The reason why I want to argue no longer is because I've said everything that I have to say. If you'd like to argue further, I don't wish to stop you.
Let me rephrase the whole thing:
I think that, above all else, comparing Pearl Jam to Pink Floyd is not wise most of all because the two bands the songs of the two groups were very different, and they were followed by generally different crowds. My argument that Pearl Jam will not last like Pink Floyd is connected, but it is secondary.
The major rock-radio stations that exist in my range are:
WIYY Baltimore (97.9): 70s/80s/90s, some current. it's a real rock station. They do play Pearl Jam, but they don't play it too often anymore. "Mandatory Metallica" is a program they play around 10PM on weeknights. Supposedly it gets good ratings.
Some station in Philly: They also have a "Mandatory Metallica" program sometime at night. Similar to WIYY. I tune in to this station when I'm driving to and from NJ.
WWDC Washington (101.1): A pretty bland mix of modern rock. They play whatever's current, so obviously not a whole lot of Pearl Jam.
WHFS (99.1): A more alternative version of DC101.
WPRB (103.3): A station run in the basement of Holder Hall by Indie Rock fans who think Eddie Vedder is a dick head. (Just for the record, I'm not a part of this station)
So as you can see, I don't hear a lot of Pearl Jam, except when they release something new, and sorry man, but I think the recent stuff has been crap. I like the good, solid songs like Even Flow, but they're not on the radio but once in a blue moon.
I'm not afraid to say that I like Metallica, and I'd argue that they have about 3 sounds as opposed to just one. But this is not the point.
pearl jam is certainly a fine band, but nowhere near as influential as pink floyd. you just cannot compare them to each other, no way. i'll give you guys an example:
name the most interesting "heavy-rock" band of the seventies.
correct answer: led zeppelin.
there may be other really fine bands like deep purple etc. etc. but face it: zep was the best "heavy-rock" band back then (and still great!).
let's go to the nineties: grunge. ok. so...nirvana. yes there were other great bands like soundgarden or pearl jam, but most of the impact goes to nirvana.
for my part, i appreciate good music no matter what style.
my favourites are bob dylan, miles davis, pink floyd, beck, the doors, lou reed, beethoven, mozart, air, u2 and people who know how to write a good filmscore.
What is this the groverat and applenut want to start fights thread?
Look Applenut, you love Pearl Jam, great, you're entitled, what's his name doesn't have to agree though so just drop it ok.
And Groverat - The Doors a boy band, obviously that was meant to be argumentative, The Doors were not 1)created by a music company 2) did not hire song writers for them 3) did not have elaborately planned stage shows 4) was not ever really pop music 5) and did sing depressing stuff, not the shallow up lifting crap boy bands do.
I'm not going to continue arguing this because everyone can think what they want, but boy bands like the backstreet boys have more in common with the monkeys and the cranberries than with the doors.
[quote]The Doors were not 1)created by a music company<hr></blockquote>
True.
Not all pop/boy bands are.
[quote]2) did not hire song writers for them<hr></blockquote>
True.
Neither did the Spice Girls, if I remember correctly.
[quote]3) did not have elaborately planned stage shows<hr></blockquote>
Quite a bit of Jim's antics on-stage were planned beforehand if not "choreographed". I'm sure he didn't have a dance coach or anything, but he most certainly had pre-meditated moves.
[quote]4) was not ever really pop music<hr></blockquote>
*dun dun da da dun dun da da dun da da da*
Hello, I love you
won't you tell me your name?
Not pop music? riiiiiiight
[quote]5) and did sing depressing stuff, not the shallow up lifting crap boy bands do.<hr></blockquote>
Not a "boy band" in the 90s/00s sense of the term. I would peg their modern-day equivalents as Matchbox 20 and Third Eye Blind, only with a lot of drugs.
By "boy bands" I meant to conjure up the idea of a created image, which is most certainly something the egomaniacs that created The Doors were all about and strove very hard for.
The Doors are quite possibly (aside from Kiss), THE most overrated band of all time. I'll take Deep Purple or King Crimson any day.
[quote]The Doors are quite possibly (aside from Kiss), THE most overrated band of all time.<hr></blockquote>
yeah...point is, if you don't understand what the doors are all about and how and what they played...then maybe you could get the impression that they're overrated.
i'd say that you just don't like their music. that's fine...but please stop calling them overrated, it only makes you look like a [removed]. [censored] i don't know
Absolutely! Some very good songs. But really hit and miss . . . and man did they miss.
Only German youth, wanna be hippies, who come to America wanting to be in Easy Rider and dance with natives, really adore Jimmy Morrison... its all part of that pseudo mystagoguery lizard king idiocy.
As for his stage presence...LOL... he pulled his penis out... so what.... And I saw an uncut (no pun intended) film of a concert and Morrison barely moved at all and stood there and swayed alittle IN AN EXTREMLY EXTREMLY BORING WAY!!!! He was no Iggy Pop!!!!
Best thing I heard of his was with Hendrix (all grace be with him) on a bootleg , when at a party, jim morrison yelled over and over into the mic "f*ck her in the A$s!!" ahh.... musta bin some kinda genius.
As for Pearl Jam and Uniqueness.... heehee.... they will be remembered like "Foriegner" is remembered.
I can't turn the radio on in my car without either hearing them or a throng of bands that are virtually indistinguishable!!!!! On every station . . . . I'd rather listen to my dying motor throbbing.
Pearl Jam is mediocre music but great "Rock and Roll" . . . its just that "rock and roll" has far outlived its creative age, its in its long dwindling decline into Fuedalism.
Its embarrassing that the distinguished Mr. Young played with them at all . . . .
Oh, and just to repeat, post Barrett Pink Floyd = (well, it got worse with every album) an emotional Titanic that couldn't sink fast enough!!!
And I will tell you, when I was younger I was their BIGGEST fan . . . .
I don't think there's any trick to knowing what The Doors were "about". I've read An American Prayer and all that jazz and it leaves me completely and totally unimpressed. I'm no student of the poets, but I've got to say that most college kids churn out works on par to Morrison's.
I think Denis Leary said it best:
"We need a 2 and a half hour movie about The Doors? No we don't folks, I can sum it up for you in 10 seconds. 'I'm drunk, I'm nobody, I'm drunk, I'm famous, I'm drunk, I'm ****in' dead'.. ok? There's the movie for ya. 'Big Fat Dead Guy In a Bathtub', there's your title for ya!"
(Or something close to that, working from memory here.)
What makes The Doors a cultural fixture is Jim Morrison's off-stage non-music-related life. He was self-destructive and we're obsessed with self-destructive rock stars, be they all that talented or not. If they had some sober non-brat lead singer that wasn't an ego-maniac we wouldn't be talking about them, it's that simple.
They brought out some good music and they rocked, to that I'll agree. But the assertion that they stood out (musically) from the others in their generation is a bit weak.
I don't get the comparison between Pearl Jam and Pink Floyd. Not at all.
Pearl Jam has a sound that is much more mainstream, and they have more in common (sonically, thematically) with other bands of their time. Their sound is really only distinct because of EV's vocal style (which has been aped so accurately by Stone Temple Pilots and Creed that I think those two bands ought to give him a cut of their royalties) -- the instrumentalists in the band aren't doing anything other than what normal rock instrumentalists do. They're proficient, and they "rock," but none of them have made a personal imprint upon the way their instrument is played. I'm not trying to slam them, but they're operating in a similar mode to lots of other "popular rock" bands of today. Their concerts are just a bunch of dudes in jeans and t-shirts standing on a stage and playing their instruments. Nothing wrong with that -- their straightforwardness is one of the things that appeals to their fans, I think.
Pink Floyd was much more off doing their own thing, strange and even obscure at times. The band's personality was all about neurosis and confusion. There were other "art rock" bands but none operating in a similar mode to Pink Floyd. David Gilmour did things with a guitar sound and playing style that were absolutely distinctive, not that he was by any means the *best* rock guitarist, but in 50 years he'll be listed in the book of "great rock instrumentalists in history" without question. Floyd concerts were theatrical events in a way that (like it or not) played a big part in changing what people expected to see when they went to a rock show. In terms of recorded output, Pink Floyd made perhaps the ultimate "concept album" with The Wall. They recorded Dark Side of the Moon, which is a singular phenomenon in the history of all of recorded music.
I'm not even saying Pink Floyd is "better" than Pearl Jam (though I do personally prefer Pink Floyd). I just think the comparison is off. Pearl Jam is much closer to the center of the mainstream than Pink Floyd ever was.
also, I would say that the worst thing about Pearl Jam is that they opened the flood Gates (they and Everclear) for the worst kind of dreary, self-important guitar strumming earnestness!!
that kind of "serious" BALLAD songwriting that deserves to be either in some kind of made for teens mini-series, home-coming, high-school, football, romance-tragedy, or, some glowing golden light on the corn fields, family, and down-home goodness, army recruitment film.
Its the worst or the midwest self-importance, the awfullest kind of pretentious crooning that ever flew out of a pickup truck.
I don't think you can blame Pearl Jam for its imitators any more than you can blame Hank Williams for someone like Tim McGraw. Or blame Ludacris on Chuck D. Or ....
Not entirely true, if.... if you can clearly discern a facile element in their work that is exactly like what the followers do.
Meaning that Pearl Jam was so easy to imitate because their music is nothing special, anybody can do it. Also their emotional manipulativeness, their constant singing about stuff like someone's bad childhood, is so formulaic that any simpleton that can strum a 1 4 5 progression and believes that they are profound can ape them . . . its in the work to begin with!
The Doors, while perhaps, overrated and misunderstood were no boy band.
They didn't choreograph jack. Jim usually drank too much jack to even remember what he would've been supposed to be doing anyhow.
Jim considered himself a poet, a shaman, a mystic. He wasn't such a good poet, although I did read a book once which compared him to Rimbaud. Jim got a lot of his shock style from Rimbaud. Rimbaud is another interesting topic though...
If people don't like the doors thats fine a lot of their stuff wasn't all that great. But Jim, really didn't give a damn about selling albums. That was his whole point and why the music got so washed up. The studios wanted one thing. He wanted to do another. There was no collaboration just a big drunken mess.
Jim really didn't give a damn. Youth was still emerging from the Kerouac Beat era in many ways and Jim had latched onto the existentialism that they romanticized.
They weren't the greatest ever, but they were no boy band in the way that we think of boy bands. No more than the beatles were a boy band. That much I am sure about.
<strong>Actually, my favorite Pearl Jam album is Neil Young's Mirrorball. Fantastic album.
Perl Jam was actually my favorite band until I started listening to...
Not Pink Floyd, not The Beatles, Not the Stones, not Radiohead, and certainly not Metallica ( G-'n-R was a much better mainstream metal band), but...
Bob Dylan.
I believe Dylan will be one of the few if not the only rock artist that will be remembered in distant future. As Pete Townshend once commented on Dylan's influence, "That's like asking how I was influenced by being born." There is simply no other rock artist with the depth, influence, and output of Dylan. "Love & Theft" is the best new album I've heard this year. What are the Beatles doing?
Love and Theft is tied for best album of the year with Gov't Mule's new disc
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?
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?
[quote]
Let me rephrase the whole thing:
I think that, above all else, comparing Pearl Jam to Pink Floyd is not wise most of all because the two bands the songs of the two groups were very different, and they were followed by generally different crowds. My argument that Pearl Jam will not last like Pink Floyd is connected, but it is secondary.<hr></blockquote>
agree. completely different bands but to say pearl jam won't last is naive. they have already proven they have lasted.
[quote]YY Baltimore (97.9): 70s/80s/90s, some current. it's a real rock station. They do play Pearl Jam, but they don't play it too often anymore. "Mandatory Metallica" is a program they play around 10PM on weeknights. Supposedly it gets good ratings.
Some station in Philly: They also have a "Mandatory Metallica" program sometime at night. Similar to WIYY. I tune in to this station when I'm driving to and from NJ.
WWDC Washington (101.1): A pretty bland mix of modern rock. They play whatever's current, so obviously not a whole lot of Pearl Jam.
WHFS (99.1): A more alternative version of DC101.
WPRB (103.3): A station run in the basement of Holder Hall by Indie Rock fans who think Eddie Vedder is a dick head. (Just for the record, I'm not a part of this station)<hr></blockquote>
damn, I thought New York radio was bad.
the only station I consistently listen to here now is 90.7 WFUV... Fordham U's station which plays a pretty cool mix of blues, folk, alternative country, and tons of other genres.
[quote]
So as you can see, I don't hear a lot of Pearl Jam, except when they release something new, and sorry man, but I think the recent stuff has been crap. I like the good, solid songs like Even Flow, but they're not on the radio but once in a blue moon.<hr></blockquote>
you don't here even flow? take it,I think that's once of the most UN-PearlJam songs and really doesn't rank up there in my favorites list but it is constantly played on any rock radio station that plays a 90s mix.
[quote]And to U2 fans... U2 has sucked since discoteque or however you spell that abomination.
<hr></blockquote>
I think you mean Pop which Discoteque is on. That is a great album, one of their best IMO. Did you ever listen to the whole album or just hear discoteque and say it sucks? All that you can't leave behind is a beautiful album and they have THE live show of the year.
[quote]
Look Applenut, you love Pearl Jam, great, you're entitled, what's his name doesn't have to agree though so just drop it ok.<hr></blockquote>
uh **** offf. what's with the Bogie thinking he is above everyone and needs to tell people how to act?
the same could be said of him but as usual you only see against me.
[quote]
Its embarrassing that the distinguished Mr. Young played with them at all . . .<hr></blockquote>
yea, I guess the Doors, and The Who also couldn't tell talent because they played with em too
<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.
Comments
Let me rephrase the whole thing:
I think that, above all else, comparing Pearl Jam to Pink Floyd is not wise most of all because the two bands the songs of the two groups were very different, and they were followed by generally different crowds. My argument that Pearl Jam will not last like Pink Floyd is connected, but it is secondary.
The major rock-radio stations that exist in my range are:
WIYY Baltimore (97.9): 70s/80s/90s, some current. it's a real rock station. They do play Pearl Jam, but they don't play it too often anymore. "Mandatory Metallica" is a program they play around 10PM on weeknights. Supposedly it gets good ratings.
Some station in Philly: They also have a "Mandatory Metallica" program sometime at night. Similar to WIYY. I tune in to this station when I'm driving to and from NJ.
WWDC Washington (101.1): A pretty bland mix of modern rock. They play whatever's current, so obviously not a whole lot of Pearl Jam.
WHFS (99.1): A more alternative version of DC101.
WPRB (103.3): A station run in the basement of Holder Hall by Indie Rock fans who think Eddie Vedder is a dick head. (Just for the record, I'm not a part of this station)
So as you can see, I don't hear a lot of Pearl Jam, except when they release something new, and sorry man, but I think the recent stuff has been crap. I like the good, solid songs like Even Flow, but they're not on the radio but once in a blue moon.
I'm not afraid to say that I like Metallica, and I'd argue that they have about 3 sounds as opposed to just one. But this is not the point.
pearl jam is certainly a fine band, but nowhere near as influential as pink floyd. you just cannot compare them to each other, no way. i'll give you guys an example:
name the most interesting "heavy-rock" band of the seventies.
correct answer: led zeppelin.
there may be other really fine bands like deep purple etc. etc. but face it: zep was the best "heavy-rock" band back then (and still great!).
let's go to the nineties: grunge. ok. so...nirvana. yes there were other great bands like soundgarden or pearl jam, but most of the impact goes to nirvana.
for my part, i appreciate good music no matter what style.
my favourites are bob dylan, miles davis, pink floyd, beck, the doors, lou reed, beethoven, mozart, air, u2 and people who know how to write a good filmscore.
so be warned: nothin' bad about these guys!
[ 01-18-2002: Message edited by: Strangelove ]</p>
And to U2 fans... U2 has sucked since discoteque or however you spell that abomination.
actually u2 sucked before "achtung baby" came out
and metallica...well...i never get it why people think they're special...a bunch of rednecks acting like children. how scary. i'm so unimpressed.
Look Applenut, you love Pearl Jam, great, you're entitled, what's his name doesn't have to agree though so just drop it ok.
And Groverat - The Doors a boy band, obviously that was meant to be argumentative, The Doors were not 1)created by a music company 2) did not hire song writers for them 3) did not have elaborately planned stage shows 4) was not ever really pop music 5) and did sing depressing stuff, not the shallow up lifting crap boy bands do.
I'm not going to continue arguing this because everyone can think what they want, but boy bands like the backstreet boys have more in common with the monkeys and the cranberries than with the doors.
True.
Not all pop/boy bands are.
[quote]2) did not hire song writers for them<hr></blockquote>
True.
Neither did the Spice Girls, if I remember correctly.
[quote]3) did not have elaborately planned stage shows<hr></blockquote>
Quite a bit of Jim's antics on-stage were planned beforehand if not "choreographed". I'm sure he didn't have a dance coach or anything, but he most certainly had pre-meditated moves.
[quote]4) was not ever really pop music<hr></blockquote>
*dun dun da da dun dun da da dun da da da*
Hello, I love you
won't you tell me your name?
Not pop music? riiiiiiight
[quote]5) and did sing depressing stuff, not the shallow up lifting crap boy bands do.<hr></blockquote>
Not a "boy band" in the 90s/00s sense of the term. I would peg their modern-day equivalents as Matchbox 20 and Third Eye Blind, only with a lot of drugs.
By "boy bands" I meant to conjure up the idea of a created image, which is most certainly something the egomaniacs that created The Doors were all about and strove very hard for.
The Doors are quite possibly (aside from Kiss), THE most overrated band of all time. I'll take Deep Purple or King Crimson any day.
[ 01-18-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
yeah...point is, if you don't understand what the doors are all about and how and what they played...then maybe you could get the impression that they're overrated.
i'd say that you just don't like their music. that's fine...but please stop calling them overrated, it only makes you look like a [removed]. [censored] i don't know
don't take it too hard, ok
EDIT: don't want to start flames... :cool:
[ 01-18-2002: Message edited by: Strangelove ]</p>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<hr></blockquote>
Absolutely! Some very good songs. But really hit and miss . . . and man did they miss.
Only German youth, wanna be hippies, who come to America wanting to be in Easy Rider and dance with natives, really adore Jimmy Morrison... its all part of that pseudo mystagoguery lizard king idiocy.
As for his stage presence...LOL... he pulled his penis out... so what.... And I saw an uncut (no pun intended) film of a concert and Morrison barely moved at all and stood there and swayed alittle IN AN EXTREMLY EXTREMLY BORING WAY!!!! He was no Iggy Pop!!!!
Best thing I heard of his was with Hendrix (all grace be with him) on a bootleg , when at a party, jim morrison yelled over and over into the mic "f*ck her in the A$s!!" ahh.... musta bin some kinda genius.
As for Pearl Jam and Uniqueness.... heehee.... they will be remembered like "Foriegner" is remembered.
I can't turn the radio on in my car without either hearing them or a throng of bands that are virtually indistinguishable!!!!! On every station . . . . I'd rather listen to my dying motor throbbing.
Pearl Jam is mediocre music but great "Rock and Roll" . . . its just that "rock and roll" has far outlived its creative age, its in its long dwindling decline into Fuedalism.
Its embarrassing that the distinguished Mr. Young played with them at all . . . .
Oh, and just to repeat, post Barrett Pink Floyd = (well, it got worse with every album) an emotional Titanic that couldn't sink fast enough!!!
And I will tell you, when I was younger I was their BIGGEST fan . . . .
I think Denis Leary said it best:
"We need a 2 and a half hour movie about The Doors? No we don't folks, I can sum it up for you in 10 seconds. 'I'm drunk, I'm nobody, I'm drunk, I'm famous, I'm drunk, I'm ****in' dead'.. ok? There's the movie for ya. 'Big Fat Dead Guy In a Bathtub', there's your title for ya!"
(Or something close to that, working from memory here.)
What makes The Doors a cultural fixture is Jim Morrison's off-stage non-music-related life. He was self-destructive and we're obsessed with self-destructive rock stars, be they all that talented or not. If they had some sober non-brat lead singer that wasn't an ego-maniac we wouldn't be talking about them, it's that simple.
They brought out some good music and they rocked, to that I'll agree. But the assertion that they stood out (musically) from the others in their generation is a bit weak.
... be still my quaking heart ...
Pearl Jam has a sound that is much more mainstream, and they have more in common (sonically, thematically) with other bands of their time. Their sound is really only distinct because of EV's vocal style (which has been aped so accurately by Stone Temple Pilots and Creed that I think those two bands ought to give him a cut of their royalties) -- the instrumentalists in the band aren't doing anything other than what normal rock instrumentalists do. They're proficient, and they "rock," but none of them have made a personal imprint upon the way their instrument is played. I'm not trying to slam them, but they're operating in a similar mode to lots of other "popular rock" bands of today. Their concerts are just a bunch of dudes in jeans and t-shirts standing on a stage and playing their instruments. Nothing wrong with that -- their straightforwardness is one of the things that appeals to their fans, I think.
Pink Floyd was much more off doing their own thing, strange and even obscure at times. The band's personality was all about neurosis and confusion. There were other "art rock" bands but none operating in a similar mode to Pink Floyd. David Gilmour did things with a guitar sound and playing style that were absolutely distinctive, not that he was by any means the *best* rock guitarist, but in 50 years he'll be listed in the book of "great rock instrumentalists in history" without question. Floyd concerts were theatrical events in a way that (like it or not) played a big part in changing what people expected to see when they went to a rock show. In terms of recorded output, Pink Floyd made perhaps the ultimate "concept album" with The Wall. They recorded Dark Side of the Moon, which is a singular phenomenon in the history of all of recorded music.
I'm not even saying Pink Floyd is "better" than Pearl Jam (though I do personally prefer Pink Floyd). I just think the comparison is off. Pearl Jam is much closer to the center of the mainstream than Pink Floyd ever was.
{*here*}
also, I would say that the worst thing about Pearl Jam is that they opened the flood Gates (they and Everclear) for the worst kind of dreary, self-important guitar strumming earnestness!!
that kind of "serious" BALLAD songwriting that deserves to be either in some kind of made for teens mini-series, home-coming, high-school, football, romance-tragedy, or, some glowing golden light on the corn fields, family, and down-home goodness, army recruitment film.
Its the worst or the midwest self-importance, the awfullest kind of pretentious crooning that ever flew out of a pickup truck.
Meaning that Pearl Jam was so easy to imitate because their music is nothing special, anybody can do it. Also their emotional manipulativeness, their constant singing about stuff like someone's bad childhood, is so formulaic that any simpleton that can strum a 1 4 5 progression and believes that they are profound can ape them . . . its in the work to begin with!
They didn't choreograph jack. Jim usually drank too much jack to even remember what he would've been supposed to be doing anyhow.
Jim considered himself a poet, a shaman, a mystic. He wasn't such a good poet, although I did read a book once which compared him to Rimbaud. Jim got a lot of his shock style from Rimbaud. Rimbaud is another interesting topic though...
If people don't like the doors thats fine a lot of their stuff wasn't all that great. But Jim, really didn't give a damn about selling albums. That was his whole point and why the music got so washed up. The studios wanted one thing. He wanted to do another. There was no collaboration just a big drunken mess.
Jim really didn't give a damn. Youth was still emerging from the Kerouac Beat era in many ways and Jim had latched onto the existentialism that they romanticized.
They weren't the greatest ever, but they were no boy band in the way that we think of boy bands. No more than the beatles were a boy band. That much I am sure about.
<strong>Actually, my favorite Pearl Jam album is Neil Young's Mirrorball. Fantastic album.
Perl Jam was actually my favorite band until I started listening to...
Not Pink Floyd, not The Beatles, Not the Stones, not Radiohead, and certainly not Metallica ( G-'n-R was a much better mainstream metal band), but...
Bob Dylan.
I believe Dylan will be one of the few if not the only rock artist that will be remembered in distant future. As Pete Townshend once commented on Dylan's influence, "That's like asking how I was influenced by being born." There is simply no other rock artist with the depth, influence, and output of Dylan. "Love & Theft" is the best new album I've heard this year. What are the Beatles doing?
[ 01-18-2002: Message edited by: Simple Ranger ]
[ 01-18-2002: Message edited by: Simple Ranger ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
no arguements there
GNR are better than Metallica
Mirrorball rocks
Neil Young Rocks
Bob Dylan is amazing
Love and Theft is tied for best album of the year with Gov't Mule's new disc
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?
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?
[quote]
Let me rephrase the whole thing:
I think that, above all else, comparing Pearl Jam to Pink Floyd is not wise most of all because the two bands the songs of the two groups were very different, and they were followed by generally different crowds. My argument that Pearl Jam will not last like Pink Floyd is connected, but it is secondary.<hr></blockquote>
agree. completely different bands but to say pearl jam won't last is naive. they have already proven they have lasted.
[quote]YY Baltimore (97.9): 70s/80s/90s, some current. it's a real rock station. They do play Pearl Jam, but they don't play it too often anymore. "Mandatory Metallica" is a program they play around 10PM on weeknights. Supposedly it gets good ratings.
Some station in Philly: They also have a "Mandatory Metallica" program sometime at night. Similar to WIYY. I tune in to this station when I'm driving to and from NJ.
WWDC Washington (101.1): A pretty bland mix of modern rock. They play whatever's current, so obviously not a whole lot of Pearl Jam.
WHFS (99.1): A more alternative version of DC101.
WPRB (103.3): A station run in the basement of Holder Hall by Indie Rock fans who think Eddie Vedder is a dick head. (Just for the record, I'm not a part of this station)<hr></blockquote>
damn, I thought New York radio was bad.
the only station I consistently listen to here now is 90.7 WFUV... Fordham U's station which plays a pretty cool mix of blues, folk, alternative country, and tons of other genres.
[quote]
So as you can see, I don't hear a lot of Pearl Jam, except when they release something new, and sorry man, but I think the recent stuff has been crap. I like the good, solid songs like Even Flow, but they're not on the radio but once in a blue moon.<hr></blockquote>
you don't here even flow? take it,I think that's once of the most UN-PearlJam songs and really doesn't rank up there in my favorites list but it is constantly played on any rock radio station that plays a 90s mix.
[quote]And to U2 fans... U2 has sucked since discoteque or however you spell that abomination.
<hr></blockquote>
I think you mean Pop which Discoteque is on. That is a great album, one of their best IMO. Did you ever listen to the whole album or just hear discoteque and say it sucks? All that you can't leave behind is a beautiful album and they have THE live show of the year.
[quote]
Look Applenut, you love Pearl Jam, great, you're entitled, what's his name doesn't have to agree though so just drop it ok.<hr></blockquote>
uh **** offf. what's with the Bogie thinking he is above everyone and needs to tell people how to act?
the same could be said of him but as usual you only see against me.
[quote]
Its embarrassing that the distinguished Mr. Young played with them at all . . .<hr></blockquote>
yea, I guess the Doors, and The Who also couldn't tell talent because they played with em too
<strong>Foriegner...?... FORIEGNER!?
... be still my quaking heart ...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I wanna knoooooooow what love i-ii-iiizzzzzzzzzz
I want you to shooooooooooow meeeeeeee....
omg, that's why i like these boards...maybe we should start a thread discussing "les fleurs du mal", that'd be fun!
[quote]All that you can't leave behind is a beautiful album and they have THE live show of the year.<hr></blockquote>
yeah 'nut, you're right. i liked it too. but it was nowhere near as cool as zoo.tv or zooropa! what a night! what a show!
as the catholic put it: "i don't know what it is so it must be art".
but I'm sure that you knew that.
And um the Doors played with Pearl Jam? hmm, but as I was saying they aren't Neil Young either
And yes, dare I say it, neither are the Who.
the who?
You know the Anthem slingers..... remember them?
how can I forget
"actually I truly love the version of Sparks on the Kids are Allright.
but they are overrated too. though they have many great songs and were very influential
Behind Blue eyes encapsulates every thing that I said bove about Pearl Jam and Everclear and self absorbed pretentious ballads.
<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.