Nirvana vs. Pearl Jam POLL

although i don't think it'll spark as much actual debate as the '08 return of OMG STROKES STRIPES VINES, i think everyone who cares kinda figured out what side of the line in the sand they're on 15 years ago. still interested to see the results though.

Well I went with my teenage self and voted Nirvana without hesitation. I liked PJ at the time as well, but they weren't nearly as exciting.

at the time = Pearl Jam
now = Nirvana

I think I may prefer the first half of No Code to much of Nirvana tho!

nirvana for the drums alone

Oh man, not even close. Nirvana.

PJ easy. First four records are pretty fucking rock-solid and there's some great stuff on Yield and to a lesser extent Binaural. Just more of a sustained haul, whereas I like most of Nevermind, and about half each of In Utero and Incesticide. Bleach never did much for me beyond Negative Creep.

this isn't beatles/stones. maybe beatles/doors. i take the beatles, obv.

It's Nirvana, but Pearl Cream gets a bad rap around ilx in a way that I'll never understand. They aren't really a good head-to-head match up because Nirvana was more from the college rock side of alternative, while Pearl Jam was part of that big dirty 70s worship thing.

Pit Pearl Jam against STP or Soundgarden or something and I'd pick Pearl Jam any day.

the answer to the question of which has greater artistic merit is obvious enough as to be dumb. but there are things to be said in favor of early/contemporaneous pearl jam as well - their classic/hard/hippie-rock pleasure principle/interest in beauty, their comparative acquaintance with funk (debatable, i suppose, but afaic), the relative absence of a corny reflexive preference for obscurity, their greater willingness to posit transcendence of a bad situation rather than imprisonment within it.

Pit Pearl Jam against STP or Soundgarden or something and I'd pick Pearl Jam any day.

against stp, yes. (love some stp singles, tho.) but against soundgarden? i don't think so.

i like pearl jam ok, just think their hit-miss ratio is low-ish.

Nirvana then, Nirvana now. Watched The Year Punk Broke a little while ago, dudes could kick up some noise.

I always thought Pearl Jam was... kinda lame.

the answer to the question of which has greater artistic merit is obvious enough as to be dumb

...or maybe just happy.

It's so difficult. I know I've listened to a lot more PJ in my time and at one point in the mid-late 90s was a huge fan. Far from being the po-faced rockers that their first album seemed to tar them with, they were hugely inventive and especially on albums like No Code and Vitalogy managed to be artistic and post-grungey. I think Nirvana on the other hand had a sound, and a great sound at that. Probably one of the greatest sounds in rock history. It just gelled so well, but when you still hear bits from Nevermind or Unplugged on the local jukebox, it's easy to forget how great they sounded. It's only until you get that dusty copied tape of Incesticide out the box and crank the volume up that you remember how fantastic they really were.

I've gone for PJ.

Nirvana, but I like lots of post-VS Pearl Jam. Their last album was their best since whatever.

i prefer PJ as a matter of style, but Nirvana clearly wins on substance

i voted nirvana reflexively but i will defend pj to the death

what he said ^

Nirvana, but because they were such a great pop band on Nevermind; they were like the early Beatles, but they were ours, not our parents'. I did and still find Bleach tedious, except for "About a Girl", and haven't ever really gotten into In Utero. It wasn't their angst that got me into them, but just brilliant songs loaded with hooks.

Pearl Jam had a few great pop moments: "Alive" off the first record (man this kills in Rock Band), but even when it's great, it fills a need I have for music that other bands just fill better.

Still, I defended Pearl Jam like crazy back in the day against those jerks who were like "Pearl Jam is just manufactured, Nirvana is real", because this is garbage and for me it's never been about authenticity.

I love "Black" so much, it's kind of ridiculous.

Still, voted Nirvana.

Pearl Jam are the worst band I ever really liked for a while (or maybe they're joint top with the STPs).

I still rep for some STP songs, too ("Creep", "Interstate Love Song", "Big Empty", "Sour Girl", "Big Bang Baby")

Nirvana. Hate hate hate that first Pearl Jam album. Follow ups are just meh.

Nirvana easy.

But Pearl Jam gets state props for Vitalogy and Mirror Ball w/Neil...and also i sort of admire how they've just stuck it out like an old school classic rock band and kept on truckin

yeah, it feels kind of unfair or creepy to put longevity in PJ's plus column considering the reason Nirvana wasn't around as long, but what I really like about them is that they peaked (imo) around albums 3-5, and stayed pretty interesting and consistently evolving at least up through Binaural.

Well, worst comes to worst, you can take the longevity thing out of the equation by cutting PJ off - so it's Bleach, Incesticide, Nevermind and In Utero versus Ten, Vs., Vitalogy, and No Code.... I call that a fair fight.

Both of those discographies are unfuckwithable right there. Progression thru each album.
Add Nirvana Unplugged to the mix and wow.

Eddie Vedder's voice is so horrible and has had such an unforgivably large impact on subsequent "modern rock" that its just.... ugh. always hated the SOUND of Pearl Jam.

Nirvana no contest, even though I never listen to them now cuz it just makes me feel creepy - Cobain's music is so much about how it sucks to be him, now it just has this voyeuristic/necrophiliac vibe when I hear it. The associations are too strong for me to enjoy any of it.

I guess certain things in the Nirvana catalog still have some capacity to elicit joy/surprise - the better songs on Bleach (Negative Creep, About a Girl, Floyd the Barber), some of the Insesticide tracks.

yeah, it feels kind of unfair or creepy to put longevity in PJ's plus column considering the reason Nirvana wasn't around as long, but what I really like about them is that they peaked (imo) around albums 3-5, and stayed pretty interesting and consistently evolving at least up through Binaural.

― the ref (denis leary ha ha) (some dude), Tuesday, December 9, 2008 5:48 PM (49 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yeah i wasn't really putting that over nirvana...just i sorta like when bands keep going past when most ppl stopped caring and still have a good sized audience...you know, just like how zz top or blue oyster cult did...PJ is a throwback to that....

that said, everything i've ever read about nirvana leads me to believe that band would not have lasted 2 years even if kurt had lived.

i kinda count foo fighters in the "minus" column for nirvana. they're both alright though tbh i don't care enough about these bands to vote one way or the other.

Nirvana, though PJ had some pretty great non-album tracks. State of Love & Trust from the Singles OST and of course the Crazy Mary from the Sweet Relief comp are two of their better songs.

"crazy mary" is great, yeah. so's their "rockin in the free world." and "last kiss." i would buy or at least download a pearl jam covers album.

Nirvana no contest, even though I never listen to them now cuz it just makes me feel creepy - Cobain's music is so much about how it sucks to be him, now it just has this voyeuristic/necrophiliac vibe when I

Hm. I find him really funny, and, at worst, abstruse. I always loved the claims that Cobain helped C. Love write her songs. If anything, his could have used more clarity.

he was plenty funny but stuff like Rape Me, or All Apologies ("married/buried" = gee Curt what are you singing about I wonder?) or any number of other countless examples are just so nakedly autobiographical/literal that it seems morbid to even listen to them, like, why do I care about this dead guys' problems...

see i never once thought of the married/buried couplet in that light...dude had tons and tons of lazy rhymes like that.

if he killed himself by eating mosquitos he bought from an albino we'd all be thinking "Teen Spirit" was some deep shit.

hahahahaha

even that silly tossed off misquito/libido couplet is full of self-loathing

I'm glad the shadow of his life doesn't loom so large over his music for you guys congratulations

i don't really think about people's lives when i am listening to their music

No more than anyone elses. Sly Stone, for example.

Sometimes I think about people's lives when listening to their music (Karen Carpenter) but not very often.

I know I know this is my own problem, probably stemming from too many people I know having known Curt on a personal level and my having been juuuuust the right (wrong?) age and temperament when Nirvana was breaking out.

Sometimes I think about Dan's life when listening to The Cure.

ftr I was not at just the right age and temperament when Karen Carpenter died to make her into a personal martyr figure, I just marvel that our laws are such that we can't put her brother in jail

My problem with Nirvana is that I just heard it too much to want to hear it again. Sometimes I'll hear a song though and remember hey this band was actually pretty good. Pearl Jam OTOH I never think that about.

Sometimes I'll hear a song though and remember hey this band was actually pretty good. Pearl Jam OTOH I never think that about.

^^^haha so true

Pearl Jam are the worst band I ever really liked for a while

Wow, you're an amateur at having liked bad bands.

for all the talk about about what nirvana meant, (gen x, the year punk broke, blah, blah, blah)... when it comes down to it, kurt cobain could really write a tune. whereas pearl jam's records always seemed really bland and dirgey. also, eddie vedder's voice is like nails down a blackboard.

also, eddie vedder's voice is like nails down a blackboard.

and Cobain on "Scentless Apprentice" and "Milk It" was Bryan Ferry?

gabbneb, was that a quote from Christgau or just tribute?:P

i like noisy, screechy singers sometimes. why vedder's voice annoys me so much is that it sounds like he's trying to force some kind of phony "soulfulness" or "feeling" a little too hard.

he's got that heartbroken/constipated thing going on.

The Bleach era concerts I saw were some of the best performances I've ever seen. Pearl Jam was just a huge, slick commercial let down to me after Green River folded.

I've still never listened to Nevermind all the way through. I think I'd probably like it now.

it seems morbid to even listen to them, like, why do I care about this dead guys' problems...

― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, December 9, 2008 2:18 PM Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

huge, slick commercial

I can see "huge", but Pearl Jam didn't sound slick or commercial compared to the hair metal that was dominating hard rock radio at the time.

it seems morbid to even listen to them, like, why do I care about this dead guys' problems...

― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, December 9, 2008 2:18 PM Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

cuz they are awesome tunes?

First paragraph of what Nate said, word for word. Plus listening to Nevermind far too many times to wanna hear it anymore. It's good tho.

Pearl Jam didn't sound slick or commercial compared to the hair metal that was dominating hard rock radio at the time.

― kingkongvsgodzilla

No, just compared to shit I might have actually wanted to listen to at the time. These days I've got a MUCH broader tolerance for "slick, commercial" sounds, but Pearl Jam still boars me to tearless music-changing.

huge, slick commercial

i.e. awesome

Never, ever had any use for Pearl Jam (or Mother Love Bone for that matter) - they just didn't make it for me, either as an alternative band or a modern-day classic rock throwback. Whereas Nirvana I liked practically from the dawn of the decade, when I'd buy anything on Sub Pop.

Pearl Jam's real crime is that there is nothing interesting about them at all. They aren't particularly adept songwriters and have no real skill with hooks, the overall sound they achieve is very pedestrian and lifeless, the singing is terrible, the lyrics are terrible, the range of influences they draw on are boring and stale, they do not "swing" in xhuxk's sense of the term.

Shakey, no skill with hooks? "Alive" is like nonstop hooks, shit even "Black" and "Garden" are hooky. Or maybe you're making a joke? You never can tell.

sometimes i think that "old lady behind a counter in a small town store" was the best REM song of the 90s

"Alive" is like nonstop hooks, shit even "Black" and "Garden" are hooky

I can't remember how any of these songs go. Granted I haven't listened to Pearl Jam in 15 years, but I haven't listened to Nirvana in 15 years either, and I can still remember the hook from "Negative Creep".

I was on Shakey's side until 1994, when the cautious experiments on Vitalogy and then No Code opened my ears to how well they pull off the midtempo thrash thing; by the time of Yield they were writing lots of good songs at this tempo ("Faithfull," "No Difference," "Given To Fly," "All Those Yesterdays"). Also: Vedder had become a much more affecting singer (am I the only one moved by their cover of "Last Kiss"?). They've still got the goods live: they happen to be the band I've seen most often (four times and counting) without placing them in my pantheon. Like I said upthread, their last album was leaner than it had a right to be. At their best they show how a strong work ethic and the right political leanings can often transform the merely pedestrian (maybe they're the John Mellencamp of post-grunge).

If you translate all the instances of "no skill with" into "I don't like", Shakey's post makes more sense.

The issue I have with Pearl Jam is that they do all of these little Music Theory 101 things in their music that, were they presented by any other band, would seem refreshingly cerebral but ends up coming across as smug and self-satisfied since they do it non-stop; it's no real surprise that my favorite songs of theirs are the one where all of that pulls into line and works for the song rather than against it ("Black") and the one where they stop trying to convince everyone they're bad-ass songwriters and just make a nice, simple, enjoyable song ("Better Man").

xp: most of "Alive" centers around the phrase "Oh, I-I-I-I-I'm still alive", which is repeated like an endless mantra. "Black" is built on stepwise motion alternating with arpeggios, again in repeating mantra style.

Mellencamp is a great comparison!

the one where they stop trying to convince everyone they're bad-ass songwriters and just make a nice, simple, enjoyable song ("Better Man").

Hearing this on the radio in '95 was transformative. I thought, "Shit, these guys CAN be straightforwardly affecting if they wanna be."

the cover of "last kiss" is terrible

"better man" is basically marc loi avant a lettre, fuck that too

i keep hearing that PJ got more interesting as they went along but i doubt i'll ever find out for myself.

la lettre, excuse me

I think Pearl Jam is a band where they'd be more appreciated with a different singer, or at least a different mix; I'm listening to Vs. now (b/c wtf) and the rhythm section is great; and the guitar fills in throughout with these snaky lines, laying down a groove; but Vedder just stomps over it all, overwhelming the mix.

VS is their worst album.

Seriously, I might agree with Cobain's assessment of PJ had they settled on recording "Rearviewmirror" and "Daughter" clones for the rest of their lives.

Both are completely overrated to the point of absurdity but the mythology behind Nirvana gives them the ultimate rockist edge yoga flame for all time.

This is really weird to admit but oh well: I don't have any Nirvana songs on my iPod, but I do have (and listen to) the Pearl Jam song "Elderly Woman Behind A Counter...".

I like Vs. (and the two songs you named in particular) a lot; but "Dissident" is terrible, "Glorified G" is dopey, and the whole album could stand to be tightened up by about 10 minutes. But the latter is my criticism of most 90s albums.

(am I the only one moved by their cover of "Last Kiss"?)

Good god, I hope so.

"Wishlist" is another simple, unaffected tune.

I will hold my lighter up for "Yellow Ledbetter" too.

No one's mentioned this yet: my problem isn't Vedder so much as Mike McCready. He tries too hard to be a Mick Taylor. Fortunately, Vedder playing more rhythm guitar live and on record has had the same effect as Jagger doing the same in 1978: the sound is crunchier, meatier, lots more gravel.

oh god peral jam succccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccck

Vs. is not holding up as well as I thought it would on this listen. The middle of this album is very very boring---6 minutes of "W.M.A." is rough on the ears.

i mean some of their early stuff isn't totally horrible but i look at them and it's like REM five, ten years ago: like OMG you guys need to break up already ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

haha I made a Pearl Jam mix for a friend recently, and surprised myself by picking more songs from Vs. than any other album (when if asked I'd usually tell you it's the weakest or 2nd weakest of their first 5).

DROP THE LEASH

the pj/nirvana dichotomy seemed to colour so much of my thinking about music when i was younger, as they were the two biggest bands when i was at a particularly vulnerable age. i still love them both. for me, the real difference between the two was PJ's reverence for classic rock - that they had none of that Year Zero mentality, that they were unafraid of plugging into the canon of rock without irony. whereas kurt definitely had beatlesque chops, but also a need to subvert that classic paradigm somehow - and its arguable how profound those attempts were, or whether they succeeded, but he definitely seemed more uncomfortable with the rock canon than Pearl Jam.

Wow, you're an amateur at having liked bad bands.

― chap, Tuesday, 9 December 2008 20:59 (2 hours ago)

it's just a pleasant consequence from my fear of commitment

Christgau's cavils are well considered:

Yield [Epic, 1998]

The reality they come to terms with here is musical, and I'm impressed they had it in them. From the electronically foreshortened riff that announces their need for attention to "Push Me, Pull Me" studio manipulations that signal their refusal to be pigeonholed, the nice techy edge of Brendan O'Brien's production can't conceal their aesthetic conservatism or materially enhance songwriting and performance skills they've never pitched higher. Like nobody less than Nirvana (right, they're dumber, thank you for sharing), they voice the arena-rock agon more vulnerably and articulately than any Englishman standing. Rarely if ever has a Jesus complex seemed so modest. A-

against stp, yes. (love some stp singles, tho.) but against soundgarden? i don't think so.

i like pearl jam ok, just think their hit-miss ratio is low-ish.

This.

Vs. is terrible

PJ is way more fun to drunkenly sing along to

This is the only good thread ever about either of these bands.

I don't know why I enjoyed "Glorified G" so much during high school.. it's kinda shit. "Rats" is shit.. I don't remember how WMA goes.. beyond that, I don't see what's so bad about VS.

No one's mentioned this yet: my problem isn't Vedder so much as Mike McCready.

Yes. Especially live, because every guitar solo sounds exactly the same. It's been fashionable to bash this band for over ten years now. But they still manage to come up with some absolutely incredible songs.

From the last two records, Love Boat Captain is in their alltime top 3, and Unemployable is up there, too.

Unemployable is up there, too.

YES

nirvana 4-ever.

pearl jam was always pretty boring, a couple of decent tunes aside.

"i keep hearing that PJ got more interesting as they went along but i doubt i'll ever find out for myself."

^^^ this!

Pearl Jam should not be compared to Nirvana. They should be polled against REM and U2; two other mostly useless, whiny, self-important bands that way too many people seem to love.

In defense though, I will say that Eddie Vedder's moment on SNL where he bared the K embroidered over his heart--that could have been really lame. And it came across sincere. Respect for that.

Can't stand Pearl Jam, sorry. It's like Michael Bolton forming a band with the sweaty trogs from the guitar shop.

Can't stand Pearl Jam, sorry. It's like Michael Bolton forming a band with the sweaty trogs from the guitar shop.

nail:head

Seriously, I might agree with Cobain's assessment of PJ had they settled on recording "Rearviewmirror" and "Daughter" clones for the rest of their lives.

What was Cobain's assessment?

He didn't like them, he thought they were "sellouts." If he only stuck around for Nickelback.

those of you defending PJ's "hooks" - I have not listened to any Nirvana or Pearl Jam in probably 15 years or so, yet I can still recall the riff to "Negative Creep". I cannot say the same for any of PJ's songs. Except "Jeremy", I guess, which is a terrible song anyway.

There are a bunch of us who can remember the Pearl Jam songs and I, personally, don't remember which song "Negative Creep" was. You aren't making much of an argument beyond "I can remember more Nirvana songs than Pearl Jam songs".

Negative Creep is not in the running for most hook-filled, beatlesesque Nirvana song, that's for damn sure.

Can't stand Pearl Jam, sorry. It's like Michael Bolton forming a band with the sweaty trogs from the guitar shop.

This is nonsense and perhaps only applies to the first album from 1992. So many people judge PJ on that album it's ridiculous.

there is a reason they do.

it's also not a bad album, even if there may be better ones.

I've tried some to PJ's lauded later stuff on occasion, but it always sounded impenetrably dull and ploddy on first listen. The soaring choruses which were their strong point didn't seem to be anywhere in earshot.

I've tried some of

-ve creep live, joy

Pearl Jam's real crime is that there is nothing interesting about them at all. They aren't particularly adept songwriters and have no real skill with hooks, the overall sound they achieve is very pedestrian and lifeless, the singing is terrible, the lyrics are terrible, the range of influences they draw on are boring and stale, they do not "swing" in xhuxk's sense of the term.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 9 December 2008 22:13 (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

This too is completely unfounded if you've heard pretty much anything that came after "Ten"

i used to love that 'Oceans' video but it's a fucking aftershave advert

It's completely unfounded if you've only heard Ten!

This too is completely unfounded if you've heard pretty much anything that came after "Ten"

judgment based almost entirely on singles ("Daughter", "Spin the Black Circle", ummm not sure what others) and having to hear my housemates at the time play Vs. and Vitalogy.

"Light Years" off Binaural is fabulous too.

oh pleez

There are things I like about PJ. Mostly the pop concision of certain Vitalogy tracks and covers. In spite of lolhorror all around, I think the "Last Kiss" cover is lovely. I'd have expected something much more bathetic, but it has a lightness of touch (relatively speaking) that keeps the original's spirit intact. It's sad in a wistful sort of way, avoids any trace of "Jeremy"-style emotional bludgeoning. Also dug the "Leaving Here" cover from roughly the same period. Less remarkable, but well done. Lotta bands would have gone for hard rock bombast -- I liked that they instead played up the blues angle without wallowing in it.

Overall, though, I find that their music lacks the restraint and lightness of touch that I enjoy in these songs. Worse, in that absence, it lacks wit and tension. I rarely find anything relatable about it, because it's too painfully earnest and unsurprising to engage with my own sensibilities -- and too rock pedestrian to make my put them aside. If they were more beautiful, or raw, or strange (or anything, really), I might be able to deal with the comfy-couch jam-band earnestness, might even find it endearing. But as things are, I just don't feel anything when I listen to them. There's nothing there for me to hold on to.

Eddie Vedder's moment on SNL where he bared the K embroidered over his heart--that could have been really lame. And it came across sincere. Respect for that.

― Nate Carson

So horrible. Made me regret my failure to die before the broadcast.

See, there's just enough strangeness in the earnestness that washes away the comfy couchisms; and I must thank you for also hearing the lightness in "Last Kiss."

PJ are alright but there really is no contest.

yeah i love that "Leaving Here" cover, that whole Jack Irons period has some nice subtle grooves compared to the way their stuff w/ other drummers tends to beat you over the head.

jack's drumming on no code is wonderful. that whole album is weird and beautiful.

easily Nirvana

Nirvana without a shadow of doubt.

Fellas:

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/news/148093-pearl-jam-to-reissue-ten-four-different-ways

ten carpaccio

"If you'd asked one hundred Sex Pistols/Ramones wannabes how F-Bb-Ab resolves, one hundred of them would've told you it goes to C, duh. Kurt [Cobain] knocked the world on its ass by choosing Db instead," wrote Time's Claire Suddath.

now that i'm 15 years older and intimately familiar with Pussy Galore and Jesus Lizard and Melvins and Half Japanese and whatever, it's kind of hard to realize that Nirvana happened.

same here, kinda (although w/ different bands mostly). a lot of my interest in Nirvana was gradually usurped by their peers and influences, which didn't happen so much with PJ.

agreed. it's way way way cooler to listen to the Melvins and the Wipers and the Raincoats and the Boredoms than the Fastbacks or whatever.

well i mean also PJ is more classic rock based, and their biggest influences are further removed from their immediate timeline, so i mean The Who and Neil Young are awesome but listening to them doesn't really push Pearl Jam out of a particular niche for me, at least not in the same way I dropped Nirvana like a bad habit once I got into Sonic Youth.

Big four grunge bands' influences:

Nirvana - Punk and 80s alt rock
Soundgarden - Stoner rock and pschyadelia
AIC - Metal
Pearl Jam - Boring bands your dad likes

now that i'm 15 years older and intimately familiar with Pussy Galore and Jesus Lizard and Melvins and Half Japanese and whatever, it's kind of hard to realize that Nirvana happened that people actually preferred them to Nirvana.

Pearl Jam - Boring bands your dad likes

To tell the truth, I've never been able to hear Pearl Jam's influences. I think I might've read some interviews where they cite Hendrix and Neil Young. What are the other ones?

i'd say The Who is the biggest.

can someone name me a Who song that sounds like a PJ song

^this

I guess I can kinda hear stuff like "Baba O'Riley" (sans synths) in PJ

yeah on a musical level they mostly borrow the Who's Next bombast, but since Vedder's the big Who fan it's more in the vox and melodies that Daltrey or Townshend shows up, depending on what kind of song it is.

The Who - a boring band your dad likes

Neil Young - a boring band your dad likes

i miss my dad, i like all the boring bands he liked. i'm so glad i had "chronicle" by CCR to listen to as a child.

It's an obvious comparison but musically, their old stuff sounds Jane's Addiction-influenced to me. Maybe even some of the vocal lines if you transpose them down an octave or two. Maybe?

(Pearl Jam's)

TWO octaves? Really?

Also, the voice reminds me a bit of Ian Gillan and FNM-era Mike Patton (though I'm a bigger fan of both of them than I am of Vedder).

(xpost: No)

(hyperbole and that)

(haha ok)

my dad likes, like, rodgers and hart and stuff, so i missed out on this crucial rite of passage of hating my dad's classic rock dinosaurs. tho i like rodgers and hart and stuff too.

Pussy Galore and Jesus Lizard and Melvins and Half Japanese ... the Wipers and the Raincoats and the Boredoms ... Sonic Youth

-- Whiney & Ann'd

As a list of Nirvana influences & debatably-cooler-than contemporaries, this seems reasonable, but I can't see as how it renders their music irrelevant. They weren't a dumbed-down capsule version of something that preexisted, tempting as the insinuation may be. And they weren't responding only to their immediate predecessors and peers, to their scene & era. I hear Cheap Trick and even the Beatles in there, too (though as with PJ/the Who, they weren't a carbon copy).

I agree that I have little long-run need to listen to Nirvana, and only a few of their songs still hit me with anything like the impact they once possessed. But I suspect that this has more to do with MASSIVE oversaturation than with any deficiency in the music itself. I mean, play for play, their records hold up at least as well as the freaking Jesus Lizard's...

lol Ann'd

Cobain was also an orders-of-magnitude better songwriter than the guys in Pussy Gaore/Jesus Lizard/Melvins/Half Japanese/Wipers et al.

Yes.

nirvana in the blink of an eye.

Hell, circa Goo and especially Dirty, Sonic Youthe seemed way more Nirvana-influenced than vice-versa. "Genetic" (Dirty outtake) is nearly the plagiarism with it.

Cobain was also an orders-of-magnitude better songwriter than the guys in Pussy Gaore/Jesus Lizard/Melvins/Half Japanese/Wipers et al.

― redmond, Thursday, December 11, 2008 6:20 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

hmmm...Pussy Galore - yes....I don't really care about Melvins anymore they did not age well IMO....dispute "orders of magnitude" about Half Japanes...strongly dispute "orders of magnitude" above GREG SAGE....

...jesus lizard were more of a force of nature type band for me...i mean, i dunno it's not like they wrote nice chord change pop tunes but that doesn't seem like the point to me.

Okay, I could definitely hear Jane's Addiction influence. When I was a teenager, Jane’s was my favorite band of all time, but these days I keep forgetting that they existed.

I stand by that statement. None of those groups wrote a Teen Spirit.

Hell, circa Goo and especially Dirty, Sonic Youthe seemed way more Nirvana-influenced than vice-versa. "Genetic" (Dirty outtake) is nearly the plagiarism with it.

― Suggest Ban Permalink (contenderizer), Thursday, December 11, 2008 6:24 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Goo came out in 1990, tho

Bleach came out in 89

i wish you would drink some bleach right now

o dam

and Goo sounds nothing like Bleach

Dug Jesus Lizard, and agree they were a phenomenal force-of-nature live band, so I give 'em credit for that. And for having been in Scratch Acid, who I prefer, but whatever. Agree also that Kurdt borrowed from Greg Sage without bettering the Wipers, but I don't think that diminishes Nirvana in any way. We all have our influences, some stronger than others. Half Japanese were funny, plus they could write a tune every now and then: Silver and Katherine.

Not saying that Goo took big tips from Bleach. It didn't. But SY were obviously paying a lot of attention to Dino Jr, to "rock music" as a concept, and to the grunge rock/Seattle sound during that era. And you can really hear it on Dirty.

oh i mean yeah i agree with the Dirty part of the statement

Following repeated recommendations by Sonic Youth's Kim Gordon, Nirvana signed to DGC Records in 1990.

one of my best friends is a huge PJ fan so i've heard most of their records. vedder is just such an awful singer that i find them impossible to stomach.

some serious revisionism OTT

not sure what you're referring to but you're probably right

Nirvana likely wins this in a walk; a pearl jam vs alice in chains thread feels more contestable.

Yes. Or Pearl Jam vs. Soundgarden. Nirvana really isn't fair, they're one of the very best bands.

kornrulez6969, I feel like you and I should further discuss this over a mochachino. Are you in the Akron area?

SG all thw way. xpost

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

The first time I saw Nirvana live, they were opening for Sonic Youth. On the Goo tour.

Counting Crows

dude what the fucking fuck

i had your back on the Counting Crows threads but really

As much as I don't like Nirvana...

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

lol

Close.

y'know after the Wire/Sopranos turnout i don't even give a fuck that this didn't go my way

missed this but Nirvana for me. Pearl Jam as a band were pretty inoffensive for the most part, and actually verged on pretty good a times (I only know like the first 3 records, and those not terribly well), but Vedder is just The Worst.

i mean i'd rather be trapped in a room with that dead blind melon dude

and i bet he smells pretty bad by now

/s1ocki

never heard andrew wood, then? (xxp (or is it?))

kornrulez6969..... Are you in the Akron area?

New Jersey. But grunge transcends state lines. I thought this would be a 3-1 Nirvana win. But 5-1? That's brutal.

I listened to Pearl Jam's "Ten" for the first time in 15 years yesterday. Why is/was this considered 'grunge' at all? Sonically sounds nothing like Nirvana, Soundgarden, Mudhoney, Screaming Trees, etc. It's a hell of a lot more produced, and sometimes not too far off from 80s glam metal. Also Eddie Vedder's singing just lacks the rawness of his contemporaries. All to say: this band has nothing to do with grunge in my book.

Also, Nirvana >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pearl Jam.

And Vedder's influence on modern rock singing is simply unforgivable. The yarling tradition reverberates strong to this day, which is goddamn near unbelievable.

Why is/was this considered 'grunge' at all?

Seattle, flannel + long johns, long hair, dour and joyless, members used to be in band w other genuinely more "grunge" guys etc

I never thought PJ was joyless.

often leaden and inspiration-free at the beginning though. I didn't start admiring them until Vitalogy.

Seattle, flannel + long johns, long hair, dour and joyless, members used to be in band w other genuinely more "grunge" guys etc

so basically, nothing to do with their music

production of Ten has dated badly, though the reissue from a few years back clipped away a lot of the gauze and sheen to good effect. i don't think they're really cock-rock or hair metal at all - vedder's earnestness ensures against that - and the later albums (even vs) mitigate the classic rock-isms with progressively less-self-conscious punk-rock moves. I really love the balance they strike from vs onwards, and even on ten's greatest moments. They require a suspension of cynicism, but that's one of the pleasures of their music imo.

never really thought grunge had a particularly rigid sonic identity tbh either, screaming trees don't sound like soundgarden who don't sound like mudhoney, etc. more geography and shared references (punk + stadium moves) that they do different things with.

Sonically sounds nothing like Nirvana, Soundgarden, Mudhoney, Screaming Trees, etc

I could imagine PJ doing "Rusty Chain" a lot more easily than I could imagine Mudhoney doing "Nearly Lost You."

xp

also is vedder really any more polished than cornell as a vocalist?

anyways i love all these bands, this was a totally awesome time to be 15 imo

also is vedder really any more polished than cornell as a vocalist?

idk about "polished" but Cornell def has (had?) a range that Vedder didn't even come close to

oh for sure - vedder is all burr, cornell spans the scale. but mark arm can basically hit two notes and i still think he's as fine a vocalist as the rest.

also cornell's voice has weathered age verrrrry well - seeing them play superunknown in its entirety last year, he did not disappoint, and even sounded better than when touring that album first time round.

how was his mustache

ha! you joke but that dude still could probably have had his pick of any woman in hyde park that afternoon. he isn't ageing. it is freaky.

never really thought grunge had a particularly rigid sonic identity tbh either, screaming trees don't sound like soundgarden who don't sound like mudhoney, etc. more geography and shared references (punk + stadium moves) that they do different things with.

― IHeartMedia, the giant broadcaster formerly known as Clear Channel, (stevie), Tuesday, April 7, 2015 11:17 AM (10 minutes ago)

Sonically sounds nothing like Nirvana, Soundgarden, Mudhoney, Screaming Trees, etc

I could imagine PJ doing "Rusty Chain" a lot more easily than I could imagine Mudhoney doing "Nearly Lost You."

― I might like you better if we Yelped together (Phil D.), Tuesday, April 7, 2015 11:19 AM (9 minutes ago)

http://www.discogs.com/Beat-Happening-Screaming-Trees-Beat-Happening-Screaming-Trees/release/2269945

pj have always seemed so joyless and stodgy to me. even the positive things ppl say about them on this thread make them sound like math homework or something.

Absolutely agree. I liked "Alive" and "Even Flow," and then they became serious and important in the worst possible way. (I'm sure they thought of themselves that way right from the start, but those first-album singles at least sounded sort of spontaneous.)

On the contrary, they got more buoyant. To me the crucial element was Vedder playing a lot of electric rhythm guitar; suddenly the songs moved. Those last three nineties albums contain their best work.

sometimes not too far off from 80s glam metal.

really tho? it sounds like hard rock, but I don't hear the glam in it at all!

Ten is the only Pearl Jam album I can stomach tbh

I think PJ would be better with one strong songwriter rather than pretty much everyone bringing songs to the table each time

Vedder was writing most of the songs 1995-1998.

All of their albums have at least a couple songs of worth, though I avoided the last one because "Sirens" was so dire.

Vedder was writing most of the songs 1995-1998.

he was writing most of the lyrics, but a lot of the songs on no code are collaborations (vedder didn't even write the music for Who You Are) and vedder has only two credits for writing the music on 1998's yield, out of 13 songs.

unnerstan' that Who You Are is meant to be some kind of sloppy Zeppelin homage, but god it misfires.

I don't really hear that, though I really, really love that song

a lot of people seem to love it, which is something i've never understood. i'm in no way adverse to untidy guitar parts -- Husker Du, anyone? -- but it really sounds to me like he's playing it in bed, horizontal. it could be that scratchy tone, i don't know; it just doesn't click with me.

really tho? it sounds like hard rock, but I don't hear the glam in it at all!

Yeah, I guess 70s hard rock is a better reference point. I was just thinking off all those ridiculous guitar solos.

I was just thinking off all those ridiculous guitar solos.

that's not how you spell "awesome"!

I feel like "Jeremy" is a more jangly, goth version of "Janie's Got a Gun", which I think counts as a grunge move in 1992