Pearl Jam still Alive -- but they're no U2

mrmojorisinca · September 2005

hey..all...

I was at U2 wed night..and while Bono can not hit notes like he used to they still put on one hell of show...

now I've written into the sun as well..Lisa what her face is a no talent..

but why is everyone bashing Bone and u2..they did not write the article..

You may not like U2 or Bono, but they are still relivant in today music...and contrary to what Lisa the no talent said in the article Pearl Jam is still relivant as well..just ask the houndreds of thousands that have seen Pearl Jam over the last two tours..

and not sure who it was, but it can be said again..there is a mutual repect on both bands parts..I beleive Bono said to them back in 92 that you either have to sleep with the media or tell them off..we all know which way Pearl Jam went and due to that we are still enjoying them today..with out having to listen to the media

so let say thanks to u2.thanks to Pearl Jam and fuck off to the sun..becuase two great performers who can/will make a difference in the world of music and possiably the world in general took the stage together not once but twice in 3 days (Ed at U2 on Saturday night and Bono at PJ on Monday) and had a blast with one another and showed the world (becuase everyone will have read what happened one way or another) that Rock and Roll is still alive a kicking

Peace and Love
mrmojorisinca

i_am_a_wishlist · September 2005

c0rdur0y wrote:

meh i wouldnt take anything from this fat bull dyke so called newspaper writer.

she's written the SAME review for PJ in toronto after the amazing show at the Amphitheatre in '03

she's saves her 5 star reviews for evanescence, system of a down and the killers.

That just pushed over the top. I'm emailing that bitch to tell her she is fuckin biased and has know idea what rock and roll is about.

Smellyman2 · September 2005

If they ever respond to any of your emails, post them back here. Although if they will respond at all, it will be bad canned response.

rebornFixer · September 2005

I actually feel kinda bad for anyone who does a PJ review like this, because you just know that they are going to get blasted by a bunch of hatemail ...

When I was younger and angrier, I wrote a pretty caustic reply to a bad concert review (one of the 1998 shows I think). The guy actually did write back and basically admitted that he liked the show a lot but figured a more negative review would "stir the pot a bit more", whatever that means. He also told me to stop taking life so seriously, and insinuated that I must be a sad, pathetic person for getting that upset about his review.
I think I told him to fuck off or something witty like that.

Ah, memories.

teskeinc · September 2005

Okum wrote:

at least PJ doesn't play any of their songs twice during their shows

they played "I Believe in Miracles" twice , Santa Barbara 2003.

sweet adeline · September 2005

teskeinc wrote:

they played "I Believe in Miracles" twice , Santa Barbara 2003.

thats true...

NumberTenOx · September 2005

The audience knows every word, every nuance and new trick from guitarists Stone Gossard and Mike McCready, delighting in the extended solos and clever combinations of hits, album tracks and covers. From the opening riff of Indifference they knew to get their lighters out for the line "I will light the match this morning."

That's really entertaining! Name me a band where no one in the audience knows the music, and I'll show you a failure. Music is one of those things that gets more meaningful and more enjoyable with repetition. She makes it sound as if knowing the music is a bad thing.

And, BTW, I like U2. I started to hate Vertigo just because I heard it too much (tricky thing, that repetition). But I enjoy their music.

NWOntario · September 2005

Yeah, I've gotta agree that we should keep the U2 bashing to a minimum...I mean, what's the point, especially considering the *obvious* respect that Bono & Co. have for Pearl Jam? But back to the article: I wonder if Bono would have rushed the stage, picked up the tambourine and started yelling gibberish into the mic' (or at least what sounded like gibberish from where I was sitting) for a band that wasn't relevant? If Bono, as Ms. Ladoceur (sp?) would have us believe, is the avatar of all things cutting edge in pop music today, then why would he waste his time with a bunch of washed-up, flannel-wearing, pot-smoking relics from 1992?

The answer: he wouldn't. Because Pearl Jam isn't. But if the review's point was to stir the pot, then consider it a job well done: apart from what I've read on this board, I've had at least four friends/family members approach me today saying they heard the Sun based Pearl Jam. I don't pretend to know what Ms. Ladoceur's motives are for writing what she did, but if she was trying to make some sort of point then she done good.

Steve

edited to mention that I lost my U2 virginity on Saturday, and they were utterly incredible. I won't pretend to have liked them as much as I liked Pearl Jam, but they were still amazing. Sure, Bono is a bit of a dick sometimes, but that's just part of his persona; plus, regardless as to whether or not you agree with his politics, I feel as though he should be admired for all the work he's doing--least someone in a position of power gives a damn.

GWN · September 2005

NWOntario wrote:

Yeah, I've gotta agree that we should keep the U2 bashing to a minimum...I mean, what's the point, especially considering the *obvious* respect that Bono & Co. have for Pearl Jam? But back to the article: I wonder if Bono would have rushed the stage, picked up the tambourine and started yelling gibberish into the mic' (or at least what sounded like gibberish from where I was sitting) for a band that wasn't relevant? If Bono, as Ms. Ladoceur (sp?) would have us believe, is the avatar of all things cutting edge in pop music today, then why would he waste his time with a bunch of washed-up, flannel-wearing, pot-smoking relics from 1992?

The answer: he wouldn't. Because Pearl Jam isn't. But if the review's point was to stir the pot, then consider it a job well done: apart from what I've read on this board, I've had at least four friends/family members approach me today saying they heard the Sun based Pearl Jam. I don't pretend to know what Ms. Ladoceur's motives are for writing what she did, but if she was trying to make some sort of point then she done good.

Steve

edited to mention that I lost my U2 virginity on Saturday, and they were utterly incredible. I won't pretend to have liked them as much as I liked Pearl Jam, but they were still amazing. Sure, Bono is a bit of a dick sometimes, but that's just part of his persona; plus, regardless as to whether or not you agree with his politics, I feel as though he should be admired for all the work he's doing--least someone in a position of power gives a damn.

Very well said, Steve!!!

MarkB · September 2005

anyone know this chicks email so i can give her my 2 cents

Elderly Mosquito · September 2005

For every 9 great pearl jam reviews there is going to be one that drives you nuts, but really who cares what she thinks. Why does everyone focus on the bad review and more or less ignore the great ones that have been posted? The positive review threads never have any posts. If people are going to spend time emailing a critic whose opinion we could care less about, why don't you all email Jeff Miers from The Buffalo news, Chartattack or any of the other reviewers who had great reviews?

E.K · September 2005

I wish there was a comments link so I could tell this woman what an idiot she is..

Innocent_Bystander · September 2005

E.K wrote:

I wish there was a comments link so I could tell this woman what an idiot she is..

Agreed.........

goto_l · September 2005

i_am_a_wishlist wrote:

Since when are Pearl Jam's performances mediocre? Do they need to have special guests to be memorable? I'm sure people here would agree they'd rather have a show with a whole lotta rarities then a typical set with a "special guest".

As someone who's seen PJ in all size venues in all type shows, 18 total, I can say they have had some mediocre moments. Dallas 2000 was a mostly mediocre show, the band had little to no energy most of the show, Ed spoke to the crowd maybe 3 times. They pick it up a bit at the end, but mostly I'd say mediocre. Over the last 3 previous tours there have become more piss-break moments aka...Last Kiss or Soldier of Love on most nights...at least those are mine.

As for Bono & teleprompters... I think he remember the words to most songs, however after 25 years & hundreds of songs you might get a bit confused with a few, just as Ed has been know to go less high-tech & use old fashioned notebook paper on his monitors for some of the newer songs or Michael Stipe with his music stand on stage next to him all night. These guys want to get it right, perfectionism is something most musicians suffer from.

As for you bashers of U2 & the same set every night...get your facts right. The different song count on the Vertigo tour is at 78 now. They are a different band than PJ, they like the aspect of a whole show rather than a performance. There is nothing wrong with either. PJ does have their repetitive moments just as any other band on almost every night you'll get Evenflow with extended solo, Daughter with tag, Betterman now played too fast, & RVM with long middle break. It's ok I like those songs & those moments. It's like watching a movie more than once, or is that not ok?

Contrary to what most of us think about PJ, non diehards still think of Ed as a self important ego maniac who comes across as acting too cool for anything trendy. I could not agree with that at all, nor would anyone else here. PJ bashing has gone on since day one. They were called Mall-ternative, & bashed by the "underground musicians" of the 90's for cashing in on a trend. As silly as that sounds, most people on here sound the same way. This holier than thou stance you guys have is a joke. Grow up already. We all have different opinions & tastes...accept it.

Three Crooked Hearts · September 2005

The Toronto Sun is a "newspaper" that everyday puts pictures of half-naked teenaged girls. It's lost its credibility as a public medium right there. What some writer hack thought of the show and our response to it, won't lead to some public apology and retract the review. Read the review, laugh it off and realize you had a good time, and don't let some journalist tell you otherwise.

Odin · September 2005

I have yesterday's Toronto Sun newspaper in the kitchen...

I'm having a huge bonfire tonight... (though not in the kitchen)

It looks as though my $0.75 CDN investment might be worthwhile after all!

I might save the front-page photo, even though it didn't raise the quality of the Sun's coverage of PJ from "mediocre to memorable".

PJaddicted · September 2005

I picked this piece of crap up just before leaving TO~too bad for the writer...they just don't "get it"!

oxc

jtwist · September 2005

Webslinger wrote:

I agree.

Both bands approach concerts from different angles. I don't feel it's worth anyone's time to compare them (unless you're into sensational journalism).

Fine, that comment may have been a little harsh. I apologize for that but it is my opinion.

Subjectively, perhaps (I disagree)

Discoteqhe (sp?) anyone

Subjectively, perhaps (I disagree)

Calling themselves "The Greatest Band in the World" that's ALOT of hype to live up to....

Nope. Last time I checked they're getting time on modern "rock" charts.
"All Because of You" is a rock track. Be careful when you start compartmentalizing artists.

I guess I was wrong for having an opinion different than what "the charts" say. Using this theory, I can flip on 10 different radio stations that range from "Alternative" to "Soft Rock" to "Pop/Top 40" and hear U2 on each and every one of them (probably about 10 times a day too). I'm confused, which of these labels is correct?

Umm . . . you're in Canada. If you're perhaps using charts as a signifier of relevance, then perhaps you should visit http://jam.canoe.ca/Music/Charts/SINGLES.html and start counting the number of times U2 appears (and last week, U2 appeared 6 times) on Canada's singles sales charts according to Soundscan. Then do me a favour and list another artist that is listed more times.

Woah, now you can't be serious about this. First off, using the sacred "charts" to measure relevance is one of the reasons the music industry makes me sick. I guess Pearl Jam stopped being relevant a LONG time ago because I have a hard time remembering the last time one of their singles was on the "charts". Led Zeppelin couldn't have been all that relevant either since they had exactly one single crack the top 10 during the course of their career. All hail U2, Green Day and J-Lo the kings (and queens) of music relevance!!!!!

Credibility is another matter. Regardless, measures of either are relatively subjective.

Perhaps but I would prefer to discover and enjoy music I feel is relevant on my own rather than have the media decide for me by ramming it down my throat (i.e. Ipod commercials, incessant overplaying of each and every single they release, ridiculous media coverage of every single move they make, etc.) until I sing along in Spanish to Vertigo.

The fact is PJ uses lights too, just not to same elaborate extent as U2. For some people, being entertained visually is also important (and in my opinion, doesn't detract from U2's music).

PJ has lights, have you seen any bands that don't use lights for an arena concert? Based on what I know, U2's stage is a big part of what makes their shows great. I've heard people say that's what sets them apart. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that PJ's lights made the show great for them. I'm not saying visual entertainment is bad but I would prefer to judge a concert based on the bands talents not the stage designers.

Does Madonna play instruments consistently throughout her show? Have you actually been to a U2 concert?

No, I've never been so I may be a little ignorant but I have seen footage from many of their concerts. I agree, Madonna doesn't play instruments but I think many people out there (myself included) could say the same for Adam and Larry in U2. But seriously, putting the three shows side by side (PJ, U2 and Madonna) I think PJ is the one that stands alone.
I will go through some points:

1. I, as a U2 fan, would also prefer U2 mixed up their setlist more often than they do. I agree that's a fair criticism (but, again, a subjective one)--but only because I share that same opinion. I'd rather watch U2 perform Vertigo 10 times in one night than be forced to watch a lot of other stuff I've been dragged along to see over the years. And it's not as though they are playing every single song every night, much less in the exact same manner.

2. The Ipod thing is completely over-done. U2 did not accept money to appear in the commercial. It was a device for 1)increased publicity, especially in an America, and 2) for selling their music. Yes, they made money from the ipod sales. Those sales included a coupon off their music. So they're selling something directly related to their music. Who's going to buy the U2 Ipod except U2 fans who also want the U2 digital box set (and people with lots of money who like red and black ipods)? When U2 starts promoting stuff completely unrelated to music (and the causes they support), then I'll start complaining. U2 is all about being the biggest band in the land; they make no apologies for this; they didn't come out of the "I'm embarrassed to be popular" scene. But they didn't endorse Pepsi or Coke to become popular either.

No they endorse Ipod. Whether you link it to their music or not, they're still doing it. Sure they hit their peak in the "all about me 80's" and it sure shows.

3. U2 is relevant because their lyrics are still relevant; Bono and The Edge's lyrics reflect the times. Do they reflect the times better than other artists? That's for handjobs to debate. I can't be bothered with relatively subjective nonsense like that. I meet kids that love Britney Spears' music. Why should I argue with them, and, moreover, what makes them wrong? Simply because I'm bored with 4/4 time signatures? Because she rarely writes her own music? Or because he has a limited vocal range? Because she isn't proficient on any instrument? All subjective criteria . . . If you like Britney Spears, I can't go up to you and tell you that you're, objectively, wrong for liking Britney Spears. The very idea is nonsense.

Sorry to offend any Britney fans out there but liking her music is indeed wrong. I realize its all subjective but I wrote these things because they are my opinions. I don't care whether anyone or everyone agrees with it.

Also, like it or not, U2 is relevant because Bono is relevant, politically.
visit http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/18/magazine/18bono.html
(you will need to register). And don't tell me Pearl Jam never gained some press because of a stance or cause that either Vedder or the band took.

4. Concerning the teleprompter criticism, Bono still wanders around the stage completely unaided by the teleprompter. That's why he had to stop and restart "Yahweh" this past Saturday in Toronto. He started the song with the second stanza. He tries to use the teleprompter when he has a brain-freeze and can't remember lyrics. But he isn't always near the main stage. In fact, usually, he just ad-libs lines when he can't remember them. I couldn't care less if he uses a teleprompter or not--because there hasn't been a single U2 show I've been to where he hasn't adlibbed some small section of a song (or started singing lyrics to another song that he likes).

Anyway, I don't care much for the review either. I enjoyed the Pearl Jam concert in Toronto. It's too bad the reviewer didn't (and for some strange reason decided to judge it, subjectively, based on another artist's performance instead of on the own show's merit. Then again, I guess it's not that strange considering the source).

Overall, I will say that you have made some valid points and that at the same time my opinions are quite different from yours but that doesn't make either of us wrong. I guess I just know of too many people who happen to be U2 fans that crap on PJ (much the same as this "writer" does) by saying things like "Pearl Jam sucks, when was the last time they put out anything good?" just because PJ doesn't saturate the public with their music/videos/commercials. I will say that I respect U2 for what they have done (especially their earlier music) musically but for them to go around calling themselves "The Greatest Band in the World" makes me sick!!!!!

barcoach · September 2005

THANKS GOD PJ is not U2!!!!

I hope they keep doing solid records and never become that sort of band.

GWN · September 2005

***sigh***

Pearl Jam still Alive -- but they're no U2

Comments

Categories