Pearl Jam

Originally posted by EDDMB:For me,the PJ "sound" was gone..No Code and Yeild could have been epic recordings..listen to GTF studio..then any version of it live...night and day difference.

Originally posted by RUMMY:[..]

I suppose I could put Yield on but...I don't listen to PJ studio albums anymore - just bootlegs. Same goes for all my other "favourite" bands...Oasis, Radiohead, U2, etc...only recently my Soundgarden CD's have been played since they haven't given us much in the way of high quality live recordings.

To be honest, I wouldn't have become as big as a fan of PJ as I have over the past two years if it weren't for their bootlegs. The studio albums range from great (Ten, Vs, Vitalogy) to meh (the last couple of albums) but it's the live performances of most of these songs that really make it for me.

Originally posted by EDDMB:www.pearljam.com

every boot is on sale there,for a very reasonable $9.99 each.

Originally posted by RUMMY:[..]


I think you're right on that one, Ron. I think they figured out that one on their own - and even though Ten and Vs sold better than all the rest, are they really THAT commercial?

I read somewhere that Cobain was a hypocrite himself where deep down he wanted to make hits - just in his own way.

I think Nirvana released two, fantasitic, five-star albums. They are both classics and are/were definitely influential, both musically and commercially. I cannot knock them one bit. However, I appreciate your comments, Ed, about Cobain's inability to be a good father...hey, maybe it was THAT disappointment in himself that truly led to his demise.

I won't even get started on Courtney Love - at least as a human being - although some of Hole's music did rock - if only because it was heavily influenced by Cobain, and later Billy Corgan.

Originally posted by clover68:after all the thoughts about live are better the studio album i was wondering which are the cases of the opposite .. i can't admittely find one .. talking about REAL rock band of course hehe