl Jam but I am at least aware of what they are a straight ahead rock band that has made one experimental album - No Code.

Stop making sense!

Ms. Haiku

I would love to see U2, but I wouldn't fly to Hawaii to see U2. I would fly to Hawaii to see a Pearl Jam concert, but not a U2 concert that Pearl Jam opens for. I think they are both excellent bands. My most recent U2 CD I own is Joshua tree. I don't know much of their stuff after that.

Alessiana

"made the best record of the '80's - Joshua Tree, "

oh FCOL!!! granted it's a matter of taste but really,... sheesh.

surferdude

Ms. Haiku wrote:

I would love to see U2, but I wouldn't fly to Hawaii to see U2. I would fly to Hawaii to see a Pearl Jam concert, but not a U2 concert that Pearl Jam opens for. I think they are both excellent bands. My most recent U2 CD I own is Joshua tree. I don't know much of their stuff after that.

This is my take on going to Hawaii in December. I'm going to Hawaii for a break, seeing a concert or two is part of that break. The concert(s) are not the raison d'etre for going to Hawaii.

Don't you take a pre-Christmas get-away every year for a few days? So I'll fly to Hawaii for a week, $500 (from Seattle). Stay in a hostel, $30 a night ($210 total). Buy some food and beer ($300). Concert tickets for two nights ($100-$200). Rent a car for a few days ($300). Rent a surfboard $100. So for $1600 I have a week in Hawaii, two great concerts, a few days surfing, some rest, relaxation and a bit of partying before Christmas. Plus I'll hit up a tacky toursit store and do all my Christmas shopping in about 2 hours. Sounds pretty sensible and a good deal.

surferdude

Alessiana wrote:

"made the best record of the '80's - Joshua Tree, "

oh FCOL!!! granted it's a matter of taste but really,... sheesh.

Let's hear your top 10 of the '80's then.

neartodeath

brianjd wrote:

nukeboot wrote:

....These are the facts: Vertigo has already grossed 330 Million dollars breaking the Stones Voodoo Lounge Tour record and they expect haul in more dough when they complete at the end of the year.....

OMG last i heard it was at least a $100 million dollar tour...now it's 3 times that!

greed is a very bad thing

Alessiana

man, i hate ranking albums. it would take me a few hours of thought to give you a really good answer. but to me, calling joshua tree "the best" is ridiculous when there are bands like REM, sonic youth, the pixies, peter gabriel, prince, the cure, etc etc producing material during that decade.

peter gabriel 2 and 3 are both better albums for example. ten best? eh. i don't have the time to devote to coming up with such a list.

dharma69

surferdude wrote:

Please explain how anyone can possibly think that Pearl Jam is more versatile than U2.

U2 started as post-punk band - Boy,
did a partial landscape album - The Unforgettable Fire,
made the best record of the '80's - Joshua Tree,
completely reinvented their sound for - Achtung Baby,
pushed technology and dance beats to their rock n' roll limits - Zooropa and Pop,
then came around back to basics for All That You Can't Leave Behind and How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb.

Pearl Jam's sound is no where near as versatile. Fuck I love Pearl Jam but I am at least aware of what they are a straight ahead rock band that has made one experimental album - No Code.

nukeboot wrote:

Stop making sense!

What he said.

"did a partial landscape album - The Unforgettable Fire".....favorite U2 album. Favorite. Ever.

Did I mention that "The Unforgettable Fire" is my favorite U2 album ever?

brianjd

dharma69 wrote:

What he said.

"did a partial landscape album - The Unforgettable Fire".....favorite U2 album. Favorite. Ever.

Did I mention that "The Unforgettable Fire" is my favorite U2 album ever?

I dont question u2's success recording albums. I do think they hit a bump in the road with that zoo tv crap and popmart, etc, etc. I don't thiank anyone wants to remember that era. All and all I do agree that u2 has been more adept in the studio than Pearl Jam. I think PJ's last two albums, at a minimum, were serious underachievments. Their new album shows us that they still have it though. So the jury is still out. Pearl Jam is about ten years behind u2 as a band so it is too early to say what their legacy will be.

I think alot of the criticism with the present U2 era has to do with the live performance in which alot of us feel that Pearl Jam dominates.

washmylungs

just clicked on this thread again and kinda laughed...at the title...

"Anyone else think Pearl Jam opening for U2 is lame?"

well....obviously Pearl Jam themselves do not think it is lame otherwise they would not be doing it. nuff said...i'll respect their decision as a band.

Ms. Haiku

surferdude wrote:

This is my take on going to Hawaii in December. I'm going to Hawaii for a break, seeing a concert or two is part of that break. The concert(s) are not the raison d'etre for going to Hawaii.

Don't you take a pre-Christmas get-away every year for a few days? So I'll fly to Hawaii for a week, $500 (from Seattle). Stay in a hostel, $30 a night ($210 total). Buy some food and beer ($300). Concert tickets for two nights ($100-$200). Rent a car for a few days ($300). Rent a surfboard $100. So for $1600 I have a week in Hawaii, two great concerts, a few days surfing, some rest, relaxation and a bit of partying before Christmas. Plus I'll hit up a tacky toursit store and do all my Christmas shopping in about 2 hours. Sounds pretty sensible and a good deal.

I"m just quoting you because you have figures that I can use for a comparison. I would spend $1600 for a Pearl Jam concert. I would not spend $1600 for a U2 concert just because I don't know them as well. I think what I know of their work is excellent, though. As far as this looks to me it is a U2 concert, not a Pearl Jam concert. Pearl Jam is the opening band, and I do my best to spend my time elsewhere than see an opening band. Also, my figures would be higher because I'm East Coast travelling, and if I'm flying over the country to see a concert I'm going to live it up in a nice hotel Of course no car or surfboard for me. My shoes were made for walking. I'm knitting all of my Christmas gifts

nukeboot

brianjd wrote:

I do think they hit a bump in the road with that zoo tv crap and popmart, etc, etc. I don't thiank anyone wants to remember that era.

I'm with you on Pop Mart and Pop, but the ZooTV shows were great in support of Achtung Baby. I hit two of the "outdoor broadcasts" and they are in my top ten shows to this day. Zoo TV - Live from Australia comes out on DVD in September and mine is on pre-order.

dharma69

brianjd wrote:

I dont question u2's success recording albums. I do think they hit a bump in the road with that zoo tv crap and popmart, etc, etc. I don't thiank anyone wants to remember that era. All and all I do agree that u2 has been more adept in the studio than Pearl Jam. I think PJ's last two albums, at a minimum, were serious underachievments. Their new album shows us that they still have it though. So the jury is still out. Pearl Jam is about ten years behind u2 as a band so it is too early to say what their legacy will be.

I think alot of the criticism with the present U2 era has to do with the live performance in which alot of us feel that Pearl Jam dominates.

I know someone who is a fan of these 2 bands.

He rags U2's ass on their concerts and setlist stagnation without mercy....yet U2 is one of his top 5 bands.

He hates Pearl Jam's Crazy Mary with a passion and a few other tunes, as well, will call Darth Vedder out on his political "crap"....yet PJ is his favorite band.

One band excels in the studio like no other; one band lives on the stage like no other. That's okay....no one band can do it all and do it all well. The point is they both excel.

How okay it is to be able find your own flaws with these bands, yet still love them? I think that's called having a brain and not being afraid to use it. I could not abide the PopMart nonsense. I cannot listen to Pop in one sitting; the album as a whole, is an undone mess. I can only hear it in pieces. I can also say the same for a PJ album or two.

The fact that these two bands exist in period of time when I can still get to enjoy them while they're still putting out quality is a gift. I'm not going to disrespect it or them. I just wish that they would have put this gig together while they were in California! Bring on the Bono/Vedder duet. Bring on The Edge/McCready guitar slinger-fest. Bring on the Clayton/Ament basslines and the Cameron/Mullen beats.

All good.

stonewastheprblm

nukeboot wrote:

Good post. The only thing I would add is that the other act that can totally mix things up is....Uncle Neil.

On the Greendale tour he played the whole, slightly obscure album and then closed with a few hits. The fans were very patient and appreciative. I caught it at the Garden and didn't hear a single complaint from the people around me.

I actually caught a show on that tour ( I was covering it) and conceed that Neil did that but Neil Young solo wasnt setting any attendance records. Now Neil is out with Crosy Stills and Nash and they are getting 200+ a ticket.

stonewastheprblm

brianjd wrote:

Sorry. This guy is on crack and obviously totally biased. I have seen lots of truly great guitarists and The Edge would not make the top 25. I do agree Bono has to be considered a top five frontman but it is close. Roger Daltry, Robert Plant, Jim Morrisson, Mick Jagger and then maybe Bono. But Edge is a very basic guitar player. You are going to actually argue he is as good as Pete Townshend, Eric Clapton, Jimmy Page, Jimi Hendrix, jeff Beck, etc, etc, etc? Not even close. I think both Mike and Stone kick Edge's ass. We will just see. If they let PJ turn the volume up and kick it for at least an hour you will see for yourself.

Have you seen all these bands live? Im only 28 so I never saw Morrison ( I dont care for the Doors anyway) but I have seen all the others you mention live and Bono blows all of them off the stage hands down. Im not denying that they are all great (well...maybe not Morrison) but they all have a fraction of the stage presence that Bono has.

stonewastheprblm

brianjd wrote:

nukeboot wrote:

No one said they did not care. I simply don't think that Bono is the fucking Messiah like you all do. They care, but they don't care as much as you would like to think. I just think, after seeing them live, that they need to care a little bit more about the music and their fans rather than breaking records and making dough if they want respect.

These are the facts: Vertigo has already grossed 330 Million dollars breaking the Stones Voodoo Lounge Tour record and they expect haul in more dough when they complete at the end of the year.

I ain't knocking it if that is what you are about. But U2 will have you believe they are all about the people. I would like to know how much of that haul is going to charity?


That's all. It's not hate just serious skepticism.

Listen, if you live in the world you are a capitalist. In essence everyone wants to have as much money as possible. Many people may not live to make money but surely not many would turn down money thrown at them just so they can "keep it real".

The hard reality is that 10-15 years ago bands did charge a lot less. You know what happened they? They woke up. At the dawn of the internet age they looked around and saw scalpers everywhere making double and triple face value on their tickets and then saw all their fans stealing their music off the internet. Rightfully so, bands starting saying "why should everyone be making more money off our music than us". Why should we sell our tickets for, what is obviously, under market value and watch our record sales go to pieces? So now bands charge what the market will bear. Since U2 still sells out in seconds, a rational person would still say they are undercharging. Their average ticket price is only $100 (which if you dont have that then you have bigger problems then concerts).

U2 turned down $25million to let Where the Streets Have No Name be used in a car ad. They really dont whore themselves out. However, they would basically be giving away money if they charged $40 for every ticket (which wouldnt even cover the cost to put the show on the road) because someone will be making $200-$300 off the ticket. Id rather it be U2 then Sully the toothless scalper.

Pearl Jam is a different beast. Pearl Jam couldnt charge what U2 charges. Nobody would pay it. Sure, hardcore fans might pay $150 for close floor seats but after that? I think Pearl Jam is right about at equilibrium with market value as far keeping all the seats in the house full with their one tiered pricing system.