Pearl Jam - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

Pearl Jam

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby benjapage » Sat Jul 01, 2006 10:58 am

Absolutely Adequate wrote:I don't understand the appeal to Pearl Jam anymore. I did when I was a kid - I bought the Mother Love Bone stuff and I bought "Ten," but nowadays I'm lost.

Eddie Vedder seems pretentious.

The lyrics are mediocre.

I hate Veddar's singing voice.

It seems like Pat Boone to Nirvana's Chuck Berry to me. They're fine, I guess, but I just can't get worked up over them.


you're definitively on point. musically speaking, i've always thought of pearl jam as the soft purveyors of grunge music. never had that been made more evident than when neil young took the stage with them several years ago. where neil (and nirvana, for that matter) are sheer forces of nature, pearl jam's just a good rock band.

it may sound like i'm knocking 'em, but i have respect for pearl jam. it's just hard to put them in the same category with a band like nirvana, who truly revolutionized the way "alternative" rock sounded.

and i'm not the biggest nirvana fan in the world. heh...more of a pixies/pavement/CBGB's-era guy, myself.

b
yeah, yes...
benjapage
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafeholic
Posts: 2767
Joined: 26 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Postby Chrisy Moltisanti » Sat Jul 01, 2006 12:41 pm

benjapage wrote:
Absolutely Adequate wrote:I don't understand the appeal to Pearl Jam anymore. I did when I was a kid - I bought the Mother Love Bone stuff and I bought "Ten," but nowadays I'm lost.

Eddie Vedder seems pretentious.

The lyrics are mediocre.

I hate Veddar's singing voice.

It seems like Pat Boone to Nirvana's Chuck Berry to me. They're fine, I guess, but I just can't get worked up over them.


you're definitively on point. musically speaking, i've always thought of pearl jam as the soft purveyors of grunge music. never had that been made more evident than when neil young took the stage with them several years ago. where neil (and nirvana, for that matter) are sheer forces of nature, pearl jam's just a good rock band.

it may sound like i'm knocking 'em, but i have respect for pearl jam. it's just hard to put them in the same category with a band like nirvana, who truly revolutionized the way "alternative" rock sounded.

and i'm not the biggest nirvana fan in the world. heh...more of a pixies/pavement/CBGB's-era guy, myself.

b


Not quite understanding how you can feel both these two things at the same time, "i've always thought of pearl jam as the soft purveyors of grunge music" and " pearl jam's just a good rock band". And how does playing with Neil Young prove the former?

To me Nirvana is in a very special class of artists whose aim is significantly different than Pear Jam. Whatever Nirvana is or was, it is certainly exceptional. Pearl Jam on the other hand is a band which outgrew it's need to rely on the popularity of Seattle Area grunge music. They play many different styles, have understandable depth and meaning to their music(for the most part) and are withstanding the test of time. This all deserves recognition. Anyone who hates Vedders voice, well I can understand why you wouldn't like them, but he does sing in different styles on different albums.

One anecdotal bit of evidence:

When playing central park, the purveyors interrupted Pear Jam's show because of the danger imposed due to fans jumping and shaking the ground. Vedder was told that only the 'Stones and The Boss had caused such an effect in the entire history of Central Park concerts.
Chrisy Moltisanti
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1536
Joined: 10 Jun 2006
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: 6 feet under

Postby Minor League Skilz » Sat Jul 01, 2006 4:29 pm

acsguitar wrote:I think they are really good.

I may go see them monday with tom petty in denver. I wish it was at red rocks but its at the pepsi center instead :-t


ACS I would go to that show if you can. I saw Petty earlier in the summer and he was awesome as always. I was so jealous when I heard Pearl Jam was opening up a few shows. I have heard pretty good things about the Petty/Pearl Jam shows. Eddie stays on to sing with Tom on a few songs (American Girl, the Waiting) and does a great job. I need to find a bootleg of the concerts.

It is always cool to see two bands you love play together and show their appreciation for each other's music. I have tickets to see Petty and Foo Fighters later in the summer too.

Red Rocks would have been sick (I remember those pics you posted last year) but I would still check out the show.

Let me know if you wind up going.
Image
Minor League Skilz
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1518
Joined: 19 Feb 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: THE most comfortable stool in the bar!

Postby benjapage » Sat Jul 01, 2006 6:20 pm

Chrisy Moltisanti wrote:Not quite understanding how you can feel both these two things at the same time, "i've always thought of pearl jam as the soft purveyors of grunge music" and " pearl jam's just a good rock band". And how does playing with Neil Young prove the former?

To me Nirvana is in a very special class of artists whose aim is significantly different than Pear Jam.


chrisy, i don't think we're entirely disagreeing, but let me clarify a couple points:

1) i think you should seriously consider starting up a band called pear jam.

2) "soft purveyors of grunge music" is an expression of my sentiment that pearl jam is less raw and more derivative than nirvana, which marked a tidal turning point--particularly as pop melody relates to decidedly un-pop harmony. pearl jam's a good band--but not a revolutionary one. nirvana--among other contributions--opened the gates to singing pop melodies over various incarnations of the I-III chord structure.

3) neil young played with pearl jam and simply blew the rest of the band off the stage. when neil gets it in his head that the people need to be rocked, their are few equals. neil's wild abandon and self-abandon translate visually as well as musically. i don't think you'd get any argument from eddie, frankly.

again, i respect pearl jam. they're a good rock band. i just wouldn't put them up there with nirvana.

btw, longevity only rarely pertains to musical substance. madonna, just for instance, probably owes a bit less to her song-delivery (as she doesn't "write" much) than her business/fashion sense and a good workout routine. point being it's hard to say, "see? these guys are great! look how long they've been around! see?"

b
yeah, yes...
benjapage
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafeholic
Posts: 2767
Joined: 26 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Postby Chrisy Moltisanti » Sat Jul 01, 2006 8:55 pm

benjapage wrote:
Chrisy Moltisanti wrote:Not quite understanding how you can feel both these two things at the same time, "i've always thought of pearl jam as the soft purveyors of grunge music" and " pearl jam's just a good rock band". And how does playing with Neil Young prove the former?

To me Nirvana is in a very special class of artists whose aim is significantly different than Pear Jam.


chrisy, i don't think we're entirely disagreeing, but let me clarify a couple points:

1) i think you should seriously consider starting up a band called pear jam.

2) "soft purveyors of grunge music" is an expression of my sentiment that pearl jam is less raw and more derivative than nirvana, which marked a tidal turning point--particularly as pop melody relates to decidedly un-pop harmony. pearl jam's a good band--but not a revolutionary one. nirvana--among other contributions--opened the gates to singing pop melodies over various incarnations of the I-III chord structure.

3) neil young played with pearl jam and simply blew the rest of the band off the stage. when neil gets it in his head that the people need to be rocked, their are few equals. neil's wild abandon and self-abandon translate visually as well as musically. i don't think you'd get any argument from eddie, frankly.

again, i respect pearl jam. they're a good rock band. i just wouldn't put them up there with nirvana.

btw, longevity only rarely pertains to musical substance. madonna, just for instance, probably owes a bit less to her song-delivery (as she doesn't "write" much) than her business/fashion sense and a good workout routine. point being it's hard to say, "see? these guys are great! look how long they've been around! see?"

b


You're giving Nirvana all the credit for something Black Flag, The Pixies, Husker Du and possibly a few others including Neil Young set the stage for. Hey just like in sports, he who swings first usually doesn't get called for it(edit, sorry that's mostly a refernce to personal fouls in football and Ts in the NBA). Nirvana may have been most responsible for making a style popular, but they are a derivative as well and others deserve credit as well.

Weak attempt at bashing me for the Pear deal (wtf?)

If I had to chose on groups music to be on an island with for the rest of my life I'd choose Nirvana, but I have mad respect for Pearl Jam. Respect that has been earned because when I was growing up I didn't think I liked them a whole lot. Now that I've gone back and given their music a chance, I see greatness. Yes part of that is politically fueled and there is where I can see a major fracture point with others, but not in the overall breadth and depth of the music.

Longevity rarely pertains to musical substance in many cases yes and Pearl Jam is one of these. I don't put them above or equal to Nirvana, but they are great. No one is Nirvana man, why even try to compare them to anybody? I wasn't, but apparently when you say this...
Chrisy Moltisanti wrote:Pearl Jam, definitely going down as one of the greatest bands ever.


some yayhoo's around here read something entirely different in to what you did(n't) say

mak1277 wrote:
Chrisy Moltisanti wrote:Pearl Jam, definitely going down as one of the greatest bands ever.


It bugs the heck out of me when critics/people/whoever say that Nirvana was better than Pearl Jam. Ugh. Just not so.


I didn't even want to get in to the stupid argument of "who is greater", I just want to give both bands great respect.
Last edited by Chrisy Moltisanti on Sun Jul 02, 2006 2:51 am, edited 2 times in total.
Chrisy Moltisanti
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1536
Joined: 10 Jun 2006
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: 6 feet under

Postby pokerplaya » Sat Jul 01, 2006 10:02 pm

Glad to hear some of you appreciate the music, and others don't.

In any event....Vh1 Story Tellers...Pearl Jam...on now!! :-D
pokerplaya
Kitchen Staff
Kitchen Staff

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 12812
(Past Year: 14)
Joined: 18 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby benjapage » Sun Jul 02, 2006 12:29 pm

Chrisy Moltisanti wrote:You're giving Nirvana all the credit for something Black Flag, The Pixies, Husker Du and possibly a few others including Neil Young set the stage for.


good point, but no single one of those pioneers assembled their craft as a vessel into the pop-song arena. it's actually a huge feat: how does one take a counter-pop movement and bring it to the pop arena? i sure don't know, but nirvana did it. again, and musically speaking, nirvana's biggest contribution was placing 'singable' melodies within harmonies based on I-III chords. nothing comes from nothing--nirvana definitely had their influences (just like anyone else)--but they were able to accomplish vastly different and new concepts with them.

Chrisy Moltisanti wrote:Weak attempt at bashing me for the Pear deal (wtf?)


sorry--i was just playing around. my intent wasn't to bash.

Chrisy Moltisanti wrote:No one is Nirvana man, why even try to compare them to anybody?...I didn't even want to get in to the stupid argument of "who is greater", I just want to give both bands great respect.


fair enough--i just had to step up after i read the pearl jam > nirvana statement...didn't necessarily pertain to you. we agree that pearl jam is a good rock band, and that nirvana stands alone. on a side note, it's nice to see someone around here who appreciates husker du, the pixies, black flag, etc.... enjoy your weekend.

b
yeah, yes...
benjapage
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafeholic
Posts: 2767
Joined: 26 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Postby acsguitar » Sun Jul 02, 2006 2:31 pm

I think I'm gonna go tommorrow night. Tickets are like 75 bucks but oh well
I'm too lazy to make a sig at the moment
acsguitar
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Graphics Expert
Posts: 26722
Joined: 7 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Back in General Talk WOOO!!!

Postby The Miner Part 2 » Sun Jul 02, 2006 2:56 pm

yea good luck arguing over which bands are better than others. it's all subjective.

still, nirvana crushes all. !+)
Image
The Miner Part 2
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Mock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 3757
Joined: 16 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Throwing rocks at The Cubby Bear.

Postby The Artful Dodger » Sun Jul 02, 2006 7:56 pm

The Miner Part 2 wrote:yea good luck arguing over which bands are better than others. it's all subjective.

still, nirvana crushes all. !+)


Not by a longshot. Everyone knows that thrash metal and death metal rule the world. ;-D
Image
The Artful Dodger
Chief Wikitect
Chief Wikitect

User avatar
CafeholicResponse TeamFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyePick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 21672
(Past Year: 452)
Joined: 3 Feb 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Not nineteen forever

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: assiquate, unioreimi and 3 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Sunday, Apr. 20
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Toronto at Cleveland
(1:05 pm)
LA Angels at Detroit
(1:08 pm)
Seattle at Miami
(1:10 pm)
indoors
Atlanta at NY Mets
(1:10 pm)
Milwaukee at Pittsburgh
(1:35 pm)
St. Louis at Washington
(1:35 pm)
NY Yankees at Tampa Bay
(1:40 pm)
indoors
Minnesota at Kansas City
(2:10 pm)
Cincinnati at Chi Cubs
(2:20 pm)
Chi White Sox at Texas
(3:05 pm)
Houston at Oakland
(4:05 pm)
Philadelphia at Colorado
(4:10 pm)
Arizona at LA Dodgers
(4:10 pm)
San Francisco at San Diego
(4:10 pm)
Baltimore at Boston
(7:05 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact