Why do people like Pearl Jam so much

[Dan H.]

They are the best band of the last 30 years, that's the reason.

LOL

I bet you can't even name 40 relevant rock bands from the last thirty years.

Edited August 28, 2012 by NormalGuns

[bran]

you just described nirvana and kurt cobain , a guy that wanted simple songs like nursery rhymes.

Yes, let's over-complicate the fuck out of our music and wank our guitars relentlessly to shitty lyrics instead, that is always exciting.

or we can simplify our music cry like a whiny bitch over shitty ass guitar playing, oh and go to see this band live where they are fucking god awful and only play 30 minutes while smashing their instruments as an excuse to rip you off your money while not even hardly playing man that sounds like fucking fun to me :jerkoff:

[Guest Len B'stard]

Basically they're the shitbag easy listening band of grunge. Most of grunge was shitbag easy listening anyway aside from a few key bands but PJ epitomise what is more or less like, the classic rockifying of grunge, which it really didn't need cuz it was fairly close to the southern fried Lynrd Skynrd shit to begin with.

PJ are basically an easy to swallow well polished mainstream representation of what was supposed to be an alternative movement, which is why people flock to em in the same way they always flock to the made to measure tailored for success bands that come in when the goings good.

Pearl Jam are just awful patronising tripe, run of the mill music for run of the mill people that all wanna dress the same, look the same and listen to music that honestly, after a couple of sounds sounds so relentlessly samey that it's like sticking your ear to a food mixer and listening to it go NEEEEEEEEEUUUUGGHH (now remember kids, thats NEEEEEEEUUUGHH ).

Fuckin' horrible band though, just awful and pretty fairly fuckin' symtomatic of the problem with this whole grunge fuckin' genre, it's one of those movements that was just bound for shite-ness, every decent movement needs at least 3 of it's big bands to be exceptional (i.e. beatles, stones and who), the main flagship bands of grunge, the only decent ones were Nirvana and Mudhoney and Mudhoney you could argue never got quite big enough.

you just described nirvana and kurt cobain , a guy that wanted simple songs like nursery rhymes.

It's called being well rounded and concise. And on point. It is INFINITELY more difficult to make a simple catchy well crafted 3 minute pop song than it is to make some kind of meandering rambling 17 minute affair complete with guitar solo and vocal improv spot. It's why jazz is often called the last refuge of the untalented (not necessarily something i personally agree with).

If it was that easy, you'd be doing it yourself There is a craft to those simple songs, there is no margin for error, nothing in them is incidental, if a part of it sounds shit it REALLY clangs, this is why Kurt Cobain and others like him i.e. people with a talent for making catchy pop music like say Lennon and McCartney are so highly rated, it's simple to copy but you try coming up with one.

An ear for melody, something Kurt Cobain had in abundance and even his worst detractors don't/can't deny that, is one of those unlearnable unteachable things that only a handful of really great guys had, it's literally one of those things no amount of practise can give you, that Dylan thing, that Nilsson thing, that Lennon thing, it's absolutely priceless in rock n roll and Kurt had it, more so than any artist i've come across in our times, i mean this isn't just me saying it, listen to the songs, listen to Unplugged, listen to those fuckin melodies.

THOSE are the reason Nirvana are timeless, not Kurt Cobain died cuz lots of people have died but that didn't make their shit music any less shitter, no one suddenly loves all the work Lennon did with yoko just cuz he's dead, no one goes "Gosh, wasn't Dee Dee Ramone an awesome rapper?", no, that just don't happen, your shit work is always considered shit and none of Kurts is and the reason for that is that the boy was gifted.

Now you may not like his music, you maybe can't even stand his music but that thing, that melody thing nor you nor nobody else can deny, it's just a fact, it's there, it's in the listening of it and that my friend is a gift, that is called being gifted at something, however rudimentary ones grasp of the instrument may be if you got an ear for melody you got something that 95% of guitarist in the world ain't got.

Kurt was like the trust fund kid...or the young teenager with an abnormally large sized dick Whatever other shortcomings he might've had of you percieve him to've had as a musician, he still had something that only the cream of the bestest artists out there have and thats an inate ear for melody.

You could take Nirvanas songs and give him an accoustic guitar and beneath all the fuzz and the grind and the dirty guitar sound there were beautifully crafted melodious songs...there are very few artists in Kurts game you can say that about.

And thats why Nirvana are and forever will be amazing as a band and they'll never get old or sound dated because...you can't fake whats on those records, it's not a subterfuge, it's the purest kind of artistic expression that something as tawdry as rock n roll has been capable of thus far.

Edited August 28, 2012 by sugaraylen

[GivenToFly]

Their outtakes beat most bands' entire discographies.

[Lithium]

or we can simplify our music cry like a whiny bitch over shitty ass guitar playing, oh and go to see this band live where they are fucking god awful and only play 30 minutes while smashing their instruments as an excuse to rip you off your money while not even hardly playing man that sounds like fucking fun to me :jerkoff:

And all those metal bands you like are well-known for their joyous, positive and heartwarming lyrics? Oh, okay, so smashing an instrument is what constitutes a bad live experience, according to you? In that case, I guess we can rule out The Who, Jimi Hendrix, Jerry Lee Lewis and who knows how many punk bands as shitty live acts. In fact, let us, from now on, hail any retard with long hair and an Aleister Crowley poem tattooed on his arm who treats his fucking keyboard as his wife as an unquestionable musical deity.

[The Sandman]

I don't like Pearl Jam much, but they're light years better than Nirvana.

[Guest Len B'stard]

or we can simplify our music cry like a whiny bitch over shitty ass guitar playing, oh and go to see this band live where they are fucking god awful and only play 30 minutes while smashing their instruments as an excuse to rip you off your money while not even hardly playing man that sounds like fucking fun to me :jerkoff:

And all those metal bands you like are well-known for their joyous, positive and heartwarming lyrics? Oh, okay, so smashing an instrument is what constitutes a bad live experience, according to you? In that case, I guess we can rule out The Who, Jimi Hendrix, Jerry Lee Lewis and who knows how many punk bands as shitty live acts. In fact, let us, from now on, hail any retard with long hair and an Aleister Crowley poem tattooed on his arm who treats his fucking keyboard as his wife as an unquestionable musical deity.

Even you metallers gotta admit that last line was funny

[Encuentro]

Basically they're the shitbag easy listening band of grunge. Most of grunge was shitbag easy listening anyway aside from a few key bands but PJ epitomise what is more or less like, the classic rockifying of grunge, which it really didn't need cuz it was fairly close to the southern fried Lynrd Skynrd shit to begin with.

PJ are basically an easy to swallow well polished mainstream representation of what was supposed to be an alternative movement, which is why people flock to em in the same way they always flock to the made to measure tailored for success bands that come in when the goings good.

Pearl Jam are just awful patronising tripe, run of the mill music for run of the mill people that all wanna dress the same, look the same and listen to music that honestly, after a couple of sounds sounds so relentlessly samey that it's like sticking your ear to a food mixer and listening to it go NEEEEEEEEEUUUUGGHH (now remember kids, thats NEEEEEEEUUUGHH ).

Fuckin' horrible band though, just awful and pretty fairly fuckin' symtomatic of the problem with this whole grunge fuckin' genre, it's one of those movements that was just bound for shite-ness, every decent movement needs at least 3 of it's big bands to be exceptional (i.e. beatles, stones and who), the main flagship bands of grunge, the only decent ones were Nirvana and Mudhoney and Mudhoney you could argue never got quite big enough.

The 3 bands, if that is indeed some kind of rule, would be Pearl Jam, Nirvana and Soundgarden. Excluding Pearl Jam because you don't like them, doesn't change the fact that they were a major part of that media invented movement despite not being interested in being a part of that movement. That term, "grunge," was a media invented label given to those 3 bands and others coming out of Seattle in the early '90s. Even Soundgarden, who pre-dated Nirvana and Pearl Jam, were labeled as grunge when Nirvana and Pearl Jam broke big. Later, there were a slew of copy cats that were looking to capitalize on the movement which came to be known as alternative. When Pearl Jam started out, there was no grunge movement, so they weren't rockifying grunge as you claim. How could they be rockifying grunge if grunge didn't even exist. Grunge was just an image, not a sound. The 3 bands I mentioned were labeled grunge, but they don't sound like one another, so how can grunge be a musical movement. It's just rock.

The rest of your post is an over-elaborated opinion. A concise and equivalent post would be to say that you don't like Pearl Jam.

Edited August 28, 2012 by Encuentro

[GivenToFly]

Why do people like Pearl Jam so much

/thread

[bran]

Basically they're the shitbag easy listening band of grunge. Most of grunge was shitbag easy listening anyway aside from a few key bands but PJ epitomise what is more or less like, the classic rockifying of grunge, which it really didn't need cuz it was fairly close to the southern fried Lynrd Skynrd shit to begin with.

PJ are basically an easy to swallow well polished mainstream representation of what was supposed to be an alternative movement, which is why people flock to em in the same way they always flock to the made to measure tailored for success bands that come in when the goings good.

Pearl Jam are just awful patronising tripe, run of the mill music for run of the mill people that all wanna dress the same, look the same and listen to music that honestly, after a couple of sounds sounds so relentlessly samey that it's like sticking your ear to a food mixer and listening to it go NEEEEEEEEEUUUUGGHH (now remember kids, thats NEEEEEEEUUUGHH ).

Fuckin' horrible band though, just awful and pretty fairly fuckin' symtomatic of the problem with this whole grunge fuckin' genre, it's one of those movements that was just bound for shite-ness, every decent movement needs at least 3 of it's big bands to be exceptional (i.e. beatles, stones and who), the main flagship bands of grunge, the only decent ones were Nirvana and Mudhoney and Mudhoney you could argue never got quite big enough.

The 3 bands, if that is indeed some kind of rule, would be Pearl Jam, Nirvana and Soundgarden. Excluding Pearl Jam because you don't like them, doesn't change the fact that they were a major part of that media invented movement despite not being interested in being a part of that movement. That term, "grunge," was a media invented label given to those 3 bands and others coming out of Seattle in the early '90s. Even Soundgarden, who pre-dated Nirvana and Pearl Jam, were labeled as grunge when Nirvana and Pearl Jam broke big. Later, there were a slew of copy cats that were looking to capitalize on the movement which came to be known as alternative. When Pearl Jam started out, there was no grunge movement, so they weren't rockifying grunge as you claim. How could they be rockifying grunge if grunge didn't even exist. Grunge was just an image, not a sound. The 3 bands I mentioned were labeled grunge, but they don't sound like one another, so how can grunge be a musical movement. It's just rock.

The rest of your post is an over-elaborated opinion. A concise and equivalent post would be to say that you don't like Pearl Jam.

great post very true about the "grunge" sound every band regardless of sound was slapped with the grunge label it was for the record companies to make money, its the same as the 80s with "hair metal" thrash metal and NWOBHM were becoming very popular so the music industry needed to make a label to promote and to advertise for the bands coming out of LA at the time even though hair metal isnt metal but hard rock they were able to promote it and make shit tons of money.

soundgarden and alice in chains were slapped with the grunge label even though both had major influences from metal, and alice in chains considered themselves a metal band. soundgardens album superunknown was full of sabbath/doom influences

grunge was just an image people who wore flannel, came from seattle were "grunge" the people who actually believe their is a "sound" to grunge bought the bullshit the record labels fed them

[rocker rockstar]

Pearl Jam Ten is one of my favorite albums. It really is special to me. Love their early work. My favorite is Ten, Vrs, and Vitology. There are many rare songs from the early period that have been released now. Here are some of the songs that were not on early albums but came from that period that I like; Brother, Yellow ledbetter, wash, dirty frank, state of love and trust, angle, state of love and trust, crazy mary, Alone, Footsteps, breath. I saw Pearl Jam live in 1995 and they were amazing. I think the songs touch you at an emotional level and that may be part of it besides the cool music.

Here is an idea of what pearl jam was like in the early years they were full of energy and very entertaining

Pink Pop 1992 Music Festival Video Full Concert

http://youtu.be/sS-2fAI6T3w

Edited August 29, 2012 by rocker rockstar

[WhazUp]

Why do people like Pearl Jam so much

/thread

Have you heard the whole Madison Square Garden from which that came from? Fucking incredible performance and the crowd is amazing

[bran]

Why do people like Pearl Jam so much

/thread

Have you heard the whole Madison Square Garden from which that came from? Fucking incredible performance and the crowd is amazing

i really like the no fuckin messiah bootleg version, i have it on cassette found it in a junkyard lol that version though is killer

[WhazUp]

Why do people like Pearl Jam so much

/thread

Have you heard the whole Madison Square Garden from which that came from? Fucking incredible performance and the crowd is amazing

i really like the no fuckin messiah bootleg version, i have it on cassette found it in a junkyard lol that version though is killer

Yeah that is a great CD, I heard that a while back and thought it captured the energy of the band really well

Edited August 29, 2012 by WhazUp

[rocker rockstar]

Pearl Jam covering Doc Of the Bay found on No Fuck'n Messiah bootleg.

Pearl Jam--Baba O'Riley--1993

Edited August 29, 2012 by rocker rockstar

[DeadSlash]

They're so bland and boring.

Almost worse than Metallica as far as bad bands go.

Seriously though, Pearl Jam is one of the worst bands of all time, how is it possible that so many people on this forum enjoy them?

I never could figure it out. The warble in his voice drove me nuts. Metallica is way better, and I'm not a huge Metallica fan, but wayyyy better then PJ.

[Dan H.]

Uhg. So bad.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Basically they're the shitbag easy listening band of grunge. Most of grunge was shitbag easy listening anyway aside from a few key bands but PJ epitomise what is more or less like, the classic rockifying of grunge, which it really didn't need cuz it was fairly close to the southern fried Lynrd Skynrd shit to begin with.

PJ are basically an easy to swallow well polished mainstream representation of what was supposed to be an alternative movement, which is why people flock to em in the same way they always flock to the made to measure tailored for success bands that come in when the goings good.

Pearl Jam are just awful patronising tripe, run of the mill music for run of the mill people that all wanna dress the same, look the same and listen to music that honestly, after a couple of sounds sounds so relentlessly samey that it's like sticking your ear to a food mixer and listening to it go NEEEEEEEEEUUUUGGHH (now remember kids, thats NEEEEEEEUUUGHH ).

Fuckin' horrible band though, just awful and pretty fairly fuckin' symtomatic of the problem with this whole grunge fuckin' genre, it's one of those movements that was just bound for shite-ness, every decent movement needs at least 3 of it's big bands to be exceptional (i.e. beatles, stones and who), the main flagship bands of grunge, the only decent ones were Nirvana and Mudhoney and Mudhoney you could argue never got quite big enough.

The 3 bands, if that is indeed some kind of rule, would be Pearl Jam, Nirvana and Soundgarden. Excluding Pearl Jam because you don't like them, doesn't change the fact that they were a major part of that media invented movement despite not being interested in being a part of that movement. That term, "grunge," was a media invented label given to those 3 bands and others coming out of Seattle in the early '90s. Even Soundgarden, who pre-dated Nirvana and Pearl Jam, were labeled as grunge when Nirvana and Pearl Jam broke big. Later, there were a slew of copy cats that were looking to capitalize on the movement which came to be known as alternative. When Pearl Jam started out, there was no grunge movement, so they weren't rockifying grunge as you claim. How could they be rockifying grunge if grunge didn't even exist. Grunge was just an image, not a sound. The 3 bands I mentioned were labeled grunge, but they don't sound like one another, so how can grunge be a musical movement. It's just rock.

The rest of your post is an over-elaborated opinion. A concise and equivalent post would be to say that you don't like Pearl Jam.

The three bands i was naming was based on my opinion of what was good in grunge, not which ones were commercially successful, hence my not mentioning Soundgarden cuz i don't reckon them to be any good. And i never suggested that Pearl Jam weren't a major part of the movement, in fact, if you read my posts thats exactly what i was saying.

And grunge wasn't a media invented label, Mark Arm from Mudhoney came up with it. And how does the fact that Pearl Jam pre-date the grunge movement make it impossible for them to be rockifying grunge? The Stranglers pre-date punk but that doesn't mean they're not part of the movement and they didn't jump on the bandwagon when it came about.

And I'd never be so bold as to say grunge was an image and not a sound, there was a certain, albeit slightly flimsy, common thread running through their music.

And as far as:

The 3 bands I mentioned were labeled grunge, but they don't sound like one another, so how can grunge be a musical movement. It's just rock.

that goes, bands don't have to sound identical to be part of the same musical movment, in fact the core bands of every musical movement represent particular sections of their audience, wouldn't you say? I mean what are you trying to tell me, there was no such thing as the british invasion because The Beatles, Stones and The Who didn't sound the same?

You're right, it is just rock but thats what grunge was essentially an offshoot of, like punk-ROCK or garage-ROCK or HARD rock

And the things that unify a musical movement don't necessarily have to be strictly musical, they could be unified by their politics (which were decidedly left wing at the time) or a sense of dress or the fact that a crop of bands come from an similar geographical area or in their image and dress or a co-joining of either or all of those things, i don't understand what you're trying to say here really, that bands have to sound the same for it to be considered a musical movement, thats jus false.

The rest of your post is an over-elaborated opinion. A concise and equivalent post would be to say that you don't like Pearl Jam.

No, sorry but i don't like em and i have reasons for it, the suggestion that a concise and equivalent post would be to say i just don't like Pearl Jam is the same as saying that the rest of my post perhaps lacking in substance well suffice to say it was substancial enough for you to address it's specifics and thats substancial enough for me. See this is the idea of discussion forums, you give your opinions backed up by your reasons to stimulate discussion.

I do agree however with the idea that the whole thing was sort of a label slapped on these bands by the media but the fact also is that the reason we are aware or the majority of us are aware of this whole thing is because of the media and hence we're sort of informed by their appraisals somewhat.

All mainstream musical movements in the rock niche have been media driven, it's sort of the nature of the beast, the reason it became something that millions have listened to, the reason we're here discussing it today is because of the media so on the one hand you'd be pretty astute to say that there weren't no fuckin' movement really but just a name slapped on a bunch of rock bands coming out of the midwest but fuck, isn't that basically what every single mainstream musical movement was? At least in terms of it's definitions.

So then what in your opinion unifies a group of bands or artists enough so that it might be considered a musical movement?

The bands had similar politics in some instances, they kinda dressed the same, played highly distorted rock n roll/punk hybrid music with aspects of metal etc thrown in there, they shared producers, there were fanzines, the photography of the time has a similar thread running through, largely due to Charles Petersen, they played the same venues, they played the same circuits to a fair degree, i mean, at what point do you think it's fair to say that it's a musical movment?

Edited August 29, 2012 by sugaraylen

[rocker rockstar]

Soundgarden is amazing. Not sure why anyone would say they were not good grunge. Love early Pearl Jam too. I guess it just depends on your tastes. I like Nirvana and AIC too. Loved Stone Temple Pilots stuff too. Anyways, I guess it depends on how much you love grunge.

[DirtyDeeds]

Can't stand the dude's voice or style of singing.

[lawrence]

how can you not like this??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUJGlI13KdE

[Bumble's Bridge Pickup]

Pearl Jam is decent. I'm not a huge fan but they're actually pretty influential and have something to say

[Guest Satanisk_Slakt]

Because Pearl Jam made some great albums.

[SunnyDRE]

ONESBORO, Ga. — Former NBA All-Star guard Daron "Mookie" Blaylock was on life support at a hospital Friday after his SUV crossed the center line and crashed head-on into a van in suburban Atlanta, police said.

Link

[Iron MikeyJ]

I love pearl jam, they are absolutly one of the best 90's bands. I don't understand why people don't like them, they have a lot of really good songs. As someone already said, ten vs, and vitology are all really good albums. Yield also has some really good songs. I agree that they are probably closer to the eagles then they are to the sex pistols. But damn, they wrote some great good ole' rock n roll. I wish their were more bands like pearl jam out there, they world would be a better place.