Posted by SCHNAKE: BTW, nice job on calling me a nazi. That
was pretty applicable to the argument at hand, douchebag. And once more,
for those who don't read so well, please refrain from calling people stupid
while in the process of posting stupid claims, in a public forum, for all
to see. Please reevaluate your pathetic, vapid life and consider heterosexuality.
It's really not so bad.
Posted by
SCHNAKE: Are you too stupid to read that Cobain
was SUPPOSED to be on the cover, and that the story within actually devoted
more words to him than to Vedder? GOD, make make these braindead cretins
stop! Anyway, my point was that Vedder wouldn't be on the cover of Time
even if he died, it'd be more like maybe a column in Rolling Stone. Next?
Posted by
ONCE AGAIN...: It's much more impressive to be on the
cover of TIME magazine for being alive, instead of being on the cover for
being dead - you stupid nazi
Posted by
SCHNAKE: Let me know when Vedder is on the cover
of a magazine concerning a story ABOUT HIM, ok? Dumbass.
Posted by
SCHNAKE: I can't believe I'm forced to have to
school this dimwit ONCE AGAIN.Lion, a pearl jam fanatic such as yourself
should be ashamed for not knowing about this story already. The story was
originally intended to be called "Nirvana vs. Pearl Jam" and it was supposed
to have Vedder AND COBAIN on the cover. When Vedder and Cobain informed
Time magazine that they wanted the cover to feature a picture of themselves
making out, Time freaked out and threw the Vedder picture on there at the
last minute. If you weren't such an illiterate simpleton, you would've
actually READ the article instead of just masturbating to the cover, and
you would've seen that it wasn't about Pearl Jam at all, it was about "grunge".
As a matter of fact, I pulled up the article and counted more sentences
about Nirvana! You have once again proven that there is no "off" position
on the idiot switch. Please limit your comments to those that don't portray
yourself in such a witless state, or at least don't call others "stupid"
unless you know what the hell you're talking about.
Posted by 5Against1: Ed was on the cover of Time, but the article
wasn't about him, it was about the new "angry young bands" or some such
thing. If Kurt had lived, quit Nirvana, and joined Courtney's band, we
wouldn't even be having this discussion.
Posted byThe
Truth: Pearl Jam is one of the most overrated
bands ever. Eddie isn't worthy to lick Kurt's balls.
Posted byLion
= Moron: Dude get over it already and go take your
prozac
Posted bySchnake,
eat your words stupid: Eddie Vedder time magazine cover - http://www.time.com/time/magazine/archive/covers/0,16641,1101931025,00.html
- show me when Kurt was on TIME before he died
Posted by &
FIVEAGAINST1, YOU'RE WRONG: " Eddie, Chris Cornell, and Layne wouldn't
have got the same treatment" - It's funny how you throw Eddie Vedders name
in with Layne & Chris Cornell's - EDDIE VEDDER WAS MUCH BIGGER THAN
LAYNE OR CHRIS, DUDE - & you using how much press Layne got is so STUPID
considering he died LONG AFTER the Seattle scene died, & Kurt died
in the midst of it, not to mention nirvana was much more popular than aic...
damn 5against1 - i throught you might be the ONE GUY on here who had a
brain, too bad you proved me wrong
Posted bySCHNAKE...
YOU ARE SUCH A MORON: "You make a good point. If Eddie Vedder
died, it would be on the cover of Rolling Stone, but not the cover of Newsweek,
or Time, like Cobain. Which just shows who is an icon, and who is just
a good vocalist in a once popular band" - That's funny....BECAUSE EDDIE
VEDDER WAS ALREADY ON THE COVER OF TIME MAGAZINE! & HE DIDNT EVEN HAVE
TO DIE TO DO IT! IDIOT!!! - love the Lion
Posted bySS: It is no secret that Pearl Jam is my favorite
band but even I know that Nirvana was the band that made grunge the movement
it became. 5A1 and aG are right, Cobain was an icon long before he died
and was definitely a household name. That was part of what he hated about
his fame. In my opinion Pearl Jam were one of the best bands of the 90s
and did influence a lot of bands but Nirvana were the icon of the decade.
As much as I love Pearl Jam, I don't understand the need to try and dethrone
Nirvana and elevate Pearl Jam in their place. I think Pearl Jam hate seeing
this. They can stand proud on their own record, they don't need Nirvana's.
Posted bySCHNAKE: You make a good point. If Eddie Vedder
died, it would be on the cover of Rolling Stone, but not the cover of Newsweek,
or Time, like Cobain. Which just shows who is an icon, and who is just
a good vocalist in a once popular band.
Posted by5Against1: It's extremely doubtful that Rolling Stone
would have devoted it's whole cover to Kurt's death if he wasn't already
an icon. Everyone from Tom Brokaw and Rush Limbaugh to the Christian Science
Monitor and The Weekly Reader commented on his death. Eddie, Chris Cornell,
and Layne wouldn't have got the same treatment. In fact, Layne's death
was barely, if at all, mentioned outside of the entertainment media. The
press likened Kurt to Buddy Holly or Elvis as far as his stature was concerned,
because he was recognized as the voice of "grunge". Plenty of moms knew
who he was prior to his death, ever try to iron flannel?
Posted bySCHNAKE: I just realized that the original thread
on which we are arguing about this had nothing to do with either PJ or
Nirvana. Heh.
Posted byLion
saying THANK YOU schnake: "I'll agree that after Kurt died, they
became the kind of household name that even my mom knew" - That was ALL
I was trying to point out
Posted bySCHNAKE: Yeah, you are pretty wrong. I'll agree
that after Kurt died, they became the kind of household name that even
my mom knew, but before that, they were still ENORMOUS. When I saw them
play, it was at a stadium, not a club.
Posted byaG: I got your point and for the third time
you are wrong.
Posted bySmitty: What a stupid argument. Arguing like little
children over which band is better. Mr. Lion needs to quit fellating eddie
veddar for a second and check his facts. Personally, I feel that Soundgarden,
AIC, and Pearl Jam were all better than Nirvana. but there is no disputing
the impact Nirvana had. Now if we are done with "Whose favorite band is
better" maybe we can move on to "My dad can beat up your dad"
Posted by5Against1: Citizen Dick never made it big...go figure.
Posted byOk
Ag...: "Nirvana got the credit when it happened,
not after Kurt died. Nirvana broke big before PJ did" - For the 3rd time,
you have missed the point.. try to understand this ONE more time... ok
Ag?... Nirvana DID get credit before Kurt Cobain died, but they only started
getting much more credit than Pearl Jam for starting the revolution AFTER
Kurt died.... am I talking to a brick wall here Ag? what Im saying is so
incredibly simple, yet you still don't seem to get it
Posted by5Against1: The issuse should have been dropped the
minute someone compared Pearl Jam to Phish. I never saw Jeff Ament do a
5 minute fretless bass solo, lol. Look, Kurt would have been pushing 40
if he were still alive, who knows what he'd be recording, although there
are still over a dozen Vasilines tracks he didn't do yet, lol, sorry. "Grunge"
is gone and with the current state of the "industry" it's highly doubtful
that we'll ever see a bunch of great bands like that appear at once and
shake things up again. As far as "starting the revolution" is concerned,
I suggest you look into the Melvins or Mudhoney.
Posted byaG: I didn't twist your words around. Nirvana
got the credit when it happened, not after Kurt died. Nirvana broke big
before PJ did. They opened the floodgates of grunge. They supposedly tried
to lose fans with In Utero. If you want to be technical AIC were the first
Seattle band to break (1990) but they didn't spark a new trend the way
Nirvana did. I understand you are a big PJ fan but you can't rewrite history.
Yes, in the end they proved more popular as they sold more cds but Nirvana
had a bigger impact because without Nirvana, PJ would not have broken as
big and radio and MTV would never have given them the exposure they got.
Later they could call their own shots because they had built a fanbase
already but Ten would have never received the exposure it got if "Smells
Like Teen Spirit" hadn't become a surprise hit months earlier.
Posted bySCHNAKE: I don't need to read reviews. I can think
for myself. I've heard that album...sorry, nothing Pearl Jam has ever released
is anywhere near what I would term "experimental". I will point out for
the hundredth time that I like Pearl Jam. But experimental? Nope. You can
cite all the music critics you want, most of them are choads in my opinion
anyway. Like I said, quit quoting music critics, and realize that this
argument is dead. It's opinion vs. opinion, and you are trying to use (snicker)
MUSIC CRITICS, of all people to validate your retorts. I'm hurting my back
from stooping to your level, so lets just drop it.
Posted byKurt
GoBang: Eddie Bedwetter? grow up, anybodies name
can be made fun of
Posted byI
believe a music author said it best with this...: "Nirvana was the best grunge band ever,
but Pearl Jam is the best rock band ever" - if i had to choose, id rather
be in the best rock band ever, easily
Posted byLion: One more thing Schanke, your quote - "
assure you, no matter how "experimental" you think PJ became (and that
just shows what a watered down concept you obviously have of "experimentation"),
" - Have you even heard the song 'Who You Are'? its off their 1996 album,
'No Code' - you obviously have NO idea what you're talking about... 'No
Code' was insulted by many critics (aswell as praised from many) for being
TOO experimental... I think 1000+ music critics agreeing on how experimental
No Code is, is better than some loser on this website like you & your
opinion... go read any review on 'No Code', & I can almost guarantee
you, the author will comment on how experimental it is... get a clue
Posted byLion: "Nirvana would still have sold well over
90,000 if they were still around" - Schnake, I disagree with you.... think
about it this way, Pearl Jam's 'Vitalogy', released in 1994, sold 5 million
albums... Nirvanas 'In Utero', released in 1993, sold 5 million albums,
but had a music video - the conclusion is that numbers wise, Nirvana was
sinking just as fast, if not faster than Pearl Jams numbers... if Eddie
Vedder died instead of Kurt Cobain.... & Nirvana went on to make albums,
they wouldve been lucky if any album they made after 96 broke the 1 million
mark
Posted byYOU
MISSED THE POINT AG: Nirvana did NOT get that much more credit
for starting the revolution, they only started getting much more credit
than Pearl Jam for starting the revolution AFTER kurt died, & you twist
my words around
Posted by5Against1: Nirvana will always be synonomous with
"grunge" and the "Seattle sound" (even though it should be Mudhoney) because
they were the group that broke out and killed hair bands. If they weren't
already a huge name then Kurt's death wouldn't have mattered, so that argument
is invalid. His early demise won't hurt their legacy though, these tragedies
tend to increase the mystique of a band amongst fans and "historians".
"Smells Like Teen Spirit" will always be the anthem for "grunge", that's
just the way it is, it was a moment in time. Throwing around album sales
figures is fun, but with the popularity of downloads in recent years it's
really not a reliable indicator of anything anymore. Pearl Jam will be
remembered as part of "grunge" even though "grunge" was, for all intents
and purposes, gone by their third album. They did some quirky stuff like
releasing "Vitology" on vinyl before disc, refusing to make videos, and
releasing 72 live albums at the same time, but their live shows will be
their legacy. I never saw Nirvana live so I can't comment on their stage
show. What kind of airply has PJ gotten over the past 10 years? They don't
write radio friendly tunes. After "Better Man" and "Corduroy" all you heard
was "Yellow Ledbetter" and the remake of "Last Kiss", both of which weren't
even on albums. I never hear anything from "Yield", "Binaural", or "Riot
Act" on the radio. It's always "Alive" or "Jeremy". PJ sells out shows
on word of mouth. They don't sell albums anymore, that's why their label
dropped them. They had their heyday and now they do their own thing. We'll
never know what direction Nirvana would have gone. I suspect AIC and Soundgarden
would have stayed pretty much the same though.
Posted byLION,
YOU'RE AN IDIOT.: I assure you, no matter how "experimental"
you think PJ became (and that just shows what a watered down concept you
obviously have of "experimentation"), Nirvana would still have sold well
over 90,000 if they were still around. Do I need to remind you about In
Utero, which was, with the exception of a few standard verse/chorus songs,
a loud, dissonent, much noisier album than Nevermind? The balls it took
to follow up one of the biggest selling albums of all time with In Utero
is more "experimental" than Pearl Jam trying to emulate Phish and become
a jam band. Suck me.
Posted byEddie
Bedwetter: Also from VH1 "Ten didn't begin selling
in significant numbers until early 1992, after Nirvana made mainstream
rock radio receptive to alternative rock acts." "Nevermind was released
in September, supported by a quick American tour. While DGC was expecting
a moderately successful release, in the neighborhood of 100,000 copies,
Nevermind immediately became a smash hit, quickly selling out its initial
shipment of 50,000 copies and creating a shortage across America. What
helped the record become a success was "Smells Like Teen Spirit," a blistering
four-chord rocker that was accompanied by a video that shot into heavy
MTV rotation. By the beginning of 1992, "Smells Like Teen Spirit" had climbed
into the American Top Ten and Nevermind bumped Michael Jackson's much-touted
comeback album Dangerous off the top of the album charts; it reached the
British Top Ten shortly afterward. By February, the album had been certified
triple platinum." Those are some of the facts, that first bit someone posted
before was opinion and you have to remember that these VH1 bios were written
by Stephen Thomas Erlewine, a proven moron. Go read some of his "bios"
at allmusicguide.com and you'll see this quickly.
Posted byaG: If you "remember" Nirvana only getting
credit until after Kurt died, you have a faulty memory or perhaps were
living under a rock in 91. And to say PJ sold all of those albums without
airplay is just as silly. Any band that sells ten million plus of a debut
will sell a few million right out of the gate with a follow up. MTV or
not and they sure weren't camera shy for Ten. I know it is fashionable
to rewrite history in this day and age but aside from this being a silly
debate, you can rewrite history and pretend Nirvana only got popular after
Kurt died but that's doesn't make it so.
Posted byJayson: i dont really want to get involved here/
but i remember back in 93' pearl jams second album "vs" broke the record
for the fastest selling album ever, & they didnt have a music video
for it/ nirvanas "in utero" released the same year did have a music video/
so it was more promoted/ but didnt come close to being as huge as "vs",
end discussion really/ along with the other points people here have made
Posted bySCHNAKE
- you're an idiot: "Or we could go by Pearl Jam's last album
which, in its first week sold (hold your laughter, please) 90,000"....
if Kurt never died, & Nirvana went onto the same depths of experimentation
that Pearl Jam did, & Nirvana just had an album out in 2002.. I highly
doubt it wouldve sold much more than 90,000... the Smashing Pumpkins, who
were a huge multiplatinum band... their last studio album, didn't even
sell 90,000... to me, this is proof that if Nirvana survived, & experimented..
they wouldnt of done better than 90,000 in the first week.. probably much
worse... the points you make, Schnake, are idiotic & uneducated...
- lion
Posted byNirvana
still hasnt sold more albums: Nirvana may of sold 50 million albums
worldwide - but Pearl Jam already sold 50+ million albums worldwide BEFORE
the article you posted was written, Schnake - that article, written on
11.17.02 announcing Nirvanas 50 million mark, was written LONG after Pearl
Jam already sold 50 million... oh yeah, and Butch - about judging how many
albums a band sells & how it doesn't matter - it DOES matter when they're
doing it WITHOUT the help of mtv, moron... because that means they're selling
purely on how good their music is
Posted byNIRVANAS
IMPACT WASNT MUCH BIGGER THAN PEARL JAMS....: People act like nirvana had a much bigger
impact than pearl jam... they sure as hell didnt. In fact, I'm 29 now,
& when the Seattle sound broke, I heard of Pearl Jam before I heard
of Nirvana.... Nirvana didn't start getting more credit than Pearl Jam
for "making" Seattle until after Kurt died, probably cause everyone was
made to feel sorry for him. Now I just came here and this is my first post,
and I am not a big fan of either band, but if I had to choose, I think
Pearl Jam represents the 90's as a whole better than Nirvana... because
don't forget the fact that Nirvana didnt even make it half way through
the 90's, while Pearl Jam made it all the way through. The verdict? Pearl
Jam was definitely the more essential 90's band.
Posted byBUTCH: p.s. schwind, i've always been rather
partial to "martha" off of closing time. or "virginia ave." great record...alice
has the same effect on me as closing time does except alice's effct is
more, um, beautifuly twisted.
Posted byBUTCH: aG, you drove a stake threw the heart
of that debate. well put. i, on the other hand, don't mind slamming pearl
jam. i think they stink and pale in comparison to everything nirvana acheived.--if
you judge music by the number of units sold then you're, by principle,
foolish and excluded from ANY debate about artistic merit or importance.
go work for a fukkin record company or something. they like that kind of
talk. just don't tell me that record sales represent a band/artists importance.
(see antiguy's example)
Posted byaG: Oh yeah. Ten did outsell Nevermind but
again on the overall impact on music, I have to go with Nirvana. You can't
go by sales alone, I mean N Sync outsold Sgt Peppers and let's talk about
impact there.
Posted byaG: While Pearl Jam were popular and still
are relatively popular, Nirvana had a far bigger impact on music. That
doesn't diminish PJ contribution to music in the 90s but in the grand scheme
of things Nirvana will go down in the history books on top. Actually, without
Nirvana and the big splash they made, PJ most likely would not have broken
as big as they did. As for VH1, do you agree with everything they say?
Is Missy Elliot one of the most significant artists of the 90s? There is
no doubt that PJ were one of biggest bands of the 90s but as far as impact,
Nirvana has it hands down over them. On another note, i don't think people
give AIC enough credit for their impact. And let's not forget about Soundgarden
Posted bySCHNAKE: Or we could go by Pearl Jam's last album
which, in its first week sold (hold your laughter, please) 90,000. Look,
I don't dislike Pearl Jam, I just was stating an opinion that to ME, and
ME ALONE, Nirvana was a more important band, in terms of who I believe
will be remembered as being more relevant, say, 25 years from now. And
please don't use VH1, as your quotable "authority" on why PJ is better,
it only serves to make you look like an out of touch old fogey. It was
an opinion, let's just agree to disagree. And by the way, you say PJ has
sold 50 Million and Nirvana has sold 30? Hm. http://www.411mania.com/music/news/article.php?news_id=1052
Posted byHERES
ANOTHER FACT ABOUT PEARL JAM BEING THE BIGGEST...: Schnake - go to Vh1.com .. type in 'Pearl
Jam'... & the first lines from VH1.. are "Pearl Jam rose from the ashes
of Mother Love Bone to become the most popular American rock n roll band
of the 90's" - this is VH1 were talking about dude... even they say Pearl
Jam is bigger than Nirvana... you ARE acting like a dumb american... worldwide,
Pearl Jam is the 90's band, just accept it
Posted byThis
is lion... schnake, you're a moron.....: You use the fact schnake.. that Nirvanas
box set has sold more than Pearl Jam's latest release... which was a greatest
hits album... but this comparison is so incredibly stupid I can't even
believe it... think about it... what would sell more? a box set of UNRELEASED
songs from Nirvana?... or Pearl Jam's GREATEST HITS from their 7 studio
albums?... hey.. did you ever stop & think that maybe the Pearl Jam
fans already HAVE ALL 7 STUDIO ALBUMS, SO THERES NO REASON TO BUY A GREATEST
HITS?!.. you MORON, theres EVERY reason for a nirvana fan to pick up UNRELEASED
songs, there was NOTHING unreleased on the greatest hits, so OF COURSE
nirvanas box set would outsell Pearl Jams greatest hits.... and the last
guy was right... Pearl Jam has sold millions upon millions more albums
than Nirvana... where were you getting that information? just stop schnake,
you're being embarrassed
Posted bySCHNAKE
- YOU'RE INCREDIBLY INCORRECT....: "or instead I could just cite the fact
that Nirvana has sold five times as many albums" - Is this a joke? Schnake,
go to www.riaa.com & look at how many albums Pearl Jam has sold, &
look at how many albums Nirvana has sold - add it all up.... Nirvana has
sold about 30 million albums world wide, & Pearl Jam has sold 50 million
albums... Pearl Jam has not only sold more albums than Nirvana, Pearl Jam
has sold WAY more albums than Nirvana
Posted by5Against1: Pearl Jam was clearly the best American
rock band of the '90s. It's not even close. They were, and continue to
be, one of the best live acts ever. Only a handful of bands can even launch
a successful tour anymore, look at the rising number of cancellations,
yet PJ sells out every venue with hardly any promotion, the exception being
the year they printed their own tickets while fighting Ticketmaster. Their
greatest hits album that was just released was aimed at the casual fan,
most PJ fans already have all of those cuts. They don't care about album
sales anyway, they refuse to write for radio and they won't make videos,
their fan base keeps them going. If you want to quote album sales, "Ten"
outsold "Nevermind" and "Vs." sold a million copies in it's first week.
I love Nirvana and the Doors, but they don't hold a candle to PJ as far
as musical competence is concerned, the band can flat out play. Lots of
people haven't even heard a PJ album outside of "Ten", "Vs.", or "Vitology",
and that's too bad because they've written some great stuff over the years.
Everyone has their opinion, that's cool, but PJ's place in rock history
is cemented, zero airplay (of anything from the past 8-10 years anyway)
and almost zero promotion, yet they remain a top draw all over the globe.
Did I mention the live show? Wow. Incredible.
Posted bySCHNAKE: 1. You make yourself look like a pinhead
when you tell someone their OPINION is wrong. When I said they were THE
band, I meant in terms of legacy, their importance, and overall greatness,
IN MY OPINION. I like Pearl Jam, but I don't think of them as much as Nirvana
when I think of one single band that TO ME defined that era. 2. As far
as who's more "well known", I could take your criticism that I'm a dumb
American and I'm centering my opinions on American tastes, or instead I
could just cite the fact that Nirvana has sold five times as many albums.
Man, us dumb Americans think we know it all. Let's see, that album Pearl
Jam just released has sold an AMAZING 83,000 copies. Wow. That's a ton.
By contrast, the "lesser known" band Nirvana broke all time sales records
for a BOX SET (that's several CDs, for you uneducated Yankees out there)
by selling 106,000 in a week. Hmm. Would you like to tell me my opinion
is wrong, or go by facts and figures? Oh, that's right, YOU'RE WRONG ON
BOTH COUNTS. Idiot. 3. Like I would give one ounce of credence to any website
that would actually pit the Doors vs. Pearl Jam. Please. One is legendary,
the other are great, but not even in the same ballpark.
Posted byAnuj: Appreciate them both.
Posted byEmalee: I have to agree about Pearl Jam. I live
in the United States, but overall in most other countries, Pearl Jam is
bigger than Nirvana. Theres an Italian website, I forgot the link now,
but if you type in Vitalogy vs. the Doors, its an italian music website
that put Pearl Jams Vitalogy that isnt even PJs most popular album against
the Doors' most popular album & Pearl Jam won & went into the finals,
but Nirvana lost one of the first rounds against another band.
Posted bySorry
Schnake - you're wrong: "As far as "well-known" bands, they are
definitely THE band of the 90's." - Sorry to break it to you Schnake -
but Pearl Jam is THE 90's band, not Nirvana - you said "well known", as
if Nirvana is THE 90s band cus theyre the best known 90s band - but this
too, is incorrect - Pearl Jam is more worldwide known than Nirvana is...
in fact, almost only in USA is Nirvana better known than Pearl Jam, &
even then, theyre equally known in USA - but worldwide, Pearl Jam is more
recognized as being THE 90's band, more than Nirvana - in USA, Nirvana
is recognized as THE 90's band... - the only reason you may think Nirvana
is THE 90s band, is because you live in USA, if you lived in almost any
other country, you'd agree Pearl Jam was
Posted byKeavin: Sure Anuj. Reader submissions are welcome.
Posted byAnuj: This goes out to any administrator: can
I, as a reader, submit my own piece for Favorites? I was thinking about
doing "The Bends" by Radiohead. Can I just email it in sometime?
Posted byAnuj: EXACTEMUNDO! I never thought antone also
felt the same thing! BTW, other bands for which I have heard arguments
as Band Of The 90's: At the Drive-in, Smashing Pumpkins.
Posted bySCHNAKE: I always think about Nirvana being overrated,
until I pull out a CD and actually LISTEN to them, then I usually end up
thinking they are still underrated. Kurt was an excellent lyricist, a heartfelt
vocalist, and, having seen them live, I can attest to their power as a
live unit being rivalled by few. As far as "well-known" bands, they are
definitely THE band of the 90's.
Posted byAnuj: And let me say this... I like Nirvana.
If anyone asks me a fav. band, I'll usually grimace and say "too many,
but if I had to choose one in particular... Nirvana". Its because they
were the first band I started listening to. Nevermind, to me, was what
Greenmuse described as Op Ivy was to him. Even though I agree that Kurt
and co. were over-rated, it doesn't diminish my fondness for them. I guess
my preferences could change in a few years when my "collection" grows from
(pathetically) 30-odd CD's to something like DS's (enviable) thousand+.
Posted byAnuj: That's a matter of opinion. How 'bout
Tool, RHCP, Pantera? Besides, all those are mainstream bands. There's probably
a ton of "underground"/indie/extreme bands active thru-out the 90's that
I may not know of.
Posted byPearl
Jam is THE 90's band, not Nirvana: "While the early 90s are gone and Nirvana
will always be seen as THE 90s band" - Good review you wrote for 'Dirt'....
but PEARL JAM is UNARGUABLY THE 90's band, 2nd place would go to Nirvana
or Radiohead - but you can't argue THE 90's band is Pearl Jam
Posted byActually...: "While the early 90s are gone and Nirvana
will always be seen as THE 90s band" - Good review you wrote for 'Dirt'....
but PEARL JAM is UNARGUABLY THE 90's band, 2nd place would go to Nirvana
or Radiohead - but you can't argue THE 90's band is Pearl Jam
