Spoiled by Pearl Jam

mpedone

SP218311 said:

Definitely feel spoiled/lucky.  Though I can still enjoy other bands that have a fairly static setlist (U2 and Foo Fighters, for example) because they appear to bring some passion and fun to their shows (I just try to avoid checking setlists prior to going).  And they are in the 2.5+ hour club, which I think is just generally rare outside of the jam band scene.  Saw the Chili Peppers on their last tour and I was totally disappointed that the show was like an hour long.

On the other hand, just saw Radiohead over the weekend and was blown away... 25 songs, 2.5 hours, really awesome light show and a different set each night.  The show's production didn't lend itself to differing setlists... it seemed so choreographed, yet I know the crew didnt get the setlist until a few hours before the show. 

Other bands that I like that change it up each night are Deer Tick, Wilco, My Morning Jacket, Bruce, Ryan Adams, and Father John Misty (even though they don't like each other).  Leaving Jack White off of this list even though I do love him (he claims to play without a setlist, but it really seems to be the same songs ordered differently each night).

I will say this about the static set lists - sometimes it is nice to know what to expect. I like the Foo Fighters, but I'm not a huge fan, so it was cool to be able to peruse their lists and say, okay, I should listen to a bunch of the new stuff, but they're also playing the older hits. (Also, it saves me money, as I know that if FF comes back around in a couple of years, we'll only have to go for one night.) They do have a great energy though.

Spiritual_Chaos

It was some contrast going from seeing Pearl Jam in London to Guns N Roses a few days after. Guns N Roses show was a "show" but stale and felt like watching a play. Not much spontaneity which is the reason I go watch stuff live - varied setlist or not.

Was the same going from seeing Neil Young to a Bruce show in 2016. Bruce put on a great show and it was all cool.... but there was a sheen of something fabricated and professional over it. While Neil Young was just more honest and "living".

reedrothchild

cp3iverson said:

Radiohead is on a different planet than everyone else 

Pretty much this.  The two Boston shows I saw last week were beyond epic.  Only 4 songs repeated and that light show- holy shit was it incredible.

Chasing Footsteps

helplessdancer said:

coming partly from a jam band background i am use to 3 hour shows and ever changing set lists   lol
i would not be the PJ fan that i am today if it wasn't for the element of surprise...the point of knowing that almost anything can happen at any time. that is the thrill IMO

Spot on! 

Gern Blansten

reedrothchild said:

cp3iverson said:

Radiohead is on a different planet than everyone else 

Pretty much this.  The two Boston shows I saw last week were beyond epic.  Only 4 songs repeated and that light show- holy shit was it incredible.

Same....never saw them live before this year.  Actually never owned an album until I bought Moon Shaped Pool....now I own them all

I caught both Chicago shows then hit Columbus/Cincy.  8 repeats at the second Chicago show.

They have set video for a few songs (The Tourist, Paranoid, etc.) but most of the video is live cameras on each of them projected onto the big screen.  I love that because there isn't a bad seat in the house when you can see everyone up close like that.

HesCalledDyer

We are truly spoiled by Pearl Jam.  I notice it the most when I go see other bands and the setlist is only 18-20 songs and stage time is around 90 minutes.  I've been trained by PJ  - and my 2nd favorite band Rush - to expect 3+ hour shows every single time since they are the two bands I've seen the most live over the years.  That's not to say I haven't seen 3 hour shows from other bands - Smashing Pumpkins did it last week, Green Day was pretty close last year - or that other bands don't mix up setlists, but for the majority of artists it's 90 minutes of the same ~20 songs night by night.