Board index » Watched from the Window, with a Red Mosquito... » Pearl Jam




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 103 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Pearl Jam vs. Foo Fighters
PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 10:26 am 
Offline
Johnny Guitar
 Profile

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 10:41 pm
Posts: 129
The Foo Fighters are terrible? Hey, they're not my favorite band in the world, and I downright hate a good number of their songs (Monkey Wrench, Walk, My Hero come to mind). But to say they're "terrible," I think that's rather pretentious. I mean a band like Creed, that's a fucking terrible band.
The Foos are nowhere near a band like PJ, and it's not really possible for me to truly relate to one of their tunes, but c'mon, they've definetely had their moments.The whole first album is really enjoyable, particularly Alone + Easy Target, love that song. Everlong remains in my regular Ipod rotation, that's some pretty brilliant shit in my opinion. Rope from the last album is also a very nice, catchy tune that I've gotten into.
They may not be Pearl Jam, but they're definetely not Nickelback. Let's not confuse apples and oranges.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pearl Jam vs. Foo Fighters
PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 10:51 am 
Offline
User avatar
Force of Nature
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 9:11 pm
Posts: 904
Location: London, England
Thanks for the measured reply Kevin - I think my comment about 'festival rock' is not that all fans are of this ilk but that they fill that slot in the market, particularly in the UK. They'll just slot into a music 'concert' performing on the same stage as Adele, Justin Bieber and Rihanna as the 'rock act' and the majority of people will not be offended by them and recognise when the chorus comes so they can start putting their hands in the air. As with any stereotype that is an over-exaggeration. The Chili-Peppers entered this category after Californication. They were a safe option for the rock slot.

And @ajurlacher1 - I don't think is pretentious to say they are terrible. It would be pretentious if I said that I didn't like them because they were unaware of musical theory. And why can Creed be terrible but the Foos not be? That makes no sense. Rope is symptomatic of what I am talking about. Generic, forgettable rock riff, obvious chorus repeated far too many times, meaningless lyrics, quiet/loud 'dynamic', strained vocals substituting for emotion. "Next on stage Rihanna!"


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pearl Jam vs. Foo Fighters
PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:49 pm 
Offline
Johnny Guitar
 Profile

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 10:41 pm
Posts: 129
I see what your saying, and like I said, they're not my favorite band in the world by any stretch of the imagination. But to lump them into a category with Rhianna is a bit of a stretch if you ask me. Just my opinion. I enjoy "Rope," and I'm one of those guys that likes to get really high and listen to No Code on vinyl. There's a time and a place for melodic, catchy, "meaningless" radio rock, and as far as that stuff goes, Dave Grohl does it better than anybody, except maybe Tom Petty, of whom I'm a fan. And I certainly think that the gap of shittyness between Creed and the Foos is HUGE.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pearl Jam vs. Foo Fighters
PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 6:00 pm 
Offline
Johnny Guitar
 Profile

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 10:41 pm
Posts: 129
Kevin Davis wrote:
leopold wrote:
I haven't heard a song by them which isn't either cheesy, awful or simply unlistenable. I've seen them live twice and they are boring; although the lack of emotion and narrative interest that typifies their songs is perfectly replicated in the live setting.


I respect all that, I just didn't understand the whole "music for people who want to say they listen to rock music" thing. Is that some clearly defined demographic?

I like the Foo Fighters, but they're not a band for whom I feel especially compelled to go to the mat; most of the criticisms leveled against them are fair, if overstated. I do think the first record was something special, though, and wish they'd continued down the path of "Alone and Easy Target" and "Wattershed" instead of that of "Big Me," a novelty hit whose success (largely spurred on by the video, probably) I suspect caught the band (or Grohl, anyway--it was an entirely different band at that time) a little off-guard and which it kind of seems like they then spent the rest of their career trying to replicate in earnest. Even when they make conscious attempts to revisit the underground rock of their origins, it feels coated in that same sugary film--almost like a weird Hanson/Fugazi hybrid. So I understand the criticisms. But while I don't think Grohl has much future anywhere beyond the increasingly stale FM rock idiom, I do think he manages to make the most of what he does and--occasionally, maybe a few times per album--manages to stumble across something I find genuinely engaging. If I didn't have the connection I have with his debut (and, to a lesser extent, the second album), I probably wouldn't pay it much mind. And I suppose I still don't--"Wasting Light" was the first Foos album I bought since "One By One," and while I think it has a few standouts and a few lesser good songs, it still falls into "diminishing returns" territory, with even the best songs not really matching even the weaker moments on the debut. Grohl is maybe one of those artists who should give up on the notion of the album altogether--the singles format utilized by some of the famous '60's rock bands (and which was the norm in the pre-LP age) would be a lot more suited to his strengths.


I failed to read this before I posted, great stuff. I agree with everything in this 100%.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pearl Jam vs. Foo Fighters
PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 6:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Got Some
 Profile

Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 8:19 am
Posts: 2405
having read every post in here, it seems like the foos and grohl in particular are getting criticized for three things over and over: their music is formulaic, too accessible, and dave's lyrics are meaningless.

i get the first point, but one of the things i really like about them is that no matter what setlist they play, the songs fit together well. i've seen them twice on the wasting like tour. i love that songs like generator, i'll stick around, and hey, johnny park get played right alongside arlandria, dear rosemary, and walk, and they actually complement each other. don't get me wrong, pearl jam is my first and biggest musical love, but you know the same can rarely be said for their sets. we are always analyzing their sets around here, and i would say the main issue diehard fans bring up is the flow of the setlists.

i don't understand the criticism about being too accessible. it's fucking arrogant. just because the majority can grasp and enjoy something doesn't make it shit. the foos don't tap into the christian rock audience that creed milked, nor do they tap into the drink, fuck, and fight crowd that nickelback has courted for a decade. the foos are accessible to pretty much everyone who enjoys a good meat and potatoes rock song. i have taught high school for 13 years. during that time, i've seen the foos multiple times. there are always large numbers of kids jealous of that. when i tell them about pearl jam, some of them mention their dad. sleight of hand is my favorite binaural song; in fact, it's probably my favorite pj song of the last decade, but no one i've played it for has been blown away or even remotely intrigued by it. is that because they're too dumb to get it or do they just not appreciate "honest, challenging music"?

and to the third point, how are dave's lyrics meaningless? he's not beck, anthony keidis, or the guy from train: i don't think he's just rhyming and seeing what he can get away with. i find truth and relevance in most songs on every album. i find the same thing on pearl jam albums, but i also find lukin, johnny guitar, and yellow ledbetter. dave writes some clunkers, sure, but isn't ed responsible for, "i never knew soap made you taller" and "when the gas in my tank feels like money in the bank"? ole!

i've had many conversations and arguments over the last 20 years that revolved around defending pearl jam. if a line in the sand was drawn between these two bands, there is no question which i side i would be on. that said, i think the foos don't get enough credit for the catalog they've put together in 3 or 4 less years than pearl jam or for the live juggernaut that they have become. there i no question that when all is said and done pearl jam's early/mid-90s highs will not be touched by the anything the foos or pearl jam does in the future. due to that, i am sure the band and Ten will make top 100 lists for a century to come, but i wouldn't be surprised if the foos have a more widespread impact on future generations as their parents, who will be spread out over a longer period of time due to the foo's sustained popularity, play them the songs (not albums) of their youth.

_________________
Oh Chimpanzee That!
Monkey News


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pearl Jam vs. Foo Fighters
PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 9:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Got Some
 Profile

Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 4:41 am
Posts: 1123
Gender: Male
The Foos are boring, quite frankly. There are a million other bands I'd rather listen to. And I find it highly amusing that Foos fans are offended when you compare them to Creed and Nickelback. Can anybody point out to me what makes them any better? They're playing the same kind of crappy music for the same basic fanbase.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pearl Jam vs. Foo Fighters
PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 10:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Coast to Coast
 Profile

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:21 am
Posts: 23078
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Gender: Male
Cameronia wrote:
The Foos are boring, quite frankly. There are a million other bands I'd rather listen to. And I find it highly amusing that Foos fans are offended when you compare them to Creed and Nickelback. Can anybody point out to me what makes them any better? They're playing the same kind of crappy music for the same basic fanbase.

Can you point out what makes Pearl Jam better than any of those bands?

_________________
For more insulated and ill-informed opinions, click here.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pearl Jam vs. Foo Fighters
PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 10:34 pm 
Offline
Yeah Yeah Yeah
 Profile

Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 12:23 am
Posts: 4187
theplatypus wrote:
Cameronia wrote:
The Foos are boring, quite frankly. There are a million other bands I'd rather listen to. And I find it highly amusing that Foos fans are offended when you compare them to Creed and Nickelback. Can anybody point out to me what makes them any better? They're playing the same kind of crappy music for the same basic fanbase.

Can you point out what makes Pearl Jam better than any of those bands?


:shock:


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pearl Jam vs. Foo Fighters
PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 10:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Coast to Coast
 Profile

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:21 am
Posts: 23078
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Gender: Male
It all follows the basic templates of rock music-- any distinction you can think of is grounded in personal taste rather than anything concrete. Of course I think Pearl Jam is better than those bands, but not because they're doing anything drastically different. I can tell you that I think Pearl Jam are a more versatile and powerful band than Creed, just like I can tell you that I much prefer the sense of melody and craftsmanship in the Foo Fighters' music than Nickelback's. But at the end of the day, those bands all play "the same kind of music". It's not really a valid criticism to level at the Foos.

_________________
For more insulated and ill-informed opinions, click here.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pearl Jam vs. Foo Fighters
PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 10:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Got Some
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 5:13 am
Posts: 1092
Location: Guarulhos - Brazil
Gender: Male
Guys, Jorge is right.

_________________
Is having an ok day.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pearl Jam vs. Foo Fighters
PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 11:31 pm 
Offline
Johnny Guitar
 Profile

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 10:41 pm
Posts: 129
To compare Creed to the Foos is not "offensive," I just happen to think that they are a far better band. And here's why;

-Lyrical content (not that Grohl is the best, but c'mon, his words are better than Scott Stapp's)
-Song organization/composition
-Lead singer is less of a douche
-Lead singer doesn't exclusively use the Vedder vibrato on every single fucking song
-The band is more talented, instrument by instrument
-Dave Grohl has deep seeded rock roots that stretch from everything from straight punk, to Nirvana, to Tom Petty, to Queens of the Stone Age. Say what you will, dude is a diverse, talented musician. That first Foo album is 100% Dave Grohl. I don't care who you are, you at least have to respect the mans ability. The same cannot be said for any member of Creed
-They take their music videos far less serious
-They played on the same tour as Mike Watt. Awesome


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pearl Jam vs. Foo Fighters
PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 11:45 pm 
Offline
Johnny Guitar
 Profile

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 10:41 pm
Posts: 129
At the end of the day, it's all artistic expression. I think part of the reason why we all love Pearl Jam so much is because they they are as sincere about the process as humanly possible. They really want to make their music as pure, and creative as it can possibly be. Not only do we love the songs, the albums, but we truly respect the band. That's why we're willing to give songs like Parachutes or The Fixer multiple chances to pique our interest.
I do like the Foo Fighters, but I respect the Foo's a lot less than I respect Pearl Jam. They certainly take their shit seriously, but they are also more concerned with writing radio friendly, catchy tunes than PJ is, was, and ever will be. With them, I take the stuff for what it is, nothing more than high quality, radio friendly rock n roll.
Bands like Creed and Nickelback fall into the bottom portion of the respect category. But shit, I've got With Arms Wide Open and How You Remind Me on my Ipod. I mean I'm not gonna break that shit out in front of any of my snobby music friends, but I sincerely love all music, dude. That's just how I am. Fuck, I just listened to Purple Rain all the way through the other day. And I promise you, my PJ obsession rivals anybody on this board.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pearl Jam vs. Foo Fighters
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 12:11 am 
Offline
User avatar
Force of Nature
 Profile

Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 11:14 pm
Posts: 802
Location: Australia
Gender: Male
verb_to_trust wrote:
Wasting Light is better than Avocado and BS in my opinion, and I don't even think its close.


I though this was interesting. Now that you mention it I'd have to agree that Wasting Light is a vastly better album than Backspacer and Avocado too.

I think as far as live acts go you could be a Foo Fighters fan and get away with seeing them only once or twice every 12-18 months as the setlists don't change that much. They seem to just run two different sets for the most part which is only really 4-5 songs difference between the two and maybe a slight change in the running order or encore choices.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pearl Jam vs. Foo Fighters
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 12:14 am 
Offline
User avatar
Force of Nature
 Profile

Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 11:14 pm
Posts: 802
Location: Australia
Gender: Male
ajurlacher1 wrote:
Bands like Creed and Nickelback fall into the bottom portion of the respect category. But shit, I've got With Arms Wide Open and How You Remind Me on my Ipod. I mean I'm not gonna break that shit out in front of any of my snobby music friends, but I sincerely love all music, dude. That's just how I am. Fuck, I just listened to Purple Rain all the way through the other day. And I promise you, my PJ obsession rivals anybody on this board.


I would never classify Purple Rain as something to be embarrassed of, it's pretty genius. I'd certainly never lump it in a pool of embarrassing music alongside Creed or Nickleback.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pearl Jam vs. Foo Fighters
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 12:28 am 
Offline
Johnny Guitar
 Profile

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 10:41 pm
Posts: 129
dumbcharger wrote:
ajurlacher1 wrote:
Bands like Creed and Nickelback fall into the bottom portion of the respect category. But shit, I've got With Arms Wide Open and How You Remind Me on my Ipod. I mean I'm not gonna break that shit out in front of any of my snobby music friends, but I sincerely love all music, dude. That's just how I am. Fuck, I just listened to Purple Rain all the way through the other day. And I promise you, my PJ obsession rivals anybody on this board.


I would never classify Purple Rain as something to be embarrassed of, it's pretty genius. I'd certainly never lump it in a pool of embarrassing music alongside Creed or Nickleback.


100% agreed, however, I'd be inclined to believe that the same PJ crazies who belittle the Foos would be just as quick to rip into Prince, based on the criteria given in this thread. Lyrics, pop sensibility, depth of content, etc.
But yeah, Purple Rain is fucking awesome. The title track and When Doves Cry are both absolutely fantastic pop songs.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pearl Jam vs. Foo Fighters
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 3:52 am 
Offline
Force of Nature
 Profile

Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 10:32 am
Posts: 526
inglishteecher wrote:
having read every post in here, it seems like the foos and grohl in particular are getting criticized for three things over and over: their music is formulaic, too accessible, and dave's lyrics are meaningless.

i get the first point, but one of the things i really like about them is that no matter what setlist they play, the songs fit together well. i've seen them twice on the wasting like tour. i love that songs like generator, i'll stick around, and hey, johnny park get played right alongside arlandria, dear rosemary, and walk, and they actually complement each other. don't get me wrong, pearl jam is my first and biggest musical love, but you know the same can rarely be said for their sets. we are always analyzing their sets around here, and i would say the main issue diehard fans bring up is the flow of the setlists.

i don't understand the criticism about being too accessible. it's fucking arrogant. just because the majority can grasp and enjoy something doesn't make it shit. the foos don't tap into the christian rock audience that creed milked, nor do they tap into the drink, fuck, and fight crowd that nickelback has courted for a decade. the foos are accessible to pretty much everyone who enjoys a good meat and potatoes rock song. i have taught high school for 13 years. during that time, i've seen the foos multiple times. there are always large numbers of kids jealous of that. when i tell them about pearl jam, some of them mention their dad. sleight of hand is my favorite binaural song; in fact, it's probably my favorite pj song of the last decade, but no one i've played it for has been blown away or even remotely intrigued by it. is that because they're too dumb to get it or do they just not appreciate "honest, challenging music"?

and to the third point, how are dave's lyrics meaningless? he's not beck, anthony keidis, or the guy from train: i don't think he's just rhyming and seeing what he can get away with. i find truth and relevance in most songs on every album. i find the same thing on pearl jam albums, but i also find lukin, johnny guitar, and yellow ledbetter. dave writes some clunkers, sure, but isn't ed responsible for, "i never knew soap made you taller" and "when the gas in my tank feels like money in the bank"? ole!

i've had many conversations and arguments over the last 20 years that revolved around defending pearl jam. if a line in the sand was drawn between these two bands, there is no question which i side i would be on. that said, i think the foos don't get enough credit for the catalog they've put together in 3 or 4 less years than pearl jam or for the live juggernaut that they have become. there i no question that when all is said and done pearl jam's early/mid-90s highs will not be touched by the anything the foos or pearl jam does in the future. due to that, i am sure the band and Ten will make top 100 lists for a century to come, but i wouldn't be surprised if the foos have a more widespread impact on future generations as their parents, who will be spread out over a longer period of time due to the foo's sustained popularity, play them the songs (not albums) of their youth.


:x

_________________
'I thought the world, too bad the world thought me. .It's all the other way round, we're upside down.'


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pearl Jam vs. Foo Fighters
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 5:01 am 
Offline
Yeah Yeah Yeah
 Profile

Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 6:37 am
Posts: 3819
Comparing the Foo Fighters to Nickelback or Creed on any level beyond "rock music that gets played on the radio" seems completely inapt to me--the Foos incorporate so many more influences, so many more sensibilities. Not so much lately, perhaps, but there's a broad range of styles and a traceable growth on their first three records, considerably more so than I suspect you get from a traipse through Creed's discography (though, having only ever heard their singles, I suppose I could be underestimating them).

theplatypus wrote:
But at the end of the day, those bands all play "the same kind of music". It's not really a valid criticism to level at the Foos.


Oddly enough, I think Pearl Jam and the Foos' most kindred connection might be "Around the Bend" and "Walking After You"--to me those songs always felt eerily like distant cousins...

_________________
Buy KD's book! Official site or Amazon
Visit KD's blog! http://kevinpauldavis.blogspot.com
Join KD today and make a difference in women's lives! http://www.kappadelta.org/


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pearl Jam vs. Foo Fighters
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 5:19 am 
Offline
Yeah Yeah Yeah
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 5:15 pm
Posts: 3875
I think the casual music fan younger than 30 likes the Foos more than they do PJ. Dave Grohl just comes across as a guy who loves music and feels fortunate where as PJ and Ed especially can make it seem like a burden they bear. I absolutely love that the Foos would use their Letterman appearance to play Bad Reputation with Joan Jett, generally acting as her backing band than promote themselves. PJ for all their past talk wouldn't do this. I love that dave let's his fandom rule.


Love this appearance with Roger Daltrey,
.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pearl Jam vs. Foo Fighters
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 9:32 am 
Offline
User avatar
Got Some
 Profile

Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:07 am
Posts: 1632
Location: Seattle, WA
via Global Festival twitter:

Quote:
David Grohl says #GlobalCitizen Festival will be the last @foofighters show for an indefinite period. RT if you think it was epic


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pearl Jam vs. Foo Fighters
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 7:38 pm 
Offline
Yeah Yeah Yeah
 Profile

Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 12:23 am
Posts: 4187
Kevin Davis wrote:
Comparing the Foo Fighters to Nickelback or Creed on any level beyond "rock music that gets played on the radio" seems completely inapt to me--the Foos incorporate so many more influences, so many more sensibilities. Not so much lately, perhaps, but there's a broad range of styles and a traceable growth on their first three records, considerably more so than I suspect you get from a traipse through Creed's discography (though, having only ever heard their singles, I suppose I could be underestimating them).

theplatypus wrote:
But at the end of the day, those bands all play "the same kind of music". It's not really a valid criticism to level at the Foos.


Oddly enough, I think Pearl Jam and the Foos' most kindred connection might be "Around the Bend" and "Walking After You"--to me those songs always felt eerily like distant cousins...


Great Post here...they are way better than those bands because od those influences, their sensiblities and just because of their songs. They have try and succeed to go way further than those bands. The same with PJ. For me its not the same kind of music at all.

bodysnatcher wrote:
via Global Festival twitter:

Quote:
David Grohl says #GlobalCitizen Festival will be the last @foofighters show for an indefinite period. RT if you think it was epic


This seems like the right choise for them after such a world tour. They really did a great job promoting Wasting Light.


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 103 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Board index » Watched from the Window, with a Red Mosquito... » Pearl Jam


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 3:37 pm