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.

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