How does Pearl Jam not extend the tour?

U2 and the Stones go out and crank out the exact same (or really close) greatest-hits setlists night after night. Even when they play two nights in the same city, they basically play the exact same songs. They're clearly only in it for the money at this point. (Does a great artist paint the same painting over and over and over, or do they continually create new works?)

Maybe the reason Pearl Jam is able to produce vibrant new music (unlike the Stones and U2, neither of whom have made a decent record in 20+ years) is because they don't whore themselves out on huge tours. Shorter tours mean that the fans get true art, passion, a band that cares about the music, interesting setlists. As long as they continue to do this, who are we to demand anything else of them?

Passim wrote:

U2 and the Stones go out and crank out the exact same (or really close) greatest-hits setlists night after night. Even when they play two nights in the same city, they basically play the exact same songs. They're clearly only in it for the money at this point. (Does a great artist paint the same painting over and over and over, or do they continually create new works?)

Maybe the reason Pearl Jam is able to produce vibrant new music (unlike the Stones and U2, neither of whom have made a decent record in 20+ years) is because they don't whore themselves out on huge tours. Shorter tours mean that the fans get true art, passion, a band that cares about the music, interesting setlists. As long as they continue to do this, who are we to demand anything else of them?

AMEN to that

The Jeagler wrote:

Passim wrote:

U2 and the Stones go out and crank out the exact same (or really close) greatest-hits setlists night after night. Even when they play two nights in the same city, they basically play the exact same songs. They're clearly only in it for the money at this point. (Does a great artist paint the same painting over and over and over, or do they continually create new works?)

Maybe the reason Pearl Jam is able to produce vibrant new music (unlike the Stones and U2, neither of whom have made a decent record in 20+ years) is because they don't whore themselves out on huge tours. Shorter tours mean that the fans get true art, passion, a band that cares about the music, interesting setlists. As long as they continue to do this, who are we to demand anything else of them?

no.

at this point in pearl jam's career with their declining sales figures, most of their income comes from touring and the boots.

this tour was incredibly short.

also--u2's last album was pretty good.

Is it possible that (gasp!) they don't do this just for the money? Is it possible (gasp!) that the millions of dollars they earn from short tours is more than enough? Groups like the Stones and U2 do the big cash-grab, gouging their fans for every last cent, including outrageous ticket prices that are nowhere near what PJ charges. I saw both of those groups waaaaaaaaaay back in the day, when it may have been possible that they still cared somewhat about art, but I wouldn't pay $300 to sit in the back of some massive stadium to see them play the same greatest hits setlist I saw 20 years ago. But that's just me.

Dirty Boots was as good as "Joshua Tree" or "Achtung Baby?" Seriously? Really? Ummm, okay, have fun at the show. (Or just buy yourself dinner for two and a sealed Benny box set with the money you'd save.)

I'm not being hard on you, man, I know others feel the same way. Backspacer was a short album by today's standards, but I'm not sure adding another five tracks would have automatically made it better. Sometimes less is more, IMO.

Haven't seen them since they toured Canada in 2005. Canada is a big place. It would be nice if they would play places like Winnipeg and Saskatoon or Regina more often. Show me some love! I'm north of the 54th parallel. It's a bloody long drive just to get to the border, nevermind get anywhere in the states to see them, and it's a 3 day drive to Toronto. Playing Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver does not satisfy all of Canada!

GL88154 wrote:

I paid $55 bucks for a GA field U2 ticket last year that put me inside of their stage.....which cost less then my last 10c ticket.....just saying....

i can bet had you saw them the next night you woulda seen the same setlist and the band go through the same motions. if thats for you then by all means dont buy pearl jam tickets. least thats one less person i have to worry bout when getting tickets.

PearlJammer623 wrote:

We all have real jobs and cherish the time we have with our families. They are rock stars...please... its not a real 9-5 job. Going on tour for say 50 dates in 13 months is not stealing too much time away from the family. I would be that the wives actually enjoy the break of having the husbads home 24/7. Anyone who is married know what i am talking about...

But you have to think that they more than likely bring their families with them when they play overseas. I remember on the Immagine in Cornice DVD that Jill and Olivia were with Ed and the band during the stop in Italy.

PearlJammer623 wrote:

SO PLEASE DO MORE THAN 16 DATE WORLD TOURS.....ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAVE A FUCKING BRILLANT VIBRANT NEW ALBUM.

which album are you talking about again?

Passim wrote:

The Jeagler wrote:

Passim wrote:

U2 and the Stones go out and crank out the exact same (or really close) greatest-hits setlists night after night. Even when they play two nights in the same city, they basically play the exact same songs. They're clearly only in it for the money at this point. (Does a great artist paint the same painting over and over and over, or do they continually create new works?)

Maybe the reason Pearl Jam is able to produce vibrant new music (unlike the Stones and U2, neither of whom have made a decent record in 20+ years) is because they don't whore themselves out on huge tours. Shorter tours mean that the fans get true art, passion, a band that cares about the music, interesting setlists. As long as they continue to do this, who are we to demand anything else of them?

no.

at this point in pearl jam's career with their declining sales figures, most of their income comes from touring and the boots.

this tour was incredibly short.

also--u2's last album was pretty good.

Is it possible that (gasp!) they don't do this just for the money? Is it possible (gasp!) that the millions of dollars they earn from short tours is more than enough? Groups like the Stones and U2 do the big cash-grab, gouging their fans for every last cent, including outrageous ticket prices that are nowhere near what PJ charges. I saw both of those groups waaaaaaaaaay back in the day, when it may have been possible that they still cared somewhat about art, but I wouldn't pay $300 to sit in the back of some massive stadium to see them play the same greatest hits setlist I saw 20 years ago. But that's just me.

Dirty Boots was as good as "Joshua Tree" or "Achtung Baby?" Seriously? Really? Ummm, okay, have fun at the show. (Or just buy yourself dinner for two and a sealed Benny box set with the money you'd save.)

I'm not being hard on you, man, I know others feel the same way. Backspacer was a short album by today's standards, but I'm not sure adding another five tracks would have automatically made it better. Sometimes less is more, IMO.

no. it's not possible that they don't do this for the money. are you serious? obviously they are in this for the music and that is the most important thing....but yeah money is a pretty big deal to a band if they want to stay a band of that magnatude and continue to reach the same amount of people.

if money wasn't an issue, we wouldn't have seen such a big spike in pj's ticket prices over the last 10 years (still nice compared to some other bands--but a big spike none the less). they also would give albums away for free! why do you think they dont have a lable and own all the copyrights to all of their songs? MONEY.

and if you equate me saying "their last album was pretty good" to saying dirty boots was as good achtung baby...you're just a bufoon who cannot carry on actual conversation. you are not a bufoon are you?

sorry to be so hard on you.

PearlJammer623 wrote:

metsfan wrote:

GL88154 wrote:

I paid $55 bucks for a GA field U2 ticket last year that put me inside of their stage.....which cost less then my last 10c ticket.....just saying....

i can bet had you saw them the next night you woulda seen the same setlist and the band go through the same motions. if thats for you then by all means dont buy pearl jam tickets. least thats one less person i have to worry bout when getting tickets.

Why cant you just make a point and not act like a asshole...get a life metsfan...figures its a new yorker

i wasn't acting act like an asshole at all. i do have a life thank you very much, i work 2 jobs and barely get 3 hours a sleep a day while you people live and breathe pearl jam.

hey nice name calling i'm sure the mods will find it as nice as i do