Pearl jam is better than the beetles and rolling stone.

lukin2006

Mamasan80 wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

Ty wrote:

Who are The Beetles?

I don't know who they are.

But there is this band The Beatles from Liverpool that just changed music, a generation and how many thought about life.

It is worth mentioning that the ORIGINAL name Stuart Sutcliffe liked was "the Beetles", and for a few shows in 1960 they were billed as "Long John and the Beetles". I'm sure that's what the OP was referencing.

He could have called them The Quarrymen as well .

brianlux

Beatles, Stones, Pearl Jam. Interesting discussion which I hadn't seen until now. Just in terms of number of fans, records sold, that sort of thing, who else belongs in this list? The Who? U2? REM?

I have to say this- better is relative. I know I guy who swears The Replacements were the greatest band ever. I'm ok with that notion because I'm a 'Mats fan myself and may not agree but why why argue the point. I'm sure someone out there would say the same for Uriah Heap.*

*For ten points, can anyone tell us the Paul Westerberg/ Uriah Heap connection?

Mamasan80

brianlux wrote:

Beatles, Stones, Pearl Jam. Interesting discussion which I hadn't seen until now. Just in terms of number of fans, records sold, that sort of thing, who else belongs in this list? The Who? U2? REM?

I have to say this- better is relative. I know I guy who swears The Replacements were the greatest band ever. I'm ok with that notion because I'm a 'Mats fan myself and may not agree but why why argue the point. I'm sure someone out there would say the same for Uriah Heap.*

*For ten points, can anyone tell us the Paul Westerberg/ Uriah Heap connection?

In terms of records sold, Pearl Jam isn't even anywhere close to that list. We can say that's because the industry has changed, but in three years, Lady Gaga has already sold more records than Pearl Jam (64M to 60M and the gap will only get wider.) Believe it or not, the 300M club has the Beatles, Elvis, Michael Jackson, Elton John, Madonna, and Zeppelin (who most would expect)... and then Queen, and ABBA! I think we often forget on this message board about just how popular Pearl Jam is. They've definitely got a devoted legion of followers that probably numbers around 1 million worldwide... and that's NOTHING compared to the likes of Bruce Springsteen, U2, AC/DC, Metallica, or even Bon Jovi in terms of active artists.

brother123

without those bands Pearl Jam probably wouldn't have happened

or any other band after the Beatles

I don't quite care for those bands but to each his or her own

brianlux

Mamasan80 wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Beatles, Stones, Pearl Jam. Interesting discussion which I hadn't seen until now. Just in terms of number of fans, records sold, that sort of thing, who else belongs in this list? The Who? U2? REM?

I have to say this- better is relative. I know I guy who swears The Replacements were the greatest band ever. I'm ok with that notion because I'm a 'Mats fan myself and may not agree but why why argue the point. I'm sure someone out there would say the same for Uriah Heap.*

*For ten points, can anyone tell us the Paul Westerberg/ Uriah Heap connection?

In terms of records sold, Pearl Jam isn't even anywhere close to that list. We can say that's because the industry has changed, but in three years, Lady Gaga has already sold more records than Pearl Jam (64M to 60M and the gap will only get wider.) Believe it or not, the 300M club has the Beatles, Elvis, Michael Jackson, Elton John, Madonna, and Zeppelin (who most would expect)... and then Queen, and ABBA! I think we often forget on this message board about just how popular Pearl Jam is. They've definitely got a devoted legion of followers that probably numbers around 1 million worldwide... and that's NOTHING compared to the likes of Bruce Springsteen, U2, AC/DC, Metallica, or even Bon Jovi in terms of active artists.

Good point! I never thought of number of records sold etc. as having anything to do with greatness. To me, one of the greatest rock and roll bands ever is Mission of Burma but I can understand why they're not that big in terms of numbers.

fox_mulderX

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

first off, it's the beAtles. secondly, they wrote a hell of a lot more than just "let it be and shit". there's a reason why the beatles are always #1 when it comes to greatest/most influential/talent/originality rankings; its because they were all of the above. they changed the face of music and changed the direction of popular music as we know it. without them music today would look completely different. the beatles farted more talent than pearl jam will ever have. i love pearl jam, they're my favourite band, but let's be realistic here.
also, the stones kick ass, too. do some homework before posting such asinine comments in a thread.

fox_mulderX

marcos wrote:

Well the Beatles & Stones were influenced by Elvis, the King of Rock & Roll.

elvis might have been give the title of "the king", but everyone knows chuck berry was the true king. elvis didn't even write a lot of his songs.

CAVSTARR313

fox_mulderX wrote:

marcos wrote:

Well the Beatles & Stones were influenced by Elvis, the King of Rock & Roll.

elvis might have been give the title of "the king", but everyone knows chuck berry was the true king. elvis didn't even write a lot of his songs.

Elvis was a racist, roll-over bitch!!

Mamasan80

brianlux wrote:

Mamasan80 wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Beatles, Stones, Pearl Jam. Interesting discussion which I hadn't seen until now. Just in terms of number of fans, records sold, that sort of thing, who else belongs in this list? The Who? U2? REM?

I have to say this- better is relative. I know I guy who swears The Replacements were the greatest band ever. I'm ok with that notion because I'm a 'Mats fan myself and may not agree but why why argue the point. I'm sure someone out there would say the same for Uriah Heap.*

*For ten points, can anyone tell us the Paul Westerberg/ Uriah Heap connection?

In terms of records sold, Pearl Jam isn't even anywhere close to that list. We can say that's because the industry has changed, but in three years, Lady Gaga has already sold more records than Pearl Jam (64M to 60M and the gap will only get wider.) Believe it or not, the 300M club has the Beatles, Elvis, Michael Jackson, Elton John, Madonna, and Zeppelin (who most would expect)... and then Queen, and ABBA! I think we often forget on this message board about just how popular Pearl Jam is. They've definitely got a devoted legion of followers that probably numbers around 1 million worldwide... and that's NOTHING compared to the likes of Bruce Springsteen, U2, AC/DC, Metallica, or even Bon Jovi in terms of active artists.

Good point! I never thought of number of records sold etc. as having anything to do with greatness. To me, one of the greatest rock and roll bands ever is Mission of Burma but I can understand why they're not that big in terms of numbers.

I don't know if this was sarcastic or not, but my point was NOT that records sold have anything to do with greatness - I personally don't believe they do. My point was that the poster I was responding to was looping PJ in with the Beatles and the Stones "in terms of number of fans, records sold, that sort of thing" and the truth is that PJ, as much as we love them, is not on that level. Pearl Jam is an incredible band. They have moved me in ways that I never thought possible. It's been a great 20 years. In terms of connecting on a PERSONAL level, there will never be another Pearl Jam for me. They mean more to me than any band ever could.

On the flip side, they're not even in the top 50 of the most "talented" bands I've listened to. The connection for most of us has been "holy shit those lyrics connect with 'xxxxx' that happened to me in my life" - it doesn't mean that Alive is a better song than "Day in the Life".

brianlux

Mamasan80 wrote:

]

I don't know if this was sarcastic or not, but my point was NOT that records sold have anything to do with greatness - I personally don't believe they do. My point was that the poster I was responding to was looping PJ in with the Beatles and the Stones "in terms of number of fans, records sold, that sort of thing" and the truth is that PJ, as much as we love them, is not on that level. Pearl Jam is an incredible band. They have moved me in ways that I never thought possible. It's been a great 20 years. In terms of connecting on a PERSONAL level, there will never be another Pearl Jam for me. They mean more to me than any band ever could.

On the flip side, they're not even in the top 50 of the most "talented" bands I've listened to. The connection for most of us has been "holy shit those lyrics connect with 'xxxxx' that happened to me in my life" - it doesn't mean that Alive is a better song than "Day in the Life".

No, not sarcastic at all. I totally agree that number of records sold is not necessarily related to greatness. In the case of Beatles/Stones, yes, but others.... maybe not. I also think you're right about PJ not at the level of popularity of the Beatles or Stones. I'm also moved by PJ music in a way that goes beyond fame. I've always liked the Beatles, I've always like the Stones more and today I honestly have to say I like Pearl Jam best. Can't explain it and don't need to!

Answer to Paul Westerberg/Uriah Heap question: In one scene in his movie, "Come Feel Me Tremble" Paul is playing a gig. Someone asks him to play "Answering Machine". He strums a few chords, looks slightly perplexed, shrugs and says, "I can no more play 'Answering Machine' than I can play... Uriah Heap!"

ONCE DEVIDED

Thoughts_Arrive wrote:

blastingfonda wrote:

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.

I was taking the piss (joking). :roll:
Fuck some people get sucked in easily.

and some people are trolls

Thoughts_Arrive

ONCE DEVIDED wrote:

and some people are trolls

Oh, getting personal now?
I guess you took my anti-union comments to heart.
There there.

Rozbr

There is no discussion!!

PJ is better than any band around the world and that's it!!!

fox_mulderX

FrankY59 wrote:

This is going to sound VERY NAIVE of me but I will apologize in advance. I also only read the first page before posting...

Anyway, I only know the Beatles through commercial/media/movies etc...I never actually listened to any of their albums just songs through these outlets. But when people say they are the band of the 60s in that EVERYONE listened to them...is that similar to how everyone listened to N Sync in the late 90s or Britney Spears in 2000s or some hip hop rtist that I am sure has been really big and is always played at the clubs and all over radio that I cannot even think of because I hate that kind of music?!

I mean a band like Pearl Jam is actually talented musically and lyrically. I just wanna know if the Beatles were just the mainstream choice of their era or are they as timeless as people make them out to be?!

whoa whoa whoa whoa lol never ever compare the beatles to n sync or britney spears.

there are a few things you have to take into consideration:
1.) the beatles recorded all of their albums in less than 10 years (i think it's around 7 years to be exact).
2.) they literally changed the direction of music as we know it. if it weren't for them, bands like pearl jam or radiohead would not exist. they started everything.
3.) they wrote all of their own songs (music and lyrics). nsync never did that.
4.) you might take for granted the idea of an album, but if it weren't for rubber soul we'd still be listening to singles.
5.) again, you might take for granted the idea of experimentation in music but the beatles did that first. listen to Help and then pop on Abbey Road. it's like you're listening to two different bands. those guys were unreal.
6.) they were talented musicians. they weren't the greatest of all time, but damn they were good.
6.) like i said above but with songwriting (lyrics)... only they were the greatest of all time.
7.) they were the first to perform a concert at a stadium

i could go on forever. the biggest difference between pop stars of the 90s (besides the obvious talent gap) and the beatles is that the beatles spoke to a generation and they still do. they're timeless. i doubt anyone still wears an nsync tshirt lol

Mamasan80

fox_mulderX wrote:

FrankY59 wrote:

This is going to sound VERY NAIVE of me but I will apologize in advance. I also only read the first page before posting...

Anyway, I only know the Beatles through commercial/media/movies etc...I never actually listened to any of their albums just songs through these outlets. But when people say they are the band of the 60s in that EVERYONE listened to them...is that similar to how everyone listened to N Sync in the late 90s or Britney Spears in 2000s or some hip hop rtist that I am sure has been really big and is always played at the clubs and all over radio that I cannot even think of because I hate that kind of music?!

I mean a band like Pearl Jam is actually talented musically and lyrically. I just wanna know if the Beatles were just the mainstream choice of their era or are they as timeless as people make them out to be?!

whoa whoa whoa whoa lol never ever compare the beatles to n sync or britney spears.

there are a few things you have to take into consideration:
1.) the beatles recorded all of their albums in less than 10 years (i think it's around 7 years to be exact).
2.) they literally changed the direction of music as we know it. if it weren't for them, bands like pearl jam or radiohead would not exist. they started everything.
3.) they wrote all of their own songs (music and lyrics). nsync never did that.
4.) you might take for granted the idea of an album, but if it weren't for rubber soul we'd still be listening to singles.
5.) again, you might take for granted the idea of experimentation in music but the beatles did that first. listen to Help and then pop on Abbey Road. it's like you're listening to two different bands. those guys were unreal.
6.) they were talented musicians. they weren't the greatest of all time, but damn they were good.
6.) like i said above but with songwriting (lyrics)... only they were the greatest of all time.
7.) they were the first to perform a concert at a stadium

i could go on forever. the biggest difference between pop stars of the 90s (besides the obvious talent gap) and the beatles is that the beatles spoke to a generation and they still do. they're timeless. i doubt anyone still wears an nsync tshirt lol

In fairness, the Beatles didn't write all of their own songs - Please Please Me, With the Beatles, and Beatles for Sale all have 6 covers, and Help! has 2.

fox_mulderX

Mamasan80 wrote:

In fairness, the Beatles didn't write all of their own songs - Please Please Me, With the Beatles, and Beatles for Sale all have 6 covers, and Help! has 2.

you bastard lol jk
covers aside, they never had anyone write their songs for them is what i meant

lukin2006

Listening to Rubber Soul. I always get on a Beatles/John Lennon mood around the anniversary of John's tragic death.

Someone ask earlier if The Beatles music is timeless...in 2007 when they released their music digitally remastered they occupied nearly every spot in charts...that's nearly 40 years after calling it quits. Their music is still a top seller today.

If Pearl Jam broke up today...with the exception of small group Pearl Jam nerds I highly doubt they'll be in most people's consciousness 40 years later and if they reissued their music 40 years later most would not notice.

Individually they may not be the greatest...but collectively no band in any genre can compare.

Something that seems to always go unnoticed is that John Lennon was 1 of the first mega stars to become an activist and was a great champion of peace...far greater champion of peace than Eddie Vedder...Vedder was a champion of peace when the republican was in office...not so much now that the democrat is in office. Lennon didn't care about political stripes he championed peace.

Saw Paul McCartney this past summer he played for nearly 3 hours in front of nearly 40000 people...he was 67 at the time...my wife made a bold statement...he was every bit as good as any Pearl Jam show...I agreed...that's at 67...he still touring today and is planning a US tour next summer.

Us Pearl Jam nerds are just hoping for a show within driving distance so we can see them. Pearl Jam now tours like an old band because many of their tours are greatest hits tours.

To my knowledge The Stones only did 1 Greatest hits tour and that was 40 licks and Keith Richards hated the fact they did it.

So to compare Pearl Jam with The Beatles or Stones or Zeppelin is just silly the things these bands have accomplished in their careers really goes unmatched.

DragonsAfter3or4

Delusional!

Newch91

lukin2006 wrote:

Listening to Rubber Soul. I always get on a Beatles/John Lennon mood around the anniversary of John's tragic death.

Someone ask earlier if The Beatles music is timeless...in 2007 when they released their music digitally remastered they occupied nearly every spot in charts...that's nearly 40 years after calling it quits. Their music is still a top seller today.

If Pearl Jam broke up today...with the exception of small group Pearl Jam nerds I highly doubt they'll be in most people's consciousness 40 years later and if they reissued their music 40 years later most would not notice.

Individually they may not be the greatest...but collectively no band in any genre can compare.

Something that seems to always go unnoticed is that John Lennon was 1 of the first mega stars to become an activist and was a great champion of peace...far greater champion of peace than Eddie Vedder...Vedder was a champion of peace when the republican was in office...not so much now that the democrat is in office. Lennon didn't care about political stripes he championed peace.

Saw Paul McCartney this past summer he played for nearly 3 hours in front of nearly 40000 people...he was 67 at the time...my wife made a bold statement...he was every bit as good as any Pearl Jam show...I agreed...that's at 67...he still touring today and is planning a US tour next summer.

Us Pearl Jam nerds are just hoping for a show within driving distance so we can see them. Pearl Jam now tours like an old band because many of their tours are greatest hits tours.

To my knowledge The Stones only did 1 Greatest hits tour and that was 40 licks and Keith Richards hated the fact they did it.

So to compare Pearl Jam with The Beatles or Stones or Zeppelin is just silly the things these bands have accomplished in their careers really goes unmatched.

Couple of typos:

1) When their albums were digitally remastered, they came out in 2009, not 2007.

2) Paul is 69, not 67.

Other than that, I agree with everything you said! Also, people were mad John was using his star power to promote peace.

october22

Not to break anyone's heart around here but most people don't think Pearl Jam is even still around. Most people don't think they've put out an album since the 90's. I love Pearl Jam but comparing them to the Beatles?? Most people laugh at me when I say PJ is my favorite band. Get your head out of your asses and learn something about popular music broader than the scope of just what you like. The word "better" is subjective of course but I can't think of a metric where PJ comes out on top over the Beatles (other than one's personal preference).