Fenway vs. Wrigley ~ Let's get it on.

JH6056

LC said:

The best way to settle this needs to be an 8 disc, 4 concert official blu ray

Great idea! And 500,000+ e-ballots to vote/rank them!

mcdonams

jkalman said:

Bant said:

SVRDhand13 said:

Bant said:

I'm still don't get how people are saying Fenway 2 was better than Fenway 1.

Well 2 was like 20 minutes longer

I loved both and can't choose one over another. They're like my children haha

Yes, but that is the only thing it has over night 1.

I wouldn't say so. The whole experience was more cohesive. Set flow, band flow, fan interactivity/energy. That was my experience at least between F2 the other three shows.

Agreed. F1 started a few min late, and the end felt a bit frenetic. Kind of a sprint to the finish, then stop right at 10:30. I did get 2 songs I hadn't seen before which is saying something - Strangest Tribe and Draw the Line. Could do w/o the Aerosmith cover, but Tribe was the highlight for me. At F2 I got a grail in Angel. Other than that, nothing new. Next grail up for is Let Me Sleep, but I digress . Overall I liked F2 better, even though I was 6th row center for F1. Just liked the flow and vibe better, even from the cheap seats. Opening with Release and Long Road is textbook for me though, wouldn't choose another way to open (same as Worcester I '13). I could definitely pass on the appearances by Bronson and Youk as well.

Suziemay

vant0037 said:

Every show anyone went to was the best show for some reason. I'm seeing a lot of "I went to only this show but not that show," which is exactly what OP wasnt looking for.

Whether you went to all four or not, its going to come down to subjective factors, such as: who youre with, where youre sitting, who youre sitting by, how youre feeling, what songs you like, whether youre phone is out or not, whether youre drunk or sober and how you believe that inhibits or enhances your experience, and a myriad of other reasons that have nothing to do with the objective merits of a given performance (assuming such a thing exists; a certain bassist might argue that art is inherently subjective, meaning if music is art, then judgment or comparison on a given performance is meaningless, but I digress).

I just find these questions very strange. Who thinks Fenway was better? Who thinks Wrigley was better? How many times does it happen that two people view the same thing and take away entirely different experiences? Who cares? I mean really...why are we interested in determining which show was "better?"

The only honest and accurate answer any of us could give to the question of which show was better is and always will be "the one I was at."

I'm curious about people's opinions because I did go to 3 of the 4 and have an opinion. I'm not interested in coming to a consensus about who thought which show was the best because I agree with your views, however it doesn't mean we can't discuss. The minute this thread becomes flooded with "I don't understand why you guys think show x was better than show y" then this thread is done IMO.

jkalman

JH6056 said:

LC said:

The best way to settle this needs to be an 8 disc, 4 concert official blu ray

Great idea! And 500,000+ e-ballots to vote/rank them!

The problem with that is that musical aptitudes are on a bell curve. Let's say 30-percent of listeners (the 70th percentile and above) have the acuity to differentiate between flow state and non-flow state and musical peaks vs. non musical peaks. You may end up with a test that is near random, or the 70-percent with less acuity could favor one show over another randomly due to confirmation bias. Likewise, the bottom 70-percent could overpower the smaller 30-percent. Even if someone has acuity, they may prefer other things about the show (such as that guy getting booted at W2), which could add more to the randomness. A better way to differentiate would be to include musical aptitudes in the study and then regress the four shows on musical acuity and to also include Likert scale questions concerning their criteria for what is a "good" show (flow, set list, rarities, speeches, the crowd, venue, other) and run a multiple regression analysis. Then you can control for other factors besides flow state vs. non flow state and look at how all those factors affect a concert experience.

That being said, an 8 disc set would still be awesome.

Who I Am

Just an observation: Acoustics, crowd and show flow was pure @ Fenway 2
Main set was insane @ Wrigley 2

JH6056

jkalman said:

JH6056 said:

LC said:

The best way to settle this needs to be an 8 disc, 4 concert official blu ray

Great idea! And 500,000+ e-ballots to vote/rank them!

The problem with that is that musical aptitudes are on a bell curve. Let's say 30-percent of listeners (the 70th percentile and above) have the acuity to differentiate between flow state and non-flow state and musical peaks vs. non musical peaks. You may end up with a test that is near random or the 70-percent with less acuity could favor one show over another randomly due to confirmation bias. A better way to differentiate would be to include musical aptitudes in the study and then regress the four shows on musical acuity.

That being said, an 8 disc set would still be awesome.

You make this so much more complicated than it needs to be... I think Fenway 2 was the best, so any system of voting that ends in that conclusion is scientifically accurate. End of story.

See, wasn't that easier?

jkalman

JH6056 said:

jkalman said:

JH6056 said:

LC said:

The best way to settle this needs to be an 8 disc, 4 concert official blu ray

Great idea! And 500,000+ e-ballots to vote/rank them!

The problem with that is that musical aptitudes are on a bell curve. Let's say 30-percent of listeners (the 70th percentile and above) have the acuity to differentiate between flow state and non-flow state and musical peaks vs. non musical peaks. You may end up with a test that is near random or the 70-percent with less acuity could favor one show over another randomly due to confirmation bias. A better way to differentiate would be to include musical aptitudes in the study and then regress the four shows on musical acuity.

That being said, an 8 disc set would still be awesome.

You make this so much more complicated than it needs to be... I think Fenway 2 was the best, so any system of voting that ends in that conclusion is scientifically accurate. End of story.

See, wasn't that easier?

Lol. Yes. I edited it to be even more complicated...

I'm actually really interested in the question now. It would make a compelling study for the psychology of music in general.

vito

W2 main set was the best 1.5 of music w/ a setting that was just unmatchable!

Pearlybaker

Went to all 4 - my ranking based on my experience:

1. Fenway 2
2. Wrigley 2
3. Fenway 1
4. Wrigley 1

JH6056

Pearlybaker said:

Went to all 4 - my ranking based on my experience:

1. Fenway 2
2. Wrigley 2
3. Fenway 1
4. Wrigley 1

Cool, would love to know what factors made you rank them this way?

gettingright

So I went to Fenway 1. Periscopes all of Fenway 2 and parts of wrigley 1 and 2.

I agree the flow at Fenway 1 was off. People after the commented it was very "roller coast-y" which I agreed with. However, for the passionate fan the setlist was amazing filled with deeper cuts and rarities over all the other shows. Also, in b3 the crowd was jumping and singing the whole show. For me, this matters a lot. Whenever I've sat in a, let's say, more subdued section, my enjoyment is not as high as when the people around me are actively enjoying themselves.

Another factor for me was Telluride, which was easily a top 3 (of 20) show for me. On I side note someone who I was at telluride with was at wrigley 1 and said telluride was better for him.

I had thought that after night 1 that night 2 would easily be better, however, as I watched the periscope of night 2, I was happy to have been at night 1 instead on night 2. Again Telluride figured into that feeling as I had just seen angel. If I had not, I may have preferred night 2.

I can't really speak to the Chicago shows other than setlist, but looking them over, I again am glad, if only attending one of the shows, that it was Fenway 1.

Perhaps, and probably likely, I am retrospectively finding reasons to prefer the show I attended. But either way I am happy and whatever show or shows you attended or preferred, I hope you are, too.

Cheers to an amazing band who puts on such great shows that we can debate which were greater.

Edits to fix autocorrects

OnWis97

Pearlybaker said:

Went to all 4 - my ranking based on my experience:

1. Fenway 2
2. Wrigley 2
3. Fenway 1
4. Wrigley 1

I also went to all four...I would probably flip/flop 2 and 3 from this list...but the person above who said that ancillary factors impact the order is right. Fenway 1 was the set list that happened to look most like I was consulted. I was pumped for Long Road, All Those Yesterdays, I am Mine, Grievance and snapping a 13-year Baba O'Riley drought. Objectively, though the above list is probably right on.

Overall, my Fenway experience was better. It's hard to believe that the two venues have roughly (I suspect) the same capacity...the atmosphere around Wrigley was pure chaos every moment. Getting around outside (and inside) of Fenway was a comparative breeze. I was legitimately taken aback by how many people were constantly around Wrigley...this is probably because the park is on key arterials, the neighborhood is sought after even when the Cubs are out of town, and friends of fans just hung out to party. The Fenway crowd seemed more serious...the Wrigley crowd seemed a bit more about drinking (and I had 10C seats at Wrigley and "just get in" seats at Fenway). Leading up to them taking the stage at Wrigley 1, I was thinking that PJ was going to ruin many people's fun if they started playing. This is all anecdotal, of course, but to an extent, the Fenway crowd seemed there for a concert and the Wrigley crowd (particularly Saturday) seemed there for a party.

I think Wrigley 1 was definitely the weakest. I was pumped to see Amongst the Waves, but it just seemed off...my wife thought they (particularly Ed) were a bit off the whole show. The intensity was kinda lacking. In fairness the main set for #2 was tight. It was a spectacular show and we've seen it suggested by some in the pit that they played a bit angry after the fan incident during Lukin.

I did not think either Fenway show was a candidate for being ranked #4. My buddy thought that the crowd was a bit off (and suggested that is why they bumped a couple of songs for Corduroy; maybe so). Comfortably Numb and Alive turned them around, though. # 2 at Fenway, like at Wrigley, was (for lack of a better term), "tighter." Though in both cases, McCready's show #1 Evenflow performance was better.

But it is all splitting hairs. Any complaints are the nitpicks of the spoiled. These were shows 17-20 for me and there is no question they are all top-10. Probably 3, 4, 5, and maybe 8 or so. Three-hour, high-energy shows in festive destination locations. What's not to love.

August 2016, was a fabulous month for me.

Tremorman

bootleg said:

Bant said:

I'm still don't get how people are saying Fenway 2 was better than Fenway 1.

I'm with you on that but we definitely seem to be in the minority. I think it depends on what types of sets you like. For me F2 had more of the hits and F1 had more obscure. Also for me F1 had a bunch of songs I haven't heard before which is hard to do 25 shows in (Strangest Tribe, MOW, Patriot, Society, SBM, CN, Draw the Line, I've got a Feeling). F2 only had one (Angel) so I think that has a lot to do with it.

Fenway 1 had more not on Rearviewmirror for sure, but I Got A Feeling, Masters and Patriot have all been played in Boston since 2003, and Down has been played a LOT in Boston. If Fenway 2 had opened with Release and also had Black, it wouldn't be close for me.

ikiT

LC said:

The best way to settle this needs to be an 8 disc, 4 concert official blu ray

i'd buy it.

JimmyV

Tremorman said:

bootleg said:

Bant said:

I'm still don't get how people are saying Fenway 2 was better than Fenway 1.

I'm with you on that but we definitely seem to be in the minority. I think it depends on what types of sets you like. For me F2 had more of the hits and F1 had more obscure. Also for me F1 had a bunch of songs I haven't heard before which is hard to do 25 shows in (Strangest Tribe, MOW, Patriot, Society, SBM, CN, Draw the Line, I've got a Feeling). F2 only had one (Angel) so I think that has a lot to do with it.

Fenway 1 had more not on Rearviewmirror for sure, but I Got A Feeling, Masters and Patriot have all been played in Boston since 2003, and Down has been played a LOT in Boston. If Fenway 2 had opened with Release and also had Black, it wouldn't be close for me.

Fenway 1 quickly became underrated in the 48 hours or so before Fenway 2 began. You had people running around who were disappointed, who were calling it average, etc. Many of these people just had unrealistic expectations. I personally preferred Night 2 to Night 1, but they were both great shows.

3days

Oceans, Footsteps, Off He Goes, Immortality, Black Red Yellow, Deep, Man of the Hour, Don't Gimme No Lip, Sonic Reducer, Blood, Surrender, and I've Got a Feeling
+
band energy
+
crowd energy

= goodest

3days

Oh yeah, forgot Of the Earth.

nicknyr15

Was at all except wrigley 1.
Fenway 2 pretty easily
Wrigley 2 amazing
Fenway 1 great.

vant0037

At Wrigley 2, we had seats third base line, top of one of the dugout sections, with a walkway right at our backs. A big fat superfan stood near us yelling "Dirty Frank" all night and looked legitimately annoyed that they didn't bust it out second encore. Right next to him, a girl yelled - in response to his request - a request that they play "Alive" and lost her shit when they did.

If you assume they each had differing opinions about the show's quality, who would be right?

Im always confused why people want to compare which show was the best and why. It happens after every tour. There's a huge "measuring" impulse on this board at times (if you get my drift) and questions like this, which curiously comes on the immediate heels of one pair of shows, just sounds like more of it. (Itd be interesting to note if OP went to one set of the shows or the other or all four). Reading the comments, where most people who went to all four seem to rank them based largely on subjective factors, while most who didnt go to all four inevitably value the shows they went to, sort of proves the point. If the opinions we get are only going to be based on subjective experience (and how could they ever not be), then why would we care to ask unless its only to validate our own experience? (e.g. I thought Fenway/Wrigley was better and so did these other people")

If we were interested in an accurate answer to the question of "Which set of shows was the best?," we'd need one reply of "the ones I went to."

jkalman

vant0037 said:

At Wrigley 2, we had seats third base line, top of one of the dugout sections, with a walkway right at our backs. A big fat superfan stood near us yelling "Dirty Frank" all night and looked legitimately annoyed that they didn't bust it out second encore. Right next to him, a girl yelled - in response to his request - a request that they play "Alive" and lost her shit when they did.

If you assume they each had differing opinions about the show's quality, who would be right?

Im always confused why people want to compare which show was the best and why. It happens after every tour. There's a huge "measuring" impulse on this board at times (if you get my drift) and questions like this, which curiously comes on the immediate heels of one pair of shows, just sounds like more of it. (Itd be interesting to note if OP went to one set of the shows or the other or all four). Reading the comments, where most people who went to all four seem to rank them based largely on subjective factors, while most who didnt go to all four inevitably value the shows they went to, sort of proves the point. If the opinions we get are only going to be based on subjective experience (and how could they ever not be), then why would we care to ask unless its only to validate our own experience? (e.g. I thought Fenway/Wrigley was better and so did these other people")

If we were interested in an accurate answer to the question of "Which set of shows was the best?," we'd need one reply of "the ones I went to."

Not everyone bases things on purely subjective factors. Flow states (synchronicity between the musicians) and peaks in music can be measured relatively objectively by moments of unintentional disharmony, missed notes/beats, cracking voices, and general screw ups in timing between the band members. These things aren't subjective and can be independently measured with a high level of reliability. I agree that a good bulk of people will base things on subjective factors more than anything else though, and that isn't a great criteria for picking the stronger shows from the weaker shows, IMO. To wit, if the band came out on stage completely drunk and couldn't put four notes together as a group before puking on the stage and passing out, is it still a good show? Maybe if you're a John Cage fan the show had subjective meaning to you, but objectively in the context of Pearl Jam's catalogue of music it isn't meeting certain criteria.

JH6056

jkalman said:

vant0037 said:

At Wrigley 2, we had seats third base line, top of one of the dugout sections, with a walkway right at our backs. A big fat superfan stood near us yelling "Dirty Frank" all night and looked legitimately annoyed that they didn't bust it out second encore. Right next to him, a girl yelled - in response to his request - a request that they play "Alive" and lost her shit when they did.

If you assume they each had differing opinions about the show's quality, who would be right?

Im always confused why people want to compare which show was the best and why. It happens after every tour. There's a huge "measuring" impulse on this board at times (if you get my drift) and questions like this, which curiously comes on the immediate heels of one pair of shows, just sounds like more of it. (Itd be interesting to note if OP went to one set of the shows or the other or all four). Reading the comments, where most people who went to all four seem to rank them based largely on subjective factors, while most who didnt go to all four inevitably value the shows they went to, sort of proves the point. If the opinions we get are only going to be based on subjective experience (and how could they ever not be), then why would we care to ask unless its only to validate our own experience? (e.g. I thought Fenway/Wrigley was better and so did these other people")

If we were interested in an accurate answer to the question of "Which set of shows was the best?," we'd need one reply of "the ones I went to."

Not everyone bases things on purely subjective factors. Flow states (synchronicity between the musicians) and peaks in music can be measured relatively objectively by moments of unintentional disharmony, missed notes/beats, cracking voices, and general screw ups in timing between the band members. These things aren't subjective and can be independently measured with a high level of reliability. I agree that a good bulk of people will base things on subjective factors more than anything else though, and that isn't a great criteria for picking the stronger shows from the weaker shows, IMO. To wit, if the band came out on stage completely drunk and couldn't put four notes together as a group before puking on the stage and passing out, is it still a good show? Maybe if you're a John Cage fan the show had subjective meaning to you, but objectively in the context of Pearl Jam's catalogue of music it isn't meeting certain criteria.

Totally agree with all of this. And add 2 things: 1) While every single fan matters, whether they've seen 0 or 100 shows, on comparison threads like this I automatically scan answers for how many shows they've seen and look for people who've seen 20+ shows. Even among those who've seen 50+ opinions can differ about which show was best and why. But the analysis is so interesting and there's also often good observations made that are more nuanced.

None of that is to say someone else's opinion doesn't matter if this was their 2nd show. I just find really interesting history and details in comparisons of people who've seen a lot.

It's like, who's book would you rather read about your favorite hero: one written by someone who had lunch with them once, or the person who worked with them for 20 years?

2) It's natural when you've just had an experience you'd been looking forward to for months that you want to stay "in it" as long as possible. Comparison threads let you keep picking it apart and reliving if and turning it over in your mind over and over. It keeps the show alive and current for just a bit longer, before it really does move to Yu our "past".

Comparisons are interesting, and sometimes make you appreciate your experience even more than you already did.

jkalman

Another example of objectivity in music are genres of music. How do we differentiate between folk, rock, bluegrass, blues, funk, classical, and others? There are certain objective criteria that differentiate these genres that are identifiable. The more genre mixed the music gets in a song and the less skilled the listener, the harder it becomes for the listener to differentiate between genres and the more subjective the experience becomes. It takes a certain level of musical acuity as the complexity of the experience grows to pick out these genre elements in a singular song.

However, that is all left brain. When you get into right brain experience of music, the breaks in harmony, the lack of synch between musicians, the missed beats, etc., can all interrupt your own flow and immersion in the experience. I'm not sure how to measure that on a wide scale basis, but I suspect it is related to musical acuity/aptitude. Studies have been done that show that when video is shown out of synch with the human voice that it naturally disturbs people (even infants--suggesting it is an innate quality). I would suspect that this is a tangential but relevant finding that relates to the above.

jkalman

vant0037 said:

Totally agree with all of this. And add 2 things: 1) While every single fan matters, whether they've seen 0 or 100 shows, on comparison threads like this I automatically scan answers for how many shows they've seen and look for people who've seen 20+ shows. Even among those who've seen 50+ opinions can differ about which show was best and why. But the analysis is so interesting and there's also often good observations made that are more nuanced.

None of that is to say someone else's opinion doesn't matter if this was their 2nd show. I just find really interesting history and details in comparisons of people who've seen a lot.

It's like, who's book would you rather read about your favorite hero: one written by someone who had lunch with them once, or the person who worked with them for 20 years?

2) It's natural when you've just had an experience you'd been looking forward to for months that you want to stay "in it" as long as possible. Comparison threads let you keep picking it apart and reliving if and turning it over in your mind over and over. It keeps the show alive and current for just a bit longer, before it really does move to Yu our "past".

Comparisons are interesting, and sometimesmake you appreciate your experience even more than you already did.

Yes, the 10,000 hours rule (Malcolm Gladwell). However, in musical success it only accounts for 21% of variance at best. There are intrinsic and extrinsic factors that contribute to musical acuity beyond musical experience alone. The interesting thing is that these factors are relatively unknown still. There's lots of room for research in this area.

JimmyV

I can't read the the thread title without hearing Mills Lane's voice. Took it as a tongue in cheek exercise meant to be fun. No more, no less. These debates are usually always just that. Fun.

elen

Rankings are always a personal thing and maybe tomorrow I will change my mind on mine too!
I've been to all 4 the ballparks shows (view from 4 completely different places) and my ranking JUST BASED ON THE SHOW is:
1- Wrigley 2
2- Fenway 1
3- Fenway 2
4- Wrigley 1
I'm putting W1 at last just because I've already had the "shock" of Masters of War / Fast Patriot at F1, there were so many of the hits all together (which was sooooo good in view of W2) and, as someone already mentioned, I couldn't feel the "Wrigley vibe", it seemed to me a great concert but I expected a lot more references as it was done in F1.
I liked F1 more than F2 for Masters of War / Patriot, the opening with Release, the second opening with Long Road
Overall the atmosphere of both Fenway concerts has been amazing.
W2 was a blast.
35 songs.
The opening with Oceans.
Footsteps, Man of the Hour, BLOOD!!!

The Gleason moment is off the charts. Honestly I couldn't listen to the beginning of Inside Job for how much moved I was.

[My personal ranking based on the location is:
1- Wrigley 2 (GA - 2nd row Stone's side, great atmosphere and not so packed up)
2- Wrigley 1 (section 417 - we were kinda disappointed when we saw the seats, but overall view and sound were good)
3- Fenway 1 (section LL - not so close as I expected, sound was absolutely terrible during Ed's speeches)
4- Fenway 2 (turf B3 - sound was good but I almost couldn't see a thing)]

Caught-A-Bolt-Of-Lightning

Fenway 1. Because I was there.....

Suziemay

JH6056 said:

Comparisons are interesting, and sometimesmake you appreciate your experience even more than you already did.

Agreed, with the caveat that I'm only interested in opinions of people actually there! No interest in people making comments based on setlist.

KP_McMinn

I was at Fenway 2 and Wrigley 1;

I had the most fun at Wrigley. I enjoyed the set list more. I was in B6 at fenway about 38 rows back. I thought the sound was OK at fenway, but thought wrigley sec 139 had better sound. I like the song selection more at wrigley. More my pace. I also would have preferred Fenway 1 over 2, if given the choice. Wrigley 1 is in my top 3 of 39. Fenway 2 in the top 7 (maybe top 6 because of Angel) .

vant0037

jkalman said:

Not everyone bases things on purely subjective factors. Flow states (synchronicity between the musicians) and peaks in music can be measured relatively objectively by moments of unintentional disharmony, missed notes/beats, cracking voices, and general screw ups in timing between the band members. These things aren't subjective and can be independently measured with a high level of reliability.

I'm not debating that's true; most people don't think that deeply and I'm not sure OP was asking that. I agree that a good bulk of people will base things on subjective factors more than anything else though, and that isn't a great criteria for picking the stronger shows from the weaker shows, IMO.

jkalman said:

To wit, if the band came out on stage completely drunk and couldn't put four notes together as a group before puking on the stage and passing out, is it still a good show?

Most would agree that that would be a bad show, but that's because there are SOME level of objective factors we'd all point to - attendance by all 5 members, singing MOST of the lyrics (sorry Ed), playing many of their songs, playing for a certain period of time (call it longer than two hours for PJ standards) etc. My point isn't that there aren't objective criteria or factors that could be used to measure the quality of the show. My point is that most people aren't concerned that any of these shows were played by a drunk bad, were too short, had "unintentional disharmony" etc. Most are focused on setlists, where they were standing, whether they played "Last Kiss" or not etc.

I didn't mean to get off on an academic tangent. It just seems we always devolve into a measuring contest of who got which best show, when it reality, it's all subjective and means nothing.

JH6056

jkalman said:

vant0037 said:

Totally agree with all of this. And add 2 things: 1) While every single fan matters, whether they've seen 0 or 100 shows, on comparison threads like this I automatically scan answers for how many shows they've seen and look for people who've seen 20+ shows. Even among those who've seen 50+ opinions can differ about which show was best and why. But the analysis is so interesting and there's also often good observations made that are more nuanced.

None of that is to say someone else's opinion doesn't matter if this was their 2nd show. I just find really interesting history and details in comparisons of people who've seen a lot.

It's like, who's book would you rather read about your favorite hero: one written by someone who had lunch with them once, or the person who worked with them for 20 years?

2) It's natural when you've just had an experience you'd been looking forward to for months that you want to stay "in it" as long as possible. Comparison threads let you keep picking it apart and reliving if and turning it over in your mind over and over. It keeps the show alive and current for just a bit longer, before it really does move to Yu our "past".

Comparisons are interesting, and sometimesmake you appreciate your experience even more than you already did.

Yes, the 10,000 hours rule (Malcolm Gladwell). However, in musical success it only accounts for 21% of variance at best. There are intrinsic and extrinsic factors that contribute to musical acuity beyond musical experience alone. The interesting thing is that these factors are relatively unknown still. There's lots of room for research in this area.

Dude, we settled this. No variance at all: if I say it was best, it was best! Fact that I was only at one of these shows is irrelevant. No further research necessary.