Bands with a big reputation that are (musically) shite
- Thread starter Wilf
- Start date
I’ve loved Pearl Jam for 30 years. Still do, for all the reasons you say. I think there is little that can touch their evolution of output over that time. Probably my favourite band of all time. So it seems a bit harsh to judge anyone one the basis that they aren’t as intricate, complex and layered as Pearl Jam!
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
Eddie Vedder cannot fucking sing though so taken as a unit, still musically shite.
Also music being intricate, layered and complex doesn't make it good.
Also music being intricate, layered and complex doesn't make it good.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
He has a perfect voice for bad music.
If you don’t like it, I can’t make you. From this thread, we have discovered that one person even has a problem with Beethoven. What can you say?
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
You can say that comparing Eddie Vedder to Beethoven is like comparing a mortally wounded bull walrus to, well, Beethoven.
savoloysam
Pigman's pigman's ha ha charade you are..
What about Beethoven the composer Vs Beethoven the dog?
mojo pixy
○-<{[°_°]}>-○
I just meant that my personal love for nirvana while feeling relative indifferent to pearl jam can't be about the music because pearl jam's music is objectively better. For me this underlines why nirvana's sudden, massive success in 1991 had less to do with their music than with something else.
In other hand, I only got into Nirvana in the late 90s, long after I’d fallen in love with Pearl Jam. I think that their success is as straightforward a reason as the fact that he could really write and sing a melody
mojo pixy
○-<{[°_°]}>-○
Fair enough that certainly helped, but it wasn't all. After all there are loads of acts who write great tunes but don't get heavy rotation on mtv or get to headline festivals, so again, I really think there was more to what happened there in 1991 than music.
Steel Icarus
ersatz maven
Can music and our response to it BE objective?
maomao
普費斯
It's not objectively better it's just more complex and more accurately performed (or something). Rejecting complexity is valid too.
I doubt I've heard a Pearl Jam record in twenty years but I'm pretty sure I would have described them as 'wanky' at the time ie. unnecessarily complex; accomplished to the point of being dull etc.
mojo pixy
○-<{[°_°]}>-○
I think it can be, there's the discipline of musicology at least which suggests objectivity can be found if we try. But for most of us consumers there's a whole emotional element that tends to get in the way and that's fine. I think my own response to 'Nirvana vs. Pearl Jam' is emotional, which is why it doesn't make sense from a purely musical POV.
Steel Icarus
ersatz maven
Yeah,sorry, I meant wholly objective, which with music it's very hard to do.
I have no basis for this opinion but I reckon the reason I like Nirvana over Pearl Jam is the former sound like they like the Pixies and the latter sound like Zep fans
mojo pixy
○-<{[°_°]}>-○
I think part of the appeal is that nirvana sounds like something me and a couple of mates could play easily, whereas pearl jam sounds like we'd have to really work hard at. In that sense it feels accessible and relatable in the way more complex music doesn't. IMO that's always been a lot of the appeal of basic 'rock music' (and punk more specifically, which nirvana is certainly a blossom of).
Aww look at me comparing nirvana to flowers now
I think part of the appeal is that nirvana sounds like something me and a couple of mates could play easily, whereas pearl jam sounds like we'd have to really work hard at. In that sense it feels accessible and relatable in the way more complex music doesn't. IMO that's always been a lot of the appeal of basic 'rock music' (and punk more specifically, which nirvana is certainly a blossom of).
Aww look at me comparing nirvana to flowers now
The brilliance of Nirvana was their simplicity. It's effectively punk music. No point comparing them to Pearl Jam. They just happened to be from the same city at the same time.
I taught myself how to play guitar to Unplugged. I mean the verse of About a Girl you only need to move one finger
mojo pixy
○-<{[°_°]}>-○
The brilliance of Nirvana was their simplicity. It's effectively punk music. No point comparing them to Pearl Jam. They just happened to be from the same city at the same time.
I taught myself how to play guitar to Unplugged. I mean the verse of About a Girl you only need to move one finger
I think there is, they had a broadly similar sound, appealed to a similar audience, rode the same 'grunge' wave, and it was argued by certain commentators that PJ actually exploded because of nirvana and the industry's scrabbling for 'the next'. I disagreed and disagree with that but it was certainly said at the time. Anyway I'm comfortable comparing them musically, for the purposes of my point on this thread I think it's a fair comparison.
mojo pixy
○-<{[°_°]}>-○
I mean the verse of About a Girl you only need to move one finger
About a Girl goes Em/G so more than one finger needs to move. Come as you Are is a bit simpler in terms of fingering iirc.
Nah, no comparison. Pearl Jam (who I also love) are more a classic rock band. I seem to recall Cobain in particular hated PJ and hated the comparison. But then Vedder wrote one of his most beautiful songs (immortality) about kurt's suicide. I mean you might as well compare Soundgarden to nirvana if you're gonna compare them to PJ. Nirvana were totally unique.
Well Em/to G only requires one finger the way Kurt played it
He had Pat Smear backing him up though who was probably playing the full G
mojo pixy
○-<{[°_°]}>-○
I'd compare Soundgarden to Nirvana, they're another band of that time who I thought deserved Nirvana scale success but had to work a lot harder for it though in all kinds of ways they were better / deeper / more energetic / psychedelic / danceable / atmospheric etc. Again underlining my sense of 'but why Nirvana??'
mojo pixy
○-<{[°_°]}>-○
Fair enough, I learned About a Girl from listening to Bleach, where I suppose he must have played the chords in full.
Well there's where your comparison falls down. Bleach, Nirvana's first record is a manic filthy punk album really and PJ's first, Ten is highly produced stadium rock. There is no comparison. We'll need to agree to disagree
editor
hiraethified
Oh I'm sorry. Has potty mouth got all upset because someone on the internet doesn't like the appalling self indulgent racket that Zappa made?
Karl Masks
Birds Angel Delight
Sorry Mr Lydon
editor
hiraethified
So you've gone from being unpleasantly abusive to being abstruse.
You don't have to like him but his voice does work. I haven't listened to PJ much beyond their early albums and not for a while but on those, it goes with the music perfectly. The objectively not shit music. The mixes are fine, playing is good, structure all that is there.
