|
|
It's possible, but it's not on both the 1999 and the 2001 CD's, only the 2001.
|
| |
|
|
|
i will download that. also, if you have a place to download music from, you can probably get that song there too.
|
| |
|
|
What are you going on about,take trent razor for example he wrote hurt 10 years later jonny cash cover it and he said that hurt had now been completed and this cover brought tears to his eyes,and if you were eddie you would be a hypocrite since eddie has cover more songs many of them emotional then any other band I know pearl jam has cover 100's of songs
|
| |
|
|
yeah pearl jam still milking that ten album and 30 something year old women
|
| |
|
|
please dont call staind a corperate band unless you do the same for pearl jam atleast staind doesnt sell every live show on the internet and have like 4 greatest hits albums
|
| |
|
|
|
yes. both very good artist.
|
| |
|
|
Most people here like pearl jam. But it is the music that is utterly stupid and one dimensional. And i'm tired of people bragging up pearl jam as if they were beyond anybody. Thats just it, pearl jam is lame and simple
|
| |
|
|
|
i didnt live in that time but even i appreciate there music. not to where i could understand it
|
| |
|
|
Stop kidding yourself.Pearl Jam's music is not that subtle. They are nothing more than a pop band posing as art.
Pearl jam is a text book band. They are a band that follows music theory. They rehash and embelish on things that have played over and over again for years. I don't see a lot of talent in that, just a lil skill at playing their instruments.
|
| |
|
|
|
i dont know what the hell your talking about john but, i know pearl jam is good.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Lordd3r3k:
you still bought it didnt you?
just because it didnt sell as much doesnt mean its not still selling
I only bought it cuz I'm a hardcore fan. If I wasn't, I never would have bought it. It's not really my style. Which anyone who isn't a huge fan, wouldn't have bought it because it is really different than the old stuff.
|
| |
| Posts: 4164 | Location: California | Registered: 19 March 2005 |  |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by john2340:
Stop kidding yourself.Pearl Jam's music is not that subtle. They are nothing more than a pop band posing as art.
Pearl jam is a text book band. They are a band that follows music theory. They rehash and embelish on things that have played over and over again for years. I don't see a lot of talent in that, just a lil skill at playing their instruments.
i'm going to give you 4 reasons to stop talking, and then i'm done with this nonsense.
1. in a music scene dominated by MC Hammer, Vanilla Ice, and clones upon clones of hair bands who just wanted to party, Pearl Jam went against the grain and created music about lust, abandonment, homelessness, childhood violence, institutionalism, suicide and loss.. and that was only their first album.
2. Their sound, while perhaps not complex, is unique. No one sounds like Vedder, and their groove inspired rythyms are one of a kind. to me, that sort of uniqueness deserves credit in this business of fads and clones
3. They actually have something to say. they're inspired by the world around them. instead of milking the teet of teenage angst with 'its raining in my head' cliches, they write music about events currently effecting not only themselves but the world, most currently politics.
4. they're one of the few bands that can still have an interesting jam session during live shows. the fact that McCreedy can take a 10 minute guitar solo and then come right back into the song seemlessly shows something alittle more than 'knowing their instruments'. in a time where current bands dont even know what a solo is, props should be giving to the guys that still know how to play.
thank you, and goodnight
------------------------------
Repugnant is a creature who would squander the ability to lift an eye to heaven conscious of his fleeting time here.
|
| |
| Posts: 4044 | Location: what happens in CT, stays in CT.. | Registered: 21 July 2005 | |
|
