I'm going to preface this by saying that I have been a LIVE fan since the mid-1990's; in fact, they had been my hands-down #1 FAVORITE band since the first time I heard "Throwing Copper" in 1995 until just a few months ago. That doesn't mean that I'm no longer a LIVE fan (because I am), but they recently, finally, lost their perch at the top of my favorite bands list.

Actually, I suppose this had been gradually happening for a while, ever since SFBM wore off on me. I was one of the most vocal supporters of the album when it first came out, because I enjoyed its catchiness and found it to be a record that genuinely stuck in my head. However, after a month or two, I completely lost interest. Why? Because lyrically and musically, there was nothing new to discover below the surface. I was used to having songs grow on me, or having songs present something new to me, after multiple listens, but it turned out SFBM was very shallow. After I got over the catchiness of the songs, there was nothing additional to catchiness that made me want to listen to the record any more. That was part of it.

The BIG turnaround, however, came after the legendary Amsterdam show on June 29th. I remembering looking at the setlist and reading comments made by the fans, about how the 30 song, 2.5+ hour set was the greatest thing LIVE had ever done, that it was the absolute, unbelievable peak of the band's performing career, with people drooling at amazement over what the band had just accomplished.

Then I went to three Pearl Jam shows in July. First show: 30 songs (including a solo preset by Eddie Vedder), over 2.5 hours; second show: 29 songs (including the solo preset), over 2.5 hours; Third show: 30 songs (including the solo preset), over 2.5 hours.

Now LIVE, including their Amsterdam show, played a total of 31 unique songs at their shows throughout their entire summer tour. Throughout the summer, a total of 31 unique songs means that the setlist changed very little, and one could expect to see virtually the same set list if he/she went to multiple shows. By contrast, I wouldn't even attempt to add up the total unique songs played by Pearl Jam on their summer tour, but JUST IN THE THREE SHOWS I attended, they played a total of 56 unique songs.

Let me emphasize that:

LIVE, in over 50 different shows, play a total of 31 different songs.

Pearl Jam in only the 3 shows I attended, play a total of 56 different songs.

However, while people were pissing their pants over here about the Amsterdam show, there was nothing of the sort over at the Pearl Jam board regarding the three shows I went to. This is not because the shows weren't great, but because 30 songs, 2.5+ hours, and a constantly unique setlist is the absolute norm for Pearl Jam. It's what they do on a night-in, night-out basis.

Of course, it has nothing to do with them having a bigger catalog than LIVE, because the two bands have been around for almost exactly the same amount of time, and have released almost exactly the same amount of albums. Simply put, I realized the key difference between the two bands is this: one (Live) is a very good live band that puts together a generic show that it knows its audience will enjoy once, but doesn't take many chances and doesn't strive to greatness; while the other (Pearl Jam) is a great live band that treats each and every one of its audiences as a separate, special entity, that truly loves playing music, and that focuses on taking chances, on striving for all-time greatness, and on making each and every fan at each and every show feel like he/she is part of something special.

That being said, my realization became clear that I simply couldn't enjoy LIVE the same way knowing that there was another band out there who put so much more passion, feeling, and effort into their music and their connection with their fans, not just on a once-in-a-lifetime evening, but on a nightly basis. While it's sort of sad to have lost so much faith in my formerly-favorite band, I'm glad I came to the realization that I did, because it showed me that I shouldn't just be satisfied with going to a show and hearing the exact same setlist everyone before me had, or connecting with the show/band in a purely generic way. I just hope that LIVE someday realizes that it takes effort and originality to be GREAT -- and I hope that greatness is something they actually want. At the moment, I'm not sure that it is.

This post has been edited by edstipe: Sep 10 2006, 7:48 pm

I totally understand where you are coming from. I'm sure that is not a surprise though since I have not exactly been a supporter of SFBM or Live at all for that matter over the past year or so but you know what happened to me that really knocked them down off of my list? Ryan Adams. I heard his music, my jaw dropped and it kicked me in the gut just like Live's used to do. I saw him do a live show a couple of months back and I saw what a live show was supposed to be. Pure passion and sponteneity. I have made freinds with someone else who is as into Ryan as I am and she went to five Ryan shows in the course of seven days on his recent tour. She heard 61 different songs! Ryan hasn't even been making albums for as long as Live has and he played 61 different songs, including some covers, in five shows! She saw him twice in Atlanta, two nights in a row, and he did not repeat one single song the second night. Not one single song! It made me realize, once again, that bands really are capable of such things if they really want to be.

It's not only the live shows but it's the quality of Live's music these days as well. I guess I just demand more out of my favorite bands then what Live is giving me. That's not to say that other people can't still enjoy their music but I am nowhere close to being able to do so anymore when it comes to their newer stuff anyway. I guess you could say I had a bit of an eye opening experience.

This post has been edited by Heather: Sep 10 2006, 7:59 pm

Now on how many of those 56 songs did you understand a damn word Eddie Vedder sang? Just because Pearl Jam plays different songs at their shows doesn't mean their performances show more passion than Live's. Ed K. really works to give his fans their money's worth on stage. He actually knows how to work a crowd. Eddie V stands on stage like a statue and babbles incoherently for 2.5 hours. More songs doesn't make a band's performance great. Stage presence and the ability to entertain do.

+LIVE+ are one of my top 5 bands. Pearl jam are not. How any one can have a stable top 5 ill never know. perhaps you get to see +LIVE+ to much, idont know butfor me every show seems new and improved but i only get to see them every 1-half to 2 years.

And seeing any band 3 times in one month is obviously your favourite band come on how much money have you got to waste.

I don't think it's a matter of having money to waste. I think it's a matter of just being a huge fan of music. I have seen many bands several times in less than a year and none of them were my number one favorite band. I guess it just comes down to what some people prefer to spend their money on. As a result of seeing so many different bands and opening myself up to so many different kinds of music I have realized that Live is really not the band that should be at the top of my list.

Haha, your response made me laugh. It's true Eddie Vedder tends to mumble sometimes, although it's more a problem on Pearl Jam's records than during live performances. In fact, I saw a poll of musicians recently in which Eddie Vedder was voted to have the best "rock and roll voice" of any lead singer today. Again, this was a poll of his peers, not just a bunch of rabid Pearl Jam fans. I'll go search around for the poll and post a link here when I find it, just in case you want to see it for yourself.

Now it's certainly true that more songs don't necessarily make a band's performance great, but it certainly does make the performance more of a unique experience for the fan. It could be just my unique opinion regarding live performances, but I always feel more connected to a band (as well as to my fellow audience members) when I know the performers have crafted a setlist just for us on a particular night (especially when part of the setlist is crafted especially for the city and/or venue that the show is in -- for example, Pearl Jam opening with "Oceans" in Santa Barbara because the venue overlooks the beautiful Pacific Ocean, or bringing Tim Robbins onto stage in Los Angeles, as it is obviously the movie capital of the world). In contrast, when a band like LIVE plays the same thing over and over again, it is not only less exciting to know which songs you are going to hear before even getting to the show, but it also makes your show just another stop on a generic, repetitive tour. There's nothing to make you want to brag or feel any different from the thousands of other people who have seen the band on the same tour. It takes away from the experience.

Also, it shows a lack of originality and/or effort on the band's part, in my opinion.

For an example of how strongly playing a varied setlist brings fans together, and instills enjoyment in fans, go over to the Pearl Jam message board on any night they have a show. You'll find a thread relaying the setlist as it is played -- someone always brings their cell phone to the show to relay it as it happens -- and dozens of fans looking in on the setlist, commenting on the different combinations of songs being played, discussing the last time "x song" was played, and so on. It's exciting, it's fun, it's what the fans love. Needless to say, we'd look pretty silly doing that here.

In response to stage presence and the ability to entertain, I have to question whether you have actually ever seen Pearl Jam live. Eddie Vedder has one of the strongest stage presences in music -- in fact, I just read the newest issue of Rolling Stone, in which John Mayer is interviewed and prasies Eddie V. for his stage presence and showmanship (I bring that up because it is, again, an example from one of his peers). Eddie V. certainly brings a lot of energy to the stage -- watching him leaping on top of speakers or crawling on the roof on this tour are good examples of that. But to me, stage presence all has to do with connecting with the crowd, conversing with them, letting them know that you appreciate them and that the band is playing just for you. That's what Eddie V. is best at. He talks about the city, the venue, the PJ fan club, the reasons for playing various songs, etc. Unfortunately, Ed K. needs to learn a little about this. Like LIVE's setlist, Ed K.'s stage presence is disappointingly over-rehearsed and repetitive. I've heard the same comments made to the crowd on various bootlegs of various shows, and he tends to do very little in terms of connecting to the crowd on a personal level.

Again, I love LIVE, but there's a lot more they can be doing to show that they care about their fans...

This post has been edited by edstipe: Sep 10 2006, 9:28 pm

Well, no. You're looking at it the wrong way around. You're assuming that I am seeing Pearl Jam three times in a month BECAUSE they are my favorite band, when it is actually the other way around; the truth is that the fact that I can see them three times in a month, and witness a completely different show each time, is part of what makes them my favorite band.

If Pearl Jam played the same repetitive setlist over and over again, I certainly wouldn't be seeing them more than once on any given tour. By the same token, I'd probably see LIVE more than once if they mixed things up a little bit. I did see LIVE three times during the TDTH tour, and I got the same exact show and the same exact setlist every time, even when they played in the same venue on back-to-back nights.

I don't have a ton of money (I'm a teacher, for God's sake), but music is something I like to spend the money I do have on, because it is one of the greatest joys in my life. Simply put, it is not worth spending money to see the same LIVE show multiple tims, but it is EXTREMELY worth it to see Pearl Jam three times, because I know I'm going to get something very special each time.

This post has been edited by edstipe: Sep 10 2006, 9:23 pm

fuck eddie vedder & piss on pearl jam fuckin' pinko commie fags

Just a thought: perhaps Ed K. should take this approach to his singing. Let's face it, it would be better to not understand his words than to hear him sing shit lines like "Sophia I need ya' / Like a druggie needs a vein" at every show.

Oh, and if I go to a LIVE show and hear Ed ask the crowd "How you feeling now!?" one more time, I swear I'm going to shoot myself in the head.

LOL EDSTIPE you are the man!!!!!!! how about black widows a spider LMAO WELL NO FUCKING SHIT!!!!!

eddie vedder vs ed kowalckyk---i love ed but ill take vedder cause eds a pussy now
pat vs jeff ament---um r u kidding no contest!!!
cameron vs gracey--im a fan of both so ill say a tie
stone or mike vs taylor-----yea well no contest here either!!!

i do love live im not a hater tc is my fave album of all time i wouldnnt have met a special someone if it wasnt for live BUT ill take PJ ANYDAY!!

I feel your pain, my friend.

While I do love the feeling I get at a Live show, or listening to some of my favorite Live songs, I have to admit that I have felt the same way as both Paul and Heather for quite a while now. Actually, since V came out. See, I feel like I am in the minority of Live fans when I say that I started to question the direction of the band ( or at least my enjoyment of it) after TDTH came out. I was quite taken aback hearing every song being about love, and light, and water. Which shouldn't be hard to understand seeing that it's the follow up to SS which is my favorite.

The other reason that I started to question Live was when I got into the jamband scene. When I go see Widespread Panic for a few days or even a week, I would not expect to see the same song twice. If I did, it'd be pretty rare. And it also wouldn't sound exactly the same each time I heard it. I mean, when you get to the point when you can talk along with Ed'd 'talking' with the crowd, it's pretty sad.

Now, on the other hand I saw Roger Waters last night and he plays the same setlist and it sounds pretty much the same each night. But they are extremely elaborate numbers with pyrotechnics and such. Plus, he's Roger Frigging Waters!!! When Live hits 30 years together or something like that - then do a huge tour of greatest hits that are pretty much the same every night, but they aren't at the point yet.

I still love them, and call them my favorite band cause I'm a huge dork and extremely sentimental. But if I am honest with myself, if it's all about just the music, it's Widespread Panic.

I didn't even read the entire original post, but I have to admit that Live was my favorite band for over 10 years and Pearl Jam has now taken over that title.

Pearl Jam connects with me on so many levels. I agree with their political views and relate to the themes of their songs and the meanings behind them.

I do not connect with Live like I used to.

lol that made me laugh. For the record Eddie V's incoherant, mumbling voice is the hottest thing on the planet. Maybe more people need to listen to the rarities and b-sides that are on Lost Dogs. I'm seeing them for the first time in November and I can't wait.

I still love Live and I still have a soft spot for the little bald man, but the new stuff just doesn't do anything for me *shrugs*