Blogs

Really insightful review. I usually don't go to any length to defend Pearl Jam - but it sounds to me like 1.) You are a "Ten" apologist who doesn't want to hear ANYTHING the band has done in the 17 years since that CD came out and 2.) You have no comprehension what a treat it is to hear some of those songs live. Some on that setlist are rare for one of their gigs - and if you had been doing your research, the band said they were going to sift through the catalog a bit for this tour.

I've been to 23 PJ shows, #24 will be next Monday in Columbia. If I heard "Even Flow", "Jeremy", "Alive," and "Black" at EVERY freaking show - I think I would get bored really fast. Don't you think the band gets tired of playing those songs and wants to mix it up? I love Corduroy, but they play it almost every night.

Other thoughts: "Inside Job" was a catch for the stoners? Are you a complete tool? That's an insult to the reason the song was written.

"Save Me?" Hmmm...I know PJ has a song called "Save YOU"...not a song called "Save Me." You're not a very good concert reviewer if you can't even bother to learn the names of the songs in the band's catalog.

Then again, you were bitching in your whole piece that you didn't hear more of the first three albums.

I despise journalists who think they are exercising credibility and authority because they get to be the opinion-maker for an event. You obviously don't know the band, their tendencies, or for that matter, the names of their songs.

At least have the courage to admit "I didn't listen to Pearl Jam past 1995." That would give you much more credibility than discarding songs you've never even heard.

Just to give you more context as to what a special show you got.

"Sad" has been played 36 times. Ever.
"Who You Are" has been played 28 times. Ever.
"Low Light" has been played 20 times. Ever.

Tell you what. When you decide you want to 'review' a concert - call me and I'll give you some pointers on how to write them. Clearly, this is not your forte. Stick to something you know.

I have to agree with the suthor, I felt the same way. This was my first Pearl Jam concert which I drove 3 hours to see, and I won't do it again. I was really disappointed with the show and would vowed that was my first and last Pearl Jam concert. I would like to of seen Pearl Jam 5 years ago, when they were good. Oh well, too much to expect I guess. I wanted to hear Corduroy, Elderly woman, I got s..., you know old school. I wouldn't pay to see them again unfortunately.

I thought the show sucked. Tracy's review is right on.

we loved seeing Pearl Jam and it didn't matter what songs they sang, we sat in the middle of a mushy wet lawn and would do it again, as we have done 4 times before. we are die-hard fans of Pearl Jam's and have purchased and listened to ALL of their music over the years. Thank you Pearl Jam!!!

This outragous review and the questionable fan response simply justifies why the band selected this out of the way location as the tour opener. Yes, perhaps the sound was less than perfect unfortunately and yes that was a very unique set list. However that is one of the reasons why many of us love their live shows is because of the stark contrast from one show to the next. PJ has a large catalog and you should expect to hear most anything at any time.

WPB is out of the way unless of course you are a real estate mogul or some florida attorney on your 85 foot yacht.

Great show. Better set list. A Perfect location to work out of the kinks before the band gets to play in front of knowledge and informed music fans further north.....

This review absolutely sucked. Save me? what the f*ck is save me? its SAVE YOU. The highlight of the show is EVENFLOW? yea OK. They play evenflow at 95% of their shows, that song was easily the lowpoint of the show if anything. You f*cking suck at reviews.

Tracy,

That was the worst review of that concert I have seen. It almost makes me wonder if we were at the same concert. You clearly are a 'Ten' fan if you lost interest after the second song. And any reviewer who wants to "ride out the show sans crowd upon the lower asphalt" should have probably spent the show in the beer tent.

Next time I hope New Times sends a writer with more than a fleeting interest in this band and who doesn't turn every tawdry line into negative, one-sided drivel.

Is it any wonder that Florida is a joke to the rest of the country?

Tracy, I'm sure it may be hard for you to read so much harsh criticism. But you really could learn something from what's posted here in response to your clueless review.

I agree with Tracy, although a good show, it was not a good showing on the part of Pearl Jam. I have been to a lot of Pearl Jam concerts and could have been more entertained. Although they did play some new songs I was hoping for a lot of their classics not just Evenflow and Betterman and at $65 a ticket plus obsurd food and drink prices I expect a lot more from one of the greatest bands of all time.

D. You are a lame excuse for man , if i should even call you that. Are you a complete douche bag? You sound like someone completely unsatisfied with life. Believe me there are alternative ways to vent your anger on the internet. Try internet porn bitch!. Your so quickly to come with some very interesting pearl jam facts, you must love GOOGLE. You should GOOGLE how not to be an arrogant prick tough guy. As far as the show it was mediocre to say the least, and that is my opinion mo fo. Also another little fun fact for. LIstening to PJ past 1995 is your opinion and thats ok, just don't try to instill on to others that its imminent in order to critique a show. Go easy on the valium tonight otherwise you might be up all night searching how many times Jenna Jamerson took a load to her forehead.

Tracy's review serves as a warning to older casual concert goers. Pearl Jam is not an oldies rock band. If classic rock is what you want, PJ is going to leave you unsatisfied. They play new music. As someone else stated, they have a huge catalog. The band leader writes new music the way most of us regular folk breathe air. He could write a song in the hotel that afternoon and bring it to the show. I feel badly for dissappointed people because they aren't getting the significance of what they're hearing --- a vital, relevant, artistic force. If you haven't been listening to PJ's music for the last 13 years, you need to approach them the way you would approach a band you don't know. Because you **really** don't know them. If the performance is flat, that's one thing. But to write a bad review because you don't know the music is to critique yourself. This is akin to going to see the symphony and writing a bad review because it was long and you only knew the opening concerto. Who's fault is it that you don't know the other pieces? The orchestra's? Seriously, this is an appropriate analogy for a music critic. PJ doesn't even have a new album out but you go see them without listening for years and complain? It's absurd. The casual concert goer can be forgiven, though one wonders why they would bother attending, but not a professional. You should be embarrassed. I didn't intend to be this harsh, but as I write, the problem becomes clear. There's nothing wrong with PJ and they don't need to make excuses. Enjoy them for what they are, a new band... to YOU. Funny, the kids don't have a problem. Ask someone who's 14 - 23 years old what they thought about the show. You will get an entirely different take.

After reading these reviews, I realize the quality of the show is a moot point. Tracy's obviously writing this review from the perspective of a casual fan. She's representing an audience which, in all probability (and that probability is high given what I've heard from other people), feels largely the same way she does. The comments bashing the piece (and praising the show) are coming from (I'm sure) diehard fans which made up something like 15-20% of the entire audience. An inherent quality of being a diehard fan is seeing the band thorugh rose colored glasses; it's liking them no matter how bad the sound quality or obscure the set list...The fact that you all thought the show was great or were pleased they played so many rare cuts reveals very little.

So someone didn't like the show (regardless of reason) and has the forum and credentials to speak her mind...get over it. It's her right...no, scratch that...her JOB to give an honest opinion.

I think those of you who reviled Tracy (and most of you did it quite unintelligently)for translating what she (and just so happens many others) was thinking into the written word ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Given that Eddie Vedder is one of the more outspoken proponents of free speech in the industry, he would probably be ashamed of you too.

pretty sad that people are whining about seeing the greatest band in the world in concert. why are you going to a concert if you don't even buy the records, but just the singles, or only like 3 songs the band has written, out of the 200+ they have in their repertoire?

Stay home and watch MTV if this describes you. don't go to a pearl jam show if you want to see real musicians with standards.

Some of you folks need to get laid and shut the fuck up. Enough bitching already.
Pearl Jam's a great band. They had an off night. The reviewer did too.
Who cares.
Oh wait, obviously you psychos due.

Well I can see someone who listens to the 1 and a 1/2 pearl jam albums they play on the radio down here having a problem with the setlist. However Pearl Jam really aren't the same band they were in 92, and neither are the fans. Sure we can go hear a setlist of only singles everytime they come, but then what about room for the countless amount of other songs and bsides from the past 8 albums? You got to hear about 8 songs you really wanted to hear, I think that should satisfy just about anyone. The fact that they played Who You Are after 10 years satisfied my night alone. Probably the main reason I get so excited about seeing Pearl Jam is that I never know what I can expect to hear, it's a shame that most of the country has developed into only wating to hear 'hits'. It ruins music for artists and true fans alike.

Jesse: Well said. How can anyone be disappointed with a show like that?

THE SET LIST WAS:

Set 1
Oceans, Severed Hand, Save You, Gods' Dice, Given To Fly, Faithfull, Unemployable, Sad, Dissident, Who You Are, Even Flow, Low Light, Gone, Grievance, Glorified G, Do The Evolution, Why Go

Encore 1
Inside Job, Better Man, Comatose, Rearviewmirror

Encore 2
It Rains On Me, No More, Alive, Yellow Ledbetter

At over 2 hours long, what else can PJ do to keep everyone happy? The answer is nothing. They try to mix their staple hits with newer releases from their ENTIRE catalog. By reading most of the negative comments I think some people think they are on a 'Greatest Hits' style 'cash-in' tour. They are a working band living in the now with their last release in 2006 and have not played Florida since that album. They have released 5 albums since their third album 'Vitalogy' in 1994 bringing them to a total of 8 regular albums (I think) not to include B-sides, covers, soundtrack work etc. If they were to play all of their hits we would have the same show each night and that would be a great disservice to the future of rock music. If that is what you want I agree you should go see a PJ cover band or wait another 20 years for the 'Greatest Hits / Cash-in Tour'. Knowing the type of band that PJ are however, I doubt this will ever happen. If only the inept reviewer had any idea about who PJ are and what values they stand for, I feel she would have been a little less disappointed with the show. She did say "I enjoyed the live show as much as I thought would", so then why not start your article with the tone of your response - "...I'm not IN LOVE with the more recent PJ catalog" and then at least your readership may understand that you are a fan of their hits. Instead you wrote a damning review of a show that Rolling Stone seemed to think was quite good - probably due to their understanding of PJ ("Long unbound from playing only commercial material, Pearl Jam plucked deep cuts such as...").

To summarize Tracy, I agree with you that you should "Have your opinions and state them with some class". I just don't think you did. As a writer you owe at least lip service to both sides of the story. You're opinion is of course valid - just a little vulgar and not nearly as interesting as a well written review.