I don't get how anyone could call Pearl Jam unoriginal! I am asking anyone to find a more musically diverse band. For example Pearl Jam released Ten, a great "grunge" album. Years later they release No Code. NO CODE is different from Ten in literally every way I can imagine. Also with their albums today, that with each one sound completely different from any others. I call that original. None of their albums (except Ten) reflect any other bands style/sound, let alone their own style usually! GO PEARL JAM!!

Posted by Stone on Wednesday, 01/9/2013 @ 23:23pm

I just watched Flava Flav inducted into the RRHoF with NWA... If Pearl Jam doesn't get in, the human race doesn't deserve to continue.

Posted by Anthony on Sunday, 05/26/2013 @ 22:47pm

"I just watched Flava Flav inducted into the RRHoF with NWA"

lol

Posted by GFW on Monday, 05/27/2013 @ 05:54am

So next year begins the wave of 90s alt rock acts that some would argue did irreparable harm to rock music? The joy.

Posted by astrodog on Monday, 05/27/2013 @ 18:04pm

So next year begins the wave of 90s alt rock acts that some would argue did irreparable harm to rock music? The joy.



Posted by astrodog on Monday, 05.27.13 @ 18:04pm
--------------------------------------------------
Next yr. begins the wave of acts that constitute the only large scale rock Music wave of the past 30+ yrs. to rule the mainstream.

The joy? Yes, the joy! If you are a rock fan.

As to the irreparable harm part - how can they be doing it "irreparable harm"? They're the only ones who were playing "rock" music & succeeding at a popular mainstream level, en' masse, since the late 70's/early 80's? They're harming it by having success?

Hip-Hop took your pop music. Yet somehow, you have it worked out in your own mind that it was Rock that ruined your pop. They don't even have a connection, yet you want them to.

You should really be on a hip-hop page, ranting about this. I suggest going to the M.C. Hammer or Vanilla Ice page, if you will. The two are living proof that hip-hop was already taking over pop before that dreaded, nasty old music called rock turned up again. There, you can argue coherently why New Wave should've beat hip-hop at the pop game. :)

Posted by Cheesecrop on Tuesday, 05/28/2013 @ 05:55am

How did alt rock ruin rock?

Posted by GFW on Tuesday, 05/28/2013 @ 08:09am

Yeah, I'm curious about that, though since astro's been here awhile I can guess where he's going with it. I'd say the Seattle sound was fresh air when the mainstream was getting a bit stale.

Posted by Sam on Tuesday, 05/28/2013 @ 15:56pm

The argument goes something like this: The 90s "grunge" bands were seemingly very fresh when compared to what was in the mainstream at the time. It just seemed more substantial.

However grunge also gave way to a significant degree of what became known as rockism. All the sudden rock had to be guitar based, had to be serious, had to jettison any sense of "inauthenticity" (all that weird 80s stuff). Had to reject technology. Had to reject dance rythmns (early rock was danceable). It had to be anti-pop. Frankly it became a form scared of its own shadow, tedious, judgmental, intolerant and backward-looking. Rock became define too narrowly. It became the music of old fogeys screaming "get off my lawn." It's hard to be rebellious when you are running scared, when you are always playing to formula. The kids see it. And they go where the action is. Some time ago this site linked to a poll where kids no longer identify as rock fans.

Is that a generalization? Yes. Are there exceptions? Sure. And the bands themselves didn't seem to have this idea, although the Foo Fighters sound like cranky old men nowadays. But when rock becomes nostalgia, something that is afraid of anything new, it becomes a joke. That's sort of what it is today.

I'm certainly not saying that rock is dead or that good bands are not "out there" in the unheard hinterland. Nothing beats a good rock song. But it has waned badly. But the perception that I just summarized is definitely "out there" as well. And when a band like Nirvana makes the list of worst bands of the 90s, this is actually part of the reason fairly or not. It was the symbol of early 90s rock, so it is getting blamed for rock losing its edge and its energy.

Posted by astrodog on Wednesday, 05/29/2013 @ 19:07pm

Well, that actually... makes quite a bit of sense!

Although to single out Nirvana for that seems kinda unfair...

Posted by GFW on Thursday, 05/30/2013 @ 05:56am

This is the same old same old here.

When you note that rock had to be guitar based, had to be serious, etc., etc., you've just described something, though it's probably not what you were aiming at.

A guitar-based music that's serious and un-danceable - you've just described the conditions in San Francisco, circa 1968. Bands were serious, there was no room to move on the dance floor, & bands had started creating heavier music that wasn't necessarily danceable. "Born to be Wild", "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida", "Sunshine of your Love", are hardly danceable tunes. Sounds like rockism started a heck of a lot sooner than Seattle.

As for the experimental part, it was happening. It simply wasn't in the form you cared for, so you choose to dismiss it as though it didn't happen. Plenty of acts were utilizing alternative tunings on their guitars, in a manner that hadn't been heard for yrs., & in many cases were pushing it to lengths no one had heard of up till this time. Besides this, just look at what came through the breach. Are you saying Nirvana & Bjork were the same? Were Blues Traveler & Tool working the same styles? How about the Smashing Pumpkins & Son Volt? There's many more instances that can be noted as well.

The rest of this about running scared, nostalgia, etc., is just an attempt to marginalize things on pop terms (through even I agree that the Foo's sound like cranky old men these days - what happened??!!! :). When Nirvana makes a list of 10 worst acts of the 90's, & the majority of the other acts are one-hit's & trivial pop acts, it means that the editors of the magazine realized that no one would care about said list, so you tinker w/it to get a reaction. It's somewhat like the MTV Video Awards from yrs. back. If you can recall the one where both Madonna, Britney, & Aguilera kissed (the planned pop "shocker") & the bassist from Rage making a fuss in the rafters (the unplanned rock moment that the allegedly daring MTV chose to shy away from). It's all there...

Beyond that, you keep saying that the kids see that rock is allegedly "playing to formula", & that they ran from it. Yet Dance pop has played to formula for yrs. now. N'Sync & Britney gave way to "American Idol" & Hannah Montana, which gave way to the Jonas Bros., which gave way to Katy Perry & One Direction. 15 yrs. of the same thing. For that matter where are the rappers from 2000 or so? Where did Nelly go? How 'bout 50 Cent? Where did Ludacris, or Chingy, or Chamillionaire, or any of those one-named creations go? They disappear after 3 or 4 yrs. at best. For that matter, Imagine Dragons is getting a push, but they sound a lot like .fun did in 2011... who sounded like Foster the People in 2009... who sounded like MGMT, to an extent, in 2007... that's a good 5 or 6 years now. Kind of interesting how the "Kids" don't seem to be getting it...

Meanwhile, an act like Tame Impala is introduced here. They've a psychedelic sound, but they're not as heavy as an act like Myrrors. At the same time, there not as heavy as an act like Junius. They might be closer to The Contrast. Of course, none of these acts sound like Guitar Wolf (a happy discovery from this site), or for that matter Priestess (another from this site). None of those acts sound like the White Stripes, or QOTSA, or Cage the Elephant, for that matter. What's amazing is that I can list all these acts, all over a 15 yr. period. They all share a few things:

1. They're all rock;
2. None of them sound like Grunge

Yet strangely enough, some of the earlier acts are unknown to people. But the "Kids" are catching all of this, correct...

The 90's were One Part of something a lot larger. Please put down the blinders & recognize this. Creativity goes on, regardless of what an individual wants. For some reason, you want rock to have waned, courtesy of your own timetable. How dare the music go on w/out me! It's only waned for you, because you clearly don't want to take the time & energy to explore things further. Therefore, you throw up flak in an attempt to hide this. If you have to, look around on this site. Look things up. Write it down, even if you have to use pen & paper. Connect the dots & recognize it. Other folks on this site are catching on.

Come To The Dark Side, Man!!! -- & take a listen. :)

Posted by Cheesecrop on Thursday, 05/30/2013 @ 07:07am

Wait, Astro, were you on about just Grunge, or alt/indie rock in general?

Posted by GFW on Thursday, 05/30/2013 @ 07:45am

@Cheesecrop-It is the same old. I'm simple relating what rock artists themselves are saying, that they feel outdated.

Like I said, there are always good bands "out there." But it doesn't matter if no one listens. Somewhere along the line rock became uncool and old. Which is the natural result of a form of music rejecting pop, rejecting style, shunning experimentation, becoming stale, becoming judgmental. Again we can point to exceptions, but what was the general trend? Has anything become more formulaic than indie rock?

Rockism is an idea. I don't think it is a coincidence that people started writing about rockism at the end of the 90s (when the cult of authenticity was at its height) and that rock was jettisoned from the airwaves within the same time frame. Radio stations and MTV (back when they still played music) determined that rock no longer sold, fairly or not.

And to be honest the division you make between rock and pop makes my point for me. If I recall you once said that Sgt. Pepper was a pop album, among many others. But really, if you are admitting the "real rock" is a rejection of pop, and that 90s rock (in large part) was anti-pop, should we be surprised when audiences look elsewhere? When you reject style and fun and energy and sex appeal while mere "pop" and hip hop artists seem edgier and more daring while rock artists drone on like dreary old men (did Vedder ever smile?) playing the same guitars while dressed like homeless people, what do you expect?

Now in fairness rock has been in the ditch before and all it takes is one act. But this was a self-inflicted wound.

Posted by astrodog on Thursday, 05/30/2013 @ 09:16am

You're relating what rock acts feel. Really? I had no idea that you had the ability to speak for every single rock act in the U.S. of A. When did they name you spokesman for the country?

You say it doesn't matter if no one listens. My question is, where are they hearing it to begin with!? The only place where large groups can hear anything in a mass format is on radio & TV. You can listen on the Web, but it's a private experience more often that not. Fact is, Rock was tossed off television & radio because the broadcasters didn't want it there in the first place.

I noted in a posting a couple months ago (forget where, regrettably), that through the history of the music industry in the Whole of the 20th Century, it was the musicians that have been edged out as time went on. When the Jazz age ended, it was the Bix Beiderbecke's that suffered, while the Bing Crosby's, Russ Colombo's, & Dick Powell's prospered. The music picked itself up, turned into big band music - & the vocalist's came to the forefront. When the Big-Band era ended in the early 50's, who survived? The Vocalists. The musicians were left out to dry. It took Rock & Roll for the musicians to return.

All through the rock era you see the same thing. The industry as a whole has sought out easier ways to produce music w/out the musicians. Why? Cause musicians might want to break free. The musician places the artistry over the commercial. They had control again in the early 60's, but then lost it again when the British Invasion took hold. They lost it for a decade, till the late 70's, when disco made it possible to create a generic pop/dance sound. Throughout the 80's, anybody who wanted to sell submitted to what the industry wanted, & anyone who wouldn't was left out in the cold.

The period from 1991-1996 was the last large scale moment when the musicians took over again. All the other stuff you've mentioned: rejecting pop, rejecting style, etc., is all just surface material. Thing is, the industry would rather sell surface material. It's easier to do, & far more safer than trying to sell a recording of musicians performing an art.

The very thing that frightened the record executives was the idea that the musicians would be in control. They are the ones who are experimental - not multiple D.J.'s doing multiple re-mixes of someone else's work. If anything, it s hip-hop & dance music that has become pitifully stale. Every rapper has a required "guest" being featured. Safety in #'s, I suppose. Every song is re-mixed, factory style, like an assembly line. There's no thought to any artistry, since artistry runs counter to the production line mentality.

Every concert is pre-planned, & everyone is led, cheerleader style, through the correct movements. First pump your fist, then raise your hands, etc., etc. Just like the dancers onstage. Everybody moves in unison, everything choreographed, w/out anybody giving thought to what is happening. You leave, having seen "a show". You can go to Broadway & get the same thing, w/better singers, better staging, & actual acting, to boot. Why do I want to go here?

With rock, you get far more energy, far more spontaneity, & a far more interesting concert - providing the band is "on". That's a key thing - you don't know whether they'll be on or not. It's the diff. between musicians and a "show". It's not that pop can't be rock - it's that the industry wants the guarantee of a "show". It's easier to sell surface material, staged as a show, cause it's a guaranteed item. It's like I pointed out in the last post, when I brought up the MTV Video Awards. The Pop artists stage a scene, & we're all supposed to be "shocked". oohhh. Then the rock musician unleashes a spontaneous protest - & the allegedly "daring" MTV runs for cover, cause it wasn't pre-planned.

I notice you simply ignored this in your last post, so I figured I'd drag it out again. Everything you focus on - style, wardrobe, sex appeal, etc., is all surface level stuff. If the artistry is there, this shouldn't matter. Once upon a time, the audience rose up & said it didn't matter. That time ended nearly 15 years ago - & more's the pity it had to.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Thursday, 05/30/2013 @ 17:11pm

@Cheesecrop-I seem to recall that it was the industry and MTV that pushed Nirvana and others to the hilt. The industry didn't have it in for rock. It's a business. When the audience moves on, so does the industry and radio and television. Rock stopped selling.
You can spin heroic tales of artists breaking free as they scurried for the best record deal. It's just rationalization. They didn't reject style and experimentation and novelty and entertainment and presentation because they had integrity. If they did it's because they lacked artistic vision.
I like rock as much as the next guy, but when you write off all of those things as artifice, don't be surprised when the audience stops paying attention.
Anyway, while I enjoyed the paean to "real" music, it sounds like dirge for the dead with extreme nostalgia googles thrown in.

Posted by atstrodog on Thursday, 05/30/2013 @ 18:50pm

Astro - Allow me to refute your point, with ease:

You say rock stopped selling (when you say rock, I assume you are speaking, as I am, of the period up till about 96/97). If this is the case, & we are talking commercial music (this is what You clearly Want rock to be), then how do you explain Matchbox 20 selling millions of copies of "Yourself or Someone Like You", in 1997/1998? How about Creed going multi-platinum in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, w/the albums "Human Clay" & "Weathered"? How about Linkin Park, who as late as 2003 went multi-platinum w/the album "Meteora"? Whether you like Green Day or not, the "American Idiot" album took off in 2004, & sold a ton all through 2005. This doesn't look like it stopped selling.

Outside of this, all you ever do is rationalize away everything that doesn't suit you. I provide examples in bunches, & you just ignore what you don't like. There fore, I've decided to simply be exactly like you, & simply fictionalize the whole deal, while ignoring everything you say. Here, therefore, is my take on what went down:

"At the dawn of the 90's, the rock industry, itself having been easily co-opted by pop, was over a decade into re-making the world as a safe, commercial wonderland of easy to digest, non-musical "musical stars". That's all anyone was - a "star" (shine lights on name, as crowd dutifully applauds). All life had been drained out of rock in the popular world since somewhere between 1975 and 1979, and it hardly looked like it would ever come back.

Then - Suddenly! (shocker of shockers here) A band came out of nowhere, &, in 14 weeks time, knocked the pop star w/the greatest selling album of all-time out of the #1 spot. Yes, Nirvana had done it... & the Revolution had Begun!

The Revolution, which swept aside acts left & right through the next 18 months... the Revolution, which forced MTV to play genuine music for once... The Revolution, whereupon one of the greatest bands, Pearl Jam, did not even need MTV to debut at the top of the charts... the Revolution was Everywhere!

At it's height, over 45,000 people were turning out to see Lollapalooza... rock bands were in Washington D.C., taking on establishment corporations (P.J. & Ticketmaster)... rock bands were on Wall Street, protesting big business practices (Rage Against the Machine, 1998? I believe)... Rock bands were hobnobbing w/politicians (Oasis's Noel Gallagher & Prime Minister Tony Blair)...

It was all too much for... The Man!!!

That's right! It was the Man that took us down! The Man stopped our imminent revolution, that would've overtaken everything. We we're too close to the seats of power, clearly, & we would've affected the business world. Had the corporate structure been rattled, who knows what would've happened! chaos in the Streets!!!

AAARRRGGGHHH!!!

So the Man came in, first, courtesy of the FCC act of 1996, which de-regulated the industry & allowed for more corporate control over radio. This allowed for conglomerates to eliminate rock stations & change them over to pop stations. Then, they got the kids hooked on kid-friendly styles of music. Using these acts as corporate shills, they merged w/major businesses, who could underwrite this stuff in favor of getting free-advertising.

After this, it was simply a matter of finding those who would sell out for a price (this being the majority of hip-hop) & bringing them in. The combination of corporate synergy, pop puppets, & hip-hop greed conspired to destroy the Greatest Decade in Rock History - ever - in a matter of a few years.

Since then, popular music has become lifeless. Stale hip-hopper's ,& dance artists g through the motions for mindless kids, while having the spotlight shine upon them. "Wardrobe Malfunctions", & panels of judges have replaced fans thinking for themselves. Individuality has been crushed by greed & avarice, as corporations silence those who would challenge the Establishment by waving $ under their noses.

Yet those of us who remember the Great & Glorious Revolution, that the Man & his Establishment crushed, cannot be fooled by these folks, We see through them, knowing full well how they work their little games. The Revolution Lives!!!"


No wonder you kept this conversation going for so long, astro. It's fun when you can just tap dance around the facts & make it up to suit your own purposes! This is Great!

Posted by Cheesecrop on Friday, 05/31/2013 @ 12:30pm

@Cheesecrop-So Creed selling ten years ago is proof of rock's continued commercial viability? Why don't you throw Nickleback in there too? Creed and Nickleback? Need I say anything else?

The revolution? And then "The Man" took it all away? No disrespect, but please. It doesn't take a conspiracy theory to see that the music went stale. Nor does it require too much speculation to figure out why that happened. Again, I do not blame the bands. But the rock establishment and the music press (Rolling Stone) held up creatively limited acts like Nirvana as the exemplar of real rock while marginalization anything that deviated from the formula. And at the same time they held up The Ramones as the "American Beatles." Think about how myopic that was. That's self-marginalization in a bottle.

But speaking of revolutions, let's just compare the first alt rock movement of the late 70s/early 80s with the 90s version. In the first you had the Talking Heads and the Clash and PIL and Joy Division and Siouxsie and the Banshee's and Blondie and The Police and U2 and The Cars and The Cure and Tubeway Army and Sonic Youth and REM and Devo and Depeche Mode and the B-52s and Tuxedomoon and he Specials and Gun Club and the Replacements and The Smiths and X and a host of other post-punk bands that were varied and experimental and interesting. You had albums like Metal Box or Remain in Light or even Synchonicity. Compared to that your "revolution" was incredibly lame. The problem was that while some stuff like hair metal was worth discarding, the 90s rock orthodoxy discarded everything. They turned rock into hackneyed nostalgia. Rock becoming as stale as jazz was the true legacy. Sorry.

I'm not trying to kill your idols, but no cabal put rock into a ditch. It drove there itself.

Posted by astrodog on Friday, 05/31/2013 @ 13:09pm

Guys, enough with this pointless debate! Bands like Narvana and Pearl Jam represented rock in it's final major flowering in the 90s before rap and pop overtook it and now, it seems that all you hear are teenage pop stars and talentless rappers.

So, Cheesecrop, I would say that rock isn't dead, but it's not a major player in music any more as most people don't care about it much.

Posted by Andrew on Friday, 05/31/2013 @ 13:14pm

Wait, so rock dying means less smashing pumpkins, r.e.m. and more Carly Rae and Kanye?

Well hell, now I love Nirvana even more!

Posted by GFW on Friday, 05/31/2013 @ 14:21pm

You could say that about rock, GFW.

Posted by Andrew on Friday, 05/31/2013 @ 14:28pm

Seriously, rock, please die some more!

Posted by GFW on Friday, 05/31/2013 @ 17:25pm

Astrodog, just so you know, rock didn't drive itself into the ditch, it was pushed aside by rap and popas the 90s moved along and many just lost sight of it. There are still good rock groups out there, it's just hard to find them due to the fact that few people listin to or even know about bands like Nirvana, Pearl Jam, or any of the great classic rock bands anymore.

Posted by Andrew on Friday, 05/31/2013 @ 20:50pm

Astrodog, just so you know, rock didn't drive itself into the ditch, it was pushed aside by rap and pop as the 90s moved along and many just lost sight of it. There are still good rock groups out there, it's just hard to find them due to the fact that few people listen to or even know about bands like Nirvana, Pearl Jam, or any of the great classic rock bands anymore.

Posted by Andrew on Friday, 05/31/2013 @ 20:54pm

@GFW-I not really attacking Nirvana. They were a pretty good band. Never thought a great one, but a good one. But Rolling Stone pimped them to the point that even when their own readers just sent them a very clear message, rather than think about it they chided their own readers for being wrong. Talk about having a permanent hard-on for one band.

I think two things happened. First Nirvana and Pearl Jam were very successful and other acts copied their formula. That always happens. But I think more importantly that the music press and the rock establishment decided that this alone was rock, and that was a major blunder. It was never just about celebrating Nirvana in the music press, but about dismissing anything that didn't follow their formula. The problem was that as a big fan of alternative rock, that formula was comparatively sterile. I'm sure people will try to toss rocks at me, but the first alt movement was much deeper than the second. (Possibly the difference between the first taking root in large media centers like NYC and London and the second in...Seattle). But here we had the national music press insisting that this was "authentic" rock and everything else was "artifice." And perversely when they went back to find a hero from the rich 70s/early 80s era to champion, it was the most creatively limited of the bunch, The Ramones. When the music press and the hipsters are insisting on such a limited definition of rock music, what is the natural result?

A rock band on the charts right now is the National, which people compare to Joy Division. Arcade Fire's last album was early 80s new wave influenced. And possibly the most creative band that came out of the 90s, Radiohead, was named after the Talking Heads. How many bands recently have you heard of that consciously try to emulate Nirvana or the Ramones for that matter? Yet those are and have long been Rolling Stone's musical superheroes. And the rest of the music press follows suit.

That all said, this all sprang from a harmless single sentence written in completely passive terms. When people are that jumpy and defensive it's because they know the critics have a valid point.

Posted by astrodog on Friday, 05/31/2013 @ 22:49pm

Astro: I could easily turn around & repudiate everything you said in your last post (as I've been doing for some time now) but this would only be a re-hashing of, as I put it, the same old same old. The fact of the matter is, we have followed a very simple path, as I noted earlier. I provide example after example, & you just keep saying the same thing again & again, while offering nothing to back up your claims whatsoever. Whatever you run into that you don't like, you just toss it out like I never said it.

This whole thing started from a discussion over rock vs pop, courtesy of an 80's metal fan some time ago. When we got to talking, I drew a distinction between rock & pop. You didn't like my distinction, so you tossed it out.

We talked about synthesizers, & what place they had in rock. You felt that synth & drum machine music was rock, & a form of progress at that. I disagreed, & said that bands that have no roots in blues, country, jazz, etc., couldn't really be rock. I pointed out the diff. between some of the synth acts you listed, & gave Foreigner's "Feels Like the First Time" as an example of how rock could work w/a synthesizer.

You didn't like this, so you threw it out.

I re-iterate: synthesizers are instruments that highlight texture. Music like the blues is about expression. The art of someone like Muddy Waters was expressive.

You didn't care for this then (& I presume now), so you tossed it out.

You asked me to provide specifics regarding the music of the time. I did so, citing Alice In Chains, the Pumpkins, Tool, etc., as merging diff. sounds into something new.

You didn't like this, so... (guess what)... you tossed it out.

In the meantime, all you did was toss out a few names, a few albums, & a lot of catchphrases. As I moved the discussion into a musical realm, that's all you did, or for that matter, could do, I believe. The great irony here is that you could only respond to me when I started joking about a "Revolution". I think anybody on this site could see I was joking, except you. You took what I said at face value, even when I told you it was a mock up of what you were doing. You have no musical argument here. The only way you could respond was to act as a social commentator. You don't need to know music to do this.

You never got it, did you?

Even as my joke contained bits & pieces of the truth, you felt the need to respond. You are aware that the FCC bit was true, I hope? Of course, if you don't care for anything, you just toss it out.

The Govt.? Throw it out.
Clear Channel's emergence? Toss it out.

When I introduced modern acts in the 2000's that had success (White Stripes, QOTSA), you tossed them out.

When I noted the underground acts (numerous times), rather than even bother to comment, you... well, you tossed it out. :)

You kept demanding commercial success, so I decided I would change my tactics, & present commercial acts that even I knew weren't rock (i.e. Creed/Nickelback). I figured I'd follow your line of thought. You turned around and... wait for it... Wait For The Punchline!

you tossed it out.

It is here that I realized this was becoming truly foolish. When a man turns around & ignores hos own reasoning, then there's no point in even bothering to pretend a conversation is going on. I believe there's a line in the old Missing Persons song, "Words", that says it all:

"I might as well go up & talk to a wall,
These words are having no effect at all".

For the record, you tossed out names earlier. My reply: Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Alice in Chains, Smashing Pumpkins, Screaming Trees, Radiohead, Tool, White Zombie, Soul Asylum, Beck, NIN, Blues Traveler, Dave Matthews Band, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Bjork, Oasis, Counting Crows, Blur, Weezer, Stone Roses, etc. etc. - Fair amount of variety, though I've no doubt you'll just toss them all out as well.

I recommend dropping this for good, if only because the rest of the site may wish it to end (at least one person does, ha-ha! )

I'll leave it at this: one diff. between you & I, astro, is that I was willing to do the leg work to discover something new, whereas you never seemed willing to do so. Proof? Look on the Song Project page, where a little thing called the Voter's Choice category has been set up. It's a testimony to people's willingness to step out of bounds & search.

I pointed out where to look, & where to make the connections between then (91-96) & now (21st century). I'd have appreciated your take on it more had you done so w/New Wave. I am a naturally curious sort, so I'll make one more offer: Present me w/a list of acts from the mid-80's onward, that were clearly influenced by blues, country, jazz, folk, etc., - But were not oriented along pop/dance/hip-hop lines, & which ran counter to the Grunge era. Show me the connections between New Wave & later Rock (as in Music - not social stances & trappings) & I'll believe you. I'll even vote for them, non-stop, in the Song & Album Project, till the music is represented.

btw, I do have to admit, I'd love to be at your house when you pay the bills every month. I can just imagine you tossing the bills aside:

"Phone? Nah!"
"Electric? Don't think so"
"Cable? Maybe next month." :)

Posted by Cheesecrop on Saturday, 06/1/2013 @ 06:58am

If all you are hearing now 'are teenage pop stars and talentless rappers', well I don't think you are trying hard enough.

There's alot of great music being played out there right now.

Posted by Paul in KY on Saturday, 06/1/2013 @ 11:08am

@Cheesecrop-I'm not ignoring out of hand, just disagreeing. It happens. Rock is now a second-class citizen. That's the reality. Rock music today? You are insisting it's out there. Let me get my spelunking gear and I'll get back to you. :)

Posted by astrodog on Saturday, 06/1/2013 @ 14:00pm

If all you are hearing now 'are teenage pop stars and talentless rappers', well I don't think you are trying hard enough.

There's alot of great music being played out there right now.



Posted by Paul in KY on Saturday, 06.1.13 @ 11:08am
--------------------------------------------------
Agree. Completely.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Saturday, 06/1/2013 @ 20:12pm

Pearl Jam will be inducted in 2017 into the RRHF

Inductees Members:

Eddie Vedder
Jeff Ament
Stone Gossard
Mike McCready
Matt Cameron
Dave Abbruzzese
Jack Irons

Posted by L.A on Monday, 06/17/2013 @ 09:46am

Saw band at 2013 Voodoo Music & Arts Festival in New Orleans. Venue is a beautiful city park on grounds of the main art museum. Weather was great all 3 days.

As for the band, sheeeeyit! Now I know what people were raving about. Right up there with the Paul McCartney set I saw at Bonnaroo. Band was only there to support Steve Gleason, an old Saints wedgebreaker who had come down with a bad case of ALS. Mr. Gleason was from Seattle area & knew members of Pearl Jam. He came up with the set list & he loves the oldies. They played all the best songs from their earlier albums (usually they have only been playing 2 or 3 on current tour). Played for a good 2 1/2 hours. Eddie Vedder's voice was in great shape, Mike McCready is one badass guitarist. Since it was right after Halloween, there were many people in crowd in costume. A man was dressed up in a complete bunny outfit (like a team mascot would wear) & Eddie invited him & his unicorn head wearing GF up on stage during the encore. They looked pretty excited. Finished up set with Yellow Ledbetter, Mr. McCready playing the last stanzas right beside Mr. Gleason in his chair & kissed him on head as song ended. Very emotional.

Posted by Paul in KY on Thursday, 11/7/2013 @ 15:52pm

There is no Question that Pearl Jam is in. First ballot in my opinion. They are the greatest and only band to survive the grunge movement of the Early nineties even though Nirvana gets more acclaim. Don't get me wrong I love Nirvana. They too are one of the all time greats. But I think they receive more praise due to Cobain's untimely death. Like most bands that have longevity their earlier stuff is considered to be their best work but their newer stuff is also quality music. It may not have the quite the commercial success that Albums Like Ten, Vs, and Vitalogy had but they are still good albums that their faithful fans appreciate. The main reason is that they still put a lot of heart and thought into their music and don't produce prepackaged garbage that most artists today come up with. I bought their new album Lighting Bolt the day it was released. It's not their best album, but it's a damn good one. The songs that most of you heard from the radio, Mind Your Manners and Sirens aren't even the tracks on the record. Pendulum happens to be my favorite. I also really like Get Away, reminds me of old Pearl Jam. It's nice to see that after 23 plus years and 10 albums later they're still doing it at a high level. They sellout wherever the go. And they do this without selling out. They've conformed to what the music industry calls rock n roll. They just do their own thing. They can rock as loud, hard, and fast as anybody then flip the script and be as soft and beautiful as anybody. Hence the reason they've survived so long. Even if you are not a fan, respect their body of work and accomplishments. I have never been a big fan of the Beatles, but I consider them the greatest band of all time because every band that came after them owes them a thank you for bringing Rock n Roll to the forefront. Long live Pear Jam. They are truly deserving of greatness.

Posted by Matt on Saturday, 12/7/2013 @ 16:05pm

I will echo what many have already stated. NO BRAINER! Pearl Jam is the band of the 90's and continue to carry the voice of that generation. Best live band hands down. They will be inducted rightfully so.

Posted by Greg B on Tuesday, 12/17/2013 @ 09:19am

Is that (even) the question?

Posted by Lily on Saturday, 01/11/2014 @ 15:59pm

Little Richard is not DEAD! ( YET)

Posted by Rich on Tuesday, 04/29/2014 @ 06:20am

Eventually, of course.
But you should induct The New York Dolls, Iron Maiden, Slayer, Mc5, Joy Division, The Smiths, Jane's Addiction ans so many others first...

Posted by BulmaPunkRocker on Monday, 07/7/2014 @ 00:01am

RIP, RiCk Parashar

Posted by Aaron O'Donnell on Sunday, 08/17/2014 @ 14:17pm

Pearl Jam are lock first ballot HOFers. They should be unanimous.

1. Vitalogy
2. Ten
3. Yield
4. Vs.
5. No Code
6. Binaural
7. Pearl Jam
8. Riot Act
9. Lightning Bolt
10. Backspacer

Posted by PHATJ on Tuesday, 12/16/2014 @ 13:40pm

First ballot inductee.

Posted by dmg on Tuesday, 04/21/2015 @ 13:35pm

Pearl Jam exploded onto the scene with Ten an incredible album known for Even Flow, Jeremy, Black etc. Vs. was a mixed effort. Like the Elderly... song and Dissident. Vitalogy had a concept thing to it. Liked the artwork. Better Man and Corduroy were classic PJ songs. No Code had a different sound. Smile and Off He Goes FAVS. Haven't bought a Pearl Jam CD since No Code. They look to be 1st ballot HOFers with Radiohead. KING

Posted by KING on Sunday, 05/10/2015 @ 00:49am

No Code had a different sound. Smile and Off He Goes FAVS. Haven't bought a Pearl Jam CD since No Code. They look to be 1st ballot HOFers with Radiohead. KING

Posted by KING on Sunday, 05.10.15 @ 00:49am
--------------------------------------------------
That's a pity, as "Yield" and "Binaural" did have some good stuff on them. Some of the album cuts off "Yield", like "MFC", "Low Light", etc., are fairly good. "Binaural" has an excellent song titled "Thin Air" that few people have ever checked out.

I think they tend to have a few songs off every album that are worth a listen, though I can't speak for the last album, as it remains the only one I don't have.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Thursday, 05/14/2015 @ 07:26am

They will be inducted next year. If there is any bias against Pearl Jam I'll be shocked.

Posted by dank on Thursday, 12/24/2015 @ 10:07am

They should, and will, get in. Not sure it matters a whole lot though.

The reason I had to post was that people were opening for the Melvins and Geen River as the main influencers of "grunge".

The fact is, Green River was kind of a glam outfit until they were heavily influenced by a Vancouver punk band called Slow. Slow had a memorable performance at Expo 86.

Vancouver was ahead of Seattle at that time, and bands like Slow and DOA helped shape that sound. Doesn't mean they should be in the rock n roll hall of fame though.

Posted by Monty on Thursday, 12/24/2015 @ 23:37pm

When you think about Nirvana the next words that come to mind should be Pearl Jam! They took grunge out of obscurity and into mainstream America. Nirvana is undoubtably in the HOF so naturally Pearl Jam is also deserving. Pearl Jam is seriously Hall of Fame material, no question!

Posted by Eduardo on Monday, 04/11/2016 @ 06:40am

I wonder if Pearl Jam fans and Music lovers think Pearl Jam belongs at the top of the pyramid with Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Stevie Wonder, The Beatles, Hendrix etc.
I remember when Ten hit in 1991. Strong guitar driven songs. Outstanding! Black is a Classic as well as Even Flow. The Jeremy song was powerful as well as the video.
VS. had some good songs Dissident and Elderly Woman...One of the few CD's I bought 1st day it dropped.
Vitalogy was a cool CD with the artwork. Varied in styles of song. Some of my FAV Pearl Jam songs on here. Better Man and Corduroy.
No Code received mixed reviews. Not 1 of my FAVS. I've listened to it last month. Smile and Off He Goes are probably my FAVS.
On Hall Of Fame: Pearl Jam would have to be a lock for 1st ballot since Nirvana and Green Day made it 1st time RRHOF. Eddie Vedder has become an iconic figure in rock music. Pearl Jam not in my Top 10 FAV groups all time but I recognize their importance in the Grunge/Seattle sound of the 90's. Their longevity and strong fan base shows they are still vital in 2016. KING

Posted by KING on Monday, 05/16/2016 @ 19:01pm

I wonder if Pearl Jam fans and Music lovers think Pearl Jam belongs at the top of the pyramid with Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Stevie Wonder, The Beatles, Hendrix etc.

Posted by KING on Monday, 05.16.16 @ 19:01pm
--------------------------------------------------
I'd like them to be at the top, but I know they probably don't belong there. The top part should be expanded, as several names really do belong there. I'd have Nirvana, Michael Jackson, and perhaps the Ramones up there. If you're talking impact, Nirvana & Jackson should definitely be there. If you're talking a gradual acknowledgement of how a group affected music, the Ramones fit the bill.

I'd put Pearl Jam at the 2nd level, just below the top.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Monday, 05/16/2016 @ 21:04pm

Saw the Seattle boys at Bonnaroo. When they came on stage, I said to myself, "In less than a year these guys will be in the RRHOF". I am certain of that. We have all seen it coming over the years. Many different reasons for that, mostly for being very innovative and influential.

The show was great, however I do not side very well with Eddie Vedder's politics and such (the show happened ironically just a couple hours before the Orlando tragedy in the middle of the night). I expected that though, since they are well known for spreading their message. I've always loved PJ (especially their first 3 albums), but I really don't care much for what they have put out after No Code. No matter; Eddie and the gang have been continuously pleasing the fans and critics to today. They have been tight with Rolling Stone and the RRHOF (Eddie has inducted at least 3 artists that I know of). I'll be very surprised if they don't get in next year.

Posted by Jason Voigt on Wednesday, 06/15/2016 @ 21:35pm

Saw best headliner of the weekend play Saturday evening at Bonnaroo. Their set was delayed an hour by a storm, so they didn't come on till 1130 PM or so. I tried to get on a disabled viewing platform, but they were completely full & after looking at the overflow seating, I decided to go into the mob.

Took me 45 mins, but I managed to get down to 5th row, center. Band was in fine form. Mike McCready was bustin ass on guitar. Mr. Smear looks like he has dyed his hair, as it was grey at the Voodoo Fest set I saw back in 13. They played a good selection of the old hits, but did not play Yellow Ledbetter. Eddie brought his daughter out on stage for us to sing happy birthday to. She just turned 12. If you haven't seen them live, you need to.

Posted by Paul in KY on Thursday, 06/16/2016 @ 08:18am

They deserve induction from the album Ten alone.

Posted by Brad on Saturday, 10/15/2016 @ 18:57pm

Any chance the voters will pass on Pearl Jam, ala Nine Inch Nails?

Posted by Roy on Wednesday, 10/19/2016 @ 05:29am

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/dave-abbruzzese-asks-pearl-jam-to-rectify-rock-hall-snub-w445663

Former Pearl Jam Drummer Dave Abbruzzese Asks Band to Rectify Rock Hall Snub

"They can't justify ignoring my contributions. Like me or not," 'Vitalogy' drummer writes

Posted by Roy on Thursday, 10/20/2016 @ 02:35am

Is David Letterman going to read Neil Young's speech for Pearl Jam, or is he writing his own?

Posted by Roy on Wednesday, 04/5/2017 @ 19:43pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ie38dpnmM5Y

Pearl Jam Induction Complete

Posted by Roy on Saturday, 04/8/2017 @ 06:00am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFdemFi-zJw

"Rockin' the Free World" Super Jam - 2017 Induction Ceremony Full Performance

Posted by Roy on Monday, 05/22/2017 @ 12:24pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yB1QrifcO3g

Pearl Jam Induction Acceptance Speeches - 2017 Rock Hall Inductions

Posted by Roy on Saturday, 06/10/2017 @ 17:27pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5d3aDdZk1w

David Letterman Inducts Pearl Jam into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame

Posted by Roy on Sunday, 06/25/2017 @ 10:07am

Should Boom Gaspar be included in snubs list?

Posted by dmg on Monday, 03/9/2020 @ 20:49pm

This is what I wrote back in 2006. Just as I predicted would happen - Pearl Jam gets into the rock HOF and it kills Chuck Berry & Little Richard. FOR SHAME!!!!! Let it forever be on your conscious!



Pearl Jamm is the most egregiously pretentious, boring, un-funky band in the history of music. They are the absolute antithesis of Rock and Roll. I am going to start an online petition specifically to ban them from getting into the Rock Hall of fame. I believe Chuck Berry and Little Richard would roll over in their graves if this were to actually happen.

Posted by Sneak on Friday, 12.29.06 @ 14:52pm

Posted by Sneak on Monday, 06/1/2020 @ 21:49pm

Pearl Jam confirmed to be working on a new album with producer Andrew Watt: https://www.nme.com/news/music/pearl-jam-confirm-they-have-started-working-on-a-new-album-3187089

Posted by J.W. on Monday, 03/28/2022 @ 10:43am

Matt Cameron will be a 2-time inductee if Soundgarden gets inducted.

Posted by Roy on Thursday, 02/2/2023 @ 11:32am

Matt Cameron of Pearl Jam will be a 2-time inductee if Soundgarden gets inducted.

Posted by Roy on Thursday, 02/2/2023 @ 11:34am

Happy 60th Birthday to Jeff Ament and Happy 57th Birthday to Dave Krusen.

Posted by J.W. on Friday, 03/10/2023 @ 08:54am

Pearl Jam was overrated and mediocre. How come these guys get inducted? Are they more deserving than the best music of all time created by great glam bands like Poison, Motley Crue, Great White, Skid Row, Warrant, Firehouse, Winger, Ratt? No way. Grunge was too depressing. Nobody really cares if Jeremy spoke in class today.

Posted by Brian on Thursday, 08/22/2024 @ 13:03pm

I've gotta (respectfully) disagree with the notion of Pearl Jam being overrated and mediocre. Pearl Jam's music was real, heavy and haunting, but it was also melodic and didn't pull any punches. And Eddie Vedder is one of the greatest singers in rock n' roll history.

I'm not trying to disrespect any of the glam metal bands of the '80s. Those bands were good. But Pearl Jam's music connected with a lot of people in the '90s. That's why they're in the Rock N' Roll Hall of Fame.

Posted by Johnny on Thursday, 08/22/2024 @ 16:43pm