About this european tour, your opinion

ajb · July 2010

Hi people from pearljam.com I write this message from europe, and after seeing those last setlists , the price of the tickets if you go to a festival just to see pearl jam, and you just see 1 hour and a half of hits, including the stop of the encores.... I have only one question:

Is it better see them every year or every two years with those shity concerts or maybe it is better see them every four five years but with twenty beautiful concerts, just like in 2006 for example???

In my opinion I prefer 2006 tour, but I hope it is very attractive to attend the european summer festivals, lot of people, probably easy money, not so many responsability talking about the development of a tour... and so on.

I am jealous for example of the last tour in Australia... i prefer wait more but have 100% pearl jam instead of those last concerts.

veddertown · July 2010

There ain't any shitty shows! The people who attended the shorter festival sets still said the band and energy was great as usual. The shows in Berlin, Dublin and Belfast were awesome and London was quite lengthy for a festival. What would you rather, PJ came to Europe 4 years out of 5 playing 30+ shows in total or another 6 year wait like the first half of the decade? I don't have to think long for my answer.

Degi · July 2010

veddertown wrote:

There ain't any shitty shows! The people who attended the shorter festival sets still said the band and energy was great as usual. The shows in Berlin, Dublin and Belfast were awesome and London was quite lengthy for a festival. What would you rather, PJ came to Europe 4 years out of 5 playing 30+ shows in total or another 6 year wait like the first half of the decade? I don't have to think long for my answer.

i am trying to tell myself, that its not too bad that i couldnt go to werchter last night or arras the night before and lets not even start about italy, because the setlists arent special, but who am i kidding? its PJ...

i havent been to belfast and london, but i think veddertown forgot to mention NIJMEGEN, it was a great setlist and the crowd was pretty cool!! not the usual length of a PJ show, but damn have you had a look at that setlist yet? seriously, you should!
couldnt agree more with you veddertown, the answer is pretty obvious

ajb · July 2010

Ufff, both of you have very good reasons, and we are talking about pearl jam, the best group live ever,but honestly, and of course is my point of view, I prefer to wait five or six years.

in the festivals everything seems very previsible. Lots of fun and great energy, of course, great music, of course as well, but i feel that the festivals are "mass media" concerts.

And of course we will buy / download three or four concerts of this tour, but, for example myself, I will never buy for example, the full tour box, in case they do it. Do you know what I mean?

I do not know if I explained properly my point of view, anyway it is only an opinion and I wanted to know your thoughts about this idea.

Thanks for posting your feelings about this!

Rossum20 · July 2010

I think PJ did this for 2 reasons....one being that they didn't have to do much with organization...they just hopped onto these festival gigs that were already lined up. They also have been pushing for new fans since Avocado came out and they probably figure they can put on a show for people who have never seen them before and they can win them over. I did Nijemgen and Berlin...and festivals (no matter how great the band is playing) do not have the same excitement/vibe as their own show...and when you fail to reach 20 songs, it is a bit of a bummer.

The band has every right to play these festivals but I wish they would make their tours mostly based on their own shows rather than festivals....maybe 5 festivals and 10 PJ only shows would be a fair ratio

ajb · July 2010

Rossum20 wrote:

The band has every right to play these festivals but I wish they would make their tours mostly based on their own shows rather than festivals....maybe 5 festivals and 10 PJ only shows would be a fair ratio

that would be perfect

Degi · July 2010

ajb wrote:

And of course we will buy / download three or four concerts of this tour, but, for example myself, I will never buy for example, the full tour box, in case they do it. Do you know what I mean?

i know what you mean, the arras and werchter setlists (dont remember gydania) seem kinda alike (forgive me if they dont, was in the world cup mode on saturday and it was pretty late last night...) festival setlists... not a huge difference between them (if you havent been there)...

haha i should add the fact, that i have never seen any other band then PJ live (lets not count gomez and ben or the bands that played in nijmegen) because my parents never allowed me and i am only 19 LOL

Eraserhead · July 2010

A Pearl Jam show is better than no show at all, but with the majority of the European shows being festivals, gives you the feeling we're being cheated. The tour kicked off with 2 indoor shows in fairly decent sized venues. Why not continue the trend? Look at the average US leg, and they do one or two festival dates, with the rest of the shows in arenas.

Festivals have issues over cost of ticket and setlist times. I know festivals have curfews, but I'd be gutted to spend considerbly more for a festival date over an arena date to get 1.5 hrs from the headlining band. Look at all the indoor shows - 2hr minimum sets, with the 2 encores. Lots of the recent Euro dates have had only the 1 encore.

Read the thread on the Hyde Park show. Maybe it was the weather, maybe too many people had been drinking, but there's a lot of people raising issue with the crowd's behaviour in general. I'm not saying an indoor show is knob-head free, but on a like-for-like basis, they're generally more well behaved.

Ed was also concerned about the situation upfront in London, regarding the crushing. I don't want to sound over-dramatic, but no-one wants a repeat of Denmark.

Every country has the venues to hold 20,000+ people these days, there's no excuse for not doing it!

I love the band, I've seen play across the globe, but I'll chose an arena show over a festival any day of the week.

Hail, hail!

John Briggs 2008 · July 2010

I don't agree that Euro fans are being cheated at all. The fact that they even went to Europe at all says they love all you wonderful people over there. The band members are going to be damn busy with other projects and family and personal lives and this 2010 tour is a send off to wet the whistles of there fans abroad as well as at home. The festivals in my opinion were the best means to squeeze as many euro shows as they could pull off. The fact that they are headliners of some of the biggest and expansive festival venues in the world says a lot for why there shows are so short. You folks are just experiencing what they did when they started out and what made them so damn popular in there early career. Just my two cents and I am glad you folks got to see them and wish you all well at the shows and in your travels. Be safe my friends.

Mirella · July 2010

The problem is you can't predict how good they will be. Looking back now, I liked the previous tours more than this last one, but they can still be great. Belfast for instance ranks high in the overall list of perfect Pearl Jam concerts

.
Personally, I will take it easy a next time so I will be able to enjoy the shows I go to most, instead of hurrying from one place to the next. Fans are getting older too

.
Oh, and Laura: live shows are great. There are tons of good bands besides Pearl Jam.

groetjes,
Mirella

Kinsey · July 2010

As a person who has waited 6 years between PJ shows because they didn't play Ireland for that long, I would say that intentionally missing a show in your area is a bad idea - a short gig is better than no gig.

However, I fully agree that, as far as bootlegs go, these festival setlists will not be anywhere near the top of most peoples' 'must buy' lists, except for the completists. There really is no comparison between the setlists at Dublin, Belfast and Berlin, and those at the festivals. I also don't buy into the argument that hitting so many festivals is the best way for Pearl Jam to fit in as many gigs as possible in Europe. If they plan to be here for a month (or whatever), then they could plan to play a month of their own shows. It would require more organisation on their part, but that surely isn't a problem for a band of PJ's status. If it's a plan to garner new fans, fair enough, but PJ are also big enough to be able to dictate the terms they play on: ie, demand a 2.5 hr slot.

Making comparisons with their situation when they started out is also problematic. They are now big enough to book their own shows and play full sets to sell-out or near sell out crowds of 10,000+, which mightn't have been the case in the early days.

For my part, I'm glad to have seen them in Dublin and Belfast, where we got incredible, usual length shows. I have to admit I would have been disappointed to see a show of less than two hours length (or 20 or less songs), given the size of the band's back catalogue and their proven ability to play for 2.5 - 3 hours.

John Briggs 2008 · July 2010

Kinsey wrote:

As a person who has waited 6 years between PJ shows because they didn't play Ireland for that long, I would say that intentionally missing a show in your area is a bad idea - a short gig is better than no gig.

However, I fully agree that, as far as bootlegs go, these festival setlists will not be anywhere near the top of most peoples' 'must buy' lists, except for the completists. There really is no comparison between the setlists at Dublin, Belfast and Berlin, and those at the festivals. I also don't buy into the argument that hitting so many festivals is the best way for Pearl Jam to fit in as many gigs as possible in Europe. If they plan to be here for a month (or whatever), then they could plan to play a month of their own shows. It would require more organisation on their part, but that surely isn't a problem for a band of PJ's status. If it's a plan to garner new fans, fair enough, but PJ are also big enough to be able to dictate the terms they play on: ie, demand a 2.5 hr slot.

Making comparisons with their situation when they started out is also problematic. They are now big enough to book their own shows and play full sets to sell-out or near sell out crowds of 10,000+, which mightn't have been the case in the early days.

For my part, I'm glad to have seen them in Dublin and Belfast, where we got incredible, usual length shows. I have to admit I would have been disappointed to see a show of less than two hours length (or 20 or less songs), given the size of the band's back catalogue and their proven ability to play for 2.5 - 3 hours.

Did you ever stop to think that it's not problematic at all but more suitable for them to do a Euro tour quickly and with as little hassle as possible for the short tour so they can make the fans some what happy and go with other plans in accordance? That's what I was directing my perceptions of it all at. I am not trying to invalidate any complaints here but what I find problematic is that anyone would complain about the band having a short set list or some what redundant set list when you in fact get to go to a concert with them head lining at all.

TO each there own I say. Can't please all the people al the time but most the people most of the time. At least you wonderful fans in Euro got to see them regardless of how short it was and I hope all of you enjoyed it a little bit. I do understand though.

Plankton · July 2010

I would have felt a little robbed if I'd just done one show this tour and it was one of the short ones. Yes every PJ show is great, but even that experience would be soured by having a noticably short set, it would not feel like other PJ shows.

And from my experience, even Hard Rock Calling didn't compare to Dublin, Belfast or Berlin despite being as long - I presonally don't like the atmosphere as much.

So in short, I'd prefer them to do their own shows all the time - maybe that would mean less shows per tour in Europe but I doubt it would mean less Euro tours altogether.

Degi · July 2010

Mirella wrote:

Oh, and Laura: live shows are great. There are tons of good bands besides Pearl Jam.

groetjes,
Mirella

WAIT, you mean there are other band then Pearl Jam?!???!!?!?!?! :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:
honestly though, there are no big venues in my area and i dont really like the crowd that goes to the regional stuff (of which we dont have a lot btw) so instead of driving for hours and spending a lot of money for a ticket to see some random band, i better safe my money and wait for PJ to come back here next year

Kinsey · July 2010

I'm just not sure I buy into the idea that it's less hassle to do a load of festival shows than it is to book their own. All festival promoters still have to be negotiated with, gear still has to be transported, etc. And, like I said, they could have negotiated a longer set-time. Most other big bands do just that when playing festivals.

As I said, of course it's much better to see them than not. I'm just happy I got full shows, not festival shows.

John Briggs 2008 · July 2010

Kinsey wrote:

I'm just not sure I buy into the idea that it's less hassle to do a load of festival shows than it is to book their own. All festival promoters still have to be negotiated with, gear still has to be transported, etc. And, like I said, they could have negotiated a longer set-time. Most other big bands do just that when playing festivals.

As I said, of course it's much better to see them than not. I'm just happy I got full shows, not festival shows.

Buy it or not but to me it's obvious that based on how the Euro shows are going that that is what they are doing. Sucks but at least they are trying to meet there fans half way while putting a rush order on the Euro tour without major venue establishments of there own being done in a more pronounced manner. Let's face it, they are not making anything near what they would if they book the venues in there traditional form.

chime · July 2010

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainmen ... 459494.stm

Festivals pay a heck of a lot ... and they will have less overheads than they would have putting on their own shows.

I would prefer to see them play their own shows but have enjoyed the couple of times I've seen them at festivals and would take that over nothing.

Plus if I go to see them at a festival I know the cost of the ticket is the cost to see X number of bands and take that into account ... and hopefully I'll like some of the other bands

Pry To · July 2010

I'm not a fan of festivals in general. The sightlines are awful, the sound is bad, there's nowhere to sit, long lines for everything. And whether it's PJ or someone else, you're generally going to get a hits-heavy, short set. I can't even remember the last festival I saw (although seeing PJ at the second Lollapalooza was pretty awesome). I'm surprised the band still does festivals, given what happened in Denmark. The setlists and times on this latest jaunt have left me pretty cold, but it is a festival, so I wouldn't expect much more.

With all of that said, I'm jealous of London and Berlin for getting two tour stops in less than a year.

pdalowsky · July 2010

Pj are great for an hour or three

but the question being asked really here is would you prefer them to tour regularly on festivals or less regularly on their own in arenas on longer tours.

I'd always prefer the proper PJ tour, because the sets are more varied, and most importantly longer, the curfews dont appear so strict and the crowds are generally better.

everyone has their view though, and now we are used to seeing these guys almost every year since 2006 it would be hard now having to wait 6 years....

John Briggs 2008 · July 2010

chime wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment_and_arts/10459494.stm

Festivals pay a heck of a lot ... and they will have less overheads than they would have putting on their own shows.

I would prefer to see them play their own shows but have enjoyed the couple of times I've seen them at festivals and would take that over nothing.

Plus if I go to see them at a festival I know the cost of the ticket is the cost to see X number of bands and take that into account ... and hopefully I'll like some of the other bands

That's what I was driving at. Seems Festivals pay more actually so they benefit while trying to give Europe a bit of show to.

pattydiaz · July 2010

when you live in a country where they don't usually go, and can't afford go on tour with them, you appreciate so much every single opportunity you have to see them.
I'm from Chile and they only went there once, in 2005 . Nowadays I live in Europe, and I have been able to see them in 2006, 2007, and this friday in Bilbao, Spain. I'll travel 6 hours by car to arrive there, 6 months pregnant, but I wouldn't miss it for anything. I can't deny that I'd like to have a long set list, but if you ask me to have the oportunity to see them every year or every two years, I will always choose that instead of see them today and not again until an indeterminate time..

About this european tour, your opinion

Comments

Categories