we did it! Pearl Jam in Sweet 16 vs The Beatles!!!!! VOTE!!!

EddieBetterMan

hopethatuchoke wrote:

NewJPage wrote:

hopethatuchoke wrote:

I am a huge PJ fan but I couldn't in good conscience pick them over the Beatles for anything.

I also couldn't see myself spending time voting in an online popularity poll.

glad you found the time to tell us how you don't have time to vote in polls

Well actually I was inferring how ridiculous it was that anyone would choose PJ over the Beatles. The rest was just the hot fudge on top. Thanks
for your concern though.

Well actually the ones voting PJ are PJ fans first and everyone else 2nd. Has nothing to do with who is better. Obviously pj is better to us pj fans than the Beatles. Its a matter of taste. I take it ur a member of the Beatles fan club too right?

TheRealDanPatch

Black73 wrote:

Cameron4President wrote:

That's an unfair matchup

Right? How about The Who and Floyd? I guess to be the champ, you gotta beat the champ.

+1

Jason P

keeponrockin wrote:

... I voted Beatles.

NO!!!!

hopethatuchoke

pjeptx wrote:

Well actually the ones voting PJ are PJ fans first and everyone else 2nd. Has nothing to do with who is better. Obviously pj is better to us pj fans than the Beatles. Its a matter of taste. I take it ur a member of the Beatles fan club too right?

I think you would find a large number of Pearl Jam fans, including the band themselves, that will agree the Beatles are the better band. I'm not a diehard Beatles fan by any means, I just know who is the better band.

I truthfully don't care that much and don't want to argue about it. Your argument has merits, as does mine. Let's just be best friends.

WaveRyder

hopethatuchoke wrote:

pjeptx wrote:

Well actually the ones voting PJ are PJ fans first and everyone else 2nd. Has nothing to do with who is better. Obviously pj is better to us pj fans than the Beatles. Its a matter of taste. I take it ur a member of the Beatles fan club too right?

I think you would find a large number of Pearl Jam fans, including the band themselves, that will agree the Beatles are the better band. I'm not a diehard Beatles fan by any means, I just know who is the better band.

that's subjective. I would admit that The Beatles are way more popular, but that doesn't mean they are better. If you factor everything in, I'd say PJ are the champs. Longevity, concerts performed, albums sold, ethics, nostalgia, comradery, you name it, Pearl Jam is better. Matt Cameron or Ringo Starr. Give me Cameron any day of the week.

The real reason i like Pearl Jam more, bcause even after being the biggest thing since sliced bread, PJ didnt get all weird and big headed, something I cant say for The Beatles.

RedMosquito22

WaveRyder wrote:

hopethatuchoke wrote:

pjeptx wrote:

Well actually the ones voting PJ are PJ fans first and everyone else 2nd. Has nothing to do with who is better. Obviously pj is better to us pj fans than the Beatles. Its a matter of taste. I take it ur a member of the Beatles fan club too right?

I think you would find a large number of Pearl Jam fans, including the band themselves, that will agree the Beatles are the better band. I'm not a diehard Beatles fan by any means, I just know who is the better band.

that's subjective. I would admit that The Beatles are way more popular, but that doesn't mean they are better. If you factor everything in, I'd say PJ are the champs. Longevity, concerts performed, albums sold, ethics, nostalgia, comradery, you name it, Pearl Jam is better. Matt Cameron or Ringo Starr. Give me Cameron any day of the week.

The real reason i like Pearl Jam more, bcause even after being the biggest thing since sliced bread, PJ didnt get all weird and big headed, something I cant say for The Beatles.

Hold on a second...........You are aware that The Beatles couldn't tour right? They couldn't even hear themselves on stage for the longest time and by the time they could it was just a hassle for them. You can't even imagine what their fame was like. And you said albums sold and nostalgia? Are you out of your mind? Ethics? Was their a bigger advocate for World Peace than John Lennon? I think you may want to ease up on the the pipe hitting a bit. I don't think you really want to compare John's and Paul's solo career vs Ed do you? Let's be honest Ed's first solo record was 30 minutes long and had 2 cover songs on it.

I love Pearl Jam but this comparison is silly at best and they themselves would tell you the same thing. Do you like Pearl Jam's music better, possibly but to even think PJ's impact is even close to the Beatles is laughable.

pjradio

still 70-30 beatles

RedMosquito22

pjradio wrote:

still 70-30 beatles

That's about right. Listen, getting 30% against The Beatles is quite an accomplishment honestly.

WaveRyder

RedMosquito22 wrote:

WaveRyder wrote:

that's subjective. I would admit that The Beatles are way more popular, but that doesn't mean they are better. If you factor everything in, I'd say PJ are the champs. Longevity, concerts performed, albums sold, ethics, nostalgia, comradery, you name it, Pearl Jam is better. Matt Cameron or Ringo Starr. Give me Cameron any day of the week.

The real reason i like Pearl Jam more, bcause even after being the biggest thing since sliced bread, PJ didnt get all weird and big headed, something I cant say for The Beatles.

Hold on a second...........You are aware that The Beatles couldn't tour right? They couldn't even hear themselves on stage for the longest time and by the time they could it was just a hassle for them. You can't even imagine what their fame was like. And you said albums sold and nostalgia? Are you out of your mind? Ethics? Was their a bigger advocate for World Peace than John Lennon? I think you may want to ease up on the the pipe hitting a bit. I don't think you really want to compare John's and Paul's solo career vs Ed do you? Let's be honest Ed's first solo record was 30 minutes long and had 2 cover songs on it.

I love Pearl Jam but this comparison is silly at best and they themselves would tell you the same thing. Do you like Pearl Jam's music better, possibly but to even think PJ's impact is even close to the Beatles is laughable.

Were you in The Beatles or something?

The reason why Ed's solo career isn't much is because he has been in a band for 20 years. If Ed would have got big headed like Paul and Lennon and quit the band after only 10 years he'd probably have 5 solo albums out by now, but maybe not. Wasn't Into the Wild made for a movie? I still consider it a movie soundtrack more than i consider it a solo album.

Ill say it until the day i die, THE BEATLES ARE OVERRATED!!! :twisted:

DewieCox

WaveRyder wrote:

that's subjective. I would admit that The Beatles are way more popular, but that doesn't mean they are better. If you factor everything in, I'd say PJ are the champs. Longevity, concerts performed, albums sold, ethics, nostalgia, comradery, you name it, Pearl Jam is better. Matt Cameron or Ringo Starr. Give me Cameron any day of the week.

The real reason i like Pearl Jam more, bcause even after being the biggest thing since sliced bread, PJ didnt get all weird and big headed, something I cant say for The Beatles.

Funny you don't mention musicianship, songwriting or overall creativity... Ya know....Things that actually make great bands.

Most of the ones you point out are even questionable....Albums sold?? Don't have any idea about specific numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Beatles have outsold PJ counting only their compilations.

Longevity can kinda work against PJ, considering the Beatles out as much music in half the time.

NewJPage

WaveRyder wrote:

RedMosquito22 wrote:

WaveRyder wrote:

that's subjective. I would admit that The Beatles are way more popular, but that doesn't mean they are better. If you factor everything in, I'd say PJ are the champs. Longevity, concerts performed, albums sold, ethics, nostalgia, comradery, you name it, Pearl Jam is better. Matt Cameron or Ringo Starr. Give me Cameron any day of the week.

The real reason i like Pearl Jam more, bcause even after being the biggest thing since sliced bread, PJ didnt get all weird and big headed, something I cant say for The Beatles.

Hold on a second...........You are aware that The Beatles couldn't tour right? They couldn't even hear themselves on stage for the longest time and by the time they could it was just a hassle for them. You can't even imagine what their fame was like. And you said albums sold and nostalgia? Are you out of your mind? Ethics? Was their a bigger advocate for World Peace than John Lennon? I think you may want to ease up on the the pipe hitting a bit. I don't think you really want to compare John's and Paul's solo career vs Ed do you? Let's be honest Ed's first solo record was 30 minutes long and had 2 cover songs on it.

I love Pearl Jam but this comparison is silly at best and they themselves would tell you the same thing. Do you like Pearl Jam's music better, possibly but to even think PJ's impact is even close to the Beatles is laughable.

Were you in The Beatles or something?

The reason why Ed's solo career isn't much is because he has been in a band for 20 years. If Ed would have got big headed like Paul and Lennon and quit the band after only 10 years he'd probably have 5 solo albums out by now, but maybe not. Wasn't Into the Wild made for a movie? I still consider it a movie soundtrack more than i consider it a solo album.

Ill say it until the day i die, THE BEATLES ARE OVERRATED!!! :twisted:

dude, you are forcing me to agree with hopethatuchoke and redmosquito22 in the same thread! the horror!

everything mosquito said is correct. their musical output is far larger than PJs in half the time, and side 2 of abbey road is maybe the best 20 minutes of music in the history of rock.

Newch91

RedMosquito22 wrote:

WaveRyder wrote:

hopethatuchoke wrote:

I think you would find a large number of Pearl Jam fans, including the band themselves, that will agree the Beatles are the better band. I'm not a diehard Beatles fan by any means, I just know who is the better band.

that's subjective. I would admit that The Beatles are way more popular, but that doesn't mean they are better. If you factor everything in, I'd say PJ are the champs. Longevity, concerts performed, albums sold, ethics, nostalgia, comradery, you name it, Pearl Jam is better. Matt Cameron or Ringo Starr. Give me Cameron any day of the week.

The real reason i like Pearl Jam more, bcause even after being the biggest thing since sliced bread, PJ didnt get all weird and big headed, something I cant say for The Beatles.

Hold on a second...........You are aware that The Beatles couldn't tour right? They couldn't even hear themselves on stage for the longest time and by the time they could it was just a hassle for them. You can't even imagine what their fame was like. And you said albums sold and nostalgia? Are you out of your mind? Ethics? Was their a bigger advocate for World Peace than John Lennon? I think you may want to ease up on the the pipe hitting a bit. I don't think you really want to compare John's and Paul's solo career vs Ed do you? Let's be honest Ed's first solo record was 30 minutes long and had 2 cover songs on it.

I love Pearl Jam but this comparison is silly at best and they themselves would tell you the same thing. Do you like Pearl Jam's music better, possibly but to even think PJ's impact is even close to the Beatles is laughable.

Absolutely right on everything you said about The Beatles touring and advocacy Red Mosquito. I'll also add that in their early days in Hamburg, The Beatles had to do 6, 7 hour sets a night for months straight.

And to albums sold: 1.3 BILLION for The Beatles vs. 60 MILLION for Pearl Jam. And don't forget The Beatles are the only band/artist to hold the top 5 spots of the Billboard Hot 100 singles chart.

WaveRyder

DewieCox wrote:

WaveRyder wrote:

that's subjective. I would admit that The Beatles are way more popular, but that doesn't mean they are better. If you factor everything in, I'd say PJ are the champs. Longevity, concerts performed, albums sold, ethics, nostalgia, comradery, you name it, Pearl Jam is better. Matt Cameron or Ringo Starr. Give me Cameron any day of the week.

The real reason i like Pearl Jam more, bcause even after being the biggest thing since sliced bread, PJ didnt get all weird and big headed, something I cant say for The Beatles.

Funny you don't mention musicianship, songwriting or overall creativity... Ya know....Things that actually make great bands.

because that is all subjective. and there are way more Pearl Jam songs that give me chills than Beatles tunes. And that is my subjective opinion. I listed things that can be calculated precisely and Pearl Jam wins.

RedMosquito22

It's about time you agree with me. hahahahaha

Listen I understand if people like PJ more, hell I do. But there is no way I'd be moronic enough to say they are more influential or better in any way. The Beatles will forever be considered the best band ever. I honestly think the only band that even comes close at times are The Stones in polls.

WaveRyder

RedMosquito22 wrote:

It's about time you agree with me. hahahahaha

Listen I understand if people like PJ more, hell I do. But there is no way I'd be moronic enough to say they are more influential or better in any way. The Beatles will forever be considered the best band ever. I honestly think the only band that even comes close at times are The Stones in polls.

never said they were more influential. give it 50 years and then that'll probably be true

NewJPage

RedMosquito22 wrote:

It's about time you agree with me. hahahahaha

Listen I understand if people like PJ more, hell I do. But there is no way I'd be moronic enough to say they are more influential or better in any way. The Beatles will forever be considered the best band ever. I honestly think the only band that even comes close at times are The Stones in polls.

yep. as much bullshit is in those constant rolling stone top whatever polls, the one thing they got right in the top 500 albums was having 5 beatles albums in the top ten

DewieCox

WaveRyder wrote:

DewieCox wrote:

WaveRyder wrote:

that's subjective. I would admit that The Beatles are way more popular, but that doesn't mean they are better. If you factor everything in, I'd say PJ are the champs. Longevity, concerts performed, albums sold, ethics, nostalgia, comradery, you name it, Pearl Jam is better. Matt Cameron or Ringo Starr. Give me Cameron any day of the week.

The real reason i like Pearl Jam more, bcause even after being the biggest thing since sliced bread, PJ didnt get all weird and big headed, something I cant say for The Beatles.

Funny you don't mention musicianship, songwriting or overall creativity... Ya know....Things that actually make great bands.

because that is all subjective. and there are way more Pearl Jam songs that give me chills than Beatles tunes. And that is my subjective opinion. I listed things that can be calculated precisely and Pearl Jam wins.

Ethics, nostalgia, and comradery cannot be calculated precisely, even if they could PJ'd lose.

Ethics....John wrote the book
Nostalgia.....There are musicals based on the Beatles music, they drop and album today it's goin #1
Comradery.....PJ's been through how many drummers??


I would say the things I pointed out are less subjective. The Beatles wrote great songs, were trailblazers and are about as technically accomplished as mainstream rock gets, with a few exceptions.

WaveRyder

DewieCox wrote:

WaveRyder wrote:

DewieCox wrote:

Funny you don't mention musicianship, songwriting or overall creativity... Ya know....Things that actually make great bands.

because that is all subjective. and there are way more Pearl Jam songs that give me chills than Beatles tunes. And that is my subjective opinion. I listed things that can be calculated precisely and Pearl Jam wins.

Ethics, nostalgia, and comradery cannot be calculated precisely, even if they could PJ'd lose.

Ethics....John wrote the book
Nostalgia.....There are musicals based on the Beatles music, they drop and album today it's goin #1
Comradery.....PJ's been through how many drummers??


I would say the things I pointed out are less subjective. The Beatles wrote great songs, were trailblazers and are about as technically accomplished as mainstream rock gets, with a few exceptions.

Ethics - carbon mitigation, merchandise being made by high-waged labor (and the quality doesnt relfect it), PJ plays at how many benefits, Stone builds houses on the poorest indian reservations in the country.

Nostalgia - yeah, i shouldnt have listed that, totally subjective

Comradery - They have been through a ton of drummers, but PJ with Matt has still been together longer than The Beatles and they only had to keep 4 ppl together. Pearl Jam has kept 4 ppl together for 20 years and 5 ppl together for 12 years.

RedMosquito22

The members of the Beatles have probably given more money to Charity then the members of Pearl Jam have made in their career. Come on dude.

http://www.paulmccartney.com/charities.php

neilybabes86

beatles blow