pearl jam vs. nirvana

[franky4fingerz]

so what does everyone think? I will go with pearl jam in a heartbeat. Nirvana is really good but I think over time they have become overrated. This new generation (yes I know I'm part of it too) seems to favor nirvana witch too me is rather sad because it seems that nirvana is so famous cause of the whole ordeal over kurt, not because of there music. Pearl jam has stood the test of time and are still rockin. There songs too me are just so deep, one could listen to "alive" 20 times straight and not get the true meaning of it. They have helped me out through some very tough times and I cant say that about any other band. although nin will always help you loose some steam, nobody does it like the jam. what do you guys/girls think?

[therealjohng]

I think they both suck, but if I had to chose one I'd go with Pearl Jam. Nirvana is overrated and Eddie Vedder just pisses me off.

[one_crow_sorrow]

I don't listen to either one much anymore, but Pearl Jam.

[bourahioro]

I prefer Nirvana.

[Superplasmatron]

At the time pearl jam were all tie tye and perms and surfer shorts, I go with Nirvana as Kurt was as much about promoting the bands he was into as much as promoting himself, Its a shame he was such as sad person and that his daugher has no daddy, It ashame hes now a martyar to losers, he was a very talented guy who would have go on to be worth the rating he earned, but this nirvana vs pearl jam crap ainnt relivent ,

maybe Nirvana vs Foo Fighters

[echo_bravo]

Nirvana easily.

I really cant stand Eddie Vedder.

[LordSimen]

Personally I'd take Alice in Chains over either of them but Pearl Jam wins for me.

[franky4fingerz]

Alice in chains was fantastic, really underrated. The whole grunge scene has been overshawoded by kurts ass, witch is horrible. how can someone not stand vedder? thats insane.

[Cobretti]

Originally posted by therealjohng
I think they both suck,

[Kings-Rook1]

Originally posted by echo_bravo
I really cant stand Eddie Vedder.

Right on echo_bravo; Pearl Jam's good, but Eddie and his antics and rhetoric piss me off sometimes. Nirvana’s nihilistic tone, and old root punk energy win over my anarchistic angst! Nirvana is the flag barriers for the post punk youth of the nineties. Pearl Jam is grunge for the masses; it’s good, polished and coherent. All I want is the raw purity of truth.

[XHendrix24]

Pixies.

[therealjohng]

Originally posted by XHendrix24
Pixies.


Fuckin right. The Pixies own.

[powersauce]

Originally posted by franky4fingerz
I will go with pearl jam in a heartbeat. Nirvana is really good but I think over time they have become overrated. This new generation (yes I know I'm part of it too) seems to favor nirvana witch too me is rather sad because it seems that nirvana is so famous cause of the whole ordeal over kurt, not because of there music. Pearl jam has stood the test of time and are still rockin.

I agree with what you said. I think they've gotten better over the years since the mid 90s. Their earlier albums are good but they pale in comparison to what they've done since Vitalogy. That's where they really found their sound IMO. However, Yield will always be my favorite and Given To Fly is my favorite song of theirs.

Another thing that ticks me off about that "generation" is that they pay attention to Nevermind but seem to ignore the much better In Utero.

However, my unorthodox answer in all of this will always be Smashing Pumpkins.

[franky4fingerz]

in utero is indeed better than nevermind by a long shot. given to fly is one of my fave pearl songs as well (however nothing can touch yellow ledbetter and black). Its weird to hear someone say pearl jams later work is better than there old work. I'm with you on that. most people would say ten is the fave jam cd. My fave is no code. most people wouldnt know what the no code is.

[jolanar]

Nirvana.

I don't "get" Pearl Jam.

[Elgyn]

Well in my mind they both had completely different vibes, I don`t even think they are comparable (besides the fact that they were popular at the same time).
Nirvana was very punky, verse-chorus-verse, not that that`s a bad thing, as their songs had a lot of real emotion to them.
Pearl Jam is a totally different animal, very 70s-rock-ish with a completely different sound than Nirvana.

Personally I`ll go with Pearl Jam, though their last two albums are almost depressingly medicore compared to their older stuff. Nirvana just gets stale to me if I listen to them too much.

But Smashing Pumpkins and Pixies beat them both IMO.

[Kings-Rook1]

Originally posted by Elgyn
Well in my mind they both had completely different vibes, I don`t even think they are comparable (besides the fact that they were popular at the same time).

Couldn't have said it better...Give me some Mudhoney or Green River any day.

[notchreturns]

Nirvana, big time.
Pearl Jam never did much for me.

[BadCoverVersion]

Originally posted by Roy L Dennis
At the time pearl jam were all tie tye and perms and surfer shorts, I go with Nirvana as Kurt was as much about promoting the bands he was into as much as promoting himself, Its a shame he was such as sad person and that his daugher has no daddy, It ashame hes now a martyar to losers, he was a very talented guy who would have go on to be worth the rating he earned, but this nirvana vs pearl jam crap ainnt relivent ,

maybe Nirvana vs Foo Fighters

Originally posted by notchreturns
Nirvana, big time.
Pearl Jam never did much for me.

It's a shame the kids worshipping Cobain these days are generally a bit of a joke, but I think the music stands up, and if he were alive today I think he would still hold a semi-iconic status...it's a combination of talent, look, attitude...he had all 3 in spades.

[outsyder]

Both great bands, but if asked this question, I'm going with Nirvana every time. And yes, although their popularity has kind of made their music cliche and spawned many many similar bands, their lesser known songs are suprisingly great.

[jeo4]

Pearl Jam. This isn't even a contest for me.

Oh, and I'm jumping on the Alice in Chains bandwagon too. They were better than either of the other two.

[Castro]

Originally posted by franky4fingerz
There songs too me are just so deep, one could listen to "alive" 20 times straight and not get the true meaning of it.
How could that be an argument for Pearl Jam being better than Nirvana?
Most of Cobain's lyrics are as hermetical to say the least. (or is 'nonsensical' the more fitting word here?)

[DrJellyfingers]

i'd go with pearl jam mostly because they've put out much more material, have consistently been good and put on one of the best live shows.

[JackassFan]

I like them both. If I HAD to choose I'd say Nirvana, though.

[Superplasmatron]

Originally posted by franky4fingerz
in utero is indeed better than nevermind by a long shot. given to fly is one of my fave pearl songs as well (however nothing can touch yellow ledbetter and black). Its weird to hear someone say pearl jams later work is better than there old work. I'm with you on that. most people would say ten is the fave jam cd. My fave is no code. most people wouldnt know what the no code is.

Its about his dad not being his dad and his mum though being a rubbish mum is still there for him?

[jaw2929]

Originally posted by outsyder
Both great bands, but if asked this question, I'm going with Nirvana every time. And yes, although their popularity has kind of made their music cliche and spawned many many similar bands, their lesser known songs are suprisingly great.

Aye exactly man... And love the avatar ;)

As far as lesser known songs, I love songs like Turn Around, Talk To Me, Do Re Mi, Son of a Gun, Territorial Pissings, Scentless Apprentice, D-7, etc.

[Superplasmatron]

Originally posted by Trail_Blazer
Aye exactly man... And love the avatar ;)

As far as lesser known songs, I love songs like Turn Around, Talk To Me, Do Re Mi, Son of a Gun, Territorial Pissings, Scentless Apprentice, D-7, etc.


3 of thoses you listed are cover versions.

[The Dude415]

Pearl Jam. Easily. Nirvana was a good band, but Cobain is overrated. His songwriting was where his true talent was. His singing and playing was mediocre at best.

PJ, on the other hand, has the perfect combination. The band can write great lyrics and hooks, Vedder was, possibly, the best of the grunge singers, and the Gossard/McCready duo are truly great, though underrated, guitarists. How anyone could listen to songs like Yellow Ledbetter or Given to Fly and not concede McCready's greatness is beyond me.

And as for the whole Nevermind/In Utero thing, frankly, I think Unplugged was Nirvana's best album. I know saying that is blasphemy and all, but here's how I look at it: Bleach is overrated, it has some good tracks, and a lot of just ok ones. Nevermind was a pretty solid album, with only a few songs being shitty filler. But as much as the bandmembers and everyone else may claim otherwise, you can tell from the production and such that having a hit was no accident, they wanted it. Nothing wrong with that, necessarily, but at least be honest about it. In Utero was Nirvana's attempt to move back to their older sound, to try to win back whatever fans may have been alienated by Nevermind. Once again, overall a very solid album. Unplugged, however, was a different monster entirely. My understanding is that Nirvana was the first alt-rock band that had ever done MTV Unplugged, and the ones that popularized it. Considering the punky background that Nirvana came from, playing their songs acoustically like that could've been a huge mistake. They could've sounded like shit; they didn't. The acoustic album could've lost them a sizable part of their original fan base; to the best of my knowledge, it didn't. The covers were all of relatively obscure songs, and I would argue that the majority of the covers were better than the originals (though I haven't heard the Vaselines song in it's original form, so I can't speak for that one). Unplugged, I think, was the first time since Bleach that Nirvana actually truly did their own thing, without worrying what the fans would think about it, or even possibly without worrying about having a hit.

[Superplasmatron]

Originally posted by The Dude415
Pearl Jam. Easily. Nirvana was a good band, but Cobain is overrated. His songwriting was where his true talent was. His singing and playing was mediocre at best.

PJ, on the other hand, has the perfect combination. The band can write great lyrics and hooks, Vedder was, possibly, the best of the grunge singers, and the Gossard/McCready duo are truly great, though underrated, guitarists. How anyone could listen to songs like Yellow Ledbetter or Given to Fly and not concede McCready's greatness is beyond me.

And as for the whole Nevermind/In Utero thing, frankly, I think Unplugged was Nirvana's best album. I know saying that is blasphemy and all, but here's how I look at it: Bleach is overrated, it has some good tracks, and a lot of just ok ones. Nevermind was a pretty solid album, with only a few songs being shitty filler. But as much as the bandmembers and everyone else may claim otherwise, you can tell from the production and such that having a hit was no accident, they wanted it. Nothing wrong with that, necessarily, but at least be honest about it. In Utero was Nirvana's attempt to move back to their older sound, to try to win back whatever fans may have been alienated by Nevermind. Once again, overall a very solid album. Unplugged, however, was a different monster entirely. My understanding is that Nirvana was the first alt-rock band that had ever done MTV Unplugged, and the ones that popularized it. Considering the punky background that Nirvana came from, playing their songs acoustically like that could've been a huge mistake. They could've sounded like shit; they didn't. The acoustic album could've lost them a sizable part of their original fan base; to the best of my knowledge, it didn't. The covers were all of relatively obscure songs, and I would argue that the majority of the covers were better than the originals (though I haven't heard the Vaselines song in it's original form, so I can't speak for that one). Unplugged, I think, was the first time since Bleach that Nirvana actually truly did their own thing, without worrying what the fans would think about it, or even possibly without worrying about having a hit.


I agree that unplugged is the best show case of nirvana, but I really think cobain had a much much better voice than vedder, I think kurts redition of oh me by the meat puppets is amazing, his singing on lehere did you sleep last night is outta sight. Pearl Jam are abit too pompus and too overblown and muddy, I like the purity and directness of nirvana I hate pompus noise, I want lego not macharno

[Out and About]

Nirvana was brilliant. Their music was amazing; Kurt's lyrics and vocals, Krist's bass playing, and (especially) Dave Grohl's drumming, combined to form something mind-blowing. They are easily one of the most influential bands of all time.

But when you compare them to Pearl Jam, there's really no comparison.

Pearl Jam wins, every time. :cool:

[Powerslave]

Originally posted by LordSimen
Personally I'd take Alice in Chains over either of them but Pearl Jam wins for me.
My thoughts exactly. I like both alot though, but Pearl Jam is better. AIC takes the grunge cake though.

[Sigur509]

Soundgarden mostly.

But Nirvana in this case.