Pearl jam is better than the beetles and rolling stone.

lukin2006

bicyclejoe wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

A pointless thread...but for PJ to topple the Stones, Beatles and so on they might first need to get into the top 10 which they aren't. What the Beatles did in their relatively short time as a band can't be toppled. They wrote more music in half the time than PJ.

And, just as importantly, The Beatles sparked a cultural revolution.

Pearl Jam is a phenomenal band, and they'd probably land somewhere in my top 10, but comparing them to The Beatles is ludicrous. Saying they're better is delusional.

Exactly...to list everything the Beatles accomplished for be a pretty long list. PJ is one of my favorite bands, but of active bands today i'm not even so sure their the best.

jshin

luke. wrote:

I'm sick of everybody mentioning these two bands when it comes to 'greatest band ever' arguments. I get it, the beetles wrote let it be and shit- so what, pearl jam wrote black, yellow Ledbetter and even flow- boom that just happened. Fuck off losers, pearl win based on the fact that they have more talent. The end

Considering that I've been a die-hard PJ fan for almost twenty years, I guess I agree with you. Why be so pissy about it though? There are far better ways to get your opinion out there.

p.s. What's this "Boom, that just happened", is that like "whoop there it is"?

Piper At The Gates

The people who say Pearl Jam are better obviously were born too late to know what the Beatles and The Stones meant in terms of music and how they actually changed music and the world, for that matter. Everybody listened to these groups in the 60's. An album release by either band was a major event. I don't think someone in their 20's or 30's can really understand that. They were the biggest groups of their time, and in that time music was a force for social change.
Yes PJ are a great band, My favorite band of this era, and they are a better live band than the Beatles, who were a studio band for the last 5 years of their existence. The Stones are way past their prime and have been since about 1980 but in the years 1969 - 1973, they were the greatest live act ever, but the torch has passed through many bands since then and PJ now have it.
George Harrison is no "Poor man's Stone Gossard", by any means. Harrison was a great, innovative guitarist who influenced many great players and was one of the best songwriters of all time, in a class with his bandmates Lennon and McCartney.

SVRDhand13

luke. wrote:

I'm sick of everybody mentioning these two bands when it comes to 'greatest band ever' arguments. I get it, the beetles wrote let it be and shit- so what, pearl jam wrote black, yellow Ledbetter and even flow- boom that just happened. Fuck off losers, pearl win based on the fact that they have more talent. The end

You have a lot to learn about The Beatles if you think Let It Be is either the best Beatles song or album.

William Wallace

If you would ask the Pearl Jam members if they think they are a better band than the Beatles or the Stones, they would laugh at you and answer: 'not even close'.
Pretty sure about this one.
And that's because they love music and know about the history of rock music, and the influence of these two bands on a generation and on society.

Pearl Jam is a great band, but clearly not as important as the Stones or the Beatles have been, and still are.

mysticweed

dwhite76 wrote:

well said....I guess :? I agree Pearl Jam is a better band and music makers that the Beatles and Stones. Its tough to judge Era's but if I had to go member by member PJ would win every spot.

The one spot those bands may win is exploiting themselves better than PJ. They were the real careerist.

yeah
it was a little harsh even for me

but i agree 100%

love-boat-captain

What a ridiculous post.

Oh, and it's spelt Beatles, and I think there's 5 guys who might just disagree, they're called Ed, Mike, Stone, Jeff and Matt.
Pearl Jam are by far my favourite band but this comparison should never be made, very childish.

brianjones

Nonsense. The fact that you feel the need to debate this 40+ years after the beatles & stones glory days proves the point...

And also, does it really matter? Go get some fresh air ans smile!

F5AgainstOne

luke. wrote:

I'm sick of everybody mentioning these two bands when it comes to 'greatest band ever' arguments. I get it, the beetles wrote let it be and shit- so what, pearl jam wrote black, yellow Ledbetter and even flow- boom that just happened. Fuck off losers, pearl win based on the fact that they have more talent. The end

Pearl Jam might be better than "The Beetles", but no way in hell they are better than The Beatles.

Sorry, I love both bands. I am a way bigger fan of PJ than I ever was for The Beatles.
But, the fact is The Beatles were MUCH better innovators, song writers, risk takers, trend setters... the list goes on.

F5AgainstOne

F5AgainstOne wrote:

luke. wrote:

I'm sick of everybody mentioning these two bands when it comes to 'greatest band ever' arguments. I get it, the beetles wrote let it be and shit- so what, pearl jam wrote black, yellow Ledbetter and even flow- boom that just happened. Fuck off losers, pearl win based on the fact that they have more talent. The end

Pearl Jam might be better than "The Beetles", but no way in hell they are better than The Beatles.

Sorry, I love both bands. I am a way bigger fan of PJ than I ever was for The Beatles.
But, the fact is The Beatles were MUCH better innovators, song writers, risk takers, trend setters... the list goes on.

Oh, and their 6 year career as a band has lasted 47+ years now.

Snoopy Died For Our Sins

Beatles

direwolf74

What a ridiculous thread. I adore Pearl Jam, and I think they're one of the greatest bands ever. But nobody can touch what the Beatles, the Stones (or Zeppelin for that matter) did in their heydey. Those bands changed music forever. Pearl Jam were merely part of a larger movement of bands that ushered in a brief shift in musical tastes, and the mainstream jumped on board. I give them credit for being the last remaining survivor of that era, but other than hardcore Pearl Jam nerds and knowledgeable music connoisseurs, I'd argue that the average mainstream music listener probably isn't even aware that Pearl Jam still exists.

F5AgainstOne

direwolf74 wrote:

but other than hardcore Pearl Jam nerds and knowledgeable music connoisseurs, I'd argue that the average mainstream music listener probably isn't even aware that Pearl Jam still exists.

Sad, but true.

Newch91

F5AgainstOne wrote:

F5AgainstOne wrote:

luke. wrote:

I'm sick of everybody mentioning these two bands when it comes to 'greatest band ever' arguments. I get it, the beetles wrote let it be and shit- so what, pearl jam wrote black, yellow Ledbetter and even flow- boom that just happened. Fuck off losers, pearl win based on the fact that they have more talent. The end

Pearl Jam might be better than "The Beetles", but no way in hell they are better than The Beatles.

Sorry, I love both bands. I am a way bigger fan of PJ than I ever was for The Beatles.
But, the fact is The Beatles were MUCH better innovators, song writers, risk takers, trend setters... the list goes on.

Oh, and their 6 year career as a band has lasted 47+ years now.

10, but 8 with Ringo.

luke.

whats with all the "pointless thread" posts?
- since when does any post have a point? and anyway who said a post had to have a point?
dont read it if it's considered too pointless for you.
AND finally - to use the argument, "pj wouldnt be here today if it weren't for blablabla" PLEASE - REALLY? thats confirmed is it? Did eddie and mike call you today and say - "o yeah by the way, i wouldnt have any talent if ringo fucking star wasn't born - and further, when i wrote black i was listening to satisfaction by the stones, and wondered how I could make the two sound similar without making it obvious..."
while we're at it, lets say that no bands would be here today (including the beatles) if it weren't for that guy in china thousands of years who tightened a bit of string around his tooth and his mums tooth and said "hey mum listen to this" and plucked the string thus generating vibration.
yeah... that just happened too

Hinn

One is a kind of insect.

The other is a pop culture magazine.

The comparison is stupid.

luke.

Hinn wrote:

One is a kind of insect.

The other is a pop culture magazine.

The comparison is stupid.

yeah i get it - i spelt their names wrong, thing is, i don't really care - get over it

the comparison is stupid?... yeah well done

peacefrompaul

The Beatles were so influential. They gave us a lot of really good music in a very small amount of time. Sometimes releasing two albums a year...

blastingfonda

What a lame-ass remark!

Thoughts_Arrive wrote:

George Harrison is a poor man's Stone Gossard.

to all that believe PJ is better then the beatles or the rollingstones; we'll see how far eddies' smoking and wine can carry him/them.

Plus dont forget about pink floyd and the kinks, that which PJ could never top in creativity.

-Buru-

TroubledSoul wrote:

They're better than the beetles. I've never heard anything by them.

The Beatles on the other hand...

For a moment you had me scratching my head, I was like really? Never heard anything?




Music is subjective. So these kinds of statements are somewhat pointless to me. I did not grow up with the Beatles or the Rolling Stones, but I do love songs by both of them (and I also dislike some of their songs). I prefer the Beatles over the Stones.

In terms of being influential, and changing the music scene, I think The Beatles and The Rolling Stones beat Pearl Jam - easily.

What do I like better? Pearl Jam, no contest. But that is another story.