Pearl Jam vs Nirvana

[legitimatic]

For mine i go for what i like listening to, and, i much prefer nirvana's music. I don't even like Pearl Jam.

Because no doubt you have never heard their stuff.

 

[Borry]

Because no doubt you have never heard their stuff.

Well, you show us whats good about Pearl Jam, because I have listened to both like she has an much prefer Nirvana.

 

[finrod]

I like Pearl Jam's songs better but they seem to have a tendency to drift towards guitar w@nkery, whereas Nirvana's songs are usually more short, sharp and to the point.

 

[Corrosion]

I like Pearl Jam's songs better but they seem to have a tendency to drift towards guitar w@nkery, whereas Nirvana's songs are usually more short, sharp and to the point.

That makes no sense at all.

 

[lincsPJ]

I like Pearl Jam's songs better but they seem to have a tendency to drift towards guitar w@nkery, whereas Nirvana's songs are usually more short, sharp and to the point.

hmm. a rhythm guitarist. a lead guitarist. a vocalist who plays a few power chords and also plays solo numbers here and there. not seein too much w@nkery...

as brilliant as they are, G3 is leaning towards guitar w@nkery (if there is such a thing)... but pearl jam?

 

[just maybe]

I'm gunna have to go and disagree here jm, in spite of your perceived superiority. I know it irks you so, but I prefer to actually have some knowledge on a subject before mouthing off, I'm just funny like that.

Ya see, I did a quick search on melodic music and found this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melodic_music



Melodic music is essentially a sub-genre, and Nirvana were definitely dominated by melody rather than beat or rhythm, whereas PJ were more rhythm/groove based imo.

I would love you to show me a song that didn't have a melody by the way, would be interesting to hear. Under your definition, 99.9% of music is melodic music - whic is completely friggin ridiculous when trying to explain teh difference between a melody focused song writer like Cobain, Cuomo or McCartney and a more rhythm focused group like Pearl Jam or Helmet.

I'm going to make a wild assumption here and say that you don't know jack sh*t about the subject you're talking about and were simply waiting for someone to disagree with me so you could sink your pointy little stiletto heels in, like the weak creature that you are.

It was unfortunate that, yet again, I was actually right. Too bad jm, there's always next time, and the time after that and so forth. You'll get me one day no doubt. Ta Ta.

A pity that in all your masturbatory glee over finding some weird description of 'melodic music' as a genre, you failed to notice that Nirvana in no way fits into the descriptions of types of music that fit in the genre provided by the Wiki entry.

Next time, take care to read what you select before spurting all over the thread about how you've 'won'.

And no - Nirvana are not more 'melodic' than Pearl Jam, Pearl Jam are not 'rhythm/groove based', and if you think Black isn't melodic you have rocks in your head.

 

[Carlos]

Pearl Jam are not 'rhythm/groove based'

Would you mind expanding on that one for me please?

 

[just maybe]

Would you mind expanding on that one for me please?

I consider a metal band to be 'rhythm/groove based' (ie Pantera). Pearl Jam are a melodic rock band. Pearl Jam aren't focused on the riffs, metal bands are.

 

[Carlos]

Righto.

Interesting theory. Obviously your concept of groove is a hell of a lot different to the one that Matt Cameron (and Dave Abbruzzesse before him) and Jeff Ament are known for.

 

[rick James]

A pity that in all your masturbatory glee over finding some weird description of 'melodic music' as a genre, you failed to notice that Nirvana in no way fits into the descriptions of types of music that fit in the genre provided by the Wiki entry.

Next time, take care to read what you select before spurting all over the thread about how you've 'won'.

And no - Nirvana are not more 'melodic' than Pearl Jam, Pearl Jam are not 'rhythm/groove based', and if you think Black isn't melodic you have rocks in your head.

I think where you said 'weird description' you actually meant 'actual description'. Or even more accurately 'rJ's initial description was completely correct'.

I take it you are happy to admit that your description of melodic music being "any music that has a melody" was incorrect? I wold certainly hope you're man enough to do so.

Nirvana completely fits into that description btw, I just think you don't know what melody is. I'm hardly claiming to know everything about the subject either, I am just positiver I've demonstrated a much better understanding of it than you.

Oh btw, by your own definition (the one that said any music with a melody is melodic music) Pantera would also be considered melodic music. I think you owe me an apology jm, or at least an admission of your lack of knowledge.

Cobain is a much more melody focused songwriter than PJ as a group are. I don't expect you to understand that, as you've shown you don't actually know what melody is, you even said all music with a melody is 'melodic music' and also claimed Pearl Jam are a melodic rock band and not rhythm/groove based.

In summary, your posts speak for themselves. And they're talking gibberish.

 

[just maybe]

I think where you said 'weird description' you actually meant 'actual description'. Or even more accurately 'rJ's initial description was completely correct'.

I take it you are happy to admit that your description of melodic music being "any music that has a melody" was incorrect? I wold certainly hope you're man enough to do so.

Nirvana completely fits into that description btw, I just think you don't know what melody is. I'm hardly claiming to know everything about the subject either, I am just positiver I've demonstrated a much better understanding of it than you.

Oh btw, by your own definition (the one that said any music with a melody is melodic music) Pantera would also be considered melodic music. I think you owe me an apology jm, or at least an admission of your lack of knowledge.

Cobain is a much more melody focused songwriter than PJ as a group are. I don't expect you to understand that, as you've shown you don't actually know what melody is, you even said all music with a melody is 'melodic music' and also claimed Pearl Jam are a melodic rock band and not rhythm/groove based.

In summary, your posts speak for themselves. And they're talking gibberish.

Hahaha, right. Let's end this farce right here by posting the description of melodic music:

is a term that covers various genres of non-classical music which are primarily characterised by the dominance of a single strong melody line. Rhythm, tempo and beat are subordinate to the melody line or tune, which is generally easily memorable, and followed without great difficulty. Melodic music is found in all parts of the world, overlapping many genres, and may be performed by a singer or orchestra, or a combination of the two.

The fundamental principles and structural norms of melodic music were established in what is sometimes known as the Common practice period, dating from the 18th century to the early 20th century. Melodic music tends to have a consistent metre, pulse and tempo, things that are far less emphasised in contemporary music.

In the west, melodic music has developed largely from folk song sources, and been heavily influenced by classical music in its development and orchestration. In many areas the border line between classical and melodic popular music is imprecise. Opera is generally considered to be a classical form. The lighter operetta is considered borderline, whilst stage and film musicals and musical comedy are firmly placed in the popular melodic category. The reasons for much of this are largely historical.

Other major categories of melodic music include music hall and vaudeville, which, along with the ballad, grew out of European folk music. Orchestral dance music developed from localised forms such as the jig, polka and waltz, but with the admixture of Latin American, blues and ragtime influences, it diversified into countless sub-genres such as big band, cabaret and Swing. More specialised forms of melodic music include military music and religious music.

Traditional pop music overlaps a number of these categories: big band music and musical comedy, for example, are closely allied to traditional pop.

Ah yes. Nirvana, definitely 'developed largely from folk song sources, and been heavily influenced by classical music in its development and orchestration. In many areas the border line between classical and melodic popular music is imprecise'. While definitely fitting into 'major categories of melodic music include music hall and vaudeville, which, along with the ballad, grew out of European folk music. Orchestral dance music developed from localised forms such as the jig, polka and waltz, but with the admixture of Latin American, blues and ragtime influences, it diversified into countless sub-genres such as big band, cabaret and Swing. More specialised forms of melodic music include military music and religious music.'.

Rick, now's your time to show you're man enough to admit you were wrong and that Nirvana doesn't fit in any way, shape or form into this genre, and that you've been twisting and mangling something to suit your flagging argument.

I don't expect you to understand that, as you don't know what melodic music is, but at least I don't try and fit Nirvana into a genre that bears no resemblance to their music.

 

[just maybe]

Righto.

Interesting theory. Obviously your concept of groove is a hell of a lot different to the one that Matt Cameron (and Dave Abbruzzesse before him) and Jeff Ament are known for.

Oh please. Just because the rhythm section of a band can play a groove doesn't mean that's what the band's sound is based upon.

Carlos, you know better than that.

When you think about Pearl Jam, you don't think about groove-based riffing. You think of the vocal or guitar melody. They're essentially a classic rock band - and they are melodic. To not admit that is just stupid.

 

[MinerBoy]

Pearl Jam by a ********ing mile.

Nirvana only broke Grunge into Mainstream with the most overrated song ever, Smells Like Teen Spirit. Pearl Jam came and took over from Nirvana. Ten was far better than Nevermind in terms of quality and sales.

Vs was a billion times better than In Utero. The quality songs that Pearl Jam produced were on another planet compared to Nirvana.

Amen to that.

 

[Carlos]

When you think about Pearl Jam, you don't think about groove-based riffing. You think of the vocal or guitar melody. They're essentially a classic rock band - and they are melodic. To not admit that is just stupid.

You can be an extremely simple and basic person sometimes. And please dont tell me how i think about or perceive music.

Yes, they have some wonderfully melodic parts and Ed is a master of coming up with sweet vocal lines, but to deny what is going on behind all that (groove) is indeed "just stupid".

I'd never deny that most people identify with Ed's vocal parts and lines. But if you look at most of Pearl Jam's biggest hits, especially from their much loved early days, what was underpinning the fantastic vocal parts Ed came up with in tunes like Alive, Even Flow, Jeremy, Go, Animal & Daughter was a solid as a rock groove. And if you ever heard Pearl Jam play Black live with Dave Abbruzzesse, he practically turned that into a Chili Peppers song!

It was incredibly apparent when Jack Irons replaced Dave as their drummer how much their tunes relied on that groove, because he had none. Yeah people still went along in droves and sang their heads off, but the actual music lost all its feel and groove and IMO they sounded like sh*t as a result.

Led Zeppelin are arguably the greatest classic rock band of all time with one of the most identifiable lead singers ever. But you'll also never find a greater example of groove in a rock band.

 

[rick James]

Hahaha, right. Let's end this farce right here by posting the description of melodic music:


Rick, now's your time to show you're man enough to admit you were wrong and that Nirvana doesn't fit in any way, shape or form into this genre, and that you've been twisting and mangling something to suit your flagging argument.

I don't expect you to understand that, as you don't know what melodic music is, but at least I don't try and fit Nirvana into a genre that bears no resemblance to their music.

Wait, until you actually address the points I raised I don't really have to mock you any further. but for the record:

You said Melodic music is any music with a melody, so using your definition, how is Nirvana NOT melodic music?

Also, Nirvana's music, using my definition, definitely meets the criteria. You're focusing on the history of where melodic music as a sub genre comes from - not the actual definition. I suspect you know this but are trying to worm yopur way out of the massive pwn you received both from yourself (all music with melody is melodic music - hahaha) and from me (pointing out the actual definition of melodic music, and the fact nirvana's music is almost always centered around the melody should have been enough, but you don't know what a melody even is so it's proving harder than I expected).

Just to confirm, do you renege on your claim that melodic music is any music that has a melody? You DO renege at least that far right, as in, you acknowledge that you really stuffed up by saying something so stupid, right?

I'll let Carlos show you how ludicrous your opinion of Pearl Jam is. He's doing a good enough job anyway.

 

[just maybe]

Wait, until you actually address the points I raised I don't really have to mock you any further. but for the record:

You said Melodic music is any music with a melody, so using your definition, how is Nirvana NOT melodic music?

Also, Nirvana's music, using my definition, definitely meets the criteria. You're focusing on the history of where melodic music as a sub genre comes from - not the actual definition. I suspect you know this but are trying to worm yopur way out of the massive pwn you received both from yourself (all music with melody is melodic music - hahaha) and from me (pointing out the actual definition of melodic music, and the fact nirvana's music is almost always centered around the melody should have been enough, but you don't know what a melody even is so it's proving harder than I expected).

Just to confirm, do you renege on your claim that melodic music is any music that has a melody? You DO renege at least that far right, as in, you acknowledge that you really stuffed up by saying something so stupid, right?

I'll let Carlos show you how ludicrous your opinion of Pearl Jam is. He's doing a good enough job anyway.

All music with melody is melodic music - in a general sense.

But using this strange definition you've pulled up from Wikipedia - Nirvana doesn't fit into that definition of the genre in any way whatsoever.

Face it rick, you made a fool of yourself. Nirvana in no way whatsoever fit into the definition of the 'melodic music' genre you provided. You stuffed up BIG time, and now you're acting like a child and not being man enough to admit you made a massive f-up and pwned your own weak argument.

Your attitude is a disgrace. You hammer on about how you have the decency to admit you're wrong, but you can't even admit your gross failure here. Nirvana don't meet the definition provided. That's it. That's all there is. You stuffed it and now you're desperately backpedalling.

Grow some cojones, you're embarrassing yourself.

 

[just maybe]

You can be an extremely simple and basic person sometimes. And please dont tell me how i think about or perceive music.

And you can be an extremely pretentious and arrogant person who thinks they know more than they do. And please don't tell me that your views of music are correct. You think Matt Bellamy is one of the best guitarists ever, FFS.

Yes, they have some wonderfully melodic parts and Ed is a master of coming up with sweet vocal lines, but to deny what is going on behind all that (groove) is indeed "just stupid".

And it's 'just stupid' to say that a drummer who can play a groove makes the band 'rhythm/groove based'.

I'd never deny that most people identify with Ed's vocal parts and lines.

Bingo. That's all that needs to be said. The centre of Pearl Jam is melody, regardless of whether you love their drummer.

Led Zeppelin are arguably the greatest classic rock band of all time with one of the most identifiable lead singers ever. But you'll also never find a greater example of groove in a rock band.

And you'd also find few people who wouldn't call Led Zeppelin melodic in many cases.

Bands come up with a mix of styles. Any band.

Pearl Jam, however, are remembered for their guitar melodies and vocal melodies. Even their bass melodies (ie Black). Black, Alive, Rearviewmirror, whatever the hell you want. As you said - people identify with those parts of Pearl Jam.

To then come out and claim they're actually 'rhythm/groove based' is about as crass as it gets and you're doing yourself a terrible disservice. The contradiction in your own words is embarrassing.

 

[rick James]

All music with melody is melodic music - in a general sense.

In a general sense, you're completely wrong and that statement is incorrect.

But using this strange definition you've pulled up from Wikipedia - Nirvana doesn't fit into that definition of the genre in any way whatsoever.

Firstly, the definition isn't strange - to comment that it's strange, please show me WHY it's strange - secondly, if instead of using the part of the definition that merely talks about it's history, were you to focus on the actual definition that mentions melodic music is where a melody is oft repeated throughout a song and is the focus of the song at the expense of the rhythm and beat, I think you'll find most would agree (you won't, because you're an idiot and too proud to admit you're plainly wrong) Nirvana perfectly fit that description.

Face it rick, you made a fool of yourself. Nirvana in no way whatsoever fit into the definition of the 'melodic music' genre you provided. You stuffed up BIG time, and now you're acting like a child and not being man enough to admit you made a massive f-up and pwned your own weak argument.

Mate the only one acting the child is you - you made a ridiculous comment about melodic music being any music with a melody, I showed you a definition of melodic music and how it relates to nirvana, and how it doesn't relate to pearl jam, and now you're just saying "NO you're wrong" over and over without using any logic or alternate definition to back up your argument. Stop crying and either come up with some alternative points, or admit you were wrong like usual. one day you will stop pretending you know anything about anything, and just stfu.

Your attitude is a disgrace. You hammer on about how you have the decency to admit you're wrong, but you can't even admit your gross failure here. Nirvana don't meet the definition provided. That's it. That's all there is. You stuffed it and now you're desperately backpedalling.

Grow some cojones, you're embarrassing yourself.

I always admit when I'm wrong, have o qualms doing it whatsoever. I'm just not seeing how I'm wrong here. I'm seeing a number of people agreeing with me, I'm seeing you constantly SAY I'm wrogn (without showing why) and I'm seeing you chucking a hissy fit because according to JM...

"Pearl Jam aren't rhythm/groove based, Pantera are - oh and melodic music is music with a melody, so Pantera are melodic based as well as rhythm groove based but nirvana aren't because nirvana have no melody in any of their songs"

Tell me why melodic music is any music with a melody - and tell me how that is a correct statement in a "general sense" - really nail down your argument and prove it to me. Because so far it just looks like you trying to wriggle and squirm out of being wrong again.

 

[rick James]

Bingo. That's all that needs to be said. The centre of Pearl Jam is melody, regardless of whether you love their drummer.

You could be talking about Nirvana there, but not PJ.

 

[just maybe]

You could be talking about Nirvana there, but not PJ.

Nope, definitely PJ.

People remember PJ for their guitar and vocal melodies. Not for their groove.

The end.

Case closed.

Facts stated.

 

[rick James]

Nope, definitely PJ.

People remember PJ for their guitar and vocal melodies. Not for their groove.

The end.

Case closed.

Facts stated.

I'll let Carlos handle the idiocy apparent in this post. I seriously can't be arsed proving you wrong on two fronts - but if you think people don't' remember Nirvana for their melody you're delusional. it certainly wasn't their musicianship or rhythm I'll tell you that much.

Anyway, still waiting to hear all your new definitions (should be funny at least) before I'm going to allow this to be a matter of "case closed" little man, so hop to it.

 

[Cleishy]

Regardless of who is a melodic band and who isn't. Nirvana **** all over Pearl Jam. NIrvana changed the music scene at the time and will be long remembered as a result. Pearl Jam are a good band but in 20 years time will not be seen as influential as Nirvana. Pearl Jam hasn't had a decent album in years.

 

[just maybe]

I'll let Carlos handle the idiocy apparent in this post. I seriously can't be arsed proving you wrong on two fronts - but if you think people don't' remember Nirvana for their melody you're delusional. it certainly wasn't their musicianship or rhythm I'll tell you that much.

Of course people remember Nirvana for their melodies.

Same with Pearl Jam.

Typical of you to construct a strawman argument pretending I said 'people don't remember Nirvana for their melody' because you've been ass-slammed on everything else.

Anyway, still waiting to hear all your new definitions (should be funny at least) before I'm going to allow this to be a matter of "case closed" little man, so hop to it.

New definitions? I don't need any. You grabbed a Wikipedia definition that was so laughably different to Nirvana you couldn't backpedal fast enough.

Case is closed, too easy.

But your lack of cojones means you won't admit your gross error.

 

[just maybe]

Regardless of who is a melodic band and who isn't. Nirvana **** all over Pearl Jam. NIrvana changed the music scene at the time and will be long remembered as a result. Pearl Jam are a good band but in 20 years time will not be seen as influential as Nirvana. Pearl Jam hasn't had a decent album in years.

Er...no...

 

[rick James]

Of course people remember Nirvana for their melodies.

Same with Pearl Jam.

Typical of you to construct a strawman argument pretending I said 'people don't remember Nirvana for their melody' because you've been ass-slammed on everything else.

HAHA that backflip is a world record.

just maybe: Melodic Music is any music with a melody

ok...

just maybe: Nirvana are not melodic music

How can they possibly be remembered for their melody when you claimed that they don't even HAVE melody in their music by your OWN definition?

You continue to embarass yourself.