The 30+ song set lists done for good?

PJNB

steven87 said:

OceansJenny said:

I love a slow first encore. Bring out the stools let’s gooooo with some All or None.

Here’s my ideal first encore- Around the bend, All or none, fatal, parting ways, light years, hard to imagine, in my tree, present tense, breath, RVM. We can all dream

Damn I would love that as well.

mrmcqueen

With regards to set length, I admit that my bias comes from i) being spoiled between 2012-2018, and 2) the fact that almost every show involves a great deal of organization and travel to get the chance for the family to see a show in a particular city.  Certainly, being in a foreign city brings its own delights, but if you spend double the time in airport waiting lounges as you spend listening to PJ songs, it can be a letdown. Absolutely agree that we are all lucky to have the band still together, still healthy, and still touring...but since they're now selling "Premium" tickets for the New Jersey show (10-15 rows back) at $1,500, $1,700 or even $2,300 (higher than Elton John for that location), it's interesting to simultaneously cut the set list by 4 to 9 songs. To be fair, the crowd in San Diego was pretty dead for most of the night, which wouldn't have generated much energy for Ed. That said, the set list looked pre-cooked, which means one can't blame the audience for the set list length. It's true that San Diego clocked-in at a respectable length, but that was due to conversational tributes to family, friends, guitar teachers and NBA Hall of Famer Bill Walton.  Was it enjoyable, certainly? Sad that there wasn't a Dessert Course? Yep.

2-feign-reluctance

Hope no matter what, you folks going to every show has a good fucking time. I struggle seeing these discussions as part of the ‘passion’ honestly. 

chukdotcom

To me, there is a zero percent chance that the shows go longer as the tour goes on. This is it. 

cp3iverson

21-25 songs is perfect in my opinion.   No lulls.  Energy stays high for everyone.   

Hilarious that people are complaining when we haven’t had a busy touring year in 6 years.  These guys are playing shows, putting out new music, etc.   Most of their peers are long gone.  Enjoy yourself out there  

Lerxst1992

BloodMeridian80 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

OceansJenny said:

Poking around the PJ stats ap, avg # of songs per show:

1992: 11
1993: 16
1994: 20
1995: 23
1996: 23
1998: 23
2000: 26
2003: 26
2005: 26
2006: 26
2008: 26
2009: 28
2010: 25
2011: 28

2012: 26
2013: 32
2014: 29
2015: 30
2016: 30
2018: 28

These average set stats are likely a couple songs shorter due to festivals reducing the average, reading thru the LB tour they averaged 35 (!) songs and 5 or 6 from LB at arenas. As good as gig is, 8 out of 22 songs is much different new song ratio than the last arena album tour for LB. It changes the dynamic. 

Running the numbers on 2013 US, I get 32.5 songs per non-fest arena show (24 shows total). I do count some songs as one that pj.com separates -> Interstellar Overdrive into Corduroy = 1; Wasted Reprise into Life Wasted = 1; Chloe Dancer into Crown of Thorns = 1. I don't count Eruption as a 'song' -> if you want to count these as separate songs, the average jumps to 33.1.

San Diego had 8 Gigaton songs, LA ended up with 6.

Eek I miscounted Gig songs for LA1, 6 of 22 is a decent mix. Have to say LA1 looks like a decent set.

heartofadog

mcg.j.sean said:

heartofadog said:

mcg.j.sean said:

heartofadog said:

OceansJenny said:

Poking around the PJ stats ap, avg # of songs per show:

1992: 11
1993: 16
1994: 20
1995: 23
1996: 23
1998: 23
2000: 26
2003: 26
2005: 26
2006: 26
2008: 26
2009: 28
2010: 25
2011: 28

2012: 26
2013: 32
2014: 29
2015: 30
2016: 30
2018: 28

'96 and '98 shows are some of my favorites. I've said this in other threads but the setlist length, whether it be number of songs or time on stage, is not that big a deal to me personally as long as the band is tight and the show is good. Two hours and twenty-four minutes is still a great set length. And again, at the risk of repeating myself, I'm a little bummed that Gigaton is so much of the set but it's the new record, and the tour behind the new record, so I get it. I'm sure the songs *sound* great live but my issue with the record (and my issue with Earthling) is that Ed's writing is pretty weak compared even to the stuff on Backspacer or Lightning Bolt. Some outliers on both Gigaton and Earthling for sure but by and large the writing is just... not great, in my opinion. Seven O'Clock and The Haves, respectively, are two of the worst things, lyrically, that have made their way onto official PJ/EV releases, maybe ever.

Everyone has an opinion but holy smokes this is not right. Seven o’clock is a top 5 Pearl jam song for me. Lyrically, musically, the singing, Ed’s delivery … it’s perfect. Lightning bolt and backspacer are two of their weakest records IMO. Seven o’clock is miles ahead of anything on those albums. Like have you read the lyrics to let the records play? Lol 

I do agree with you the haves though. That one is pretty bad. 

We just disagree on Seven, I guess. To me the writing — like much of Ed's writing when he tries to be direct about political/social issues — is clunky. When his writing is even a bit more esoteric but still political (Rats, WME, DTE) it works a lot better for me. Quick Escape rips but the "to find a place Trump hadn't fucked up yet" immediately dates the song and makes it so specific to an individual moment/person rather than the root cause(s) of the problem(s) Ed is writing about. 

From the new one DOC, Wolf Moon, Retrograde and River Cross are all pretty good. The writing is what it needs to be for those songs. Maybe not his greatest writing, but befitting the material. I just don't feel the same about Seven, Who Ever Said, Escape and the other tracks. 

Yes agree to disagree! Haha

But honest question. One lyric and that ruins a song or makes you think the writing is weak? Seems like you have pretty high standards! 😉

I mean in terms of Ed my standards are just other songs he has written! For me 1994 - 1998 they were just untouchable. He was writing his ass off, records were great, shows were great. Records have been spotty since then, some highs and lows, and the writing has been the same. Shows have remained the constant, one of the best live bands ever.

Which brings me to: perhaps the set length, amount of time between shows, etc. is designed to preserve Ed's voice. By all accounts he's sounded great the first two nights, he sounded great at the Earthlings show I saw. He's 57 years old and these are and have always been demanding songs, vocally. Musically, too but most especially vocally. I'm not 57 yet; I'm 42 and I can tell you right now I can't do at 42 some of the things I could do at 33 or even 37, vocally. And I play maybe a dozen shows a year, tops. People have given the examples of McCartney and Springsteen playing marathon shows but they're not doing what this band does. Bruce's show is pretty physically demanding but it's just a different thing. So if the decision to play (slightly) shorter sets, fewer gigs, fewer tours, whatever is intended to preserve Ed's voice and give the band a bit more longevity, those are great decisions. Or, even if those decisions are made simply because the band wanted to, that's their prerogative. But I suspect it has more to do with simply wanting to be able to play more shows, better shows, and remain healthy than it does some whim to just... play less.

PJWGIII

I personally think we need to get a couple more shows in before we officially call it on that big picture level, but we'll see. The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that if it's a trade of an extra couple repetitive covers/formulaic slow burn extensions for tighter and even more unpredictable sets, I don't have as much of an issue with it. Obviously I'll always say the more the merrier with songs, but I sometimes wonder if the marathon style was more the exception of 2013 and 2016 than an established norm, and we're just going back to a more 2000ish style?

RiotAct10

OceansJenny said:

I love a slow first encore. Bring out the stools let’s gooooo with some All or None.

Agreed. People keep saying 5 or so covers a show have been cut, which while true, it’s also the first encore that’s been cut. I am a bigger fan of the slower and more mellow tunes, so I hope they find their way into the set list somehow.

aisleseats

RiotAct10 said:

OceansJenny said:

I love a slow first encore. Bring out the stools let’s gooooo with some All or None.

Agreed. People keep saying 5 or so covers a show have been cut, which while true, it’s also the first encore that’s been cut. I am a bigger fan of the slower and more mellow tunes, so I hope they find their way into the set list somehow.

I think Comes Then Goes would be perfect to open encore 1.

on2legs

The boomers must be stopped. 

Ten Backspaced Riot Actors

PJNB said:

Lifted said:

THEBIBLEISTEN said:

PJNB said:

The band came on stage 1hr and 20 minutes after Josh was done playing. What a wait that must be in the pit. They are not cutting much on the first two sets. They can play longer the opening band has nothing to do with this decision imo. 

I do like that Ed comes out for a solo song each night so far. With Pearl Jam almost coming out 2hrs after that though it is a huge wait for people to hear one song so I am not sure it will do what I think they are intending it to do and get peoples butts in their seats for Josh. 

You don’t even make any sense. Where do you get 1 hour and 20 minute wait between josh and the band coming on stage?  People on this board complaining about only getting 2 hour sets and shorter shows is odd to me. One person on here said they were selling their tickets to Atleast 2 of their shows cause SD set list was only 24 songs. They bought tix for 5 shows but are scaling down, ooooh the horror. 

Lol. Right....some of these posts are pretty pathetic. And rather ignorant regarding the history of the band's tours I might add. SD was 15 minutes shy of 3 hours...wtf more do people want? LA was 2 hours and 20. That's plenty of time for a concert, and also not completely out of the ordinary for pj. These 3+ hours shows being a regular thing for all tour stops only really happened for a couple of the more recent tours. 2.5 hours is pretty standard for PJ. 

The LA setlist looked great to me. Most of the Pearl Jam shows I've been to where they've played 3 hours or more, and I've been to a bunch, would've probably been better if they cut out some songs. They're essentially cutting out the 2nd encore of slower/acoustic songs (that has been a thing in recent years) and going straight for the heavy hitters.

I might be disappointed if they played for only 2 hours and included a bunch of slow acoustic ditties, but so far that doesn't seem to be the case. I hope it continues and pisses off a bunch of nerds holding camden and msg tickets....maybe they will become more accessible for the rest of us.

I like the slower songs. I am a nerd though. 

Amen!  So much better when the songs can breath.  Leads to more rhythm, and it helps Eddie’s vocals(he has to sing at a higher pitch the faster the song is).  I am all for longevity of the band.  Whatever they need to do to keep on keeping on I am in favor of.

bootlegger10

on2legs said:

The boomers must be stopped. 

Have patience and time will do the job.  

ClownofThorns

on2legs said:

The boomers must be stopped. 

Boooooooooom[ers]. 

aisleseats

on2legs said:

The boomers must be stopped. 

Who you callin' boomer?
Gen X, baby!!

on2legs

Next people will be complaining that the music is too loud.  🙄

aisleseats

on2legs said:

Next people will be complaining that the music is too loud.  🙄

I mean, I don't wanna be that guy. But if they could turn it down a decibel or two, that'd be great.

lastexit78

First off ecstatic this tour is even happening at this point. Also thankful they are even a band, so many of their contemporaries have fallen to tragedy over the years. Count me in the minority here, give me 23-27 song sets if they are tight. Saw a lot of shows between 2013-2018 and some were sloppy at times. IMO 2008-2010 was the last time they consistently played 30 plus song sets at a high level. 

cutz

aisleseats said:

RiotAct10 said:

OceansJenny said:

I love a slow first encore. Bring out the stools let’s gooooo with some All or None.

Agreed. People keep saying 5 or so covers a show have been cut, which while true, it’s also the first encore that’s been cut. I am a bigger fan of the slower and more mellow tunes, so I hope they find their way into the set list somehow.

I think Comes Then Goes would be perfect to open encore 1.

I think so too.  

But, will Comes Then Goes be played at all?

Spiritual_Chaos

I imagine 55-60% of the people on here saying this is the perfect amount of songs, was saying it was perfect when they played 30-32 songs also.

Personally, I have no problems with a tighter set. I just wish they would muck around more with the structure and the last string of songs.