sorry to rake up old graves here but i only became i member of this board today and id like some opinions on a subject that i didnt have the opportunity to discuss. i went to this show last year having been a hardcore pearl jam fan since 2000. now i must say that it was the most dissapointing musical event that i have ever been to. before i went to this gig i was really the worlds biggest pearl jam fan - all the rarities were known to me, vitalogy, binaural, no code and yield were my favourites...but i must say i have hard to listening to any of their records other than yield now because they just ignored all their best songs. it just seemed like an excuse to play loads off riot act and the incredibly bad avacado. the set only went to emphasise how bad the two recent lp's are. and dont get me started on no more war. you could feel even the fan club floor (which i was on) cringe.

i didnt feel that it warranted all this talk in the reviews and on here of being a fan club set - look at virtually every other show on this tour and they all have more fan club style sets. it didnt really have any true rarity other that down to warrant this title - copenhagen had 3. it seemed an excuse to just play loads of awful stuff off of avacado to people that would up with it - ie us true fans. it needed more classic album tracks and frankly fell on its face without them. dont get me wrong - lowlight, long road, i got shit, faithful, immortality - all absolutely great. but 12 from the riot act/avacado era? at the expense of ledbetter, last exit, go, rvm, even flow EVERYTHING!? just seemed like a piss take. remember this is the first proper uk arena show in 7 years. i heard the following comments at the end of the gig - "oh well at least you got to see them", "that wasnt worth it", "they cant finish like that". i was just really shocked. the crowd in the pit made that gig - the atnosphere in the pit in the main set was amazing. however that atmosphere was completly destroyed by half the first encore and ruined totally by the opening 3 tracks of the second encore - no more war/bushleaguar/wws? when you take in to consideration the complete lack of old stuff up to this point, to do this seemed completly questionable and ruined the gig in my opinion. and at their only english show of the year? arseholsih. no other proper pj show before or since has disregarded their back catalogue so much. again i wasnt some dickhead screaming for jeremy or asking for a greatest hits set - i just wanted a proper pj show after a 7 year wait. im hoping they play again in the uk soon so that i can listen too their records again without thinking of how crushing that gig was.

sorry to rant it just i really need to know if im the only one of their fans on here that really had a problem with it, and to get it off my chest. despite the yield and merkinball stuff i think we got really cheeky/second rate set. please dont feel i am attacking anyone here but i just feel we got dumped on abit like uk fans have been in the past by this band.

Wembley 07 is considered the best or second best show that year by the vast majority of the people who attended a bunch of them (including me.. well, 2nd best ).

And whilst the encores might not have been mindblowing, there's far more to a show than the setlist (and yet still got my first Long Road and Low Light ): the crowd, the band attitude (and I was at the previous show in Vienna so I can tell you that was a world of difference.. I actually think it probably was the worse show I saw them play)
Also the lack of EF was actually a treat.

BTW, I don't know where you count 12 (No More is an Eddie song, not even his own album)

the thread title cracks me up

Very strange topic.

I've been to 1.3 million PJ shows and this was one of, if not the best, of the lot.

I'd kill for a set like that (except for 'No more')

I've said this before, but it's worth repeating here - I've always thought this set sucks. I would've been hugely disappointed if I'd been there too.

I'm completely baffled by this idea that a show must be "amazing" and "for the real fans" if the band skips Even Flow, Go, Daughter etc...are you on all fucking drugs?!

A show with no Even Flow, Daughter, Animal, Go, Last Exit, Hail Hail etc. isn't a show I want to be at.

I would've liked the sound to have been louder.

HAHAHAHAHA!

Spenno, we seem to agree on most things, but not this. The PERFORMANCES were amazing. The band gave it LOADS OF WELLY. It was fantastic. The band can play a setlist you may not be a fan of, but can still kick arse if they play it well. Dave (Dime on here) fucking hates Avocado; yet they played 6 tracks off it, and Dave loved the show. Seewotimean?

again and again, you cannot judge a show on paper, hell, not even on the boots! (point in case: Zagreb, WAY underrated, ask anyone who was there!)
If the vast majority of people who were there, people who've seen many many other shows tell you it was a great show, then take their word for it.

Well, uh...no, I won't. I'm perfectly happy to make my own mind up, I find more often than not I disagree with the Pearl Jam fan "majority"; I think it's hilarious that you'd suggest that someone who's been to less shows than another person is somehow ill-equipped to decide for themselves if they enjoy a specific show. Wow, if only I'd seen 50 shows, perhaps THEN I'd have degenerated my brain to the point of thinking World Wide Suicide is a good song...

The larger point, of course, is that judging the quality of a show is entirely subjective and will differ from person to person - there's no such a thing as "good" show or a "bad" show, only how it sounds to the individual listener. I can judge how good a show is to me any which way I like, whether that be live, on a boot, on paper etc - nothing is going to negate the fact that the Wembley set includes a lot of songs I personally dislike. I'd argue that in many ways, judging a show from the bootleg is a more honest way to judge its musical worth as you're not distracted by whatever warm and fuzzy memories you have about the people you went with, the awesome time you had, how great it was to see the band in person etc.

In short - if I think Wembley 07 was shit, I'm right. If you think it was incredible, you're right too!

But...don't say I'm wrong to judge a show any which way I like. If I think it's shit, then to me, it is. I'm not wrong.

Zagreb, just while we're on the topic, is freakin' awesome. To me.

Put me in the "what are you talking about? This show Rocked!" crowd. Honestly, I cannot imagine how someone can dislike this show.

this is not what I said. You said you judge a show YOU did not attend being good or bad based on the setlist.
I'm saying that maybe if most people who were there say the contrary they're better placed to know, esp those who attend many shows simply because that means they have more to compare to and will be more objective (and from experience, way more critical!!).. for most people that see just the one PJ show a tour, it's a great show, because PJ does great shows, just some are greater .

We're not talking about enjoying a particular show..anyone can have a shit time at a great show or a great time at a not so good one.
for example: I didn't enjoy Camden 1.. doesn't mean it's a bad show..just that I had a shit time at it by focusing on negatives.

It is subjective but if we're judging a SHOW, that's the whole experience that defines it: the setlist, the tightness of the playing, the energy of the band, the atmosphere from the crowd, the setting and many other little things.

you might not want to listen to a boot based on a setlist, you can say it's a boring/bad setlist (and most likely it'll be a great one to someone else).
You might not like the boot for whatever reason, you can say it's a bad boot.
But unless you were there, you can't say of any show it was bad since you did not experience it!
The Adelaide ones, to take an example near you, don't interest me (and I listened to them) ..but since I wasn't there, I won't say it was bad shows against the opinion of a large number of people who were there.. I wasn't so I can't make a, even subjective, judgement at all.

It'd be like judging a sport game simply by reading the score sheet!

Now the OP, who was there, didn't like the Wembley show, obviously because he focused too much on the setlist, that's his opinion ..but he's in a minority and we're trying to point it out, for those that were not at it (particularly since there's no official bootleg..thanks Randall for the only memory we have of it )


PS: WWS is not a bad song. I got sick of hearing it in 06/07, but I missed it this year.

I don't see the relevance of bringing up that he's in a minority - it just seems that you're trying to imply he's somehow wrong (or at least less right) as his opinion isn't one that's shared by this supposed majority.



Well, to me it is. It's terrible.

Yet again, we're both right. I'm not wrong and neither are you. It's just our opinions, and it doesn't make me any less right if I'm the only Pearl Jam fan in the world who thinks so.

There is no right, no wrong here. It's all COMPLETELY subjective. There are no good or bad shows, just our own individual interpretations of them. That's all I'm trying to get across.

- A show cannot be judged unless you were there and have been to many many shows before and after
- If the majority of people who were there (and who have been to many many shows before and after) thought the show was good, then it WAS good.

I'm looking for a good adjective to describe my thoughts on that, but I'm afraid it would offend you and I like you as a person so I won't look any further. But seriously, how can you honestly come up with such arrogant elitism?

P.S. I haven't even listened to the London 07 show and I don't think I ever will.

why is there so much hostility when it comes to people's opinions about shows? it seems whenever someone says they really like a show or don't like a show people jump down their backs and rip them apart. just an observation.

people want the show considered the best to be the one they were at. when people disagree they get all pissy

not truly judge it no and I stand by that, since a show is an experience, not just the music.
the fact one has seen several only means one has more to compare with to form a judgement... doesn't preclude anyone from making one, but in terms of 'objectivity', the opinion, as an ensemble, not individually, of more 'experienced' people is more valuable for someone who wasn't there.
In my experience, many people get MORE (too in some cases) critical as they see more shows.
well, yes, since good or bad is relative anyway.
the Great shows often referenced are great only because a vast number of people, and especially people that have several to compare with, thought it was great.
I'm sure you'd find several people that hated those same shows..that wouldn't make the shows shit for that...just shit for them, but not shit in general.

I'm in no way saying that 1 particular individual opinion of a show is less valid than another in absolute.
But the context of that opinion (on which source it was formed, why and in comparison to what) is paramount for someone else to decide of its value to them.

The OP ASKED for our opinion..we gave him.
but hey, if someone thinks a show was great whilst you don't, good for them.
and sad for them when it's the opposite and that's why we try to show them the good aspects of it (because it's easy to get fixated on one particular negative aspect, I know I've done it).

think the phils will take game 2 today? sabathia's arm has to fall off sometime.

it all depends on myers i think. sabathia has to be tired though, hasnt he pitched on 3 days rest the past 2 or 3 starts?