Guest evenflowDDT Posted November 3, 2002 Report Posted November 3, 2002 I always preferred Pearl Jam myself - their singles have lyrics that make sense and convey meaning, and are just catchier; they were also much more consistent with their live shows. That being said though, I've never felt the need to buy any Pearl Jam albums, but I own Bleach and In Utero... I always get the Pearl Jam albums mixed up. Which singles are on which album?
Guest JohnSkins Posted November 4, 2002 Report Posted November 4, 2002 Owning all of both groups studio output and having seen them both live, I would have to say that Pearl Jam is the far superior group in every catagory.
Guest Dmann2000 Posted November 4, 2002 Report Posted November 4, 2002 and maybe from Vitalogy you could have Better Man and Corduroy (the only listenable songs on that piece of shit CD). From there I can't think of much else for Pearl Jam that I like. I can't understand how you can't love "Not For You", "Spin the Black Circle", "Tremor Christ" and Yield has some good stuff too.
Guest cobainwasmurdered Posted November 5, 2002 Report Posted November 5, 2002 Nirvana. Did you really think I'd pick Pearl Jam?
Your Paragon of Virtue Posted November 5, 2002 Report Posted November 5, 2002 It took you awhile. But you're no longer recognized for being a big fan of Nirvana. In fact, I'm sure most people probably forgot about that, if it wasn't for your screen name. No, you are now as the funniest prankster I know, and the guy that should be next in line for the Jackass push...
Guest converge241 Posted November 5, 2002 Report Posted November 5, 2002 PJ a close decision made easier because im still a little overkilled from Nirvana everywhere after Kurt killed himself
Guest DawnBTVS Posted November 5, 2002 Report Posted November 5, 2002 I'll toss in my vote with Nirvana. I didn't find Ten that enthralling though I like Nirvana's work more.
Guest Insanityman Posted November 6, 2002 Report Posted November 6, 2002 I guess I ought to explain my post. Pearl Jam did have better music overall... but when I listened to Nirvana it is a different experience. Cobain had presence and good to great lyrics (as well as Pearl Jam I guess) both had "raw emotion" in their voices. I just prefer Nirvana more.
Guest Gamengiri2002 Posted November 9, 2002 Report Posted November 9, 2002 hmm, this is a difficult question for me. And an equally difficult time for me to answer. Currently I am enjoying a cathartic moment with the release of Nirvana's greatest hits album seeing as how I only became a fan after Cobain killed himself. But on the otherhand, Pearl Jam is gearing up for The Riot Act which I eagerly await. But, stepping back from all of that, Pearl Jam is my favorite band of the two. Eddie Vedder just strikes me as a much more effective songwriter than Cobain and their body of work is more diverse than Nirvana's. Nirvana has an amazing body of work for the time in which they existed and granted that perhaps they didn't survive long enough to evolve, but Pearl Jam's discography has a little bit of everything for most tastes. Oh and Eddie's vocals don't lose intensity and power just because half of the alternative frontmen out there are lame knockoffs.
Guest TheyCallMeMark Posted November 10, 2002 Report Posted November 10, 2002 Well, Riot Act SUCKS. SUCKS SUCKS. And that pisses me off, so I have to uncharactaristically vote for Nirvana.
Guest godthedog Posted November 10, 2002 Report Posted November 10, 2002 Well, Riot Act SUCKS. SUCKS SUCKS. And that pisses me off, so I have to uncharactaristically vote for Nirvana. it's not even out yet.
Guest TheyCallMeMark Posted November 10, 2002 Report Posted November 10, 2002 Actually I live in Seattle and it's a really big deal here, so one of the stations played the full thing and I taped in in the hopes it would rip. Unfourtunatley, Pearl Jam has now gotten to the point where there is exactly one song on the album I would call really good "Wanted To Get Right". "Crop Duster" "I Am Mine" "Half Full" and "Ghost" are less than decent at best while the rest of the album is just garbage. I wouldn't pay any amount of money for it.
Guest Respect The 'Taker Posted November 10, 2002 Report Posted November 10, 2002 Actually I live in Seattle and it's a really big deal here, so one of the stations played the full thing and I taped in in the hopes it would rip. Unfourtunatley, Pearl Jam has now gotten to the point where there is exactly one song on the album I would call really good "Wanted To Get Right". "Crop Duster" "I Am Mine" "Half Full" and "Ghost" are less than decent at best while the rest of the album is just garbage. I wouldn't pay any amount of money for it. Hmm..well Eddie Vedder is a man of a million emotions at the moment after those fans died at one of the festivals Pearl Jam played at..maybe it has affected his work? In any event, i won't judge the album until i have listened to it myself. My vote still stands for Pearl Jam, they outsold Nirvana on almost every front anyway, so the point of this thread really doesn't prove much, as record sales show Pearl Jam are the more favourable band. Illusion
Guest godthedog Posted November 10, 2002 Report Posted November 10, 2002 but record sales don't mean shit.
Guest La Parka Es Mi Papa Posted November 10, 2002 Report Posted November 10, 2002 Pearl Jam is one of the worst bands ever. Nirvana is one of the best. Case closed.
Guest Respect The 'Taker Posted November 10, 2002 Report Posted November 10, 2002 but record sales don't mean shit. Record sales show popularity, popularity comes to those, generally, with talent. Britney Spears & Whore Aguilera sell millions cause of TALENT, believe it or not, same goes for Pearl Jam & Nirvana. To say they 'dont mean shit' is just plain arrogance. Illusion And to the guy who said Pearl Jam is 'one of the worst bands ever', your a fucking moron. EDIT - God bless BifEverchad for his taste in women and funny sigs.
Guest Agent of Oblivion Posted November 10, 2002 Report Posted November 10, 2002 Record sales show popularity, popularity comes to those, generally, with talent. I'm not even going to get started on this... ...Yeah I am. Britney Spears has outsold GNR probably five times over by this point, is she more talented? She is by that logic, which is unbelievably faulty. I don't have the exact numbers, but I'm willing to bet the first Backstreet Boys CD sold more copies than Sgt. Peppers... What does that tell you? How about comparing record sales of N'Sync and Pink Floyd? All that means is that one band is making more money than another. Pop music is proven to make a lot of money, but no one calls it great meaningful music that's solely based on talent. If it weren't for brilliant marketing, it wouldn't make a TENTH of the money that it does. Does that mean pop stars are completely and utterly devoid of talent? No, most of them can in fact sing, but they'd be nowhere without the right person making the commercials.
Guest cabbageboy Posted November 10, 2002 Report Posted November 10, 2002 Pearl Jam sold more because they are a safer band to listen to and teenyboppers and redneck metalheads can understand them easier than Nirvana. And yes, songs like Tremor Christ, Not for You, and Spin the Black Circle ALL suck a dick. Spin the Black Circle particularly is something I'd use to torture people. Vitalogy was in fact a hugely popular album when it came out, I bet it sold 8 million copies. I notice that PJ haven't had a CD sell anywhere near that since, so a lot of people must agree with me on that CD sucking. Pearl Jam might be slightly better on instruments, or at least they play more traditionally. I know Dave Grohl destroys anyone PJ ever had on drums. I also think for certain that Nirvana's songs are flat out better constructed. Even PJ's best stuff like Evenflow, Jeremy, Alive all has a lot of pointless jamming and wanking. There are very few Nirvana songs that have boring jamming or wasted time, but there are quite a few PJ songs that do.
Guest redbaron51 Posted November 10, 2002 Report Posted November 10, 2002 Pearl Jam sold more because they are a safer band to listen to and teenyboppers and redneck metalheads can understand them easier than Nirvana. Um don't you have it backwards. Nirvana lyrics are basically the same as what is out right now in "rock" music. Teen agnst, rebellion, and taking no for authority. I doubt that a lot of people understand what Pearl Jam lyrics mean. Vitalogy was in fact a hugely popular album when it came out, I bet it sold 8 million copies. I notice that PJ haven't had a CD sell anywhere near that since, so a lot of people must agree with me on that CD sucking. The only reason why it bombed because it was different. Pearl Jam was trying to be different, unlike Nirvana who kept playing the same music for so long. If Cobain was still alive, Nirvana would not be as "great" as they are now. Pearl Jam might be slightly better on instruments, or at least they play more traditionally. I know Dave Grohl destroys anyone PJ ever had on drums. Dave Grohl is just as bad on drums as he is on guitar. (Though I love Queens of the Stone Age though....Go figure) I also think for certain that Nirvana's songs are flat out better constructed. Even PJ's best stuff like Evenflow, Jeremy, Alive all has a lot of pointless jamming and wanking. There are very few Nirvana songs that have boring jamming or wasted time, but there are quite a few PJ songs that do. A what? Three different notes, and the ability of a dead dog to play on stage live. I don't know what you mean by better constructed if they can't play it. Too me that is just plain out sloppyness.
Guest Respect The 'Taker Posted November 11, 2002 Report Posted November 11, 2002 Record sales show popularity, popularity comes to those, generally, with talent. I'm not even going to get started on this... ...Yeah I am. Britney Spears has outsold GNR probably five times over by this point, is she more talented? She is by that logic, which is unbelievably faulty. I don't have the exact numbers, but I'm willing to bet the first Backstreet Boys CD sold more copies than Sgt. Peppers... What does that tell you? How about comparing record sales of N'Sync and Pink Floyd? All that means is that one band is making more money than another. Pop music is proven to make a lot of money, but no one calls it great meaningful music that's solely based on talent. If it weren't for brilliant marketing, it wouldn't make a TENTH of the money that it does. Does that mean pop stars are completely and utterly devoid of talent? No, most of them can in fact sing, but they'd be nowhere without the right person making the commercials. Don't put words into my posts, little man. I never once stated that anyone was better than anyone JUST because of record sales. My argument was IT SHOWS POPULARITY, and whether you agree with that or not, it doesn't change the fact that whatever is cool, whether that be Backstreet Boys or Metallica, SELLS. Illusion
Guest Agent of Oblivion Posted November 11, 2002 Report Posted November 11, 2002 I think you misunderstood that completely. I wasn't arguing one bit that sales indicate popularity, I was saying that popularity doesn't indicate talent.
Guest Respect The 'Taker Posted November 11, 2002 Report Posted November 11, 2002 I think you misunderstood that completely. I wasn't arguing one bit that sales indicate popularity, I was saying that popularity doesn't indicate talent. Indeed popularity does not always indicate talent, however in most cases you'll find that in order to maintain popularity, you must have talent. ALRIGHT, this discussion is getting to points where i don't even understand myself..i need sleep. Take THAT Bon Jovi!
Guest Agent of Oblivion Posted November 11, 2002 Report Posted November 11, 2002 To some degree, yes, but it's more about connecting with fans than it is pure technical skill when it comes to maintaining popularity. Agreed on Bon Jovi. He's sucktacular.
Guest Respect The 'Taker Posted November 11, 2002 Report Posted November 11, 2002 Oh, i hear ya bro... I dunno what you American's call that dog puppet thing that interviews people (it was on the VMA awards with Moby), but the thing interviewed Bon Jovi not too long ago. It asked them if they were going to be apart of a vampire movie. Jon Bon Jovi replied yes, to which the puppet said "Finally, a role that REQUIRES you to suck". Oh that just about killed me. Funny AND true. Illusion - Living for Axl since '85
Guest Agent of Oblivion Posted November 11, 2002 Report Posted November 11, 2002 That would be Triumph the insult comic dog.
Guest cabbageboy Posted November 11, 2002 Report Posted November 11, 2002 Let me explain what I meant about PJ being a safer sounding band, at least on their most popular albums. Their style is nondescript. It doesn't suck, but it's just nothing to get excited about. From this point on they started flat out sucking. Hell, at least Nirvana's studio CDs sound good, but I'll admit their live stuff is uneven. Some good, some bad....kinda depends on the song. That certainly beats sounding like shit in the studio, which PJ has for roughly the past 4 albums or so. My god, the guitar work and playing on most of Vitalogy (save maybe 2 or 3 songs) was hilariously awful. The only Nirvana album that appealed to teenyboppers is Nevermind. I hardly think In Utero appealed to such a crowd.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now