u2 v pearl jam concerts

[djerdap]

PJ shows aren't paced the same way U2 shows are. They have a great, headlong energy about them, but they aren't carefully structured emotional journeys. U2's desire to craft a coherent experience is one of the reasons they repeat setlists. The primary structure of almost every PJ show, as far as I can tell, is simply fast-fast-slow-fast.

The second flipside is song quality. Pearl Jam never write bad music, and mediocre tracks often come to life live, but they do not write with the consistency of U2. Many U2 b-sides are grander and more carefully composed than many PJ album tracks. And songs like Leatherman, Down, and Thumbing My Way, (to chose from the Newcastle setlist), while lovely, are to me not as good as Love Comes Tumbling, 11 O'Clock, and Spanish Eyes. After a U2 show I can always remember the setlist. After PJ, I found myself unable to remember the order in which anything was played - and now, honestly, two weeks later, I can't even remember if they played Evenflow.

I agree with you that some Pearl Jam shows don´t flow in the best way. But then again, some U2 shows don´t do that as well (I´m thinking especially about the Vertigo Tour here and that awful Pride-Streets-One combo).

I can´t agree with you on the second part; although they do have their share of mediocre songs, I can´t compare any "bad" PJ song with the crap that U2 has composed over the years (Love Rescue Me, Peace on Earth, Grace, The Refugee...).

And, along with Radiohead, Pearl Jam is by far my favorite b-sides band: just check out the beauty of Hard To Imagine, Footsteps, Sad, Undone, Fatal or Yellow Ledbetter.

 

[bgmckinney]

I agree with you that some Pearl Jam shows don´t flow in the best way. But then again, some U2 shows don´t do that as well (I´m thinking especially about the Vertigo Tour here and that awful Pride-Streets-One combo).

I can´t agree with you on the second part; although they do have their share of mediocre songs, I can´t compare any "bad" PJ song with the crap that U2 has composed over the years (Love Rescue Me, Peace on Earth, Grace, The Refugee...).

And, along with Radiohead, Pearl Jam is by far my favorite b-sides band: just check out the beauty of Hard To Imagine, Footsteps, Sad, Undone, Fatal or Yellow Ledbetter.

Fair enough. For my part, I like Grace and The Refugee, and - although it took me a while - Love Rescue Me is actually one of my favorite tracks (Point Depot 12/31/89... ). I do agree that Peace on Earth is an offense to man and beast alike. But it seems to me that, even with second-tier U2 songs, like Grace, New York, and Refugee, there is an attention to detail and a certain scope that you don't see in comparable tracks from PJ. It may have to do with the fact that Pearl Jam can write a rather ordinary melody with rather ordinary lyrics and play the hell out of it in such a stunning way that it makes a powerful impact. U2, on the other hand, being a smaller band, and having less tenchical sophistication, focus more on perfecting melody and lyric and the on the atmosphere of a song.
As for b-sides - Yellow Ledbetter of course is one of the greatest things ever recorded by any rock band. I only know Fatal from the Benaroya Hall disc, and it strikes me as ordinary (good, but ordinary). The others I will check out - I don't have Lost Dogs yet.
As an afterthought, I remember reading (I think in RS) that PJ deliberately strayed away from writing "accessible" music after the first few albums, partly because of Ed's difficulties with fame. That would explain why some of their best work might be found on the b-sides, while the albums took on a different character after Vitalogy.
Do you agree with me at all about scope and space? Vague concepts, I know. But even a first-rate PJ album, for me, like Ten, Vitalogy, or the new one, will always fall short of JT or AB or HTDAAB simply because the sound, and the themes, and especially the world of the album are somehow smaller - more limited.

 

[Chizip]

I do agree that Peace on Earth is an offense to man and beast alike.

 

[djerdap]

Fair enough. For my part, I like Grace and The Refugee, and - although it took me a while - Love Rescue Me is actually one of my favorite tracks (Point Depot 12/31/89... ). I do agree that Peace on Earth is an offense to man and beast alike. But it seems to me that, even with second-tier U2 songs, like Grace, New York, and Refugee, there is an attention to detail and a certain scope that you don't see in comparable tracks from PJ. It may have to do with the fact that Pearl Jam can write a rather ordinary melody with rather ordinary lyrics and play the hell out of it in such a stunning way that it makes a powerful impact. U2, on the other hand, being a smaller band, and having less tenchical sophistication, focus more on perfecting melody and lyric and the on the atmosphere of a song.
As for b-sides - Yellow Ledbetter of course is one of the greatest things ever recorded by any rock band. I only know Fatal from the Benaroya Hall disc, and it strikes me as ordinary (good, but ordinary). The others I will check out - I don't have Lost Dogs yet.
As an afterthought, I remember reading (I think in RS) that PJ deliberately strayed away from writing "accessible" music after the first few albums, partly because of Ed's difficulties with fame. That would explain why some of their best work might be found on the b-sides, while the albums took on a different character after Vitalogy.
Do you agree with me at all about scope and space? Vague concepts, I know. But even a first-rate PJ album, for me, like Ten, Vitalogy, or the new one, will always fall short of JT or AB or HTDAAB simply because the sound, and the themes, and especially the world of the album are somehow smaller - more limited.

Great quote about Peace on Earth. I do agree with you more or less on everything. It just leads me further to the conclusion that U2 and Pearl Jam are simply not comparable - totally different bands. And I love them both equally. Maybe Pearl Jam even more, because of this natural approach that you´re talking about.

 

[Hewson]

I can´t compare any "bad" PJ song with the crap that U2 has composed over the years (Love Rescue Me, Peace on Earth, Grace, The Refugee...).

Bugs?

 

[U2Man]

i bet i can name more crappy pearl jam songs than crappy u2 songs.

 

[neilm]

They are my 2 favorite bands, U2 being 1 and PJ being a very close 1A (and closing the gap with every live show)
I've seen 22 U2 shows and 17 PJ shows.
Headache summed up the differences well.
Of course there are nights that U2 will shake things up, and I'm glad I live in the Boston area cause its one of the cities where you can count on some setlist/encore variance.
But nothing like what Pearl Jam does.
And Pearl Jam wins hands down in the fanclub ticketing process, having been a 10club member for over 12 years now, I am priveleged to get incredible seats when I see them.

As for what a PJ show can be like, witness the setlist from their latest show in Newcastle:

What an amazing set list!

 

[neilm]

Bugs?

Ahhh yes, Eddie Vedder's recorded accordian lesson...That is meant to be a piece of poetry than a piece of music, believe me....however, it is shit.

There are not many other bad PJ songs. In my opinion anyway.

 

[bgmckinney]

What an amazing set list!

yup

 

[djerdap]

Bugs is a great song IMHO. Very funny and entertaining, but at the same time very dark and paranoid. Also much more substance than one would think.

 

[powerhour24]

I agree with you that some Pearl Jam shows don´t flow in the best way. But then again, some U2 shows don´t do that as well (I´m thinking especially about the Vertigo Tour here and that awful Pride-Streets-One combo).

I can´t agree with you on the second part; although they do have their share of mediocre songs, I can´t compare any "bad" PJ song with the crap that U2 has composed over the years (Love Rescue Me, Peace on Earth, Grace, The Refugee...).

And, along with Radiohead, Pearl Jam is by far my favorite b-sides band: just check out the beauty of Hard To Imagine, Footsteps, Sad, Undone, Fatal or Yellow Ledbetter.

Wow it's so weird I was about to cry foul to the comment against Love Rescue Me, Peace On Earth and especially the Refugee, but then you site awesome Pearl Jam B-Sides like Fatal and Undone

 

[powerhour24]

It's so weird, I never really thought that these bands would share so much of the same audience despite the fact that they are my two favorite bands.

But as much as I love PJ, they can't compare to U2. U2's songs are so much richer and emotional, with deeper lyrics and almost always stronger production. I definitely agree with what some are saying around here that PJ can play even just ok songs into epic live performances with their pure energy. U2's performances are obviously more of a technical feature than PJ.

I don't think I could ever pick a favorite U2 song (although one that comes to mind is Acrobat) but with Pearl Jam it's easily Love Boat Captain, such a powerful and sad song.

 

[Leebonoman96]

This really isnt close. Pearl Jam are a good solid arena band. U2 blow every other act out of the water live. Who is supporting who in Hawaii?. Ive seen Pearl Jam twice and in any era will never ever compete live in any aspect with U2.

 

[Hewson]

Who is supporting who in Hawaii?. .

Suddenly with Pearl Jam playing a full set its almost like a double bill:

http://starbulletin.com/2006/11/21/features/dakine.html


Gonna be one helluva show.

 

[bgmckinney]

Suddenly with Pearl Jam playing a full set its almost like a double bill:

http://starbulletin.com/2006/11/21/features/dakine.html


Gonna be one helluva show.

i wonder if that was at U2's invite? i certainly hope so

 

[bgmckinney]

It's so weird, I never really thought that these bands would share so much of the same audience despite the fact that they are my two favorite bands.

We could start a thread about this... why do so many U2 fans also love Pearl Jam?
It's also interesting to notice the mutual admiration society that apparently exists between the bands themselves. They seem to have been drawing closer over the last few years... thankfully for us...

 

[Chizip]

We could start a thread about this... why do so many U2 fans also love Pearl Jam?
It's also interesting to notice the mutual admiration society that apparently exists between the bands themselves. They seem to have been drawing closer over the last few years... thankfully for us...

U2's had an appreciation for Pearl Jam ever since they opened up for them on the ZooTV tour.

 

[jphelmet]

And that Newcastle setlist is fuckin' amazing. Imagine an equivalent of U2 concert where the boys would play The Three Sunrises, Love Comes Tumbling, Spanish Eyes, Party Girl and 11 O'Clock Tick Tock. That's how good it is.

Its all how you look at it. I would love to see U2 vary the set and play some great songs from the catalog, but a show including love comes tumbling, and three sunrises would suck. All the people who look at a setlist on paper and declare a show good or bad would be excited- and everyone at the show would scratch their heads and be asking what the hell is this? (I thing you would find tha majority of the crowd would have no clue what they are playing) The same is true for Pearl Jam- a handful of diehards get excited when they play 'u', while most of the crowd has no idea what they are playing and it ends up being a huge momentum killer.

As for the argument that U2's bad songs are far worse than pearl jam, i would argue thats not even close. pearl jam has lots more throwaway songs. For me personally most pearl jam albums (esp the last 4) have 5-8 good songs, and some real crap filler. Its not the same for U2- all the songs are good with a few missteps here and there. Then Pearl Jam goes out and plays them all- while they have quite a few that should never see the light of day live. U2 is smart enough to leave the mistakes alone.

I've seen them where a setlist included crazy mary, leaving here, u, and crown of thorns. all pretty rare and different setlists- but all those songs pretty much suck. So I got a lot rare weak songs. So while there a few diehards there happy to see these songs everyone else doesn't care. I was in a minority by a large margin to even know what the songs were. My point is the setlist variety is great to a degree, but it also works against pearl jam sometimes. Some night the mix is great and some nights they play 10 songs that I don't care about hearing live. That never happens with U2, sure they are more predictable but- most everything they play live is really great.

Both band could take something from each other. U2 should vary more, and Pearl Jam should take form U2 a great show is not just made by playing loads of rare songs.

 

[MacPhistoPT]

Crazy Mary, Crown of Thorns and "U" suck?? omg... STFU please...

I've seen them where a setlist included crazy mary, leaving here, u, and crown of thorns. all pretty rare and different setlists- but all those songs pretty much suck. So I got a lot rare weak songs. So while there a few diehards there happy to see these songs everyone else doesn't care. I was in a minority by a large margin to even know what the songs were. My point is the setlist variety is great to a degree, but it also works against pearl jam sometimes.

Maybe just when the crowd sucks... here in Lisbon Crazy Mary and Footsteps had the greatest sing-along of the two days. Two rarities. You can hear that in the bootlegs. And everyone was into other rarities they played like Sad, State of Love and Trust, Leash, Smile or Insignificance. So, you're wrong.

btw, only Riot Act had fillers.
Yeah, Get Right, help help, Cropduster or Ghost really suck. But in the other albums, besides the useless stuff on Vitalogy, bad songs...? you have Jeremy, Oceans, Deep, Betterman, Habit, Pilate, Evacuation and Rival. And then some crap b-sides. And that's all...

 

[MacPhistoPT]

double post

 

[bratty_cat]

Both band could take something from each other. U2 should vary more, and Pearl Jam should take form U2 a great show is not just made by playing loads of rare songs.

Well said, totally agree!

Saw Pearl Jam this year and they played lots of lesser known songs and I have to say I was somewhat disappointed that I didn't hear some of my favorite songs which also happen to include songs that got a lot of air play (I own 4 or 5 of their CD's so it's not like I've only heard songs that get radio play).

 

[Nisse]

Crazy Mary, Crown of Thorns and "U" suck?? omg... STFU please...



Maybe just when the crowd sucks... here in Lisbon Crazy Mary and Footsteps had the greatest sing-along of the two days. Two rarities. You can hear that in the bootlegs. And everyone was into other rarities they played like Sad, State of Love and Trust, Leash, Smile or Insignificance. So, you're wrong.

btw, only Riot Act had fillers.
Yeah, Get Right, help help, Cropduster or Ghost really suck. But in the other albums, besides the useless stuff on Vitalogy, bad songs...? you have Jeremy, Oceans, Deep, Betterman, Habit, Pilate, Evacuation and Rival. And then some crap b-sides. And that's all...

what the hell are you talking about calling these songs crap?
The only real crap songs they have are Bugs, Pry To, Hey Foxmadphasldaskjdasjdas and Red Dot, but it's not like they are meant serious anyway

 

[BB Mac]

PJ are def more of a rockers band
i have a few boots and sum video stuff

ive seen them in 1995 Dublin RDS
they were Neil youngs backing band
and it BLEW my mind!!!
really Awesome gig
just listen to youngs/PJ Mirrowball Album


the reason U2 dont play a full back Catalogue
of songs is
1. they would need to rehearse alot more!
its been mentioned even The edge has to
listen back to the old songs on CD
2. bono would prob forget the words even with
monitor screen lol
3. they do Stadium tours and everything
is set out but! we have seen songs added
replaced on the 5th leg! and not to mention
on the various legs of the Vertigo tour
sum older songs


id really like to see U2 go back play
indoor shows

3 nights at the Glasgow Barrowland
would be Awesome
seen INXS there few weeks back
and it was totally Awesome
good lights /great sound system
full mix of songs

back to U2 V PJ

Pearl jam Rock more
its simple as that
but U2 have more Soul


BB

 

[Axver]

I´m surprised, as you are a big fan of setlists, you don´t show interest to a band like Pearl Jam, whose setlists are among the most interesting ones to observe in rock and roll history.

But, it´s only a matter of personal opinion. I for one consider Vedder´s voice to be one of the most beautiful I´ve ever heard.

Oh, I quite admire Pearl Jam's setlists, though I think bands like Dream Theater and Crowded House/Neil Finn do their sets just as well, if not better. I also like Pearl Jam's actual music, and I'd be more into them if I didn't find Eddie Vedder so immensely irritating. I feel as if he's continually singing the same bland song.

If Pearl Jam dumped Vedder and got someone who could actually sing, I'd be right into them.

 

[djerdap]

If Pearl Jam dumped Vedder and got someone who could actually sing, I'd be right into them.

It´s ok not to like Vedder´s voice, but stating that Eddie can´t sing - nothing could be farther from the truth. Check out the track called Release; simply a godlike voice.

As for the setlists, the newest one in Adelaide was pretty interesting in the way it was concieved:

Main set: Porch, Animal, Spin The Black Circle, Hail Hail, Do The Evolution, Nothing As It Seems, Love Boat Captain, Throw Your Hatred Down (Neil Young), World Wide Suicide, Severed Hand, 1/2 Full, Thin Air, MFC, Present Tense, Not For You/Modern Girl (Sleater-Kinney), Small Town, Even Flow

1st encore: Inside Job, Wasted Reprise, Better Man, Crazy Mary (Victoria Williams), Alive
2nd encore: I Believe In Miracles (Ramones), Satan's Bed, Blood, Rockin' In The Free World (Neil Young), Yellow Ledbetter

Check out the main set; each album is represented chronologically with one song and by the time they get to the new album, they go back again to the first album. Amazing.

Plus they got another tour premiere (Nothing as it Seems).

 

[AndrewCowley]

Diversity is a great thing. I love both bands. U2 moreso but if I had to come up with a #2 it would be PJ. Part of that love for PJ is due to their mixed up setlists. Both bands can blow my mind when they play live and I respect the differences between them.

PJ are more natural musicians than U2. PJ can "jam". PJ can improvise on stage and are thus willing to do so. To me these are the main reasons why PJ vary their setlists.

I respect both approaches since on their night both are extraordinary live acts.