Profile
Search
Register
Log in
The next Beatles?
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Hall of Fame

Author Message
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19373
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

Captiv8 wrote:
futuristxen wrote:
Pearl Jam is kind of a blip in the radar when you compare them to bands like Sonic Youth and Dinosaur Jr. which put out albums before them that were great, and are still putting out pretty great albums, while Pearl Jam is in some kind of semi-retirement circuit. Plus I don't feel that Pearl Jam ever made an album that was completely great. They have several songs that I enjoy, but they don't have one album I can say that has more than five songs I really like on it. Compare that to Nirvana whose albums I enjoyed and still can enjoy from pretty much beginning to end. Unplugged, In Utero, and Nevermind are committed to my subconscious.


I get what you're saying here, but this discussion has to take place within the context of the popular realm. People on this message board and elsewhere had heard of Sonic Youth and Dinosaur Jr., but that number goes down when you approach the average person with the question. Further down still if you ask them to name an album or song. Pearl Jam, on the other hand, has more popular momentum and awareness from the public. It doesn't matter if they're on a retirement circuit. Will they remain popular for a timespan that extends beyond their actual career?

And you're also addressing the matter based on personal taste, which was not the initial question. This should be an objective thing because we're talking about who will be the next Beatles (or if that's even possible) to the public at large, not to us personally. Even if you hate the Beatles it's hard to deny that they were incredibly popular and have maintained an intense following for over 40 years. Love 'em or hate 'em, the Beatles are hard to fuck with.

I'm also a little surprised (even at my self) that no one has mentioned The Grateful Dead. Those guys went from the 60s to the 90s (and they only quit then because Garcia died) and put out just over 20 official albums. That's pretty impressive. I still wear a "Steal Your Face" t-shirt and have the odd Deadhead comment on it as I'm walking the dog or going to a movie. I think it's fair to say that the Deadhead fanbase is waning as most of their fans are now a bit old and blunted, but they're hanging on. In another ten years I think the judgment can be made one way or the other.


There are three components: popularity, quality, and change. I brought up Dinosaur Jr. and Sonic Youth because they fullfill the later two--which makes them as ill-fitting as Pearl Jam which also at best fits only two.

This thread is just people picking bands they liked as a kid without any kind of real attempt to apply it to the topic. All of the bands I've named attest to that problem with the thread. My thinking was "if these guys are going to name lame bands that don't fit the criteria, how about I name my favorite lame bands too?"
Post Mon Oct 17, 2011 11:31 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
T-Wrex
p00ny tang


Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 6405
Location: Detroit, Michigan
 Reply with quote  

What about Lil' Wayne?

He started as young as the Beatles (signed at 9, known at 14, platinum at 17), went from pop-sensation to drug-loving world-idol, was really prolifically good for a 4 or 5 year span....

Post Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:58 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
anomaly
Loserface


Joined: 22 May 2008
Posts: 2579
Location: DFW, TX
 Reply with quote  

let's hope there's never another Beatles
Post Mon Oct 17, 2011 1:15 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Captiv8



Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 8547
Location: Third Coast
 Reply with quote  

Futurist, I didn't choose Radiohead or Pearl Jam based on my own tastes though. As I stated, I like some of their songs but not the majority. I'm talking about the overall public perception of their quality, which I'd say rates fairly high. I respect certain bands because I admire their dedication and longevity, but that doesn't mean that I personally support them by buying their albums or seeing them perform. Admittedly, I would choose Radiohead over Pearl Jam, but I'm not particularly fussed to see either one. Given the criteria you mentioned I think both bands fit, viewed objectively. Viewed subjectively, I'd agree that they only fit two.
Post Mon Oct 17, 2011 1:47 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19373
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

What change did you see Pearl Jam having made to their sound while still remaining popular? If I play a song from Pearl Jam's last album will it sound at all different from their first album?
Post Mon Oct 17, 2011 8:47 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
Oh Daesu



Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 1848
Location: Vancouver
 Reply with quote  

I think Pearl Jam has changed quite a bit since their first album, but not much from their fourth or so. Though to be fair, anything after the second I have only heard a few songs each from.
Post Mon Oct 17, 2011 9:09 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Captiv8



Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 8547
Location: Third Coast
 Reply with quote  

Admittedly, I couldn't tell you what changes Pearl Jam has undertaken since their first records as I am not that familiar with their discography. That said, I also think this is the least important part of being Beatle-esque. The important thing with the Beatles wasn't necessarily that they let their sound evolve, but that it (usually) evolved into a quality listening experience. And from what I have heard from Pearl Jam they have typically delivered quality music above the average fare.

What I really need here is a Pearl Jam aficionado to come on here and make the points, because I'm not well-versed in the specifics of their career. This is more of a gut thing.
Post Mon Oct 17, 2011 9:17 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
CaptainFantasy



Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 453
 Reply with quote  

A big change Pearl Jam made is there albums really suck now in comparison to their earlier works. To even compare Pearl Jam to The Beatles is ridiculous. Sure they're popular but how many classic albums have they put out? One? Will people give a shit about them long after the people reliving the grunge music fad of their youth are gone? No way. I saw them play a one hour festival set a few years back and it was basically a quiet, bored crowd while they played their newer material and people going crazy for the Ten and Vs. songs. They're a washed up nostalgia act.

That being said I think Bob Dylan and the Grateful Dead made a huge impact on music that will live on for a long, long time. Those are both great examples of long lasting, popular, influential bands.

edit...forgot to mention that Pearl Jam took a 10-15 minute break during their one hour festival set and came back out for a 2-3 song encore making it a 45 minute set. Who does that?
Post Mon Oct 17, 2011 10:21 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Raoul DeGroot



Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Posts: 2437
Location: Son Quest
 Reply with quote  

Closest thing to a Beatles was U2 for the 80's to 90's. With their 00's stuff being like Wings.
Then Radiohead is the closest thing for a 90's to 00's. Just a shade less mainstream.

Boom. Solved it.

Most Beatles analogies break down on solo artists, rappers, and examining a space of time greater than birth of Beatles to Jon's death though.
Post Mon Oct 17, 2011 10:30 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19373
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

Actually u2 probably does win the thread. Don't know why I didn't think of them. It's probably safe to say as well that the Beatles would have become what U2 are now if they had continued to stay together, and John had not died. There's really not a wide birth between John Lennon and Bono I don't think.
Post Mon Oct 17, 2011 10:43 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
spagucci-one



Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 484
 Reply with quote  

futuristxen wrote:
Actually u2 probably does win the thread. Don't know why I didn't think of them. It's probably safe to say as well that the Beatles would have become what U2 are now if they had continued to stay together, and John had not died. There's really not a wide birth between John Lennon and Bono I don't think.


U2 went from edgy to pop. Its the same thing that RHCP and Greenday got knocked for. All three are still bands that will hold clout with listeners in 40 years.
Post Mon Oct 17, 2011 11:01 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Raoul DeGroot



Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Posts: 2437
Location: Son Quest
 Reply with quote  

Their most edgy albums were Achtung Baby and zooroopoopa or whatevah That one album everybody hates on. Then they went back to full on rock/pop like the beatles went back to Bluesy rock.

It's not a perfect analogy.


Nobody gives a fuck about chili peppers and nasal greenday though. Both those groups have fewer total hits than could be found on a single U2 album (exxageration but still true)

Red Hot Chili Peppers have "give it away" and the 'sometimes I feel like I dont have a partner song'. Old people fucking hate them and so do kids.

Green day has the song that was played on the last episode of Seinfeld, the dookie song, and the let's protest America song.


None of the dudes in those bands have a distinguishable personality.
Except for Travis Barker. He's charismatic.
Post Mon Oct 17, 2011 11:23 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Buddy Peace



Joined: 21 Jul 2002
Posts: 1652
 Reply with quote  

The Flaming Lips deserve a mention for being a constantly creative, imaginative and refreshing band. I don't know about who the next Beatles is/was/might be, and I don't mean this in a bitchy way but I really don't care or think about that stuff. But with all these rock/indie bands being mentioned I think Lips should get a heads up.
Post Tue Oct 18, 2011 1:30 am
 View user's profile Send private message
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19373
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

We should all just stop pretending we actually give a damn about who the next beatles are and talk about rock bands we like.

One of my best friends from high school is like the biggest flaming lips fan ever. He gets hyped about every one of their new releases. Plus they're from Oklahoma I believe, which gets them some points for me. My main interaction with the band is me forgetting the Yoshimi album in a friend's apartment in New York and never getting it back or replacing it.
Post Tue Oct 18, 2011 2:33 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
Buddy Peace



Joined: 21 Jul 2002
Posts: 1652
 Reply with quote  

Good call Futur, that's a wise thread redirection.

I didn't listen to Yoshimi a huge amount (although I do like it), but when Soft Bulletin came out I fell in love and worked my way backwards- my friends always put 'She Don't Use Jelly' on mixtapes and it just sunk in. We all tried the Zaireeka 4 CD experiment too which didn't work but had to be attempted at least.

Also Wayne Coyne's twitter feed is intense but he always seems like he's having a lot of fun (and his perma-naked wife too).
Post Tue Oct 18, 2011 4:00 am
 View user's profile Send private message

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Sun Oct 26, 2014 2:06 am
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon