"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
Nirvana's was good because of all the great covers they did.
Pearl Jam's was good because of the passion and energy.
Alice In Chains' was good because it had Layne...
Chicago 2000 : Chicago 2003 : Chicago 2006 : Summerfest 2006 : Lollapalooza 2007 : Chicago 2009 : Noblesville (Indy) 2010 : PJ20 (East Troy) 2011 : Wrigley Field 2013 : Milwaukee (Yield) 2014 : Wrigley Field 2016
I think Nirvana's makes for a better album. thay had cello, accordion, Meat Puppets as guests and performed more songs. plus The Man Who Sold the World wasn't 100% unplugged. it just sounds like a richer, fuller record.
but with the rawness of PJ I'd say they gave a better performance.. if that makes sense..
Out of curiosity, does anyone rank the MTV performance as their favorite "unplugged" from Pearl Jam's career? I personally would take Benaroya Hall, Mansfield III, and all seven Bridge School appearances (92, 94, 96, 99, 01, 06, 10) over the MTV Unplugged any day of the week. In light of those other "unplugged" shows, the MTV performance seems one dimensional and lacking a lot of the elements that ultimately make Pearl Jam so engaging in a setting like that.
I can understand if someone says they prefer the MTV appearance for nostalgic or emotional reasons, but I'm genuinely curious as to whether or not anyone truly thinks it's their finest "unplugged" hour, and if so, why?
Dave G really made the Nirvana one with his playing.Dave A kinda just smashed his drums regardless of the situation.To me Nirvana's was a true unplugged and Pearl Jam's was just a show with acoustics guitars.
looking to hear of the earth
0
Options
rick1zoo2
between a rock and a dumb place Posts: 12,632
Opinion based: Nirvana, for me.
But if you look at it objectively, it's like comparing apples and oranges.
Nirvana - they had 3 albums out by then, so they were able to pick from a more diverse catalogue.
They had the whole set up - of cellos and other instruments. They had the Meat Puppets as guests.
They also performed more songs - which were all shown on TV, I think - including covers, so there was more variety and a chance for them to really change up some of their songs. Nirvana's was great - and is a beautiful album- because the music shone through, despite all the candles and extra bs littering the stage.
Kurt's voice and the way the songs had been arranged gave us a variety of moments - chilling, goosebumps, electrifying (in the "Where Did You Sleep Last Night" cover) and altogether, they did it like they had been doing it forever, like an older and maturer band, they had full control and it showed.
Pearl Jam - they had 1 album - so were limited on what they could do. In my opinion, they picked the perfect songs to do Unplugged, but they were really restricted to picking the "hits" - Alive, Jeremy, Even Flow - all played. Nirvana didn't have that pressure on them - they went the opposite way.
Pearl Jam were a relatively new band - to mainstream TV too, thus having to pick their hits.
They didn't have any extra instruments - just the 5 guys.
That being said - the energy, the passion in their set, is beyond anything I'd ever seen when I first watched it.
It blew me away and showed to me what they were capable of. A lot of that was due to Eddie - he completely bared himself and went out there.
Pearl Jam's Unplugged completely amazed me when I first saw/heard it.
Nirvana's Unplugged showed me a new side to the band, it's a beautiful album to listen to because of how "full and wholesome" it seems. It sounds more complete to me than PJ's.
Overall, it's two completely different things and it's hard to compare because both bands were in different places - Nirvana had this older sense to them, whereas the young naivety of Pearl Jam as a band was just as beautiful. And also, both bands were completely different. I prefer Nirvana's as an album, like Yarden said, but Pearl Jam's as a performance.
Nirvana by a mile, been one of my favourite albums since I was 13 years old.
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
Question should be Alice in Chains or anyone. That unplugged sounds so crisp. After that Nirvana but they did get 5 more songs. It would have been interesting to see PJ play 5 more, mainly covers.
AIC: A+
Nirvana: A
PJ: A-
Even more so, what five other PJ songs would you have wanted to hear is a great question...
Very good question. For me, in no particular order...
Release
Footsteps
I've got A Feeling (a cover, but an awesome one)
Yellow Ledbetter
Acoustic #1 (had it been written in 1992?)
...if you look at it objectively, it's like comparing apples and oranges.
Nirvana - they had 3 albums out by then, so they were able to pick from a more diverse catalogue.
They had the whole set up - of cellos and other instruments. They had the Meat Puppets as guests.
They also performed more songs - which were all shown on TV, I think - including covers, so there was more variety and a chance for them to really change up some of their songs. Nirvana's was great - and is a beautiful album- because the music shone through, despite all the candles and extra bs littering the stage.
Kurt's voice and the way the songs had been arranged gave us a variety of moments - chilling, goosebumps, electrifying (in the "Where Did You Sleep Last Night" cover) and altogether, they did it like they had been doing it forever, like an older and maturer band, they had full control and it showed.
Pearl Jam - they had 1 album - so were limited on what they could do. In my opinion, they picked the perfect songs to do Unplugged, but they were really restricted to picking the "hits" - Alive, Jeremy, Even Flow - all played. Nirvana didn't have that pressure on them - they went the opposite way.
Pearl Jam were a relatively new band - to mainstream TV too, thus having to pick their hits.
They didn't have any extra instruments - just the 5 guys.
That being said - the energy, the passion in their set, is beyond anything I'd ever seen when I first watched it.
It blew me away and showed to me what they were capable of. A lot of that was due to Eddie - he completely bared himself and went out there.
Pearl Jam's Unplugged completely amazed me when I first saw/heard it.
Nirvana's Unplugged showed me a new side to the band, it's a beautiful album to listen to because of how "full and wholesome" it seems. It sounds more complete to me than PJ's.
Overall, it's two completely different things and it's hard to compare because both bands were in different places - Nirvana had this older sense to them, whereas the young naivety of Pearl Jam as a band was just as beautiful. And also, both bands were completely different. I prefer Nirvana's as an album, like Yarden said, but Pearl Jam's as a performance.
I agree with this 100%
I love all 3 shows but I don't think you can compare PJ's Unplugged to Nirvana's or AIC's because of the vast differences in where they were in their careers. If Nirvana had recorded theirs after Bleach (or even just after Nevermind, when they'd had one 'hit' single) it would have been a very different show. And I'm sorry but if AIC had recorded theirs after Facelift... well, it would probably have sucked.
By the same token, if Pearl Jam had made their Unplugged at a similar point in their careers (preferably around No Code/Yield for me) there's no doubt it would be very different show as they would have tried a few diferent things, got more airtime and had a much wider range of songs to chose from.
“Do not postpone happiness”
(Jeff Tweedy, Sydney 2007)
My vote definitely goes to PJ...seriously one of the best versions of Porch EVER.
Yes I'm biased. No I don't really like Nirvana. In fact, the only album of theirs that I own is the Unplugged...but I still don't think it's better than Pearl Jam's.
WI '98, WI '99 (EV), WI '00, Chgo '00, MO '00, Champaign '03, Chgo '03, WI '03, IN '03, MI '04, Chgo '06:N1 & 2, WI '06, Chgo '07, Chgo '08 (EV:N1), Chgo '09:N1 & 2, Chgo '11 (EV:N1), WI '11:N1 & 2, Philly '12, Wrigley '13, Pitt '13, Buff '13, Detroit '14, MKE '14, Wrigley '16: N1 & N2, Seattle '18 N2, Wrigley '18: N1 & N2, Fenway '18 N1, STL '22, St Paul '23 N2, Chgo '23: N1 & N2
I have to say I prefer the PJ performance, It's still one of my favourite live performances ever, from anybody. I wonder if the Nirvana performance is being viewed in light of what has come to pass since? Undoubtedly it's a great show but just wondering.
I also often wonder what would have come of Nirvana had Kurt not passed away, would they still hold a place dear to our hearts like PJ obviously do or would they have become a sad parody of themselves like so many other once great bands have done? Answers on a postcard to........
I love Pearl Jam's, but it always felt so incomplete, I wished they had waited at least one more album before they did it.
Nirvana's is my personal favourite, pretty tough to watch after Kurt died, but it is an incredible performance. That bit at the end of Where Did You Sleep Last Night, where the music cuts out, the intensity in his eyes is absolutely spine-chilling.
I like both, but prefer Pearl Jam's because it seems to better sonically represent the "unplugged" concept.
I've seen the video of Nirvana...I see acoustic guitars, but what I hear sounds awfully electric. Maybe it's just me.
WTF?! Really? I'd say the EXACT opposite! Nirvana's sounds way closer to an acoustic performance, the drumming is significantly more restrained, the cello etc......
Pearl Jam may be my all time favourite band but for the Unplugged performance I'd rank it third behind Nirvana and my favourite by far AIC. I didn't know what to expect when Layne walked on looking like he already had one foot in the afterlife and I feared the worst but the atmosphere created by the band especially Layne and Jerry is pretty outstanding. It is very sad to watch but I do pretty often. Nirvana had the subtleties of Dave Grohl's talent and Pat Smear's professionalism not to mention the addition of the cellist to add a different dimension to the songs. They chose great covers and somehow bringing on The Meat Puppets for three songs worked without feeling like you were cheated out of what could have been more Nirvana songs. I love all three performances in addition to the also mentioned Neil Young and 10000 Maniacs but Dave Abruzzeze didn't do the job that perhaps Jack Irons would have for such a performance and the songs felt like slightly quieter versions of the electric versions. It is all about opinion at the end of the day but I find PJ's set a little too revered here and that is not to say that I don't appreciate it or enjoy it, I just wish they had done it after Vitalogy. (sorry that ended up so long)!!
PLEASE PLAY SCOTLAND 2012.....
Like a book among the many on a shelf...
Dublin 02 Arena - 22/6/10. Belfast Odyssey Arena - 23/6/10. London Hyde Park - 25/6/10. Berlin Wuhlheide - 30/6/10.
Manchester MEN - 20/06/12. Manchester MEN - 21/06/12
nirvana. I love the energy PJ's unplugged has, but the nirvana one has such a special mood to it...lots of personal memories attached to it too, they were the first band I really got into, and there was a time in my early teens when I'd watch that unplugged show almost every night.
Seeing as Pearl Jam are/were/is/was/forever will be the greater band.....the answer is Pearl Jam. People need to move on, the dude killed himself, we get it, so sad......when is Pearl Jam's new album coming out baby!!!!!!!!!!
Both top of the list for different reasons. Believe MTV should have waited until 1994 or so to do an unplugged for PJ. I believe they have been asked to do it again though, and knocked it back.
Also awesome are NY, ofcourse, Live, Stone Temple Pilots, and Midnight Oil.
PJ - Sydney 1998; Sydney 2003; Sydney, Melbourne, Newcastle 2006; Melbourne, Sydney 2009; Gold Coast, Melbourne, Sydney 2014.
EV - Canberra, Newcastle, Sydney 2011; Sydney 2014.
Comments
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
Pearl Jam's was good because of the passion and energy.
Alice In Chains' was good because it had Layne...
but with the rawness of PJ I'd say they gave a better performance.. if that makes sense..
6/29/03 - Montreal, QC 10/1/04 - Reading, PA
10/3/05 - Philadelphia, PA 5/12/06 - Albany, NY
6/27/08 - Hartford, CT (FRONT ROW CENTER!)
8/2/08 - (ev) Boston, MA 6/9/09 - (ev) Albany, NY
8/21/09 - Toronto, ON 5/10/10 - Buffalo, NY
I can understand if someone says they prefer the MTV appearance for nostalgic or emotional reasons, but I'm genuinely curious as to whether or not anyone truly thinks it's their finest "unplugged" hour, and if so, why?
thanks for the info
personally i think both unplugged are top notch
HAHAHAHA... classic
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=148599&p=3440539#p3440539
looks like someone is a big fan of kurt... but i'm guessing the nirvana boards are dead
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=145347&p=3343813#p3343813
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=43256&p=2693094#p2693094
But if you look at it objectively, it's like comparing apples and oranges.
Nirvana - they had 3 albums out by then, so they were able to pick from a more diverse catalogue.
They had the whole set up - of cellos and other instruments. They had the Meat Puppets as guests.
They also performed more songs - which were all shown on TV, I think - including covers, so there was more variety and a chance for them to really change up some of their songs. Nirvana's was great - and is a beautiful album- because the music shone through, despite all the candles and extra bs littering the stage.
Kurt's voice and the way the songs had been arranged gave us a variety of moments - chilling, goosebumps, electrifying (in the "Where Did You Sleep Last Night" cover) and altogether, they did it like they had been doing it forever, like an older and maturer band, they had full control and it showed.
Pearl Jam - they had 1 album - so were limited on what they could do. In my opinion, they picked the perfect songs to do Unplugged, but they were really restricted to picking the "hits" - Alive, Jeremy, Even Flow - all played. Nirvana didn't have that pressure on them - they went the opposite way.
Pearl Jam were a relatively new band - to mainstream TV too, thus having to pick their hits.
They didn't have any extra instruments - just the 5 guys.
That being said - the energy, the passion in their set, is beyond anything I'd ever seen when I first watched it.
It blew me away and showed to me what they were capable of. A lot of that was due to Eddie - he completely bared himself and went out there.
Pearl Jam's Unplugged completely amazed me when I first saw/heard it.
Nirvana's Unplugged showed me a new side to the band, it's a beautiful album to listen to because of how "full and wholesome" it seems. It sounds more complete to me than PJ's.
Overall, it's two completely different things and it's hard to compare because both bands were in different places - Nirvana had this older sense to them, whereas the young naivety of Pearl Jam as a band was just as beautiful. And also, both bands were completely different. I prefer Nirvana's as an album, like Yarden said, but Pearl Jam's as a performance.
Pearl Jam's has energy and immediacy; we we're riveted when it was on.
Very good question. For me, in no particular order...
Release
Footsteps
I've got A Feeling (a cover, but an awesome one)
Yellow Ledbetter
Acoustic #1 (had it been written in 1992?)
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
9/29/04 Boston, 6/28/08 Mansfield, 8/23/09 Chicago, 5/15/10 Hartford
5/17/10 Boston, 10/15/13 Worcester, 10/16/13 Worcester, 10/25/13 Hartford
8/5/16 Fenway, 8/7/16 Fenway
EV Solo: 6/16/11 Boston, 6/18/11 Hartford,
Nirvana
Alice In Chains
Neil Young
Pearl Jam
10,000 Maniacs
I love all 3 shows but I don't think you can compare PJ's Unplugged to Nirvana's or AIC's because of the vast differences in where they were in their careers. If Nirvana had recorded theirs after Bleach (or even just after Nevermind, when they'd had one 'hit' single) it would have been a very different show. And I'm sorry but if AIC had recorded theirs after Facelift... well, it would probably have sucked.
By the same token, if Pearl Jam had made their Unplugged at a similar point in their careers (preferably around No Code/Yield for me) there's no doubt it would be very different show as they would have tried a few diferent things, got more airtime and had a much wider range of songs to chose from.
(Jeff Tweedy, Sydney 2007)
“Put yer good money on the sunrise”
(Tim Rogers)
Yes I'm biased. No I don't really like Nirvana. In fact, the only album of theirs that I own is the Unplugged...but I still don't think it's better than Pearl Jam's.
I've seen the video of Nirvana...I see acoustic guitars, but what I hear sounds awfully electric. Maybe it's just me.
I also often wonder what would have come of Nirvana had Kurt not passed away, would they still hold a place dear to our hearts like PJ obviously do or would they have become a sad parody of themselves like so many other once great bands have done? Answers on a postcard to........
Nirvana's is my personal favourite, pretty tough to watch after Kurt died, but it is an incredible performance. That bit at the end of Where Did You Sleep Last Night, where the music cuts out, the intensity in his eyes is absolutely spine-chilling.
WTF?! Really? I'd say the EXACT opposite! Nirvana's sounds way closer to an acoustic performance, the drumming is significantly more restrained, the cello etc......
PLEASE PLAY SCOTLAND 2012.....
Dublin 02 Arena - 22/6/10. Belfast Odyssey Arena - 23/6/10. London Hyde Park - 25/6/10. Berlin Wuhlheide - 30/6/10.
Manchester MEN - 20/06/12. Manchester MEN - 21/06/12
Kurt sounded like Peter Brady.
The audience "woo-ing" at the Clapton unplugged still ruins EVERY live show you go to.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
Also awesome are NY, ofcourse, Live, Stone Temple Pilots, and Midnight Oil.
EV - Canberra, Newcastle, Sydney 2011; Sydney 2014.