or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Pearl Jam-Greatest band in the known universe
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Pearl Jam-Greatest band in the known universe - Page 2

post #41 of 108
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:

<strong>I see a similarity, namely that both bands are pretentious, and like to wollow in ponderous, overly grandiose, unweildy, self-importance and easy dark-moods that are fit only for brooding teenagers but pretend to be sophisticated. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Yep but Pink Floyd brings back fond memories of my misspent youth and the lyrics from Wish You Were Here are so good.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #42 of 108
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:

<strong>As for Pearl Jam and Uniqueness.... heehee.... they will be remembered like "Foriegner" is remembered. </strong><hr></blockquote>

ROFL. Kinda bitchy pfflam, but that's a good one.

[quote]<strong>Its embarrassing that the distinguished Mr. Young played with them at all . . . . </strong><hr></blockquote>

He was mostly just introducing himself to a gen that didn't have a clue as to who he was/is. Saw a CSNY show last year and sad to say (really sad to say) it didn't do very much for me. Stills still had flashes of brilliance but that was about it. Oh hell. They were great too. And now they're just old.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #43 of 108
[quote]He was mostly just introducing himself to a gen that didn't have a clue as to who he was/is.<hr></blockquote>

You know I love you, roger, but that's a tremendous load of shit. I don't even know why I might have to explain this (anyone with a passing interest should understand how ludicrous that statement is very well).

Pearl Jam did a duet of Rockin' In The Free World w/ Neil Young in 1992. This isn't a new development. They've made albums together. Neil Young is a fixture at live Pearl Jam shows.

Honestly.

--

seb:
A lot of Jim's falls on stage were just that, staged. When the show wasn't working his way he'd throw fits like that, read up.

They didn't care about selling records? How in God's name do you explain "Hello, I Love You"?? That is a money-making song, there's no getting around it.

--

pfflam:

If you want to look at it as formulaic then what band isn't easily copied?
The Beatles are simpletons as were using your logic.

---

And also, those who think Pearl Jam is a joke and Bob Dylan is God. Guess who Bob asked to sing "Masters of War" at his 30th Anniversary concert celebration?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #44 of 108
heh. Read up on the Doors eh? cool. heh. Anything you can recommend? I've probably already got it (probably got it when I was about your age - not being condescending) but I'd like to know what you recommend.

Yeah. You could call Jims falls staged. He sure as hell threw fits when things weren't going his way. I never said he didn't. I'm just saying it wasn't choreographed. Jim was a big ass vying for attention once they started getting a little fame. Doing something because it gets a certain reaction is not unique to morrison.

Look at Ozzy and his taste for animal heads.

However, being a drunken ass and throwing fits does not a boy band make. I'm not worshipping Jim here either, I'm just saying the doors weren't a choreographed boy band put together by a corporate pig to sell records to teeny girls. Although teeny bop girls did of course buy Doors records. Hello I love you was definitely single material. How do you explain the records that came after which didn't sell or even have a hit single?

And you can't say Jim didn't have real drug and alcohol problems.

KISS was more of a boy band than the doors.

Bob Dylan is definitely cool. No doubt about that. But, I wonder how many have heard of/listened to Ramblin Jack Elliot or Woody Guthrie?

Dylan wouldn't be without Jack or Woody. That simple. Bob copied Jack's style, Jack copied Woody's. The marquee said "the son of Jack Elliot" at Bob's first gig. People would try to get Jack pissed at Bob for copying him. Jack would say, "hell he's the only one around here that sounds any good".

My favorite thing about Dylan is his lyric sensibility. That guy is a poet.

Interesting history behind Rambling Jack. His daughter did a documentary about him recently. Check it out if you can. Good stuff.

ahh..the romanticism that comes with music history discussions....

[ 01-18-2002: Message edited by: seb ]</p>
post #45 of 108
Arguing about music is pointless but fun...... a few random opinions....The Beatles were way more of a boy band than The Doors. Pearl Jam is just so humorless and boring that I can't even stand to listen to them for a second.

I'd much rather listen to Johnny Cash than Dylan. David Gilmour had more great ideas per track than just about anyone and has a great feeling to his leads. As I much as I like Floyd I understand Johnny Rotten's disfigurement of their tee shirt.

I could go on, but instead I'm gonna get ready to go out, see a band and then dance my ass off to some Rock N Roll at a place called true. Cause after all, dancing is way more Rock n Roll than talking about "Rock".
post #46 of 108
Johnny Cash owns.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #47 of 108
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
You know I love you, roger, but that's a tremendous load of shit. I don't even know why I might have to explain this (anyone with a passing interest should understand how ludicrous that statement is very well).

Pearl Jam did a duet of Rockin' In The Free World w/ Neil Young in 1992. This isn't a new development. They've made albums together. Neil Young is a fixture at live Pearl Jam shows.</strong><hr></blockquote>

And? You don't think the association has put Young's career back on the map again? How many Peal Jam fans know anything about Young's old band mates? Or even care?

(I'm blushing a little about your public display of affection. )

[ 01-19-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #48 of 108
[quote]Les Fluer Du Mal is Baudelair . . ..

but I'm sure that you knew that.<hr></blockquote>

pfflam: yeah i knew that...pretty cool someone noticed...makes the board even cooler
post #49 of 108
I knew and liked Neil Young w/out Pearl Jam. Unfortunately, I can only speak for myself.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #50 of 108
[quote]The Beatles are simpletons as were using your logic. <hr></blockquote>

The Beatles aren't that immitated really, very few that I can think of ever manage to have the same level of harmonic complexity, such a subtle blend of melody intertwining with harmony, and not simplistic chord progressions either.

They were a boy band when they started, back when everybody that was doing Pop music was either a boy band or a heart throb etc,. then the whole scene changed and so did the Beatles.

Hey, no one bit on the Who bait?!?!!

(note: its all hyperbole, I'm sure that if the mood struck me I might actually be able to listen to a whole Pearl Jam album . . .aaah but alas I know that mood will never come)
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #51 of 108
Thread Starter 
Well i'm sure you've listened to a couple Britney spears and backstreet boys albums, so any mood can come for you. it just takes time.
post #52 of 108
[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>

And? You don't think the association has put Young's career back on the map again? How many Peal Jam fans know anything about Young's old band mates? Or even care?

(I'm blushing a little about your public display of affection. )

[ 01-19-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

back on the map? Neil Young playing a few shows every once and a while with either Eddie Vedder or Pearl jam as a whole certainly didn't have much of an impact on the success of his albums.

I've liked Neil Young just about as long as I liked Pearl jam. Yes part of the reason I started listening to Neil Young was because he played with Pearl jam but what's wrong with that?

Did Pete Townshend use Eddie Vedder to introduce himself to "today's audience"

This is useless. We have the ignorant trio here who says that Pearl jam sucks and then you have people who either say they are great or that they are alright or that they don't like them but they are good. The ignorant trio obviously is the minority.
post #53 of 108
"ignorant trio"?

hmm?


I for one know that Niel played with Pearl Jam because he "likes to rock". They probably welcomed the oppurtunity because they probably grew up listening to him.

But though I am and always have been the biggest Niel fan, I recognize that he has been at times kind of a trend jumper. From Trans, to the ducktail and fins album, and even with Punk he tried in some movies and stuff to make sure that he was seen as doing the punk like thing . . . but that's because its "rockin" and that's what he does.

Also I must painfully admit that he can be pretty awfull at times and sacchrine, but he does it all so straight forwardly and with a kind of humor, as if he knows he is being sappy.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #54 of 108
Some of you guys are really closed minded. Just because you don't "get" what the other guy likes about a certain band doesn't mean they aren't brilliant.

I can listen to almost all the stuff on the radio today and it's all lousy and formulaic. I can go back to decent stuff like Journey or Creedence Clearwater Revival and I still think it's cathy and fun but I know it has obvious limitations. But when I go back to Pink Floyd, The Who, or Led Zeppelin I instantly feel at home because each is such an incredibly distinct experience. I can reassure myself that this stuff is NOT overrated because it's just so perfect. It really is as great as I think and it's not just because I grew up with it.


So I have heard a good amount of Pearl Jam and i just don't like it or get it. I don't see what's so special about a simple song like Don't Call Me Daughter or Jeremy's Spoken. I don't think the songs are as catchy as Beatles melodies or Led Zeppelin riffs. But yet if I have a person like Applenut who obviously has good taste in other stuff, and they are saying that they feel that Pearl Jam is so incredible that every second of the album is enjoyable, and they want to own every live album, then I figure maybe there's something I just don't "get" about it. Maybe I just don't get the grunge sentimentality or the melancholy attitude but maybe it's brilliant to someone else.

To me The Doors are NOT overrated. They really are incredible and it's not just about myth or legend. I also think that Guns 'N' Roses are up there with the greats. Some of you may laugh but maybe GNR just don't appeal to your personality. Maybe you have to "believe" in that attitude and maybe it seems cheesy to you but if you grew up at that certain time it might have been 100% real to you. Another example is Jethro Tull. They are absolutely incredible, even their non-hits, but unless you get the sarcastic 70s attitude you might not see the magic in it.

I would say the true greats are Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, The Doors, The Stones, The Who, GNR, Bob Dylan, Jethro Tull, Elton John, and The Beatles.

Some of you may laugh at Elton John but maybe you grew up in a more harder edged time so you wouldn't easily beleive in his stuff.
The only one of these to me that doesn't have that same magic as when I first heard it is The Beatles. A lot of there stuff seems dated to me. They have songs that if it wasn't for you believing in the Beatle legend and mystique that the songs are pretty mediocre. Songs like Paperback Writer, Rocky Raccoon, Get Back, and Blackbird I just don't feel people would care about if anyone else sang them, whereas Brown Sugar or Get Off Of My Cloud by the Stones would be incredibly catchy songs even if Van Halen sang them.

So I might like Pearl Jam even less than someone likes GNR but I'm not going to write them off as nothing. The true test is if 25 years from now Applenut puts on that Pearl Jam album and it's still as good to him as Led Zeppelin II is to me.

Oh, and Tool has 3 or 4 songs that I would classify on the same level as Led Zeppelin, and I don't say that lightly.
post #55 of 108
[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>

but what do you mean by what the beatles are doing? a great band by your definition must be constantly making music and receieve ungodly amounts of airplay?

</strong><hr></blockquote>

My point is that I just love to get Beatle jabs in whenever I can. I don't mind a lot of Beatles stuff. However, it pisses me off that Beatles have so much cultural cache as compared to Dylan. I don't think the Beatles would have ever become a substantial band without Dylan. I mean John wouldn't even agree to meet Dylan until he had composed more substantial songs, and George worshipped Bob until the day he died. And although Dylan did respond to the Beatles responses to his music, I believe Dylan would have been doing fantastic stuff no matter what.

[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>
Bob Dylan hasn't had a "mandatory song" since the 60s, very rarely receives airplay except on folk stations and alternative country stations yet he's great and because Pearl Jam doesn't get "much" either they suck? </strong><hr></blockquote>

"Blood On the Tracks", widely regarded as Dylan's best album (although not by me) was recorded after the '60s. "Tangled Up in Blue", "Idiot Wind", "Hurricane", and "Knockin' On Heavan's Door" were all recorded in the '70s. And I won't even get into some of his later masterpieces. Not to mention "Love and Theft", this year's best album.

I will say that I consider the string of records "Bringing It All Back Home", "Highway 61 Revisted", "Blonde on Blonde", and "The Basement Tapes" to be one of the greatest moments of creative output EVER.

Also, I said nothing about airtime. Dylan is great because he is great, that's all there is to it. Popular radio is so horrible today that I wouldn't use airtime as a standard to judge any band.

And I never said Pearl Jam sucked. I prepared for having my spine fused by listening to "Alive". Pearl Jam will always have a special place in my heart. However, they aren't even close to being in Dylan's leagure.

[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: Simple Ranger ]

[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: Simple Ranger ]

[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: Simple Ranger ]</p>
post #56 of 108
[quote]Originally posted by seb:
<strong>

KISS was more of a boy band than the doors.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

KISS has always been more about the show than the music, and that is fine if that's what you're looking for.

[quote]Originally posted by seb:
<strong>
But, I wonder how many have heard of/listened to Ramblin Jack Elliot or Woody Guthrie?

</strong><hr></blockquote>

I have.

[quote]Originally posted by seb:
<strong>

Dylan wouldn't be without Jack or Woody. That simple. Bob copied Jack's style, Jack copied Woody's. The marquee said "the son of Jack Elliot" at Bob's first gig. People would try to get Jack pissed at Bob for copying him. Jack would say, "hell he's the only one around here that sounds any good".

</strong><hr></blockquote>

One at a time...

Ramblin' Jack was an influence on Bob very very early in his career and for a relatively brief period of time. Bob quickly left Ramblin' Jack in his dust, and I believe it is false to call Ramblin' Jack Elliot a major influence on Bob Dylan. It simply isn't true.

Woody Guthrie of course is one of the giants of American music, and he was a major influence on Bob. You'll get no argument there. However, I will suggest that Bob is of at least equal stature as Woody. Read further to see why.

[quote]Originally posted by seb:
<strong>

My favorite thing about Dylan is his lyric sensibility. That guy is a poet.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Although I don't necessarily disagree with this statement, it drives me nuts because it is always used to pigeon-hole Dylan as simply a "great Writer", which is true. But...have you ever tried to just read some of Dylan's lyrics (and I'm talking about some of his great songs here)? A lot of times they don't hold water as poems, but when you put the music to them, and Bob's voice, and Bob's timing, they are godly. They are true works of art.

And now I'll outline why I believe that Dylan is the true king of rock 'n roll.

1. Great writer. Few disagree. Hendrix had to buy a second copy of "Highway 61 Revisted" because he wore the first one out. How's that for an endorsement?

2. Great singer. Let the flames begin, but let me point out that I said "Great Singer", not that Bob has a great voice. Technically, Bob's voice is well... Bob's voice. Singular yes. Operatic, no. However, emotionally, there are few who can compete with Bob. His timing, his phrasing, etc, etc... Definitely Bob's most underrated talent. I find a lot of Dylan covers painful and unlistenable.

3. Great harmonica player. That's just a bonus. Again, no John Popper, but all you have to do is listen.

4.Finally, Dylan is not only a great artist, but Dylan is a great student of artists. You won't find anyone today with Dylan's knowledge of traditional songs, nursery rhymes, roots, blues, folk, and contemporary music. Dylan has never stopped listening. Never stopped borowing, stealing, adapting. He never stopped creating.

There is a famous story of Bono watching Bob and Van Morrison playing name that tune. Needless to say, Bob won.

"She said that all the railroad men
Just drink up your blood like wine."

This line, from "Stuck inside of Mobile with the Memphis Blues Again", is stolen from a traditional song (sorry, can't remember which one at the moment). But who would argue that Dylan didn't make that line is own. That "Stuck Inside..." isn't completely original (in an artistic sense). Bob's knowledge of our culture is deep, and this is an important aspect of his songs. Bob's ability to tap shared memory and shared history is unrivaled.

There you go. Just my opinon.
post #57 of 108
[quote]Originally posted by trick fall:
<strong>
I'd much rather listen to Johnny Cash than Dylan.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I love Johnny Cash. Let me repeat that. I love Johnny Cash. However, Dylan is better. Johnny is more of a personality. The black. The voice. He just doesn't have the songs that Bob does.

Again, I love Johnny Cash.

Willie Nelson. There's another true rocker. I don't care if he does sing country.
post #58 of 108
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
And also, those who think Pearl Jam is a joke and Bob Dylan is God. Guess who Bob asked to sing "Masters of War" at his 30th Anniversary concert celebration?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Again I like Pearl Jam, but if you think Bob asked anybody to play at that concert, you're delusional. I'm sure Eddie wet his pants when Columbia or whoever made the offer.
post #59 of 108
You assert that he didn't have some kind of input into who sang? He would've been fine with George Michael belting out "With God On Our Side"?

And of course he should've been honored, anything wrong with being with Bob Dylan on stage?

(Vedder isn't a labelmate, by the way, Pearl Jam has been with Epic since '91)



Bob Dylan has evolved too much to say he rips someone off or copies heavily from someone's style.

He's a musical genius in the true sense of the word.

Re: Woody Guthrie
Find Dylan's "Last Thought on Woody Guthrie"

[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #60 of 108
Whoa. Hey, I didn't mean 'copy' in a bad way. I said many of Jack Elliott's friends tried to get him mad for "copying" him, and Elliott came to his defense - as he was his friend and 'teacher' (at the time) - and said "he's the only one around here that sounds any good". And it's true.

Those guys all loved to 'copy' off each other. They would ask each other how they did something and they would say, "I'm not gonna tell you. You can steal it, you can copy it, but you're gonna have to earn it". They didn't mean it as a derogatory thing. It was a form of flattery.

I was simply wondering how many of Dylan's fans are familiar with two of the people that influenced him. Its good to know the roots of the music you appreciate IMO.

I love Dylan's music. He's one of my favorites on many levels.

And I don't think the lyrics to every one of his songs have to be able to be read as poems - on their own - for me to feel he is a poet. The way he has lived, and worked, as an artist has more to do with that than the way I read his lyrics on paper, IMO.

[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: seb ]</p>
post #61 of 108
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>You assert that he didn't have some kind of input into who sang? He would've been fine with George Michael belting out "With God On Our Side"?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm sure he ok'd the list, but I don't think he was personally involved in selecting the groups. Bob has a lot of fans and friends, so I'm sure it wasn't too hard to field the line up. I wonder if the whole Pearl Jam -&gt; Neil Young -&gt; Dylan connection had anything to do with it?

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
And of course he should've been honored, anything wrong with being with Bob Dylan on stage? </strong><hr></blockquote>

Agreed, but your original post made it sound like Bob was a huge Pearl Jam fan when I'm sure its more likely the other way around. Of course that's just my read of the situation. I have no insider knowledge of the situation.
post #62 of 108
[quote] I can go back to decent stuff like Journey <hr></blockquote>

you can go back there... but by doing so you invalidate anything that follows...

--jk
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #63 of 108
lol. this thread is crazy.

Bob Dylan is great. Best live show of the year. ahead of U2. Larry Campbell and Tony Garnier rock!
post #64 of 108
[quote]Originally posted by seb:
<strong>Whoa. Hey, I didn't mean 'copy' in a bad way. I said many of Jack Elliott's friends tried to get him mad for "copying" him, and Elliott came to his defense - as he was his friend and 'teacher' (at the time) - and said "he's the only one around here that sounds any good". And it's true.

...

I was simply wondering how many of Dylan's fans are familiar with two of the people that influenced him. Its good to know the roots of the music you appreciate IMO.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

I didn't take it that way, but I feel it is wrong to call Ramblin' Jack an influence especially in the same breath with Woody Guthrie. Guthrie was a huge influence on Bob. Jack was merely a contemporary (in my opinion).

[quote]Originally posted by seb:
<strong>
And I don't think the lyrics to every one of his songs have to be able to be read as poems - on their own - for me to feel he is a poet. The way he has lived, and worked, as an artist has more to do with that than the way I read his lyrics on paper, IMO.

[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: seb ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Again, as I said, I didn't disagree with your statement. I just wanted to point that people often use that argument to actually attack Bob. I feel Bob's talents as a musician are often brushed away because "oh, sure, he's a great writer, but..."

But you're right, Bob is a true artist and that is why he is so great. It's nice to know that Bob is appreciated on the boards. I often try to use Bob as an analogy when explaining my love of Apple to people. Sure The Beatles may have been more popular, but who was better? Who had more influence with other artists?
post #65 of 108
[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>lol. this thread is crazy.

Bob Dylan is great. Best live show of the year. ahead of U2. Larry Campbell and Tony Garnier rock!</strong><hr></blockquote>

Where did you see him at? He was fantastic in La Crosse.
post #66 of 108
[quote]Sure The Beatles may have been more popular, but who was better? Who had more influence with other artists?<hr></blockquote>

Umm.

Who's better? It's heresey to say either one is superior! It's like choosing between God and Jesus!
I'd honestly say the Beatles are the most influential group in the history of music.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #67 of 108
Back on to the topic of the 90's...

honestly, Nirvana now that I look back, doesn't impress me that much, as musicians I don't think they were genius, Kurt as a songwritter sometimes shined.

Pearl Jam I believe to be a much more important band as far as the creation of music is concerned...

since we are discussing Pink Floyd of this generation (or of the 90's), there is another even more so important band, an even more so misunderstood band that was around... and I'm sure certain members of Pink Floyd would agree, one of their members performed on Wish You Were Here during their Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inauguration (i believe it was).
post #68 of 108
[quote]Originally posted by Simple Ranger:
<strong>

Where did you see him at? He was fantastic in La Crosse.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Saw him at Madison Square Garden. great setlist, great performance, great seats thanks to Larry
post #69 of 108
I also feel that I should add that there is something missing in much of this self-important rock these days, something that seems to be at the core of what "rock and Roll" was all about. Something that made Syd Barrett far superior than any replacement in post Barrett Floyd. Namely, the Pop-enthusiasm, and joyfull experimantation, and yes, willfull stupidity, that made Rock fun and danceable or just youthfully bold: think of the Beatles: optimism, fun, jangling guitars.
Even with good "dark" bands like the Velvet Underground: you get this kind of youthfull, enthusiastic, out-of-control, overreaching that's more about daring to reach far than it is about delivering a bad mood (Floyd, PJ et al)

the Ramones: not too 'smart' but not too dumb either. The perfect combination.

Pearl Jam: too 'smart' but not smart enough to be dumb.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #70 of 108
The Clash fit this mold well too.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #71 of 108
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>I'd honestly say the Beatles are the most influential group in the history of music.</strong><hr></blockquote>Whoa, are you serious? Or do you mean music as in pop or rock music? There was a little bit of music in history before the Beatles, you know.
post #72 of 108
Thread Starter 
Pearl Jam: too 'smart' but not smart enough to be dumb.

Ahhh, that sounds like a compliment to me!
post #73 of 108
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>Whoa, are you serious? Or do you mean music as in pop or rock music? There was a little bit of music in history before the Beatles, you know.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

yea.. and?

Beatles all the way
post #74 of 108
**** the Beatles. Actually, I don't really hate the Beatles that much, but far too many people think everyone should love them the way they do, well I don't. It's also awful when I'm out and see a band that has all these cheap tricks that pass for "songcraft" that are just bad imitations of stuff the Beatles did.
post #75 of 108
The Beatles were immense. They were more than influential simply as musicians. They were a pop culture force of nature. Can you name any band that stopped making music 30 years ago that still has any importance today? The only person I can think of would be Hendrix but even he comes in a distant second to what the Beatles were and still are. There are new generations of fans who weren't even alive when the Beatles broke up.

And that's the problem. Nobody can really be worth that much praise. How can the Beatles really be as important as the Beatles are? The Beatles weren't just influential. They were also influenced by others - Buddy Holly, Brian Wilson, The Byrds, Dylan. They were kind of a rorsach test for sixties culture - a repository of memory for some and for others maybe an important landmark on the road map showing how we got here... I was too young to have any idea what was going on or even care very much about music back then but the first song that really turned my head around was Hey Jude.

[ 01-24-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #76 of 108
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>I also feel that I should add that there is something missing in much of this self-important rock these days, something that seems to be at the core of what "rock and Roll" was all about. Something that made Syd Barrett far superior than any replacement in post Barrett Floyd. Namely, the Pop-enthusiasm, and joyfull experimantation, and yes, willfull stupidity, that made Rock fun and danceable or just youthfully bold: think of the Beatles: optimism, fun, jangling guitars.
Even with good "dark" bands like the Velvet Underground: you get this kind of youthfull, enthusiastic, out-of-control, overreaching that's more about daring to reach far than it is about delivering a bad mood (Floyd, PJ et al)

the Ramones: not too 'smart' but not too dumb either. The perfect combination.

Pearl Jam: too 'smart' but not smart enough to be dumb.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I agree.
post #77 of 108
If you're a Dylan fan, watch this movie.

<a href="http://lot47.com/VideoDVD/TheBalladOfRamblinJack.html" target="_blank">http://lot47.com/VideoDVD/TheBalladOfRamblinJack.html</a>

<a href="http://www.ramblinjack.com/l_dylan.html" target="_blank">http://www.ramblinjack.com/l_dylan.html</a>

Hope no one minds that I bring all this up again. I just came across some cool links and thought I would share.

That's all I have to say about that.

[ 02-13-2002: Message edited by: seb ]</p>
post #78 of 108
Pearl Jam doesn't belong in the same discussion with Floyd, the Doors, Dylan, or the Beatles. So they're a good band. But they're not great. The Foreigner remark was spot on.

Personally, as active bands go, I think the most musically talented and adventurous has got to be Phish.
post #79 of 108
Phish..

You're stoned. It's official.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #80 of 108
[quote]Originally posted by tonton:
<strong>Pearl Jam doesn't belong in the same discussion with Floyd, the Doors, Dylan, or the Beatles. So they're a good band. But they're not great. The Foreigner remark was spot on.

Personally, as active bands go, I think the most musically talented and adventurous has got to be Phish.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Phish?

1.) they are no longer active
2.) they are no where near the most talented/adventurous band
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Pearl Jam-Greatest band in the known universe