The Official 2024 TOUR Thread

Merkin Baller · January 4

YourDirtisMyfood said:

Kearn5y said:

Finally figured it out. They dont play that much shows any more because we are all getting old and just cant take it anymore.

https://twitter.com/rawsalerts/status/1742679978540474405

How old is that defendant…. If he’s > 60 PJ needs to grow a pair.

RatherStarved · January 4

That court room video seems to have nothing to do with this rumor thread.

Haijay · January 4

Ryan said:

Pearl Jam ain’t playing stadiums in the US anywhere other than Seattle, Chicago and Boston.
People speculating on stadium shows in places like St Louis or Baltimore are wrong.

Camden Yards is in the middle of about 10 million people, they most definitely would sell out that show no prob. Citi Field in New York, sells out no problem. Philly, again, sells out no problem.

I wish they would, a lot of people on here head’s would explode. What, they are NOT this hardly popular at all band i keep saying and thinking they are? 🤯🤯🤯

tkepearljamn · January 4

Haijay said:

Ryan said:

Pearl Jam ain’t playing stadiums in the US anywhere other than Seattle, Chicago and Boston.
People speculating on stadium shows in places like St Louis or Baltimore are wrong.

Camden Yards is in the middle of about 10 million people, they most definitely would sell out that show no prob. Citi Field in New York, sells out no problem. Philly, again, sells out no problem.
I wish they would, a lot of people on here head’s would explode. What, they are NOT this hardly popular at all band i keep saying and thinking they are? 🤯🤯🤯

St. Louis has had 2 stadium shows a year for a decade at Busch. Paul McCartney / Metallica / Billy Joel / A bunch of country artists. The only one that cancelled was GNR last year. Most have sold out in minutes. That's why it was a educated guess ( paired with Buck making the announcement ). That being said... it looks like it's AC/DC announcing 10 baseball stadium shows tomorrow for their 50th anniversary.

Kwieneke · January 4

Haijay said:

Ryan said:

Pearl Jam ain’t playing stadiums in the US anywhere other than Seattle, Chicago and Boston.
People speculating on stadium shows in places like St Louis or Baltimore are wrong.

Camden Yards is in the middle of about 10 million people, they most definitely would sell out that show no prob. Citi Field in New York, sells out no problem. Philly, again, sells out no problem.
I wish they would, a lot of people on here head’s would explode. What, they are NOT this hardly popular at all band i keep saying and thinking they are? 🤯🤯🤯

To be fair, I never hear anyone talk about Pearl Jam, and the amount of 40+ year old people
who say they’ve never even heard of them is ridiculous. Sometimes I definitely wonder how big they are to the average person.

Malroth · January 4

Merkin Baller said:

YourDirtisMyfood said:

Kearn5y said:

Finally figured it out. They dont play that much shows any more because we are all getting old and just cant take it anymore.

https://twitter.com/rawsalerts/status/1742679978540474405

How old is that defendant…. If he’s > 60 PJ needs to grow a pair.

the 60 yr old is calmly taking it all in like hes watching the morning news with a bowl of oat flakes

CROJAM95 · January 4

I’m thinking for me
LA, SD, Vegas, seattle

philly, Boston, msg, Hartford

gotta cut back a little to afford another year of madness, but it’s too much fun

Haijay · January 4

Kwieneke said:

Haijay said:

Ryan said:

Pearl Jam ain’t playing stadiums in the US anywhere other than Seattle, Chicago and Boston.
People speculating on stadium shows in places like St Louis or Baltimore are wrong.

Camden Yards is in the middle of about 10 million people, they most definitely would sell out that show no prob. Citi Field in New York, sells out no problem. Philly, again, sells out no problem.
I wish they would, a lot of people on here head’s would explode. What, they are NOT this hardly popular at all band i keep saying and thinking they are? 🤯🤯🤯

To be fair, I never hear anyone talk about Pearl Jam, and the amount of 40+ year old people
who say they’ve never even heard of them is ridiculous. Sometimes I definitely wonder how big they are to the average person.

Sure, but that really doesn’t mean much. We have personalized plates and stickmen on one of our vehicles, and we get lots of attention when we are out with it. And LOTS of women in their 40’s and 50’s🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️
I say Tool to people and they are like “idk what that is”, or the pumpkins, or weezer, or radiohead, the list goes on, so its all relative.

The fact remains that their shows are packed out 99% of the time, so that means a lot. Regardless of their “lack of shows”, which seems to be a common copout on here. I remember when they announced the first Wrigley, people on here were saying it’ll never sell out, and when it did in record time, the excuses were flying about how it was only because there were no shows around that time. 2016, many shows were “around” Wrigley and Fenway and look what happened, instant sellouts. Comments over the years on here have been quite comical, like their only “fans” are the fanclub. I feel people honestly believe that🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

Kwieneke · January 4

Haijay said:

Kwieneke said:

Haijay said:

Ryan said:

Pearl Jam ain’t playing stadiums in the US anywhere other than Seattle, Chicago and Boston.
People speculating on stadium shows in places like St Louis or Baltimore are wrong.

Camden Yards is in the middle of about 10 million people, they most definitely would sell out that show no prob. Citi Field in New York, sells out no problem. Philly, again, sells out no problem.
I wish they would, a lot of people on here head’s would explode. What, they are NOT this hardly popular at all band i keep saying and thinking they are? 🤯🤯🤯

To be fair, I never hear anyone talk about Pearl Jam, and the amount of 40+ year old people
who say they’ve never even heard of them is ridiculous. Sometimes I definitely wonder how big they are to the average person.

Sure, but that really doesn’t mean much. We have personalized plates and stickmen on one of our vehicles, and we get lots of attention when we are out with it. And LOTS of women in their 40’s and 50’s🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️
I say Tool to people and they are like “idk what that is”, or the pumpkins, or weezer, or radiohead, the list goes on, so its all relative.
The fact remains that their shows are packed out 99% of the time, so that means a lot. Regardless of their “lack of shows”, which seems to be a common copout on here. I remember when they announced the first Wrigley, people on here were saying it’ll never sell out, and when it did in record time, the excuses were flying about how it was only because there were no shows around that time. 2016, many shows were “around” Wrigley and Fenway and look what happened, instant sellouts. Comments over the years on here have been quite comical, like their only “fans” are the fanclub. I feel people honestly believe that🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

Casual fans definitely exist! I just never come across them🤣

phillyjam · January 4

I’ve also heard a State College rumor

Zen23 · January 4

After only reading the last few pages on the topics of age and touring pleasure, I have to get one thing off my chest calmly and objectively.

I can no longer listen to the "They don't owe us anything" and the "They just do it the way they want". They have chosen this vocation. And it's definitely not the worst. Just like a teacher stands in front of an annoyed class and teaches, just like a road builder repairs the road surface in the blazing midday sun, a band with millions of fans around the world has a certain obligation to deliver something. Albums and concerts. Especially the latter. Long awaited for months and years. Sold out within a very short time. And which earn you a lot of money that allows you to be on stage eight days in 2023 and spend the rest of the year with your family. A vocation and financial security that has already allowed you in previous years - such as from 2015 to 2017 - to be on stage for a total of just 36 working days in three years and spend the rest of those three years with your family. Please let it melt in your mouth once again. 36 working days on stage in a period of 36 months. Wasn't good at math. But I think that makes one working day on stage per month.

They belong to one of the greatest and most highly acclaimed rock bands on the planet. Don't be surprised if people want to see you live. And if one or two band members are no longer able to do so - whether because of their age or because they "hate working in Europe in July" - then the whole band has to draw the consequences together. For themselves and for their fans. Either they stop their vocation because of the band members in question. Or they make the decision to move on and replace the band members who are holding them back from going on tour. Not completely. But at least on tour. Of course, I also like it better if they carry on instead of quitting. It just leaves an increasingly bitter aftertaste year after year the way things seem to be going now.

kmcmanus · January 4

All they owe you is the show you bought a ticket for. That’s all. I wish they played more shows. I wish the long and growing list of cities they haven’t played in a decade or more would get some love. I wish they’d make albums more frequently. But they don’t owe me any of that. If you can no longer listen to people telling you that then you might have a problem because it’s the truth. I would love more from them, but we don’t “deserve” more. And frankly the writing is on the wall at this point,
And are you seriously suggesting they should replace Jeff? C’mon man that’s gonna be a non-starter. They’d break up the band before they replaced anyone, and why would you want PJ without Jeff freakin’ Ament anyway?

I get the frustration, I share some of it, but be serious.

Zen23 · January 4

Imagine your favorite band wants to go on tour. One of the band members no longer wants to go. Would you like them to break up for this reason? Or would you like them to replace the band member just for the tour? Serious.

CantKeepmedown · January 4

I think I'd be happy just getting the shows that we are getting. Would I love top pencil in a show or 2 every year? Of course! But obviously that's not how this band operates. I don't think just replacing one of the founding members of your band to tour every year is the answer.

Zen23 · January 4

I don't want that either. I want to see the band continue with their line-up. I just think it's a shame if they have to hold themselves back, even though they might be up for more. They would still have enough free time.

mpedone · January 4

Zen23 said:

After only reading the last few pages on the topics of age and touring pleasure, I have to get one thing off my chest calmly and objectively.

I can no longer listen to the "They don't owe us anything" and the "They just do it the way they want". They have chosen this vocation. And it's definitely not the worst. Just like a teacher stands in front of an annoyed class and teaches, just like a road builder repairs the road surface in the blazing midday sun, a band with millions of fans around the world has a certain obligation to deliver something. Albums and concerts. Especially the latter. Long awaited for months and years. Sold out within a very short time. And which earn you a lot of money that allows you to be on stage eight days in 2023 and spend the rest of the year with your family. A vocation and financial security that has already allowed you in previous years - such as from 2015 to 2017 - to be on stage for a total of just 36 working days in three years and spend the rest of those three years with your family. Please let it melt in your mouth once again. 36 working days on stage in a period of 36 months. Wasn't good at math. But I think that makes one working day on stage per month.

They belong to one of the greatest and most highly acclaimed rock bands on the planet. Don't be surprised if people want to see you live. And if one or two band members are no longer able to do so - whether because of their age or because they "hate working in Europe in July" - then the whole band has to draw the consequences together. For themselves and for their fans. Either they stop their vocation because of the band members in question. Or they make the decision to move on and replace the band members who are holding them back from going on tour. Not completely. But at least on tour. Of course, I also like it better if they carry on instead of quitting. It just leaves an increasingly bitter aftertaste year after year the way things seem to be going now.

A teacher is contracted to teach. A construction worker is hired to build that road. Pearl Jam owes us three things: 1. A yearly membership item. 2. A yearly bootleg code. 3. First access to tickets when they do tour. They owe us these things because we pay to be members of this fan club. Outside of that? They owe us nothing. This isn't Kickstarter. We're not crowd-funding a new album, or paying to support a tour.

Merkin Baller · January 4

Zen23 said:

After only reading the last few pages on the topics of age and touring pleasure, I have to get one thing off my chest calmly and objectively.

I can no longer listen to the "They don't owe us anything" and the "They just do it the way they want". They have chosen this vocation. And it's definitely not the worst. Just like a teacher stands in front of an annoyed class and teaches, just like a road builder repairs the road surface in the blazing midday sun, a band with millions of fans around the world has a certain obligation to deliver something. Albums and concerts. Especially the latter. Long awaited for months and years. Sold out within a very short time. And which earn you a lot of money that allows you to be on stage eight days in 2023 and spend the rest of the year with your family. A vocation and financial security that has already allowed you in previous years - such as from 2015 to 2017 - to be on stage for a total of just 36 working days in three years and spend the rest of those three years with your family. Please let it melt in your mouth once again. 36 working days on stage in a period of 36 months. Wasn't good at math. But I think that makes one working day on stage per month.

They belong to one of the greatest and most highly acclaimed rock bands on the planet. Don't be surprised if people want to see you live. And if one or two band members are no longer able to do so - whether because of their age or because they "hate working in Europe in July" - then the whole band has to draw the consequences together. For themselves and for their fans. Either they stop their vocation because of the band members in question. Or they make the decision to move on and replace the band members who are holding them back from going on tour. Not completely. But at least on tour. Of course, I also like it better if they carry on instead of quitting. It just leaves an increasingly bitter aftertaste year after year the way things seem to be going now.

They can do what they want, and so can you. You can leave anytime.

pjl44 · January 4

Zen23 said:

Just like a teacher stands in front of an annoyed class and teaches, just like a road builder repairs the road surface in the blazing midday sun, a band with millions of fans around the world has a certain obligation to deliver something. Albums and concerts. Especially the latter.

The other workers you mention have employers. In this scenario, Pearl Jam have their own business. Their only obligations are to fulfill any contracts they've signed.

Zen23 · January 4

It's interesting to see the direction this is taking. "They can do what they want. You are frustrated. You can leave anytime." No, I'm not. And I'm not planning to leave either. I love this band. And I'm grateful for any new music. Every concert. None of us know the real reasons why they choose their path. And that is precisely the reason why I find the speculation about it so strange. Like, for example, the theory that they want to spend more time with their family. What some of us would give to have so much time with our loved ones.

kaw753 · January 4

Zen23 said:

Imagine your favorite band wants to go on tour. One of the band members no longer wants to go. Would you like them to break up for this reason? Or would you like them to replace the band member just for the tour? Serious.

The Killers have swapped in a road guitarist and bass player for many years now as two of them love to tour constantly and the other two definitely do not. I actually haven't seen them since they started doing it, but that also coincided with the band mostly sounding like a Brandon Flowers solo project.

drfox · January 4

I share your frustration about the lack of touring. Especially when I compare them to my other favourite band (Queens of the Stone Age). But quite honestly the band can do what they want and we have to be grateful they are still around. Lots of band have called it a day or sadly lost band members. I don’t think touring without Jeff would work to be honest. He’s a key member of the band. It’s not like Foo Fighters or QOTSA where the band is very much Dave Grohl and Josh Homme respectively, and a switch of another band member makes less difference. With PJ they are all core members with everyone apart from Matt there since inception.

Merkin Baller · January 4

I have zero problem with Alice In Chains continuing without Layne Staley. It's their band, they can do what they want.

I also don't have half as much interest in AIC without Layne Staley, so I don't buy their albums or see them in concert like I would have back when Layne was around. I can do what I want.

This isn't hard.

BV84003 · January 4

They've pretty consistently followed the same kind of touring structure/frequency since like 2007 at this point, so it would be silly to think that's ever going to change, no? It's just a little striking to me how their setlists have noticeably shrunk since coming back in 2021. Not sure if there's been any kind of explanation for that, not that they need one. But the prospect of 30+ song setlists certainly made the idea of traveling for shows much more appealing.

hihobibo · January 4

RatherStarved said:

Gotta be a big show if there is a press conference. I don’t recall there being a press conference for Foo Fighters or Chris Stapleton, for example. So it’s either PJ, or AC/DC, or . . . I’m out of ideas who else would require a press conference. Maybe Paul McCartney or Taylor Swift would be big enough for a press conference?

People can laugh but Billy Joel has been known to do press conferences for stadium shows.

When they announced Billy Joel and Sting playing a one-off in Tampa this year at Raymond James Stadium, it was first teased as a major concert was coming to Tampa. Then the mayor had a press conference to make the announcement. So this definitely falls in line with that type of scenario.

deb1211 · January 4

They do not owe us anything. They have blessed us with some of the most soul touching music I've ever heard for decades. They have earned their money and because of that that gives them the right to do whatever they want at this stage in their lives, whether that be tour 10 shows or 100 or none. I chose to give up a career that involved being in concert production to be more present in my kids lives and that was my choice. I am mine. They are choosing to make new music and tour and I'm thankful I'm in a place to choose to travel to see them still. I wish I could see every show but that's not possible but I am so grateful for every one I do see because no bands music makes me this happy.

Zen23 · January 4

Perhaps I didn't express myself well enough. Maybe it's because English is not my first language. Let me try a short version.

I'm not frustrated that they don't tour much. I'm annoyed by some of the attempts to explain it. Some of which sound overly protective. Some of them are out of proportion. For example, the working days on stage in relation to free time with the family.

I am aware that they can do what they want. And that they don't owe me anything personally. But if someone here is allowed to express the opinion that the reasons are the lack of free time with the family, old age or the past desire to tour, then I am also allowed to express my opinion on what I think of these explanations.

Gern Blansten · January 4

Zen23 said:

Perhaps I didn't express myself well enough. Maybe it's because English is not my first language. Let me try a short version.

I'm not frustrated that they don't tour much. I'm annoyed by some of the attempts to explain it. Some of which sound overly protective. Some of them are out of proportion. For example, the working days on stage in relation to free time with the family.

I am aware that they can do what they want. And that they don't owe me anything personally. But if someone here is allowed to express the opinion that the reasons are the lack of free time with the family, old age or the past desire to tour, then I am also allowed to express my opinion on what I think of these explanations.

And then people are allowed to express their opinion about your opinion. It's a vicious circle.

kmcmanus · January 4

Zen23 said:

Imagine your favorite band wants to go on tour. One of the band members no longer wants to go. Would you like them to break up for this reason? Or would you like them to replace the band member just for the tour? Serious.

It doesn’t matter what I want, it matters what they want. And I’m certain they do not want to replace Jeff Ament.

Go Animal · January 4

Zen23 said:

After only reading the last few pages on the topics of age and touring pleasure, I have to get one thing off my chest calmly and objectively.

I can no longer listen to the "They don't owe us anything" and the "They just do it the way they want". They have chosen this vocation. And it's definitely not the worst. Just like a teacher stands in front of an annoyed class and teaches, just like a road builder repairs the road surface in the blazing midday sun, a band with millions of fans around the world has a certain obligation to deliver something. Albums and concerts. Especially the latter. Long awaited for months and years. Sold out within a very short time. And which earn you a lot of money that allows you to be on stage eight days in 2023 and spend the rest of the year with your family. A vocation and financial security that has already allowed you in previous years - such as from 2015 to 2017 - to be on stage for a total of just 36 working days in three years and spend the rest of those three years with your family. Please let it melt in your mouth once again. 36 working days on stage in a period of 36 months. Wasn't good at math. But I think that makes one working day on stage per month.

They belong to one of the greatest and most highly acclaimed rock bands on the planet. Don't be surprised if people want to see you live. And if one or two band members are no longer able to do so - whether because of their age or because they "hate working in Europe in July" - then the whole band has to draw the consequences together. For themselves and for their fans. Either they stop their vocation because of the band members in question. Or they make the decision to move on and replace the band members who are holding them back from going on tour. Not completely. But at least on tour. Of course, I also like it better if they carry on instead of quitting. It just leaves an increasingly bitter aftertaste year after year the way things seem to be going now.

Oh, well. That's life.

kmcmanus · January 4

drfox everyone apart from Matt there since inception.

And Matt played in the demo that became Momma-Son, he was kinda there before inception