Trending Topics

      Next match: West Ham v LFC [Premier League] Sat 27th Apr @ 12:30 pm
      London Stadium

      Today is the 25th of April and on this date LFC's match record is P25 W9 D9 L7

      Pearl Jam v Nirvana

      Read 9169 times
      0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
      Brian78
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****
      • Started Topic

      • 19,202 posts | 2799 
      • A Liverbird upon my chest
      Pearl Jam v Nirvana
      Sep 07, 2012 08:19:44 pm
      Both bands had big hits in th early 90s. 1 band got/gets huge media attention.

      But which band was the better?

      I personally at the time preferred Nirvana, probably down to the media frenzy they got at the time. But have changed my mind in recent years and would have to say Pearl Jam are the better of the 2.

      Whats the general view on this one!!
      Reprobate
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****

      • 11,055 posts | 436 
      • Avatar by Kitster29@Deviantart.com
      Re: Pearl Jam v Nirvana
      Reply #1: Sep 07, 2012 08:24:07 pm
      Ouch! How the hell do I answer this one?! Both are/were amazing bands and it's impossible for me to choose.

      If Nirvana had continued for as long as Pearl Jam then perhaps the decision would have been made for me one way or another. As it is, I can't answer this question.

      Brian78
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****
      • Started Topic

      • 19,202 posts | 2799 
      • A Liverbird upon my chest
      Re: Pearl Jam v Nirvana
      Reply #2: Sep 07, 2012 08:26:59 pm
      Here Rep sit on this mate  ;D

      Ov3rdose
      • Forum Legend - Benitez
      • *****

      • 1,961 posts | 17 
      Re: Pearl Jam v Nirvana
      Reply #3: Sep 07, 2012 08:35:04 pm
      Pearl Jam for me, mainly because they have released more material so there are more songs that I like.

      And I have a man crush on Mike McCready.
      « Last Edit: Sep 07, 2012 09:13:40 pm by Ov3rdose »
      kevinho
      • Forum Legend - Fagan
      • *****

      • 3,698 posts | 78 
      • YNWA
      Re: Pearl Jam v Nirvana
      Reply #4: Sep 07, 2012 09:16:42 pm
      The only thing I am 100% sure of is that you can't understand a F***ing thing either Kurt Cobain or Eddie Vedder sing.
      Diego LFC
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****

      • 19,332 posts | 2832 
      • Sempre Liverpool
      Re: Pearl Jam v Nirvana
      Reply #5: Sep 07, 2012 09:24:21 pm
      Nirvana were far more important in my life, for they were probably the first rock band I really got addicted to, that I first idolized - so if I had to, I would pick them.

      But in terms of music, and music only, I find it impossible to pick one of Nirvana or Pearl Jam. I've seen PJ live twice and twice they were unreal.
      racerx34
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 33,603 posts | 3843 
      • THE SALT IN THE SOUP
      Re: Pearl Jam v Nirvana
      Reply #6: Sep 07, 2012 09:45:32 pm
      When I was a young, angry, man Nirvana fed the fire.
      Back then I listened to Faith No More and Nirvana.

      I got into the likes of Smashing Pumpkins and Pearl Jam as I got older.
      In that time I had a more layered taste in music.

      I would put both ahead of Nirvana.

      To answer the question:
      Pearl Jam, because no matter my mood
      or feeling there is always Pearl Jam music
      to suit it.

      Nirvana for me was always the soundtrack of rebellion.
      Pearl Jam got me through life and everything else.
      Roddenberry
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****

      • 16,568 posts | 1876 
      Re: Pearl Jam v Nirvana
      Reply #7: Sep 07, 2012 09:49:29 pm
      I'm leaving this decision to Weird Al, he hasn't done a Pearl Jam parody, though he has done a Nirvana parody, therefore Nirvana...but he did do a song called My Baby's In Love With Eddie Vedder which does muddy the water a little.

      "Weird Al" Yankovic - Smells Like Nirvana

      Weird Al Yankovic - My Baby's In Love With Eddie Vedder

      The Nirvana parody is superb though, from the video, the performance & the lyrics.
      Scotia
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 8,970 posts | 3054 
      Re: Pearl Jam v Nirvana
      Reply #8: Sep 07, 2012 09:56:18 pm
      It's Nirvana obviously - some of it still makes me almost feel that same pain

      MacEnroe v Connors - Connors achieved more but he never made it look that good
      Bostonian
      • Forum Youth Player

      • 15 posts |
      Re: Pearl Jam v Nirvana
      Reply #9: Sep 08, 2012 01:28:56 am
      other than coming from the pacific north -west they shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence. Nirvana piss on 'em.
      TheRedMosquito
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****

      • 12,201 posts | 633 
      • Elmore James got nothin' on this baby!
      Re: Pearl Jam v Nirvana
      Reply #10: Sep 08, 2012 03:05:01 am
      They're not really the same type of band. It's tough to compare a trio and 5-piece band. Both are considered "grunge" but I've always felt that wasn't an accurate description for either. That really applies to every Seattle band that gets labeled "grunge." None of them are alike in my book.

      Nirvana are important for breaking the 80s funk in rock and deserve credit for that, but I've always preferred Pearl Jam. To me they're better musically and lyrically, and each member of Pearl Jam was/is a very good musician. Dave Grohl was the obvious stand-out from Nirvana. Fantastic drummer and now a frontman for one of the best bands around. That's pure talent.

      I'm a guitarist myself, so that's another reason I like Pearl Jam. The play of Stone Gossard on rhythm and Mike McCready on lead is quality. I believe Kurt Cobain once got pissy about Pearl Jam to a reporter because they had a lot of guitar solos or something.

      I'd take "Alive" over anything in the Nirvana catalog, personally, but I totally understand the love for Nirvana. 
      racerx34
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 33,603 posts | 3843 
      • THE SALT IN THE SOUP
      Re: Pearl Jam v Nirvana
      Reply #11: Sep 08, 2012 10:22:32 am
      Having read the following, your username now makes sense.
      Brilliant.

      They're not really the same type of band. It's tough to compare a trio and 5-piece band. Both are considered "grunge" but I've always felt that wasn't an accurate description for either. That really applies to every Seattle band that gets labeled "grunge." None of them are alike in my book.

      Nirvana are important for breaking the 80s funk in rock and deserve credit for that, but I've always preferred Pearl Jam. To me they're better musically and lyrically, and each member of Pearl Jam was/is a very good musician. Dave Grohl was the obvious stand-out from Nirvana. Fantastic drummer and now a frontman for one of the best bands around. That's pure talent.

      I'm a guitarist myself, so that's another reason I like Pearl Jam. The play of Stone Gossard on rhythm and Mike McCready on lead is quality. I believe Kurt Cobain once got pissy about Pearl Jam to a reporter because they had a lot of guitar solos or something.

      I'd take "Alive" over anything in the Nirvana catalog, personally, but I totally understand the love for Nirvana. 
      Scotia
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 8,970 posts | 3054 
      Re: Pearl Jam v Nirvana
      Reply #12: Sep 08, 2012 05:02:46 pm
      They're not really the same type of band. It's tough to compare a trio and 5-piece band. Both are considered "grunge" but I've always felt that wasn't an accurate description for either. That really applies to every Seattle band that gets labeled "grunge." None of them are alike in my book.

      Nirvana are important for breaking the 80s funk in rock and deserve credit for that, but I've always preferred Pearl Jam. To me they're better musically and lyrically, and each member of Pearl Jam was/is a very good musician. Dave Grohl was the obvious stand-out from Nirvana. Fantastic drummer and now a frontman for one of the best bands around. That's pure talent.

      I'm a guitarist myself, so that's another reason I like Pearl Jam. The play of Stone Gossard on rhythm and Mike McCready on lead is quality. I believe Kurt Cobain once got pissy about Pearl Jam to a reporter because they had a lot of guitar solos or something.

      I'd take "Alive" over anything in the Nirvana catalog, personally, but I totally understand the love for Nirvana. 

      Can't compete with the technical music knowledge but I am obsessed with listening to it always have been. One of the upsides of being 11 yrs younger than my nearest brother was that I got to knock his stuff and pass it off as mine as a kid automatically making me the coolest kid in class - for the one day a term we were allowed to bring our own stuff in to listen to!

      Your observations make sense and I always enjoy that sort of chat with my nephew who plays drums and guitar in a band and does quite a lot of session work.

      I just look for music to stir something or in some cases for the writing (lyrics) to make me think. I was late to Nirvana - just before the end but the combo of writing and the instrument that was Kurt Cobains voice still have a raw authenticity to me that Pearl Jam don't quite reach. Top band though.
      bigvYNWA
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 16,795 posts | 994 
      Re: Pearl Jam v Nirvana
      Reply #13: Sep 28, 2012 11:16:39 pm
      Like Diego, Nirvana was the first band I really got addicted to in early high school. Then Pearl Jam came not long after. For raw impact, some of Nirvana's stuff is still amazing. I still have them on high rotation. But having seen Pearl Jam live as well, I have a lot of respect for them and what they do. An AMAZING show, some of the highest energy I've seen on stage - and considering at that point they'd been going for 15 years already, rare to see that enthusiasm continue. So I think Pearl may just get the nod for the fact they are still around and doing good stuff, but taking nothing away from Nirvana - an absolutely boss and iconic band, and one that deserves to live on in our music libraries for generations more.
      Arrie
      • Forum Legend - Fagan
      • *****

      • 2,763 posts | 64 
      • Being safe is risky nowadays.
      Re: Pearl Jam v Nirvana
      Reply #14: Sep 29, 2012 09:36:18 am
      Nirvana's impact musically and socially was (and is) far greater than Pearl Jam's. Nirvana was sui generis and Pearl Jam, while a really good band, is, you know, just a band. They've released some good albums and done a lot of good work, they've spawned countless deep-voiced imitators over the years and have, no doubt, made an impact on the musical and cultural landscape. But they weren't as groundbreaking as Nirvana. From the outset their music was more melodic, accessible and radio-friendly. They never really risked alienating the press - and fans - that were attracted to them by espousing unpopular opinions, they never made an album that pushed their artistry outside of their comfort zone. Pearl Jam was, in some ways, an entry point into "alternative music" for mainstream audiences that found Nirvana a little too hard to listen to. That's not to disparage what Pearl Jam does, nor their talent, just to say that they are now, and have always been, very audience-friendly.

      Nirvana was the kind of band - and Kurt the kind of artist - that was going to follow his brutal muse wherever it took him, regardless of what the audience thought. Who can speculate what drives anyone to suicide (conspiracy theories aside)? But if Kurt had survived his demons rather than succumb to them I think he would have followed his creative instincts in some very interesting directions and gone on to create new sounds and offer new perspectives. I don't think Nirvana would have stayed together for 20 years, I think Kurt would have gotten restless with the constraints of the cultural moment that put his band on the map and explored new genres and territories. But who can say?
      Reprobate
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****

      • 11,055 posts | 436 
      • Avatar by Kitster29@Deviantart.com
      Re: Pearl Jam v Nirvana
      Reply #15: Sep 29, 2012 10:47:15 am
      Nirvana's impact musically and socially was (and is) far greater than Pearl Jam's. Nirvana was sui generis and Pearl Jam, while a really good band, is, you know, just a band. They've released some good albums and done a lot of good work, they've spawned countless deep-voiced imitators over the years and have, no doubt, made an impact on the musical and cultural landscape. But they weren't as groundbreaking as Nirvana. From the outset their music was more melodic, accessible and radio-friendly. They never really risked alienating the press - and fans - that were attracted to them by espousing unpopular opinions, they never made an album that pushed their artistry outside of their comfort zone. Pearl Jam was, in some ways, an entry point into "alternative music" for mainstream audiences that found Nirvana a little too hard to listen to. That's not to disparage what Pearl Jam does, nor their talent, just to say that they are now, and have always been, very audience-friendly.

      Nirvana was the kind of band - and Kurt the kind of artist - that was going to follow his brutal muse wherever it took him, regardless of what the audience thought. Who can speculate what drives anyone to suicide (conspiracy theories aside)? But if Kurt had survived his demons rather than succumb to them I think he would have followed his creative instincts in some very interesting directions and gone on to create new sounds and offer new perspectives. I don't think Nirvana would have stayed together for 20 years, I think Kurt would have gotten restless with the constraints of the cultural moment that put his band on the map and explored new genres and territories. But who can say?

      Although I agree with EVERYTHING you've just said about Nirvana, I think you're being a but unfair on Pearl Jam. Nowadays their music is 'safe' and environmental activism will never exactly be cool but they were very outspoken on political matters back in the day. They have been massively influential musically and although they faced accusations of hopping on the grunge scene bandwagon, the truth is they were very much at the core of it and spawned a thousand copies, especially vocally. Not only that but they often rebelled against the music industry which we NOW appreciate is fu**ed. They refused to make music videos and when they finally bowed to the fans pleas and made the video for Jeremy, it got banned.Ty
      They may not have had the drug-fueled rebel status of bands like Nirvana but they were no safe, industry friendly hippies.

      « Last Edit: Sep 29, 2012 10:57:44 am by Reprobate »
      Diego LFC
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****

      • 19,332 posts | 2832 
      • Sempre Liverpool
      Re: Pearl Jam v Nirvana
      Reply #16: Sep 29, 2012 05:11:37 pm
      Nirvana's impact musically and socially was (and is) far greater than Pearl Jam's. Nirvana was sui generis and Pearl Jam, while a really good band, is, you know, just a band. They've released some good albums and done a lot of good work, they've spawned countless deep-voiced imitators over the years and have, no doubt, made an impact on the musical and cultural landscape. But they weren't as groundbreaking as Nirvana. From the outset their music was more melodic, accessible and radio-friendly. They never really risked alienating the press - and fans - that were attracted to them by espousing unpopular opinions, they never made an album that pushed their artistry outside of their comfort zone. Pearl Jam was, in some ways, an entry point into "alternative music" for mainstream audiences that found Nirvana a little too hard to listen to. That's not to disparage what Pearl Jam does, nor their talent, just to say that they are now, and have always been, very audience-friendly.

      Nirvana was the kind of band - and Kurt the kind of artist - that was going to follow his brutal muse wherever it took him, regardless of what the audience thought. Who can speculate what drives anyone to suicide (conspiracy theories aside)? But if Kurt had survived his demons rather than succumb to them I think he would have followed his creative instincts in some very interesting directions and gone on to create new sounds and offer new perspectives. I don't think Nirvana would have stayed together for 20 years, I think Kurt would have gotten restless with the constraints of the cultural moment that put his band on the map and explored new genres and territories. But who can say?

      Great take on Nirvana there.

      That's one of the main reasons I just don't see the fuss about Foo Fighters at all.

      They're just a worse, radio-friendly version of grunge rock music. Music for teenagers. I mean, I kinda like them, and even saw them live years ago, but they're also "just" a band, as you said.
      TheRedMosquito
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****

      • 12,201 posts | 633 
      • Elmore James got nothin' on this baby!
      Re: Pearl Jam v Nirvana
      Reply #17: Sep 30, 2012 03:13:49 pm
      Arrie I think you're totally wrong about Pearl Jam!

      Nirvana's impact musically and socially was (and is) far greater than Pearl Jam's. Nirvana was sui generis and Pearl Jam, while a really good band, is, you know, just a band. They've released some good albums and done a lot of good work, they've spawned countless deep-voiced imitators over the years and have, no doubt, made an impact on the musical and cultural landscape. But they weren't as groundbreaking as Nirvana. From the outset their music was more melodic, accessible and radio-friendly.

      I wouldn't say PJ's music was more "radio-friendly." "Ten" and "Vs" are very angry albums, dealing with some pretty deep stuff. If anything, it was their musical ability and genuine talent that makes them easier to play on the radio.

      They never really risked alienating the press - and fans - that were attracted to them by espousing unpopular opinions

      They took on Ticketmaster for out-pricing their fans (and eventually lost that battle and some popularity). They took on the music industry and stopped making music videos once "Jeremy" was censored (btw, that song also deals with some deep stuff if you know the back story). Making videos in the 90s was the best way to gain new fans and popularity.

      They're also very political and make no bones about which politicians in the US they support and dislike. "Riot Act" was pretty much an entirely political album.

      they never made an album that pushed their artistry outside of their comfort zone.

      You've probably never listened to their fourth album, "No Code." It is unlike anything any Seattle band had done up to that point, wasn't popular, yet IMO is arguably some of their best music. Songs like "Who You Are" and "In My Tree" are very different. Musically, it is something else and something very different than previous stuff. It was a total push outside their boundaries and as a result it's still very much panned by critics and fans. Some like it, others hate it.
      racerx34
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 33,603 posts | 3843 
      • THE SALT IN THE SOUP
      Re: Pearl Jam v Nirvana
      Reply #18: Oct 01, 2012 01:28:30 pm
      Arrie I think you're totally wrong about Pearl Jam!

      I wouldn't say PJ's music was more "radio-friendly." "Ten" and "Vs" are very angry albums, dealing with some pretty deep stuff. If anything, it was their musical ability and genuine talent that makes them easier to play on the radio.

      They took on Ticketmaster for out-pricing their fans (and eventually lost that battle and some popularity). They took on the music industry and stopped making music videos once "Jeremy" was censored (btw, that song also deals with some deep stuff if you know the back story). Making videos in the 90s was the best way to gain new fans and popularity.

      They're also very political and make no bones about which politicians in the US they support and dislike. "Riot Act" was pretty much an entirely political album.

      You've probably never listened to their fourth album, "No Code." It is unlike anything any Seattle band had done up to that point, wasn't popular, yet IMO is arguably some of their best music. Songs like "Who You Are" and "In My Tree" are very different. Musically, it is something else and something very different than previous stuff. It was a total push outside their boundaries and as a result it's still very much panned by critics and fans. Some like it, others hate it.

      Saved me a hungover attempt that what would have been a poor version of that post.
      Thank you.
      racerx34
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 33,603 posts | 3843 
      • THE SALT IN THE SOUP
      Re: Pearl Jam v Nirvana
      Reply #19: Oct 01, 2012 02:05:20 pm
      From the outset their music was more melodic, accessible and radio-friendly.


      Is that not the argument put forward by Cobain when challenged on Pearl Jam's popularity.
      Seems most fans bought into it.

      If you could align them a section in Grunge then

      Nirvana - Punk
      Soundgarden - Heavy Metal
      Pearl Jam - Traditional

      would be how the music media would probably line them up.
      In truth Pearl Jam also had punk influences throughout the band and
      Soundgarden played with Pearl Jam to make Temple of the Dog.

      Of course we all have our preferences but I don't buy into the Pearl Jam
      only being considered better because they were "audience friendly" or
      "being radio friendly made them popular".

      They are the best band in the world because they are F***ing good.
      They can do an angry song or an "unpopular song" as good as anyone.
      They can also put together a heartfelt melody as good as anyone and
      they can do every bit of music in between.
      racerx34
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 33,603 posts | 3843 
      • THE SALT IN THE SOUP
      Re: Pearl Jam v Nirvana
      Reply #20: Oct 01, 2012 02:11:41 pm
      Pearl Jam - Do The Evolution

      Nirvana - Heart Shaped Box

      Ok I needed some videos in here.
      Both are F***ing boss.

      racerx34
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 33,603 posts | 3843 
      • THE SALT IN THE SOUP
      Re: Pearl Jam v Nirvana
      Reply #21: Oct 01, 2012 02:20:35 pm
      Actually when it comes go Grunge this was my gateway song if that's what we are calling them.
      I listened to Nirvana well before I listened to Pearl Jam.

      Nirvana - In Bloom

      racerx34
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 33,603 posts | 3843 
      • THE SALT IN THE SOUP
      Re: Pearl Jam v Nirvana
      Reply #22: Oct 01, 2012 02:28:32 pm
      These were the songs that got me into Pearl Jam originally:

      Pearl Jam - Rearviewmirror


      Pearl Jam - Go
      Drum and bass driven rock at its best.

      Quick Reply