Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmband35
They should check out the way that Pearl Jame does a show. 3 Sets. First set starts off with 2 or 3 softer, slower songs. Then from the 4th song on, they smack you in the mouth with rocking tunes. First set is usually 15 songs. Take a 10 minute break. Come back out and do a 6-8 song acoustic encore. Take another 10 minute break and come back with a 4 song rocking encore. I never leave those shows wanting more. I saw them play 35 songs in Charlottesville last fall. Can't remember the last time dmb ever did that. I've been to a ton of dmb shows over the years, but i must say that i have been going to more and more pearl jam shows in the last couple of years because the sets are more interesting and the shows flow a lot better. Maybe dmb should try something new like that
|
I'm a big fan of both bands, but this is an apples to oranges comparison. I saw PJ both nights in Amsterdam this June. They played 32 songs on N1 and 29 songs on N2. But there were 6 repeats. Also, nearly every PJ song was a carbon copy of the album version...not much variation in the live versions. The shows were great, but after two in a row, I had my fill. DMB on the other hand rarely plays repeats for multi-night venues and every once in a while (at least on this last tour) you'll get an extended jam or something unique.
At the end of the day, following the either band on the road will get boring. Before long you'll end up hearing the same shit over and over.
I think that Credin has the right idea. Cut back on number of shows attended and quit obsessing over distant setlists. I used to average 4-5 shows per year. I went to only one this year, Pelham, and was quite satisfied. Unfortunately, collecting audience recordings just isn't fun anymore with the current set design. C'est la vie.