Pearl Jam Vs Guns N Roses - A Debate

SoapMakesUTaller

What do you guys think? http://www.wickedinfo.com/content/view/324/1/1/1/

Pearl Jam vs. Guns N' Roses - A Debate Print E-mail
Written by Simon Thorn & Steve Angell
Nov 18, 2008 at 12:04 AM
Article Index
Pearl Jam vs. Guns N' Roses - A Debate
Page 2
Page 1 of 2

It's on!

Steve: Simon and I don't always agree on everything, but usually we can accept each other's opinion even if we don't necessarily agree with them. This time, however, we are out to prove each other wrong. In the status of great bands, Simon believes that Pearl Jam is a better band than Guns N' Roses, while I wholeheartedly disagree. We intend to throw our best arguments out there in an attempt to prove the other wrong, and come to an agreement for once and for all on which band is greater.

I'll start this argument off, and I'll leave sales statistics and chart positions out of the equation; since those don't necessarily distinguish a great band (especially when it comes to pop, hip hop acts, etc.). Instead, my first argument in favor of Guns N' Roses is that they are and have always been a captivating rock band in a time when great rock bands have gone missing. Watch any live performance of Guns N' Roses (whether old lineup or new) and you'll see a show that is unrivaled by any other. Whfether it's Axl running across the stage, or Robin Finck jumping into the crowd at the end of a concert, they put on a show that is worth remembering. And when you add the mystique of Guns N' Roses, with their controversial concerts (cancelled shows and or late starts), it's evident that this may be the last true rock band (for rock was meant to be rebellious in nature). There are few greater feelings than waiting two hours after the opening band has completed their set, when the thoughts of a cancellation are looming in the mind, and then all hell breaks loose when the first few chords of "Welcome To The Jungle" pummel through the night like an unstoppable train.

Simon: Well Steve, so far we can agree so far on one thing, this article has been brewing for a long time. You know very well that the Wicked Info office has had more than one blow up over it and sadly, sometimes innocents get hurt in the fracas (I don't think that intern will ever be able to have kids now). So let's settle this one now and forever. I take great solace in knowing (as always) that I'm 100% right.

First, you're absolutely correct on the fact that you cannot determine a winner based on total album sales (GN'R dominates in this category). If that was the defining criteria for supremacy, Kenny G would be champion over Jay Z, Britney Spears would trump Bob Dylan, The Village People would eviscerate Eminem, The Backstreet Boys would demolish The Police, and KC and the Sunshine Pearl JamBand would be superior to Johnny Cash. Do you see the inherent error with that sort of logic? If not, you must reeeeeeally like "(Shake, Shake, Shake) Shake Your Booty," and you have my most heartfelt sympathy.

Secondly, I will also concede that if you were to ask 100 people on the street which band they liked better, the great majority would say Guns N' Roses. But, and this is a huge but (insert sophomoric pun here) if you were to follow up with the salient question of "Why do you like them better" I'm sure you'd get a huge sample of "I don't know, I just do." You would find that people are basing their vote on the band's notoriety and not their body of work. Go ahead and dare them to name more than two GN'R songs and you'll discover that they can't.
Here's my first ballast: Eddie has a superior voice.

Eddie Vedder has a once in a generation voice. Described as a "golden baritone," he is 100% unmistakable. So unambiguous is Vedder that you know instantly you're listening to Pearl Jam and no one else. Whether softly flowing on tracks like "Betterman," or tearing it up on "Even Flow," Eddie simply has no peer.

Rose of the other hand, has amazing range, but it's nothing we haven't heard before. In fact, I bet it you took a sample group and had them listen to song snippets by The Scorpions, Def Leopard, Motley Crew, Poison, etc., they couldn't make out Axl from the rest of that crap metal. While talented, Rose does not possess a voice which stands out amongst his fellow spandex wearing brethren.

Steve: Wow Simon, of all the arguments you could make I never in the world thought you'd argue that Axl has a "common" sound. Axl, in fact, has a very unmistakable sound and, as you said, a lot of range. As far as the public not being able to name more than two Guns N' Roses songs? You've got to be kidding me on that one. The public can name more than two songs on GN'R's debut album Appetite For Destruction alone. You have at least "Sweet Child O' Mine," "Welcome To The Jungle," and "Paradise City." I'd venture that a large number of people would also be familiar with "Mr. Brownstone," "It's So Easy," "Nightrain," and "Rocket Queen."Axl Rose and Robin Finck

That leads me to my next point, while Eddie Vedder does have a great voice, it doesn't break any barriers. On the other hand, compare Axl on "It's So Easy," "Welcome To The Jungle," and "November Rain," and you'll see a small portion of the vocal ability that Axl has. The first few times I listed to "It's So Easy" I thought there were two or three singers performing on that song. Nope, all Axl (again, showing his range).

SoapMakesUTaller

It goes on for longer;

And let me make another point before passing the burden back to you, Guns N' Roses make great songs. And no, I'm not just talking about the songs that people hear on the radio. One of the greatest detractors in the Guns N' Roses argument over the years is that they only had three and a half albums of original material (Appetite For Destruction, Lies EP, and Use Your Illusion I & II), but now with their upcoming album, Chinese Democracy, on its way that argument won't be able to be used anymore. At the same time, how relevant of an argument was it? Not only did you get the well-known hit songs by GN'R including the aforementioned hits ‘Welcome To The Jungle," "Sweet Child O' Mine," "Paradise City," "Mr. Brownstone," and "November Rain," but you also got such great songs as:

Patience
Estranged
Don't Cry (both versions)
Locomotive
Coma
Civil War
Don't Damn Me
You Could Be Mine

Many fans would also make an argument for "Breakdown," "14 Years," "Yesterdays," and the phenomenal remake of Dylan's "Knockin' On Heaven's Door.' There's just no comparison when you rate the quality of those songs to Pearl Jam, and the diverse nature of them (from ballad to hard rocker, and at times politically poignant as with "Civil War").

Simon: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'd like to present to you one of the most blatant pieces of GN'R propaganda I've ever heard: "I'd venture that a large number of people would also be familiar with ‘Mr. Brownstone,' ‘It's So Easy,' ‘Nightrain,' and ‘Rocket Queen.'"

If I didn't know that was coming from you Steve, I'd swear it would have been Mr. Rose's publicist. You're not just sippin' the Kool-Aid, you should be busting through a brick wall screaming "Oh, yeah!" Your statement falls apart in every section of society (except for GN'R fanboy sites).

To your other point, why is it necessary for Vedder's voice to "break any barriers"? Did Sinatra? Nope, Ol' blue eyes just sounded above and beyond his modern craftsmen, but no one claimed "Holy damn! That Frank kid is re-defining what I thought my auditory experience could ever be!" Rose may have more chameleon-like vocals, but he can also be painfully shrill (some of his songs sound like someone is grinding his nuts in a blender). I'm also not a fan of that feminine sound he affects so often. If I wanted to hear a grown man sing like a lady, I could spin some of my Bee Gees discs. Vedder's sound is smooth, controlled, and powerful (it's akin to wrapping your ears up in a warm acoustic blanket).Eddie Vedder

Rating the quality of songs? That's a tough and subjective minefield. Here's a quick two song sample.

"Jeremy" vs. "Welcome to the Jungle" (a.k.a The definitive Pearl Jam and Guns N' Roses songs)

"Jeremy" spoke poignantly about the angst felt by the youth of our nation. Based on two true stories, it spun a tale of behavior which was chillingly played out in locations such as Columbine, CO. The song is plaintive, powerful, and unlike GN'R's tunes, doesn't sound the least bit dated.

"Welcome to the Jungle," is a not so touching song about...wait for it... Los Angeles. It admits nothing, stands for nothing, oh and it's also played at every major sporting event over and over again. Admittedly, it's much easier to listen to the GN'R ditty in mass rotation, but there's a key reason behind that: it has no substance (not that's there's anything wrong with that. Sometimes all you wanna' do is raaawk out).

"Daughter" vs. "One in a Million" (a.k.a The songs with ugly protagonists)

"Daughter," Vedder's song features a protagonist who is abusive to his daughter with learning disabilities. This is one of those songs that you absolutely love... until you hear the artist's revelation about its meaning. It's still an amazing listen and far superior to...

"One in a Million," Rose's song about getting hustled in the Greyhound Bus station in the city of (you guessed it) Los Angeles, features homophobic and racist slang that would make any KKK member squeal with glee. Axl actually defended his use of the "N Bomb," stating he used the word to symbolize "somebody that is basically a pain in your life, a problem... the word n*gger doesn't necessarily mean black." Rose didn't have such a "non-threatening" spin for his protagonists attack on homosexuals whom he called "faggots," who were "spread[ing] some f*ckin' disease." Ouch! Enough said.

Okay, let's flip this bad boy back to you. While you answer, I'm going to do my impression of Axl and smack around Stephanie Seymour. (Just kidding.)

Steve: Simon, I noticed that in your accusation of me being some sort of publicist for Axl that you left out three of the songs I mentioned from Appetite For Destruction. I'll take that to mean that you already admit that you were wrong about the general publicAxl Rose not knowing more than two songs by Guns N' Roses. It's a small step, but at least you're getting closer to accepting that you're wrong in this debate.

In fact, a look at two of our local stations in Phoenix (KDKB and KUPD) shows that Guns N' Roses still gets quite a bit of airplay, and not just off of the "well-known" songs that you mention. During one 24-hour stretch, KDKB played 6 different GN'R songs a total of 8 different times ("Civil War," "Chinese Democracy" 3 times, "November Rain," "Sweet Child O' Mine," "Patience," and "Paradise City") and KUPD played GN'R 3 times ("You Could Be Mine," "Welcome To The Jungle," and "Sweet Child O' Mine"). In comparison, KDKB played Pearl Jam twice ("Even Flow" and "Daughter") and KUPD played them 3 times ("Alive," "Corduroy," and "Even Flow").

Considering that a large number of GN'R songs continue to get airplay, I think I've proven once and for all that your "nobody can name 3 songs" point is incorrect. In fact, your statement that GN'R songs sound dated is laughable as well. We're not talking about "Ice Ice Baby" or "Baby Got Back" here; we're talking about some songs that stand the test of time. "Civil War" could be a song that would be just as valid today as it was 17 years ago, and it still wouldn't sound dated. Listen to the song "Coma" and tell me what sounds dated in it. At the same time, anytime you hear Pearl Jam or Nirvana on the radio, the first things you think of are the early 90's and Seattle. I have nothing against grunge, I like it and, coincidentally, even Axl was a fan of Nirvana. But Pearl Jam's sound is very distinct to a specific time, and that is the very definition of the word "dated."

SoapMakesUTaller

And finally...

I also notice that you're beginning to grasp at straws by dragging Axl through the mud, instead of focusing on the topic at hand (that being that Guns N' Roses is a far superior band). You conveniently left out another quote by Axl that stated that new pressings of the Lies album would not include the song "One In A Million." You also didn't mention that he's also performed with Elton John since that album was released and has always been a big fan of Freddie Mercury, so he obviously doesn't have "homophobia" as you try to imply. Not to mention the fact that a key speech by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. will be heavily featured in GN'R's new song "Madagascar" on the album Chinese Democracy. A speech, by the way, that the King family had to personally allow Guns N' Roses to use. I think it's fair to say that we've all made mistakes in our past, and what matters is if we've learned from them; it's clear, in this regard, that a few lines from an old GN'R song are not the true feelings of Axl Rose. If you took the time to look into Axl's early childhood trauma, instead of settling for the Wikipedia version, you may understand why some of his statements early on were a bit naïve, and why even back as far as 1992 he said that "One In A Million" was "not a song I would write now."

Also, since you're beginning to sound like a PR person yourself for Eddie Vedder's singing abilities, guess who made Rolling Stone's list of the 100 greatest singers. If you guessed Mr. Vedder you would be wrong, but a certain Axl Rose did make the cut. And just so you don't get too upset over this snub, Hit Parader did list Eddie Vedder as the 23rd best singer in their "Heavy Metal's All-Time 100 Vocalists" list. Of course, they also listed Axl Rose in the 11th spot, so it seems that quite a few other people share my high opinion of Mr. Rose's singing abilities.

Finally, let me briefly touch on your accusation of Guns N' Roses' songs not having substance. While some of their songs are about "rawking out" as you say, you have to be kidding if you think that none of their songs have substance. Forgetting for a moment that most of Appetite For Destruction was written about the true life experiences of the band members ("Mr. Brownstone," "Rocket Queen," "Welcome To The Jungle," "My Michelle," etc.), there are plenty of other songs that can fill your Vedder shaped hole. I've already mentioned "Civil War" a couple times, but it's worth mentioning again; also, let me throw "November Rain," "Estranged," "Don't Damn Me," and "Locomotive" out there for you to chew upon. GN'R may not be into story telling like Pearl Jam is, but there's no denying that GN'R have some songs with truly outstanding lyrics; and, besides, I didn't think you still needed bedtime stories to go to sleep.

So how about it Simon, ready to cede the argument?
Pearl Jammin'
Simon: Cede? No. Shut my trap? Well, it always a good time for that (plus the Lakers game is tonight and I have to hop on the freeway pronto. I'm gonna' flip on KNX 1070 for some traffic scoop). But in closing, my first declaration about Vedder's voice and presence is all anyone really needs to know. To me, a band is nothing more than the lead singer and nearly all other criteria is superfluous drivel. Change out Eddie for Axl on any GN'R song and I'd instantly like it better. It's simply a matter of choice (and mine reigns supreme over all others).

I should also note that during several informal polls, my theory was correct as the overwhelming majority of people could not name even two GN'R songs. Comments that made me guffaw were "Isn't that the band Bret Michaels is in?" and "I like their one song "Smokin' in the Boys Room." I'm sure to such a fervent fan like you, it must seem like everyone is delirious about this band, but the stark reality reveals that this is exceedingly far from the truth. Guns and Roses is a phenomenal group lead by a musical genius, but this is 2008, not 1988.

Axl liked Pearl Jam, eh? Well I guess I can forgive him for those horrible dreadlocks he's been sporting for years. Speaking of Mr. Rose, yes, I didn't dig much deeper than his Wikipedia page and yes, I flung more mud than a pig on a cocaine binge (and for that I'm 42.8% sorry), but in my defense, I couldn't bear to study up too much on GN'R due to a severe case of ihavealife-itis (it's my personal cross to bear).

I could finish with Pearl Jam's noble stance against Ticketmaster (has any recent band been so selfless and fan friendly? And no Guns and Roses giving out a free Dr. Pepper with the release of Chinese Democracy isn't even close) or toast them for their incredibly ridiculous first name "Mookie Blaylock," (man, remember him when he played for the Hawks? The dude was a three point shootin' gunslinger who would pick your pockets clean) but alas, to what end would that do?

I can see in this debate I brought a hand grenade to a full-scale nuclear melee and you've really earned my respect (just not my opinion).

Steve: Well Simon, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this topic. I will end by stating that I think you're wrong yet again about a band being nothing more than the lead singer. Are you telling me that Slash's solo in "Sweet Child O' Mine," or Axl's piano playing in "November Rain" were nothing special? A band is a sum of all its members, and the lineup of Guns N' Roses is nothing short of greatness (whether you consider the makeup of their original lineup, or their 21st century makeup, which even Izzy Stradlin has stated performs better than the originals). Plus, there's no way you could replace Axl with Eddie. It's not just about the voice (which we'll have to disagree upon, even though I provided some very valid examples in support of my argument), but also about the genius behind the Axl Rose and Richard Fortuslyrics and musical arrangement that Axl provides. In that regard I'll say that you're close to being right in the case of Guns N' Roses, Axl has always been the catalyst of the band and is what propels them to greatness.

As far as your "informal" polls, I'm not really surprised with what you heard as a response. First of all, the majority of those people asked probably don't listen to rock or alternative music that frequently (if it doesn't hip-hop or pop nowadays, it's not worthy of the scrupulous ears of the iPod generation). Without trying to offend anyone, I usually tend to believe that 40% of the population at any given time knows nothing, and it's the majority that actually knows of what they're speaking. It's not always the same 40% mind you (since people have their own strengths of knowledge), but you can't deny this fact. To help my cause I could point out the Jay Leno "Jaywalking" segments, or the "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire" audience polls, but I'm sure you'd argue those as well. Instead, think of this: in a recent poll, 36% of those asked thought that the Republicans were currently in control of Congress (they haven't been for over 2 years). Those were people that were voting in the 2008 election mind you, not children in a class room.

And finally, if you asked those same people "Who painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel?" and they couldn't give a correct answer, would that take away the greatness of Michelangelo? No, I believe Michelangelo's greatness would stay intact, which is what our debate was about here - the greatness of two bands. On the sum of its parts, Guns N' Roses emerges as a better band. You even admitted at the very beginning of this debate that "the great majority" would say Guns N' Roses is a better band. Guns N' Roses at the end of the day is much better in terms of showmanship, musical ability, and rock n' roll attitude. You can say that Pearl Jam is better, and while I respect your opinion, the great majority would disagree. Just as you could convince a few people to eat horse dung because you say it's tasty, the rest of the public isn't going to buy into, or eat that horseshit.

FrankieJ

PEARL JAM!!!!

Duh!

LukinFan

way to much to read

unifiedscene

That dude defending Pearl Jam got his ass kicked. He basically said Ed's voice is better and Axl is a douchebag. The GnR guy killed him with smart arguments that had plenty of substance and the PJ guy didn't even try to respond. He could have too. Damn, it's embarrassing to have such a weak defense of the boys on that webpage.

Back_Pedal

Comparing Guns N' Roses to Pearl Jam is apples to oranges. Both great bands in their own respects.

NorthShoreBlues

in the immortal words of Kurt Kobain: "guns and roses suck".

tvismyfriend

I'm suprised he didn't take a shot at the GnR still getting air time point. The band just came out with a new album, so a lot of stations are going to play their songs.

unifiedscene

tvismyfriend wrote:

I'm suprised he didn't take a shot at the GnR still getting air time point. The band just came out with a new album, so a lot of stations are going to play their songs.

That thought occurred to me too... as well as the counterpoint that sometimes when you've waited 2 hours after the opening band for GnR... you don't hear Welcome to the Jungle because they don't show up at all. If there was one golden opportunity for a rebuttal... it was talking about the live show. GnR may be good, but PJ are LEGENDARY for their live presence.

IWillLiveForeve

this isn't even a debate.

NothinGBetteRPJMaN

Yea the guy defending PJ definitely did a poor job.

"To me, a band is nothing more than the lead singer and nearly all other criteria is superfluous drivel."

wtf kind of statement is that?

lowlight1

NorthShoreBlues wrote:

in the immortal words of Kurt Kobain: "guns and roses suck".

Agree

Ok

Impossible to reach a "conclusion" when debating who's better. But I do know that I enjoyed Avacado more than G'N'R's current album.

PJStatTracker

Man, I was really looking forward to reading that...Pearl Jam is my favorite band, but GnR is definitely in my top five. The question asked is a legitimate one, I don't really feel it's comparing apples to oranges at all. The two bands have a lot of similarities...both hit the scene with monster debut albums, both have guitarists that are (arguably) the greatest of their respective era, both helped usher in a new style of rock, both have written some MONSTER rock anthems, and both are very much a product of their times.

Unfortunately, these two jokers spent all their time trying to come up with witty barbs rather than make any actual points. The two points I would make in a case for Pearl Jam's ultimate greatness are the unparalleled live shows and their subsequent release to the fans, the overall fan friendliness of the band, and in the case of Axl vs. Eddie - they are both great rock stars, but only one of them seems to be a great rock star AND a great person.

U R A Crazy Breed

First off, it's obvious that the chump representing Pearl Jam wasn't fit to do so!

comparing G n R to PJ is like comparing Milli Vanilli to Mozart...anyone attempting to do so is obviously still stuck in the late 80s/early 90s and has no depth to their musical taste!! PJ's best shit is from No Code and on...which it seemed neither of these clowns had ever heard any of their post 10/Vs material judging by their lame comments and song selections.I mean you can't really even call it a debate if both sides aren't versed on both subjects! I doubt this moron Steve is familiar with the full PJ catalog thus making him unable to make a true educated opinion.


"Guns N' Roses at the end of the day is much better in terms of showmanship, musical ability, and rock n' roll attitude." Steve

Ever see PJ live Steve?? of course not! then you'd see how badly your boys get blown out the water!




EH....some people just have shitty taste and you can futilely argue with them till you're blue in the face.

PJStatTracker

I agree that No Code on is their best stuff...

...meanwhile Chinese Democracy feels like the music equivalent of the new Star Wars films.

Spaghetti Incident also has a lot of garbage...their first four albums are rock solid all the way through though...My first concert ever was old school GnR in '92...good times. Then I saw PJ in '93 and never looked back...

NotoriousIMP

I cant compare the two. G n'R, which i like, to me is like semi hair band / metal. For me they were the bridge from shit ass poison to a great band like metallica. While PJ is more of a "Classic Rock" band. ie, stones, who, zeppelin.
Anyway my 2 cent, remember opinions are like assholes, everybodys got one.

halszka123

NotoriousIMP wrote:

I cant compare the two. G n'R, which i like, to me is like semi hair band / metal. For me they were the bridge from shit ass poison to a great band like metallica. While PJ is more of a "Classic Rock" band. ie, stones, who, zeppelin.
Anyway my 2 cent, remember opinions are like assholes, everybodys got one.

I agree 100%. I didn't know the sentence about assholes - it's great:) and true

Anyway - i really don't understand the idea of comparing these two bands. For what?
And I can't be objective - I liked G'n'R, but definitely with Slash (big respect to the guitar), but I couldn't compare any band to PJ - just because for me They are the best. And nobody can convince me They are not, I'm too blind for arguments

PJStatTracker

halszka123 wrote:

I agree 100%. I didn't know the sentence about assholes - it's great:) and true

Anyway - i really don't understand the idea of comparing these two bands. For what?
And I can't be objective - I liked G'n'R, but definitely with Slash (big respect to the guitar), but I couldn't compare any band to PJ - just because for me They are the best. And nobody can convince me They are not, I'm too blind for arguments

Yeah, i don't think GnR is gonna get too many votes around here...but they're both in the upper echelon of rock bands no matter how you slice it. Personal tastes aside you can't deny either bands influence, and both are hall of fame bound. Which is also pretty meaningless...

hrd2imgn

could they bring up any worse examples of comparisons?

Axl's voice is grade A Shit, but unmistakable

Guns live is an epic event...saw them at Alpine and almost never wanted to see a live act again after that shit fest. Light don't make and act nor do big set props

I will sit on the fence and say they are both kick ass rock bands but here is my comparison

Live: PJ hands down
commercial success- Guns lets face it with the stink out there about Chinese Democract after all these years of KFC wearing guitarist Guns has always had a buzz factor about them PJ did not

Catalogue: PJ- both have some amazing songs, Pearl Jam just has a lot more


Rock and Roll factor: Push, yes Guns is more unpredicatable and fuck you ass hole, but what Pearl Jam has done to fight the power should never be overlooked- See Jeff testifying in his headband. They may not come out and say "Why don't you just fuck off" ala Axl, but Bu$hleaguer was pretty much saying the same thing to the President

Shitty Outfits- Axl and his Spandex/Mesh, versus Jeff and his spandex and furry hats...gotta give this to Axl sorry. Really do you want to win this category anyhow?

ryan198

Isn't this argument sort of the preclusionary fight that Pearl Jam fans could have with DMB fans? By that I mean GNR was the biggest rock band in the world until PJ and Nirvana took it from them, and DMB/Blues Traveler (for a very brief moment they were often played back-to-back with DMB) likewise. For a small period all of these bands had the SUV drivin', backward hat wearin', pot smokin' frat boys attending their concerts. What makes a band greater than another in my opinion, is quality music over a longer period of time. Thus, for small periods of time, GNR, Nirvana, and so on were probably better than PJ, but on the grand scale I don't think it compares.

More to the point if Pearl Jam EVER made a song as poop as Chinese Democracy to be their big comeback song then the GNR defender could have a point...but they haven't, so he doesn't. This doesn't mean GNR wasn't great, that they don't put on a good show, and that their catalog is bad, BUT seriously Chinese Democracy? That's all the moronic Pearl Jam defender had to say. Oh well.

PJStatTracker

hrd2imgn wrote:

could they bring up any worse examples of comparisons?

Catalogue: PJ- both have some amazing songs, Pearl Jam just has a lot more


Rock and Roll factor: Push, yes Guns is more unpredicatable and fuck you ass hole, but what Pearl Jam has done to fight the power should never be overlooked- See Jeff testifying in his headband. They may not come out and say "Why don't you just fuck off" ala Axl, but Bu$hleaguer was pretty much saying the same thing to the President

yeah, those were horrible, ill-informed arguments from those guys for sure...

You are right on with your rock and roll factor point...I mean, Eddie was on the cover of Time for christ's sake, so they were definitely controversial for awhile, just not as in your face as Axl and Co.

as for their catalogs, while PJ has a much deeper (and in my opinion, better) catalog, I would argue that Guns has the bigger songs, especially the hits off of Appetite.

URthekey

OMG I just had this same debate (PJ vs. GNR) Wed at the High School where I work, w/a student of mine.

He had the new 'GNR' CD and was showin it off sayin they were better than PJ, ...meanwhile the only original memeber is Axl.

....and some guy called Buckethead....



I decided I'd burn him a few bootlegs,

AND SETTLE THIS SCORE!

PJStatTracker

ryan198 wrote:

More to the point if Pearl Jam EVER made a song as poop as Chinese Democracy to be their big comeback song then the GNR defender could have a point...but they haven't, so he doesn't. This doesn't mean GNR wasn't great, that they don't put on a good show, and that their catalog is bad, BUT seriously Chinese Democracy? That's all the moronic Pearl Jam defender had to say. Oh well.

Well, the counter argument to that is that Chinese Democracy isn't really a Guns N' Roses album...it's an Axl Rose album...GnR isn't really GnR without Slash and Duff and the rest...Velvet Revolver wasn't that great either, so I would say Slash needs Axl as much as Axl needs Slash...

I'm listening to Chinese Democracy right now, and it's not nearly as bad as I first thought. Although there is some real crap on here. "Better" and "Madagascar" are pretty good songs, though...not worth the wait, and he shouldn't be calling it Guns N' Roses....

youngster

LukinFan wrote:

way to much to read

Agreed. But I didn't have to read it to know that I chose Pearl Jam over GNR.

Joe2TheRevenge

NorthShoreBlues wrote:

in the immortal words of Kurt Kobain: "guns and roses suck".

Kurt Cobain is a hack.

Joe2TheRevenge

URthekey wrote:

....and some guy called Buckethead....

who happens to be one of the most skilled guitarists on the planet.

"some guy"....pfffft.

pjfan31

The dude who defended Pearl Jam was pretty rubbish.

I am obviously biased, but I have seen both in concert. And GNR was the worst band I have ever seen. Worst show ever.

And as for statistics "forfteen percent of all people know statistics are made up"

U R A Crazy Breed

jblagg wrote:

their first four albums are rock solid all the way through though.

I like their old shit too...it has it's place in time...but it's lack of sustenance when compared to PJ's catalog makes this debate laughable!

G n R is cock/arena rock...PJ is the thinking man's rock n' roll..like an artichoke with many layers compared to G n R's one layered banana.

unifiedscene

ryan198 wrote:

Isn't this argument sort of the preclusionary fight that Pearl Jam fans could have with DMB fans? By that I mean GNR was the biggest rock band in the world until PJ and Nirvana took it from them, and DMB/Blues Traveler (for a very brief moment they were often played back-to-back with DMB) likewise. For a small period all of these bands had the SUV drivin', backward hat wearin', pot smokin' frat boys attending their concerts. What makes a band greater than another in my opinion, is quality music over a longer period of time. Thus, for small periods of time, GNR, Nirvana, and so on were probably better than PJ, but on the grand scale I don't think it compares.

More to the point if Pearl Jam EVER made a song as poop as Chinese Democracy to be their big comeback song then the GNR defender could have a point...but they haven't, so he doesn't. This doesn't mean GNR wasn't great, that they don't put on a good show, and that their catalog is bad, BUT seriously Chinese Democracy? That's all the moronic Pearl Jam defender had to say. Oh well.

That's because Pearl Jam hasn't been able to make a comeback song, period, since fading into irrelevance the last few albums. Chinese Democracy (the album) is better than Riot Act and s/t combined.

But the highs of Pearl Jam's career trump anything GnR has ever done in terms of consistency and artistry.