And when weren't they this band?


Guys, Pearl Jam has always been the same live band. The anger muted over time, but long before people starting getting frustrated. The variety increased, but it had always been there. Setlists these days are not really any less surprising than they used to be. They're about as mixed up as is possible.

Are we sure that the problem is just that stuff seems familiar or redundant because they haven't added any new songs since 2009? that the new stuff you want PJ to do isn't just new music.

Oh sure. And that's legit. And I may just have to learn to live with the pain of being the only person on RM who liked both of those albums a lot. But I still can't help but really strongly feel that so much of everyone's concerns about the live shows, the band, etc (bracketing ed's voice) is either:

1. I didn't like the last 1-2-3 albums
2. I want new music

and that all these threads is finding ways to reach that conclusion without having to just come out and say it.

To be fair, I'm not sure people are saying their live approach is lacking in regards to the set diversity they play. I think there definitely is a difference in how they approach their shows now as opposed to how they did in, say, 2000 (although that was a different approach than 1994, etc. etc.). I think it feels a bit more nostalgic now and less vital. Is that due in part to a dearth of new material? Sure, but I don't think it's necessarily an either/or question; it can be due to a lack of new music and the quality of their most recent music as well as other things they've adopted in their live show.

they certainly used to improve a ton more back in the early 1990s. they pretty much never do anymore, I’m not sure when that stopped though. 2003 maybe?

I completely disagree about the setlists being the same. since about 2005 eddie vedder has consciously make sure to include at least 1 “rare” song in each set to appease the idiots w/ lists of songs they heard at concerts. and at this point, the covers pretty much suck. there’s no way anything like “dock of the bay” would happen today w/ this band. shame.

I think the general mood set by the band at just about every show is identical these days. I went to 3 shows in 03 and they were all quite a bit different. The St Louis show was very atmospheric and one of the most interesting setlists I've ever seen from them and a couple months later the Chicago show, was great as they always were but it had fewer surprises than I think most people expected, then a couple nights later in Indy they played easily the most intense show I've ever seen them play. I'm not saying there are no surprises on the setlists anymore but the flow of most of the shows just doesn't change from night to night like it used to. By perfecting it it became almost formulaic.

Yes. It's just my opinion, stip. But there is also a fuckton of interviews suggesting exactly that.

Indeed, it's not greater variety in the number of songs played that people seem to be clamouring for - I think they've taken that as far as it can go - it's more variety in mood and tone through setlist choices. At the moment, Alive either ends the first encore or is the third-to-last song (before celebratory cover > Yellow Ledbetter), Just Breathe opens the first encore, Porch or RVM close the main set, etc. The rules never used to be so set in stone.

Stip, no, we're not just bored since Backspacer. Nobody is forgetting the Backspacer songs. "Pearl Jam has always been the same live band" simply isn't true.

"Pearl Jam have always concentrated on playing live" is a non-statement. No shit. Every good rock band should / does concentrate on playing live. They just don't usually sacrifice great albums to do so, or rather, I'm not generally a fan of the bands that do. PJ used to be a band that crafted great songs and albums before having the confidence to then think "Hey, these might really fly live."

That sounded a little more aggressive than I meant it to. But you get my point, hopefully. By all means concentrate on both, but one shouldn't simply be a vehicle for the other.

Absurd. These are great songs.

Especially because, as you mentioned, PJ has never really been a band that crafts songs that are just impossibilities in the live setting. I can't imagine they've ever sat down before touring with any record and felt like they were incapable of pulling it off live.

Now, maybe when they say they need to have songs that translate live, they're talking about a mood that is set by the songs rather than the construction of the songs themselves. But sometimes the moods of the records can impact the tours in really cool ways. The darkness and struggle on the Binaural record was perfect for the feeling of that album's U.S. tour. In contrast, it seemed to me that in 2003 they were touring in a much different space than they were when they made Riot Act (it always seemed to me like they were wishing they had a louder, punk record for that tour), but the excitement came in seeing how they bent the songs on Riot Act to fit that vibe.

Maybe that's what I'm missing from the live shows, a feel that can change from tour to tour and show to show (someone I think brought that up a few posts ago).

Well said.

I do think stip has a point in that the new music they make (or the lack of it) is undoubtedly going to have an impact of the vibe and atmosphere coloring the shows. So in that sense, people's disinterest in PJ live is due in part to what they've been doing in the studio.

They seemed to figure out what they seem to think is the ideal approach to live shows around 2005 or so and have stuck with it every since: slow intro Porch, first encore starts off with some softer numbers, Alive is played in one of two positions, Yellow Ledbetter to end almost every night, etc. Apart from adding new songs from the previous two albums, the basic framework has stayed the same. Not to say those things didn't all happen before 2005 too, but not with anywhere near as much regularity.

Yeah. Usually reaching for a 'mood' is a terrible way of writing songs (or poems). It creates blah mediocrity, not-quite-anthems for instance (!). But it can be a great thing when thinking about albums (or books). What moods do I want to create across the whole?

I agree with that. Having great albums can impact the live stage, but can the opposite be true? Not (imo) as long as it's SONGS you play for a living, and not -- I don't know -- spoken word performances.

Oh, for sure - though I think they're related in some respects, since I think the lack of strong new material winds up making the band rely more on past glories in the live shows. Even if they won't come out and admit it, I think the band know.

Spenno's definitely right IMO that there has been a consistent vibe since 2005. Not necessarily for the worse, but the shows during that year and after that year feel very similar in ways the years before haven't.

Maybe it just took long-term stability in the lineup with Matt for them to get there.

Eddie cut his hair sometime around 2003 because he wanted cut his hair. He grew it back because the fans wanted him to grow it back.

It has all been downhill since.