Pearl Jam

Not in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame

Eligible in: 2016 (The 2017 Induction Ceremony)


Inducted into Rock Hall Projected in 2017 (ranked #45) .


Essential Albums (?)WikipediaAmazon MP3Amazon CD
Ten (1991)
Vs. (1993)
Vitalogy (1994)

Essential Songs (?)WikipediaAmazon MP3YouTube
Alive (1991)
Even Flow (1991)
Jeremy (1991)
Black (1991)
Yellow Ledbetter (1992)
Daughter (1993)
Corduroy (1994)
Better Man (1994)

Pearl Jam @ Wikipedia

Pearl Jam Videos

Will Pearl Jam be inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame?
"Musical excellence is the essential qualification for induction."
   

Comments

178 comments so far (post your own)

Pearl Jam is responsible-not singlehandedly but almost-for an entire genre of music. Very few bands can make that claim. And out of the originals-of the grunge scene-they are the only ones still making amazing music relevant to today. The only ones making music period.

They are probably the most influential band to come out of the 90's, and somehow they just keep getting better. They have a list of over 100 songs that they can play live-at almost anytime they can play any given track-and play it well.

A live performance, if one is lucky enough to experience that-is what makes them who they are. The Jamily of Pearl Jam is as loyal as the dead heads-though probably a bit more washed and better dressed. But a live performance from this band is a show indeed.

No doubt they enter the hall of fame.

Posted by Rob on Saturday, 08.19.06 @ 21:03pm


Pearl Jam deserve to be inducted into the Rock Hall of Fame as soon as they are eligible. They've continued to make passionate, rocking music throughout the last decade and a half, never losing their integrity...

Posted by Paul on Sunday, 08.20.06 @ 00:30am


If there is such a thing as a no brainer, Pearl Jam is it. A band with a more loyal following than the Dead, a band that had the guts to play for their fans and not mass media. How many bands say the hell with the rock n' roll spectacle and still be one of the most influencial bands in decades? I can't think of any others.
Pearl Jam has always been about the music and their music says it all. If you have any doubts go see them live. Your opinion will change.

Posted by Bill on Monday, 08.21.06 @ 09:21am


PJ was there at the beginning and is still going stronger today than they started. They continue to express opinions no matter how unpopular, tour to great fanfair, and record amazing music. They are rock and roll to my generation. They also should be the first inductee to the Live Rock and Roll HOF. I have seen them a dozen times and each show exceeds the previous in energy, quality, and integrity.

Posted by Tony on Tuesday, 08.22.06 @ 08:48am


Pearl Jam should be a definite inductee to the HOF. They are adept at writing many genres of songs. Rock, ballads, punk, metal, covers, you name it: they do it all well. Their songs are written with intelligence and best of all, their songs are truly heart-felt. Their fans are so rabid because the band has always channeled a cosmic connection with their fans. It's a vibe that can't be explained, only experienced.

Live, they're unbeatable. I've seen hundreds of live shows, and nobody has ever come close to Pearl Jam live. If you think they're ok in the studio, see them live and get ready for a PJ "baptism."

Influential is an understatement. It's common knowledge in pop culture that Pearl Jam is the most blatantly ripped-off band of the 90's. None of the rip-off bands are still around.

Their body of work is massive. I know of no other band that has as many truly excellent songs in their catalog, except maybe Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd. They are so much more than "Alive," "Evenflow," and "Jeremy." They are so much more than a passing "grunge" fad. Not driven by image or greed, they are the real deal. They give so much of their time and money to charity without using it as a "photo-op" or "promotion." They walk the walk.

Posted by Ellen on Tuesday, 08.22.06 @ 20:38pm


Another no-brainer. Is there any way to make an argument AGAINST Pearl Jam?

Posted by A-Killa on Thursday, 10.19.06 @ 22:45pm


HELL NO!!

Pearl Jamm is the most egregiously pretentious, boring, un-funky band in the history of music. They are the absolute antithesis of Rock and Roll. I am going to start an online petition specifically to ban them from getting into the Rock Hall of fame. I believe Chuck Berry and Little Richard would roll over in their graves if this were to actually happen.

Posted by Sneak on Friday, 12.29.06 @ 14:52pm


Eddie Vedder is a lyrical genius, but I'm afraid they won't make it in. That upsets me, a lot, but their influence doesn't seem to have lasted. It really upsets me that all the grunge greats save for PJ and a lot of the post-grunge acts seem to have fizzled out. I'll be overjoyed if they do, but I'm afraid they won't.

Posted by Josh L. on Monday, 01.8.07 @ 17:50pm


Pearl Jam were a good few years too late to be an "original" grunge band. Hell, Gossard and Ament had already been in Mother Love Bone and Green River, so no way was Pearl Jam the first.

Posted by William on Monday, 01.8.07 @ 17:56pm


Um, Sneak... I think Chuck Berry and Little Richard may be a bit irritated to find out they're dead.
(Seems like one would want to be conversant on the mortality status of two LIVING legends before one chose to invoke their names in a grave cliche, eh?)

Yes, Pearl Jam makes it and rightfully so - though probably not on the first ballot or two.

Posted by ForeEyes on Tuesday, 01.9.07 @ 09:10am


Of course PJ gets in. Let's put their huge popularity aside, they are respected enough to still be considered after not having a real hit record since, well, their second one (VS. which actually helf the record at the time for first week sales.) Eddie Vedder also has history with the hall, having played at the original Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction ceremony (taking Jim Morrison's place with the remaining members of The Doors.) I would think that the only surer bets than them are Nirvana and Tupac.

Posted by Brian on Tuesday, 01.23.07 @ 22:21pm


pearl jam is one of the greatest rock n roll band, and i think that they make big performances in live acts that's why they diserve to be inducted, eddie vedder has a great voice and all the others members are wonderful especially mike mccready , i think that the grunge movement diserve to be represented and we can find a better represenative than pearl jam

Posted by simo on Sunday, 02.4.07 @ 15:49pm


first album was great, then it all went down hill, as for influential, give me a break, they copied an already great grunge scene mixed with neil young. If the requirements were to BE influenced, start strong and then follow it up with weak song after weaker song, then these guys have a chance.

Posted by TripNFry on Tuesday, 03.13.07 @ 07:10am


All doubters are probably fans of commercial hooks and trendy looks and bitter because they want ten2, ten3, ten4 etc... so F you all... ten was the weakest album and they just got better after that... this band has stayed true to rock and roll... and i hope they dont get into the hall of fame because its bogus... the only good thing about it is the great musicians who get to jam together throughout the ceremony... ride the wave...

Posted by ColdBalls on Tuesday, 03.20.07 @ 14:09pm


Pearl Jam are a first ballot band for sure. The hall loves pearl jam, and specifically eddie vedder. He's personally inducted several artists there, including Neil Young, the Ramones, and REM. Their influence is seen all over rock radio these days, from their sound to the oft-copied vocals of vedder. This one is as about a schoo-in as they come even if they didn't make another record for the rest of their career. But since they will probably continue several more years, they will be legends by the time they stop. Anyone who doesn't think Pearl Jam are getting into the HOF care to wager against it? I'm pretty damn sure you'll lose.

Posted by jason on Thursday, 03.22.07 @ 22:23pm


I agree. There's no way a band as influential and talented as Pearl Jam would not get inducted into the hall of fame. Lets not forget, just a couple years ago Pearl Jam was voted the greatest American rock band of all time in a USA Today poll. They outranked Van Halen, Nirvana, and The Doors because Pearl Jam has maintained an anti-sellout attitude, continuously made phenomenal music, sold records w/out media promotions, and performed at their very best in concert(w/out help in the studio like nearly every other rock band today). Pearl Jam has made a huge impact on rock - it would not be the same w/out them - and they will, without a doubt, get inducted as soon as they are eligible.

Posted by Jim on Sunday, 04.1.07 @ 11:03am


They did not sell out; so they will have a tough time getting in until they sell out!!

Posted by George on Thursday, 04.26.07 @ 16:51pm


ha huevo que si jejejejejeje

Posted by Darkness on Friday, 05.25.07 @ 18:22pm


Another band that was influenced by Rush...put em both in.....

Posted by Anonymous on Friday, 05.25.07 @ 21:59pm


I really don't want to start that arguement again...so I won't.

I'll just say Pearl Jam is a slam dunk case and their stound is still being directly copied today (with diminishing results).

Posted by Kit on Friday, 05.25.07 @ 22:09pm


although I don't particualarly care for their music, they will get in.

Posted by matt on Saturday, 06.2.07 @ 12:14pm


Agreed, Matt. Don't have time to elaborate, but I will come back to this one for sure..........

Posted by SG on Friday, 06.29.07 @ 01:21am


Yeah, Pearl Jam is a shoe-in on the first year. The hall of fame definitely likes Eddie. Plus, how can they not induct them? LOVE them.

Posted by kay on Friday, 06.29.07 @ 13:41pm


I think its pretty obvious the Hall loves Eddie, and there are few bands in this coming crop of eligible bands that are more of a lock than Pearl Jam. Anyone who would bet otherwise can call me at 1-800-URA-DUMBASS

Posted by dino jr on Tuesday, 07.10.07 @ 00:55am


Pearl jam deserves to be in here because they are probably the most influencal in today's music. Unfortunatly they are pretty unoticed and their awesome music is being copied by some posers who can't do anything original like Pearl Jam. I guess it's because they are not sell outs like Led Zepplin (flame all you want it's true).

Posted by Stephanie on Tuesday, 07.17.07 @ 18:12pm


" because they are not sell outs like Led Zepplin (flame all you want it's true)."

Will you explain what you mean?

Posted by shawn on Tuesday, 07.17.07 @ 18:33pm


Here's a recipe for all the kids of the 1990's:

1 part "Monster" by Steppenwolf
1 part "I'm Your Captain" by Grand Funk Railroad
1 part "Goin to California" by Led Zepplin
1 part "Freeways" by Bachman-Turner Overdrive

mix well

season with a touch of "Tales Of Brave Ulysses" by Cream

sift out all keyboard/organ type sounds



We'll call this hackneyed concoction Pearl Jam.




(Personally, I'll take grandma's concoction-spreads a lot easier and tastes way more unique/zippy than some pre-packaged store bought schlock that puts me to sleep 10 seconds after I woke up.)


Oh, I left out the part where they will surely be in the Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame someday.

Every generation needs an icon or three.

Posted by SG on Friday, 07.20.07 @ 02:12am


I thought they'd get in by virtue of the fact that they've been successfully imitated by dozens of popular musicians for the last fifteen years, but hey, that's just me.

Posted by William on Friday, 07.20.07 @ 10:33am


What a depressing thought.

When the point comes where the imitators are being imitated, its time to put out the lights and say
good night sleep tight rock RIP

Posted by SG on Friday, 07.20.07 @ 23:13pm


That would mean rock has been dead since about...1970 or earlier.

Posted by William on Friday, 07.20.07 @ 23:29pm


I'd say 1970 is a good estimate- not just for mainstream rock but for civilization in general, though I wouldn't bury the body till 1983 after the prog and punk/new wave sub-genres played themselves out.

Posted by SG on Saturday, 07.28.07 @ 00:57am


They were better then Nirvania. They should and will get in!

Posted by Gassman on Wednesday, 08.15.07 @ 22:58pm


God help us all if these cheesy high fiving white guys get into the rock hall of fame. I'm not the only one who thinks Pearl Jam sucks. Check this out:

http://www.hour.ca/music/spin.aspx?iIDDisque=2370

September 16th, 2004
Pearl Jam - (BMG)

Live at Benaroya Hall
John Sekerka



I really hate to tell you all, but Pearl Jam sucks. Yup, it's true. And what's more, they've been sucking for a long time. Has there ever been a more boorish band, cranking out absolute money-grabbing drivel under the guise of quality? Nope, and here's further proof. As if there needs to be another live testament to their unsurpassed mediocrity (82 live friggin' albums and counting 82! I looked it up), we are burdened with a double slab hailed as the much anticipated acoustic/unplugged set. Not only is this not unplugged (say after me: electric guitars equals plugged), but it's the same old same old, only the pace is turned down as Fast Eddie and the boys turn the corner in a quest to become the next Grateful Dead. They will now drop the Pearl, and become another gawdawful Jam band. Bring on the hate mail.

Posted by Sneak on Tuesday, 09.25.07 @ 01:26am


Whether you're into Pearl Jam or not, they were at the forefront (along with Nirvana) of the alternative rock boom in the early 90's, and today are considered one of the greatest American rock bands of the past 15+ years.

This band has never been very appealing to me either, but even I know they're a lock for the Rock Hall on their first year of eligibility.

Deciding what bands/artists deserve to be inducted should never be based on personal tastes, which is how a lot of people on this website, and some members on the nominating committee, vote.

Posted by Antonio on Tuesday, 09.25.07 @ 06:48am


I agree 100% that eligibility should not be based on personal tastes. There are certainly artists who I don't care for who deserve to be in the rock hall of fame. Like it says on this web site, innovation and influence should be the greatest factors. That said, Pearl Jam did not innovate anything. As far as influence goes, as far as I can tell, the only bands they have influenced are other crappy, horrible rock bands like Creed. If they deserve to be inducted for this influence, then by that logic Pat Boone and The Monkees deserve to be inducted for influencing other horrible, vomit inducing acts like New Kids on the Block. You say they were at the forefront of alternative rock in the early 90s. This might be so. Def Leopard were at the forefront of mainstream rock in the early 80s and it seems very unlikely that they will get into the rock hall of fame. Just being popular should not automatically get you into the hall of fame. Like you suggested, it should be based on merit. Here where I live in Seattle, Pearl Jam were considered to be an absolute joke in the early 90s. Eddie Vedder, with his dark, brooding, humorless "Seattle" shtick was absolutely laughable. He was considered to just about the biggest poser in the world. In reality Eddie Vedder is some surfer dude from San Diego and Seattlites have a very good sense of humor.

Posted by Sneak on Tuesday, 09.25.07 @ 12:21pm


"In reality Eddie Vedder is some surfer dude from San Diego and Seattlites have a very good sense of humor."

Gosh, bvious artistic merit diplayed there

Posted by liam on Tuesday, 09.25.07 @ 13:38pm


"Gosh, bvious artistic merit diplayed there"

I'm not sure what you mean, Liam.

I will say this: In my opinion all the truly great rock and roll artists from Chuck Berry and Little Richard to the Beatles and the Rolling Stones to the Ramones and Aerosmith to the Beastie Boys, Nirvana and Public Enemy all displayed a good sense of humor along with a reverence built on the foundation of rhythm and blues. This, of course, on top of their love of music and performing that brought joy to their audience.

A band that is completely devoid of both humor and soul like Pearl Jam does not belong in the rock hall of fame besides the likes of the other performers I've mentioned here. On top of that, they have not made any great songs or albums. No way Pearl Jam should get into the Rock and Roll Hall of fame.

Posted by Sneak on Tuesday, 09.25.07 @ 18:02pm


Sense of humor? Since when does the ability to get a joke have anything to do with music? Time to kick a peevish sourpuss like Van Morisson out of the RRHoF.

But seriously. Haven't you noticed the appreciation and respect PJ has? Maybe they haven't made a great album since "Ten", but at least they made "Ten". And that album is generally regarded as a great album, a classic even. Apparently your opinion is far from the general opinion, and based more on your own personal taste than you'd like to admit.

Posted by The_Claw on Wednesday, 09.26.07 @ 05:42am


Come on. This one's so easy. Van Halen is in and we're arguing about whether Pearl Jam will make it?

Get a life.

Humby yours,
P. Martini

Posted by P. Martini on Saturday, 11.10.07 @ 21:00pm


They're a shoe-in for the induction, for sure.

Ten isn't their only good album. Vs., Vitalogy, self-titled are good to name a few. Vs. is even better than Ten, imo.

Posted by Tom on Sunday, 11.11.07 @ 11:12am


No brainer kiddies. PJ is the single strongest American rock and roll band today. Probably no other act on earth is as strong live as PJ. Though their catalogue or recorded music leaves something to be desired during its middle years, it makes up for it by busting its ass for its fans on the road. By the time 2013 comes around I dont know if they will be still creating as a band so this could be the big reunion show.

Posted by BRIAN on Saturday, 12.1.07 @ 00:47am


Pearl Jam totally deserves to be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Their just a outstanding band. During the 90s the band was the most Popular Rock band around. There almbum TEN was Kick Ass.They were the riesing a new legendary Grung band. That top out other bands like the "Red Hot Chilie Peppers" and "Nivan". Their concerts are outstanding. Eddie will always be on stage drinking his wine and bitching about politics and saying "Power to the people man". The guy is so cool. He writes amiazing songs. Every song has such a detaild theme behined it telling of the world and people. And Of course McCreedy always gets his guitar solos in the songs, thats what makes the song Rock!. When their playing live, not only do they just play their own stuff but they cover some of the best old bands like the "Who" and the "Beatles". At his concert in Alpine Vally Wisconsin, before the on-core he played Baba O'Reilly by the "Who". The fans went nuts. Then after the on-core when the fans wouldn't stop screaming, they came back on stage and played "Hide your Love Away" buy the Beatles. You hafe to know what your doing if your going to cover two great bands who are both in the RRHF. No band gets up on stage and says "hey, lets cover some Pink Floyd or better yet, that one band with that bug for their name back from the 60s. No, it is not that easy. It takes practice and respect for that band to do so.

Eddie Vedder is a great person. When he is not in the studeio or on tour, he doing things like singing "Take Me Out to the Ball Game" at Wrigley Field. Then he's sitten in the booth during the game talking to Len and Bob. How cool is that!

One other thing that he has done that a lot of bands never have gotten do is write a Alume for a movie. That means a lot. Producers pay good money for that. But they look for a band that is worth it. A Band like "Pearl Jam".

So after saying all that, you people who decide on wheather or not a band goes into the RRHF please, get Pearl Jam in it within the next few years. Do Rock and Roll a favor.

Posted by Pauly on Friday, 12.7.07 @ 20:26pm


Pearl Jam are a definite in. Everybody credits Nirvana as THE band of the 90's, which is a decently strong argument. In all reality it was RHCP who broke Pearl Jam and Nirvana, so I credit them. And in reality, Kurt Cobain ruined a perfect opportunity to continue inspiring people, meanwhile Ed Ved and the guys continue to inspire and remain one of the few grunge bands with influence. Just listen to Eddie's voice, I could name at least 20 current rockers who weren't inspired by his growl. Mike and Stone are amazing guitarist who, along with John Frusciante, continue to revolutionize guitar method. Jeff is a great bassist who in reality doesn't get the credit he deserves. Dave was a great drummer, but I think most will agree that Matt is much much better. My only question is when they do induct them, who the hell will have the honor of inducting them? With Eddie's speech giving history, he should just induct them himself...

Posted by Tess Fabeck on Tuesday, 01.1.08 @ 22:13pm


I guess it's because they are not sell outs like Led Zepplin (flame all you want it's true).

Posted by Stephanie on Tuesday, 07.17.07 @ 18:12pm



My only complaint about Zeppelin is the fact that Page & Plant did not give proper credit to those they borrowed from. Other than that Led Zeppelin is miles ahead of Pearl Jam and thatís not a knock.

BTW, I say yes Pearl Jam is a Hall of Fame band but one more quality album with some commercial success stamps their ticket on the first ballot.

Posted by zepfan on Saturday, 01.5.08 @ 16:42pm


Pearl Jam will get in, no doubt.
And to Sneak;
I too live in Seattle, born and raised. I was 23 when Pearl Jam and Nirvana hit it big along with Soundgarden, I was into the local music scene heavily at that point.
I was so pleased that you could answer for the whole lot of us on our opinion of Pearl Jam and Eddie Vedder. Now I will let you in on a little secret, we don't all agree with your opinions. You can only speak for yourself not the whole of Seattle.

Pearl Jam still draw stadium crowds after 17 years. How many bands can claim that?
They are still making music and influencing other musicians.

No doubt in my mind, thy deserve to get in.

Posted by Wave Rider on Monday, 01.14.08 @ 08:14am


Haha...I just checked out wikipedia, and it turns out "Alive" and "Wonderwall" use the same chord progressions, and that's not to mention all the other artists who used it, whether bfore or after Wonderwall.

Looks like I'm the only one who hasn't done one yet. Chuck us that acoustic guitar a 'sec...

Posted by Liam on Thursday, 01.31.08 @ 17:25pm


To anyone that says they went downhill after Ten or that Ten was their only good album.....shoot yourself. Yield is just as good. All of their stuff is great. I only haven't heard Binaural and Riot Act.

Posted by Tom on Sunday, 04.20.08 @ 12:55pm


No brainer.

Hey Pearl Jam are in. No doubt about it!

Posted by Trent on Monday, 05.5.08 @ 06:28am


Pearl Jam is a lock. For all you people who are talking crap about PJ, go and listen to their music more than once and you'll discover a whole new side of them. Vedder's lyrics are incredibly deep and if you only listen to the songs one time, you are doing yourself an injustice. Of course they are a kickin live band, they put on one hell of a show.

Posted by twah on Saturday, 06.14.08 @ 21:16pm


"Haha...I just checked out wikipedia, and it turns out "Alive" and "Wonderwall" use the same chord progressions, and that's not to mention all the other artists who used it, whether bfore or after Wonderwall.

Looks like I'm the only one who hasn't done one yet. Chuck us that acoustic guitar a 'sec..."

Ha, "Alive" came out like three years before "Wonderwall"...

Posted by Willy on Tuesday, 08.5.08 @ 00:33am


What suprises me is that, despite 93% of the people voting Yes at this time, the induction chances are only listed as 67% here. What gives?

Posted by Cheesecrop on Monday, 08.11.08 @ 17:34pm


Aside from the fact that our votes here don't have any sway with the nominating committee, and therefore don't help bring up their odds too much, I would simply remind you that 67% is one of the highest likelihood ratings on this site.

Posted by Philip on Monday, 08.11.08 @ 17:49pm


Well, they might not be the most innovative band, that's for sure. But they make up for it with integrity and credibility, and they got lots of it, which is just as important as innovation and influence. And listening to Nickelback nowadays only makes you realize how good they actually are.

Posted by denyo on Wednesday, 08.20.08 @ 21:55pm


Pearl Jam deserves to be in the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame! There still selling out shows after 17yrs. how many other bands can do that? They have a huge fan base that is so dedicated to them and to there music! Eddie's song writting ability is so heart felt and real...If you've never seen them live then i suggest you do so ASAP, it's one concert you'll never forget! There energy on stage will blow you away, you'll walk away wanting more!

Posted by Sarah on Tuesday, 09.23.08 @ 04:10am


i's put pearl jam in for this reason "ten" that album along with nirvana's "nevermind" are the seminole/seminal albums of grunge music.

Posted by baw "the lumberjack" on Tuesday, 09.30.08 @ 17:13pm


I like Pearl Jam. They do some good Pink Floyd songs. They will go.

Posted by Mike on Sunday, 10.12.08 @ 05:30am


I love all the haters of PJ. To say they went downhill after "Ten" makes me laugh. About a year ago, USA Today put out a poll of who is the best American rock and roll band and guess who won?? Oh, I don't know, that little Seattle band that supposedly fell off the map after 1993!!! Pearl Jam is still refreshing after all these years. It's nice to actually hear songs about issues that are going on in the country and the world instead of most of the empty and shallow garbage that has engulfed the music industry or whatever's left of it. Some bands don't need to adhere to a certain image. Some bands don't need video channels cramming horrible music down your throat. Pearl Jam lets their music do the talking and their lyrics inspire thought. PJ is music for your mind, heart and soul. People who attack Pearl Jam are probably just bandwagon jumpers. They ride with whoever the flavor of the day is. in '92 you were probably wearing flannel. A few years later you were a big rock/rap fan and had Korn posters on your wall. Now, you probably got a gold grill, all krunked out with your pimp glass!!! Well, when you go to whatever the next phase of crap music is, I'll be just fine still rockin' out with Pearl Jam!!.

Posted by Billy Hud on Monday, 10.13.08 @ 01:50am


pearl jam's 1st album was ok, maybe a bit too commercial. Their second album had great melodies but besides the softer acoustic ones, the lyrics were boring.I like Vitalogy the best. It's their dakest, but also melodic, and not unlistenable or anything especially better man and immortality. Yield was good, and their self titled album was good too. You can pretty much disregard any other albums besides a few other songs like man of the hour and the long road.

Posted by Nathan on Saturday, 11.1.08 @ 12:56pm


Pearl Jam has always been a favorite band of mine. I admit to missing out initially on the first album, since I entered a brief 60's phase around 1992, which lasted for close to a year. Other than that I have followed them most intently for the length of their career.

My Favorite albums in order:

1. Vs.
2. Ten
3. Yield
4. Vitalogy
5. No Code
6. Binaural
7. Pearl Jam
8. Riot Act

Always thought Vs. was the best. They got hammered about being a classic rock rip-off act, and they responded by trying to take Bad Company-styled riffs & stick them in a punk framework, for the most part. Dave Abbrussezze? (I think that's how you spell it) was great on drums cause he had something of a funk-styled background. The formula was already strange, but he made it even more interesting. A little punk, a little funk, a little blues, all thrashing around.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Sunday, 11.2.08 @ 06:27am


This is a band that survived a lot. a band that has a great connection with the fans which can only be experienced. They surely are going to rock n roll hall of fame.
Pearl Jam is one of the most influential band that is still going strong as ever. Their music and lyrics touches one's feelings. and definitely inspire people to move on with life.

Posted by tamraaz on Friday, 11.21.08 @ 18:37pm


This is just a wild guess Tamraaz but all that might have something to do with the fact that they have a 92% fan approval with over 2000 votes.

Posted by Keebord on Friday, 11.21.08 @ 18:44pm


no brainer here. they've been a force in music since Ten was released. an incredible live act. check out "Live at Benaroya Hall", my favorite live acoustic set by any band, ever.

Posted by incubeau7 on Tuesday, 01.20.09 @ 08:59am


Pearl jam is awesome they better get in or idk what to say about the rock and roll hall of fame

Posted by alex on Wednesday, 02.11.09 @ 19:54pm


Cheesecrop, Ten is better then VS. and if you allow this one Live on Two Legs

Posted by Mike on Saturday, 02.14.09 @ 12:20pm


Mike -

I ask only allowances for my personal tastes.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Saturday, 02.14.09 @ 17:14pm


They might not get in on the first try... but they'll be in... they were instrumental in popularizing the 90s alternative sound.

Posted by ray on Monday, 03.2.09 @ 01:16am


Pearl Jam is definitely a lock for the hall on their first year of eligibility. I think its stupid how some ppl say Ten is their only good album! Yeah its their most popular but Vs, Vitalogy and yield are better overall albums. They have influenced numerous famous rockbands, the strokes and creed to name a few. They SELL OUT STADIUMS to this day for crying out loud! They sold out Madison square garden on back to back nights just a few years back.. And Ten is all theyv got? Lol you haters are funny. USA Today had a poll of who was Americas most popular band ever and who was picked? Pearl jam! They are a definite shoe in, and what makes it even sweeter, is that they earned it without ever selling out like most bands do now a days just get famous and get rich. Here is a list of great songs they have made over the years for those of you who don't believe, these songs alone will get them into the hall ... Alive, evenflow, black, Jeremy, daughter, go, animal, rearviewmirror, better man, corduroy, immortality, state of love and trust, wishlist, given to fly, its evolution, I got I'd, spin the black circle, Yellowledbetter, world wide souicide... Just to name a few. And just cause you don't like them because personal taste, FU! That's bull. I don't like nirvana but I know theyr a shoe in. I don't like REM but I knew they were gonna be in, same for U2. You just know who deserves to be in refardless of personal taste idiots

Posted by Robert cougar on Friday, 03.13.09 @ 23:47pm


Pearl Jam is definitely a lock for the hall on their first year of eligibility. I think its stupid how some ppl say Ten is their only good album! Yeah its their most popular but Vs, Vitalogy and yield are better overall albums.

Posted by Robert cougar on Friday, 03.13.09 @ 23:47pm
--------------------------------------------------
Absolutely! I'll admit to liking "Ten"... there's nothing wrong with that album either. They have done other albums that are just as worthy of recognition. The first five albums comprise one of the best runs of success, buth artistically & commercially, ever.

Not as keen on this decade's output, but there's some good stuff here & there. I just wish Vedder would surrender to the idea of more multi-tracking for his voice, or at least let in some more background vocals - everything after "Binaural" has been a little rough.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Saturday, 03.14.09 @ 10:12am


u guys are gay get a life

Posted by jony on Monday, 03.30.09 @ 14:38pm


wowwww how anybody can say pearl jam doesn't deserve to be in is beyond me. they are amazing and one of the best bands live as well. i dont think they started grundge but i dont think they copied anyone either. they are their own band and the fact is there mad good. pearl jams is the best band ive ever heard that can capture the true meaning of the lyrics them perfectly into the rythm of the song. they should get in... no doubt

Posted by alex on Tuesday, 04.14.09 @ 19:34pm


These guys have to be inducted. While their mainstream popularity has declined over the years (leaving them with a few thousand diehard fans- like ME!!!) their contribution to music is huge- Eddie Vedder's voice in particular.

Posted by Rontox on Monday, 04.27.09 @ 11:40am


I think PJ has more than just a few thousand die-hard fans left.

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 04.27.09 @ 11:58am


I guess. But let's face it- they're not a big band, and if you were to ask a random teenager now whether they knew who Pearl Jam are, I doubt they'd be able to tell you other than a 'rock band'. That's why I love them- all of their fans enjoy their music and aren't posers (happens a lot with big bands like U2 and Metallica) and are a very closely-knit group of fans rockin' in the free world (had the get that one in there!). I can't wait to see them live someday (I'm only 13 :P), and they definietly deserve to be inducted for being an AMAZING live band, and influencing many other bands with their talent, their DIY aesthetic and awesome musicianship.

However, I think some of the other grunge bands need to be inducted as well- Nirvana, Soundgarden and Alice In Chains especially.

Posted by Rontox on Tuesday, 04.28.09 @ 12:51pm


Rontox, that is cool that you have gotten into such great music at such a young age. And I agree with you, most teenagers don't know much about Pearl Jam, because they are no longer a part of the mainstream scene. But believe me, anybody in their 20s and 30s knows full well about Pearl Jam and their huge impact in the early 90s. They practically ruled the rock & roll scene from 91-95, along with Nirvana, along with the keepers of the torch, R.E.M. U2 and Aerosmith.

Posted by Jonny on Tuesday, 04.28.09 @ 15:14pm


Pearl Jam should definately make it it! They were a huge inspiration to all kinds of people. And they didn't let media ruin them. Just resisting media and critic influence is something to comemorate. They've also got a whole lot of songs out there that just aren't famous. The song that are famous are some of my favorites. Especially Evenflow and Jeremy. VH1 (a TV show) made countdowns of some of the greatest songs ever and Pearl Jam scored on two! Evenflow ranked #30 on hundred greatest hard rock songs and Jeremy scored #11 on 100 greatest songs of the 90s. Overall they are great and I don't understand how they can be denied.

P.S. Nirvana should definately be in too if they aren't already.

Posted by Me on Friday, 08.7.09 @ 21:14pm


Pearl Jam is a lock and they deserve it. Thier first album certainly beats anything Nirvana ever did(just an opinion.)

Posted by Dude Man on Saturday, 08.22.09 @ 14:08pm


Pearl Jam is a no-brainer; a lock; an undoubted and celebrated entry into the hall. I was born in 1984 and if there is one or two bands that really define my generation's rock and roll - it is certainly Pearl Jam. When I was in 2nd grade or so, there was a new awakening in rock and roll and Pearl Jam was at the front. I remember being little and the video for "Jeremy" scared the shit out of me!
To the naysayers: Look, the truth is that for their era of rock, Pearl Jam were one of the bands that embodied the rock universe. They've lasted - they're still one of the top live acts out there. I saw them open for The Rolling Stones and Mick Jagger even paid his compliments to Peral Jam. That was in 2004.
Rock goes through it's phases wherein great bands lay the foundations and continue to dominate. Pearl Jam was one of those bands in my generation of rock n roll. But you know, even if the hall overlooks the obvious entry of Pearl Jam (which would just be blantantly ignorant and highly protested), it really doesn't matter. Pearl Jam will always have a significant place in the history of rock n roll.

Posted by Mountaineer on Friday, 08.28.09 @ 00:07am


I picked up the new album when it came out, and it's very good. I think it's better than the Avocado album (imo). They were already a lock for the Hall, but this just makes it even more so. One of the best rock bands ever.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Sunday, 10.4.09 @ 06:42am


i agree with you its really good...it sounds like PJ and it doesent sound like PJ they tried out alot of new stuff and its safe to say it worked out well i really like it but i do prefer their albums with a more hard rock feel....but anyways yes they deserve it, it will be Pearljam's 20 year anaversery next year the fact that they have been goin on for that long and making great music gives them a spot

Posted by Cameron on Saturday, 10.24.09 @ 23:02pm


MONSTERS OF ROCK

The Beatles
The Who
Led Zeppelin
Pearl Jam

Posted by Jonny on Saturday, 12.5.09 @ 02:21am


A Monster of Rock

Every album is awesome, important, and filled with instant classics

Not long lasting careers necessarily, but meaty careers and long lasting importance

Abilty to Rock Hard, but are also diverse and can do slow songs. Are so versatile that despite being very unique, they don't just project "one sound"

Every band member is a Monster on their instrument

Embody the Heart of Rock n Roll

For lengthy amount og songs, hard any filler

Bands I think are BadAss

Posted by Jonny on Saturday, 12.5.09 @ 02:30am


Those are my Monsters of Rock, who are your guys??

MY Runner-Ups
Rolling Stones (Because their career is so long, there are just too many unimportant Stones albums filled with no important Stones songs)
The Kinks (Ditto)
Nirvana (Career was too short to have a "Monsters of Rock"-worthy amount of songs and albums)

Posted by Jonny on Saturday, 12.5.09 @ 02:33am


Up there with Radiohead and Nirvana as the top locks of the '10's.

Posted by Paul on Tuesday, 12.29.09 @ 17:55pm


They'll probably make it but I bet they don't give a damn if they do or not, which makes them awesome. But I guarantee we'll have one of those tribute shows like they did for The Who and such where we get to listen to newer bands try to pay tribute to them. That's going to be scary. Maybe we'll get to see a band do a couple of Pearl Jam songs as well as Pearl Jam did The Who songs on The Who's tribute show.

Posted by Nunya on Thursday, 01.7.10 @ 19:39pm


Hell yeah!!! The BEST grunge act... Nirvana & Pearl Jam are like the Beatles and the Stones... Nirvana opened the gate, Pearl Jam became the gatekeeper. The standard for 90's rock. The new stuff is nice too. I'm not big on grunge, so it's nice to see one of the few grunge acts I do like make the transition to traditional hard rock, like on The Fixer. Great song to close out the worst rock n' roll decade since Robert Johnson singlehandedly created the rock n' roll spirit.

Posted by Chris on Friday, 01.15.10 @ 10:37am


great music

Posted by L -7 on Friday, 01.15.10 @ 11:12am


all u have to do, if u haven't listened to them that much, is put the headphones on, the lyrics in front of you, then theres no denying. imo best band ever. zep, floyd, who, marley, hendrix, beatles.........all follow.

Posted by iggles on Monday, 01.18.10 @ 19:23pm


"A band that is completely devoid of both humor and soul like Pearl Jam does not belong in the rock hall of fame besides the likes of the other performers I've mentioned here. On top of that, they have not made any great songs or albums. No way Pearl Jam should get into the Rock and Roll Hall of fame." Black Sabbath's songs weren't very fun, but you'd be an idiot to kick them out. As for the soul bit, listen to "Yellow Ledbetter." Excellent bluesy leads, and also at the end of "Alive." No great songs? That's a matter of opinion, but try "Even Flow", "Alive", "Jeremy", "Once", "Black", "Garden", "Yellow Ledbetter", "Daughter", "Release".

Ha, "Alive" came out like three years before "Wonderwall"...
Posted by Willy on Tuesday, 08.5.08 @ 00:33am

Yep. I don't hear similar chord progressions in them, but they're both great songs.

Yes, Pearl Jam will make it easily. I haven't heard much past "Ten" (great album) but I know that critics in both the U.S. and the U.K. adore them, and Rolling Stone probably creams their pants anytime Eddie speaks. They could've been the biggest band in the U.S. (hell, maybe biggest in the world) throughout most of their career but they weren't by choice, as they stopped playing stadiums in '94 and even played college campuses. How many multi-platinum, chart-topping bands would bother to do that? Despite that, they're still finding success and their new album got to #1. I know, they weren't innovative musically, but just listen to modern rock radio if you doubt their influence. You can definitely draw a line between them and Creed and Nickelback, and even a line between them and Stone Temple Pilots (on Core, Weiland sounds like a mixture of Vedder and Layne Staley.) Not to mention they were the first band to have the balls to stand up to Ticketmaster, which should silence any doubts that they're assholes or don't care about their fans. Soundgarden and Alice in Chains should go in first, but whether it's 2016 or not (won't be long after that) Pearl Jam will definitely be inducted, and deservedly so.

Posted by Sam on Wednesday, 02.17.10 @ 20:45pm


Surely Pearl Jam are ONE of the most influential rock bands to come out of the 90s, but not THE most influential: that distinction must belong to Radiohead. Both are shoe-ins for eventual induction, and both strike me as so above the fray that induction into a hall of fame would be a secondary concern to continuing to create inventive, inspiring music; sadly, however, both have failed me.

Posted by Michael on Thursday, 04.1.10 @ 10:44am


"The only ones making music period. "

Uh, the Melvins?

Pearl Joke was and continues to be the biggest pack of posers to ever act poor.

F**k them.

Posted by M on Saturday, 04.10.10 @ 09:44am


"Pearl Joke was and continues to be the biggest pack of posers to ever act poor.

F**k them." - M

And who would you like inducted, sir? I do hope the main early Seattle bands do get in, and that Soundgarden doesn't have to wait for PJ and Nirvana to get in.

Posted by Sam on Saturday, 04.10.10 @ 14:56pm


Why they will get in:

-One of the biggest bands in the world (definitely the biggest in the US) in the early to mid 90's.
-Massively Critically acclaimed.
-All-Music Guide has called them the most influential post-Nirvana alternative band, and it certainly makes sense when you listen to Creed, Nickelback and Candlebox (and that's just the tip of the iceberg)
-Eddie is in the Hall's good books, having inducted The Doors, The Ramones and R.E.M. (he also fronted The Doors when they reunited and I think has performed with R.E.M. at seperate times). PJ is also friendly with Neil Young and The Who (and have performed with the former)
-I might be able to come up with more, but that'll do for now

Why they won't get in:

-Some resentment over their quick rise right after Nirvana. Could that backlash hurt them?
-Could their Ticketmaster battle hurt them due to connections?
-If they don't show an interest in showing up, they could not induct them (it would be massive if they showed, even more so if they performed)
-Not at all innovative

Really, a lock. The only possible bigger locks for this decade could be Green Day, Nirvana, Guns 'n' Roses and Radiohead. The only questions are: Will they show up and who will induct them?

Posted by Sam on Sunday, 04.25.10 @ 20:24pm


"I will say this: In my opinion all the truly great rock and roll artists from Chuck Berry and Little Richard to the Beatles and the Rolling Stones to the Ramones and Aerosmith to the Beastie Boys, Nirvana and Public Enemy all displayed a good sense of humor along with a reverence built on the foundation of rhythm and blues. This, of course, on top of their love of music and performing that brought joy to their audience." - Sneak

Um... I love Nirvana and the Ramones, but can you please point out where they've ever had a "rhythm and blues" foundation? Or do I need new ears? Perhaps you were confusing them with AC/DC and Ted Nugent. And listen to "Yellow Ledbetter"; that oozes soul and blues.

Posted by Sam on Saturday, 05.22.10 @ 16:26pm


I just went to see Pearl Jam recently to make some friends happy. In the 15 years I've been going to concerts, this was without a doubt the most BORING band to see live. They play for 3 hours and wait until their final encore to play with some energy. There was no desire, no passion at all from this band. I've never before gone to a show and hated myself for giving that band money. I felt entirely ripped off. I can't support this band being in the Hall of Fame. I just feel sorry for all the people (my best friends being some of them) who think this is as exciting and good as rock gets.

Posted by nick on Thursday, 05.27.10 @ 16:09pm


Really? Color me surprised, because they have some songs that are quite energtic so I'd imagine that would translate into the live show. Your story runs contrary to what their reputation as a live band is. I just looked them up, and found them playing "Kick Out the Jams" live with Jerry Cantrell, and they seem to putting energy into it. I think they're a lock regardless due to being ripped off ten-fold and their popularity. I certainly don't think they're the most exciting or greatest band though, not even close.

Posted by Sam on Friday, 05.28.10 @ 20:16pm


UH, before we even start thinking about Pearl Jam, The MELVINS need to get inducted. IF anybody really cares or thinks he knows what's up, know the DEEP SIX compilation, with THE MELVINS, SOUNDGARDEN, and GREEN RIVER was teh begining of what people call grunge and it came out in 1985, then MELVINS realesed SIX SONGS in '86. The Seattle sound starts there.

Posted by BIOWOLF on Sunday, 06.6.10 @ 08:59am


I agree with "BIOWOLF". I haven't listened to The Melvins or Green River, but they were both two of the originals and should both get in. I know for a fact that Nirvana, Alice in Chains and Soundgarden were all influenced by The Melvins. Soundgarden should get in, absolutely, and then after that Alice in Chains and Nirvana, and then Pearl Jam can get in.

Posted by Sam on Sunday, 06.6.10 @ 17:20pm


for all those who think nirvana is the inventes of grunge r wrong pj had ten finished recorded at feb 19921 didnt released it because they did a tribute to andrew wood tothedog and released ten in oct and nirvana had 1 good alblum thats it 1 but pbecause he couldnt handle his stuff everyone maks cobain to be a god when vedder has contributed alot more to music than cobain

Posted by joshuapjers on Wednesday, 08.4.10 @ 10:05am


I'll try and dissect what I can of that:

"for all those who think nirvana is the inventes of grunge r wrong pj had ten finished recorded at feb 19921"

Ten was actually recorded by April '91, and was released in August, slightly before Nevermind. In spite of that, Ten didn't start selling until Nevermind did. They're both very good, but I'd say Nevermind's the slightly better album. Neither band invented grunge, so you're also wrong. Soundgarden was around before both bands: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPXuMOiJKe4. I'd also say they're better than both bands. Some would say Ten and Nevermind were actually two of the first post-grunge albums (a claim I wouldn't dispute, for various reasons.)

"didnt released it because they did a tribute to andrew wood tothedog and released ten in oct"

Yes I know. Check out "Hunger Strike" and "Say Hello to Heaven"; fantastic songs. Again, Ten was released in August.

"nirvana had 1 good alblum thats it 1"

It's fine if you think that, but I'd say In Utero was also good, as was the Unplugged album.

"but pbecause he couldnt handle his stuff everyone maks cobain to be a god when vedder has contributed alot more to music than cobain"

Apples and oranges.

Posted by Sam on Wednesday, 08.4.10 @ 21:32pm


If they don't get in first ballot it will be a huge surprise. Everyone keeps talking about their first three records, No Code was the best IMO.

Posted by Kurt on Thursday, 08.5.10 @ 17:13pm


Agreed. What real competition will they have among the newly eligibles in 2016? Even the ones that did find mainstream success didn't manage to continue it (like The Cranberries; I'm not knocking them by the way.) PJ are one of the biggest locks for this decade already, and I'd say one more commercially succesful and critically acclaimed album (or two) will erase all remaining doubt.

Posted by Sam on Saturday, 08.7.10 @ 21:44pm


any1 hear there cover of the who's love reigh on me. amazing and yes pearl jam 4 hall

Posted by Mike on Sunday, 08.22.10 @ 17:26pm


Yes, Mike, they did an amazing job with it.

Posted by Sam on Tuesday, 08.24.10 @ 20:27pm


So funny that people think that they won't or shouldn't get inducted. I'm from Australia and would bet my life that they get in.

I see alot of negative comments about Pearl Jam on here but don't know why. If you don't truely know what the band is about then don't bother commenting cause you just sound dumb. All we see on tv from your country is people like P diddy, 50cent, fall out boy, paris hilton and fake crap like this. They are a bunch of selfish, low end assholes. This band tours all over the world almost non stop, they promote love, respect, evironmental awareness and are involved in charities and benifits all over the world and as if this wasnt enough they have made and are still making in my opion some of the best music around. Oh and it's music that is real. They are an absolute assest to your country. Will they be inducted? This shouldnt even be a question, it's as clear as day. This band rocks and has rocked harder with more quality and dedication then any other band and I truely believe after a couple more abulms and tours people will realise what us fans already know. PJ is the best band ever.

Posted by meintellygent on Wednesday, 09.8.10 @ 22:34pm


If there is such a thing as a no brainer, Pearl Jam is it. A band with a more loyal following than the Dead, a band that had the guts to play for their fans and not mass media. How many bands say the hell with the rock n' roll spectacle and still be one of the most influencial bands in decades? I can't think of any others. Pearl Jam has always been about the music and their music says it all. If you have any doubts go see them live. Your opinion will change.

Posted by Bill on Friday, 09.24.10 @ 21:53pm


Pearl Jam is a band that is regarded with the UTMOST REVERENCE, ESTEEM, and RESPECT BY AN ELITE GROUP OF EXPERTS that none of us can deny their credibility, insight, knowledge, understanding, and expertise pertaining to making these kinds of evaluations regarding possessing the criteria of attributes and accomplishments to be inducted into the Rock Hall Of Fame, and to be revered alongside the likes of already-inducted and future members such as:

The Who, Neil Young, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Eric Clapton, Lou Reed, Iggy Pop, The Doors, The Ramones, Chuck Berry, Wilco, REM, U2, Metallica, Kurt Cobain and Nirvana, The Foo Fighters, Radiohead, Noel Gallagher, Henry Rollins, The Red Hot Chili Peppers, Social Distortion, Smashing Pumpkins, Queens Of The Stone Age, Incubus, My Morning Jacket, Steve Earle, Bright Eyes, Neil Finn and Crowded House, Jack Johnson, Aerosmith, Scott Weiland and Stone Temple Pilots, AC/DC, Rush, Soundgarden, Mudhoney, Screaming Trees, Heart, Kiss, Paul Westerberg, The Strokes, Alice In Chains, The Melvins, The Buzzcocks, Sonic Youth, Tom Petty and The Heartbreakers, Bruce Springsteen, Bob Dylan, The Band, Pink Floyd, Peter Frampton..

just to name QUITE A FEW MORE THAN A FEW to illustrate this point...

WHO is this ELITE group of people I have referred to that regard Pearl Jam in the most positive ways I indicated above, that definitely and undeniably possess the credibility and expertise make these kinds of evaluations to categorize Pearl Jam alongside these aforementioned LEGENDS above???

THESE LEGENDARY ARTISTS THEMSELVES!!!

EACH AND EVERY ONE of these artists I have mentioned above (at least those still living) have ALL gone on record (Yes, even Noel Gallagher and Kurt Cobain, while having criticized at times have also given respect where respect wss due) in various capacities and media vehicles as expressing nothing but the deepest respect, admiration, and acceptance into this elite brotherhood, MANY OF WHICH (such as The Who, Neil Young, and many of their contemporaries I mentioned above) have gone so far as to record complete albums with (NOT as one of many guests on some sort of tribute, but rather a COMPLETE ALBUM RELEASED AS THAT ARTIST'S CONTRIBUTION TO THEIR MUSIC CATALOG AS A STAND-ALONE ALBUM, AS IF IT WERE SOLELY THEIR OWN PLAYING like Neil Young's album "Mirrorball", as well as having themselves chosen Pearl Jam to play monumental tribute concerts, benefit concerts, Hall Of Fame Inductions, etc.

In this illustration above, I am taking a completely different approach to this whole discussion, without biasing my comments with clear indications of whether I "like" Pearl Jam or not.

Not to mention, it's abundantly evident via Pearl Jam and/or Eddie Vedder's extensive and frequent participation in Hall Of Fame activities that Jann Wenner and the rest of the select group of voters and important personnel respect, admire, and like Pearl Jam and everything about them, and what they represent.

In my HUMBLE opinion, the people that most evidently possess the least credibility and understanding of the gravity of the discussion they are attempting to participate in, and have the least of intelligence and relevance to offer are clearly indicated by comments that are based totally on personal opinion and dislike of the band, use the term "grunge", "scene", make sweeping generalizations like "totally uninnovative", "copycat/rip-off of other artists", "unoriginal", "never put out a good song or album", "haven't had another good album since Ten", etc, etc.

Ridiculous, broad, sweeping generalizations like these completely discredit these people's comments' credibility, not to mention poor grammar, spelling, punctuation, and some of the "out-in-left-field" comments that leave me dumbfounded and shaking my head are all the proof in the world of a person's lack of skill and understanding to effectively participate in such a discussion.

Just like the kind of person making the comment ABOUT PEOPLE VERY MUCH STILL ALIVE "Chuck Berry and Little Richard would roll over in their graves..." COMPLETELY DISQUALIFIED THEMSELVES in this discussion- there are ALWAYS TOO MANY UNEDUCATED-ON-THE-SUBJECT PEOPLE THAT SPEAK UP THE LOUDEST WITH THE STUPIDEST COMMENTS that in effect trivialize the whole thing, blemish it, and diminish from the knowledgeable people's contributions.

Like them or hate them, their LASTING contributions to music, and their EARNED AND MUCH-DESERVED RESPECT AND APPRECIATION CANNOT BE DENIED OR TREATED AS IF IT DOESN'T EXIST.

Like them or hate them, selling out EVERY SHOW OF EVERY TOUR, EVERY YEAR OF THEIR 20+ YEAR EXISTENCE CANNOT BE DENIED, ESPECIALLY THE 100,000-200,000+ CROWDS AT FESTIVAL CONCERTS WORLDWIDE THAT CONSISTENTLY GATHER FOR PEARL JAM'S SETS EVERY YEAR THEY TOUR, AT EVERY MAJOR INTERNATIONAL FESTIVAL, EVERY TIME CANNOT BE DENIED OR ARGUED.

Their consistently STELLAR album sales and overall critical acclaim CANNOT BE DENIED.

Their live performance reputation CANNOT BE DENIED.

The voting American public that voted Pearl Jam the greatest American band ever in USA Today, etc CANNOT BE DENIED.

Their majority-winning track record at the American Music Awards, combined with consistent their track record of nominations at others CANNOT BE DENIED.

Their UNPARALLELED AND SELFLESS ACIHEVEMENTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO HUMANITARIANISM, PATRIOTISM, ENVIRONMENTALISM, AND OTHER IMPORTANT NON-MUSIC REAL-LIFE LIFE ELEMENTS IS A WHOLE OTHER DISCUSSION, HOWEVER WHEN COMBINING THESE ELEMENTS OF THEIR CHARACTER AND PSYCHE THAT FORMULATE THEIR SUPER-INTELLECTUAL LYRICS AND SOUND, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME DELIVERING HEARTFELT MASTERPIECES THAT EVERY HUMAN BEING CAN RELATE TO IN LESSER AND GREATER DEGREES FROM SONG TO SONG, AND ADD THAT TO AN EMPATHY AND RESPECT FOR THEIR FANS AND LISTENING AUDIENCE AT-LARGE THAT CANNOT BE DENIED-

THEY *ARE* THE ABSOLUTE EXEMPLIFICATION AND MOLD-BREAKERS OF ROCK HALL OF FAME BANDS, AND THEY THEMSELVES ARE *ALREADY* INCLUDED IN THE JUDGING CRITERIA BY WHICH ALL FUTURE BANDS *ARE ALREADY* JUDGED BY THESE EXPERTS.

IF PEARL JAM WERE ALREADY ELIGIBLE, THEY WOULD ALREADY HAVE BEEN INDUCTED.

All this stuff actually goes without saying, because the STRONGEST argument is the ARTISTS' OVERWHELMING RESPECT AND APPROVAL FOR PEARL JAM.

You can Google Pearl Jam's name along with these artists' names, and all these other aspects/elements to reference all I've mentioned above.

I'm not trying to say that these EXPERTS' opinions are ALL that matter, because we all are entitled (to be wrong! Haha) to our "opinions" (as uninformed and biased as they might be) with our shallow, incorrect, and inaccurate comments that diminish these debates, but at the end of the day, pertaining to what this debate is about:

These EXPERT ARTISTS AND HIGHLY-REGARDED CRITICS AND OTHER ESTEEMED MUSIC EXPERTS opinions ARE all that matter with respect to Pearl Jam getting into the Hall Of Fame, because FORTUNATELY, these KNOWLEDGABLE AND CREDIBLE PEOPLE are the voters, and I typically am 100% confident in their voted inductions.

Actors typically regard awards given by their PEERS and other CREDIBLE EXPERTS as the ones they appreciate and are proud of most, I.e. SCREEN ACTORS' GUILD awards.

Same concept applies here.

Somebody in here said "Pearl Jam probably doesn't care about being inducted"...

I think quite the contrary, as evidenced by Eddie Vedder's extensive participation in Rock Hall activities and inductions, combined with the fact that induction is done by his PEERS AND OTHER HIGHLY-REGARDED, CREDIBLE MUSIC EXPERTS.

I think that induction will be their well-appreciated and well-deserved HALFTIME show launching them into the twilight of ANOTHER 20+ years of continuing to leave their permanent, positively-monumental mark on music- a mark NEVER TO BE ERASED, AND TO ONLY GET MORE PRONOUNCED AND DEFINED WITH EACH PASSING YEAR THAT WE ARE BLESSED BY THEIR PRESENCE AND PARTICIPATION IN THE WORLD FORUM OF MUSIC, ARTS, AND HUMANITY.

Posted by mr brown on Thursday, 09.30.10 @ 01:44am


Of course PJ gets in. Let's put their huge popularity aside, they are respected enough to still be considered after not having a real hit record since, well, their second one (VS. which actually helf the record at the time for first week sales.) Eddie Vedder also has history with the hall, having played at the original Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction ceremony (taking Jim Morrison's place with the remaining members of The Doors.) I would think that the only surer bets than them are Nirvana and Tupac.

Posted by Brian on Monday, 01.17.11 @ 15:39pm


For all those who think Nirvana is the inventees of grunge are wrong. Pearl Jam had ten finished recorded at feb 1992 didnt released it because they did a tribute to andrew wood tothedog and released ten in oct and nirvana had 1 good alblum thats it 1 but pbecause he couldnt handle his stuff everyone maks cobain to be a god when vedder has contributed alot more to music than cobain.

Posted by Josh on Thursday, 01.20.11 @ 04:33am


Nirvana predates Pearl Jam. And I don't see how you can say they only have one good album, what about In Utero?

Posted by GFW on Thursday, 01.20.11 @ 12:51pm


In Utero is their only good album. Bleach and Nevermind were their great albums.

Posted by DarinRG on Thursday, 01.20.11 @ 13:10pm


"For all those who think Nirvana is the inventees of grunge are wrong."

Correct, but you're wrong as well when you imply that Pearl Jam were the originals. Soundgarden predated both of them.

Posted by Sam on Thursday, 01.27.11 @ 10:10am


True PJ fans realize that this band got better with age, though Backspacer isn't their best album...

Best Albums:

1. Riot Act
2. Yield
3. Binaural
4. No Code
5. Backspacer
6. Vitalogy
7. VS
8. Ten
9. Pearl Jam

Posted by Zach on Thursday, 01.27.11 @ 11:02am


I was one of the biggest die-hard fans of this band, but ever since the self-titled album, it went downhill. They raise the prices for their tickets then they sell-out to Target, and just goes to show that boys just don't care about there music anymore. "The Fixer," was made just to get back on the radio like they were in the early 90's. Its just so sad because they were so against doing a commercial, and then they join the bandwagon. Whatever, like all other fans have, I will just have move on and pretend it never happened.

Posted by Old PJ Fan on Friday, 01.28.11 @ 19:09pm


OLD PJ FAN!!! READ.. THEY HAD TO SALE OUT TO TARGET IT WAS IN THE FINE LINES OF THERE CONTRACT. IF YOU READ YOU WILL FIND OUT THEY LEFT THE RECORD DEAL SOON AFTER THE TARGET RELEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Throop on Friday, 02.4.11 @ 12:41pm


ARTISTS INDUCTED INTO THE ROCK AND ROLL HALL OF FAME BY EDDIE VEDDER

01. 1993 The Doors
02. 1995 Neil Young
03. 2002 The Ramones
04. 2007 R.E.M.

Posted by Roy on Tuesday, 02.8.11 @ 11:56am


"Whatever, like all other fans have, I will just have move on and pretend it never happened."

I think their first #1 album in 13 years, well-received festival headlinings and still selling out Madison Square Garden speaks otherwise. Plus the term "sell-out" is the laziest and most overused term around.

Posted by Sam on Saturday, 02.12.11 @ 15:32pm


You can't say no to this band. You just can't.

Posted by Dadada on Friday, 02.25.11 @ 19:37pm


More or less the Grunge version of Def Leppard, except a little bit more popular nowadays. So much of their case rests on influence that could be deemed "bad" that it simply becomes a question of whether or not influence is influence.

Posted by Jim on Wednesday, 03.16.11 @ 11:26am


As far as I'm concerned, influence is influence, if we start weighing "good" influence versus "bad" influence we're basically getting down to giving the RRHOF a quality (music wise) barrier, which essentially makes the institution garbage (assuming one doesn't think it already is).

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Wednesday, 03.16.11 @ 12:01pm


So much of their case rests on influence that could be deemed "bad" that it simply becomes a question of whether or not influence is influence.

Posted by Jim on Wednesday, 03.16.11 @ 11:26am


--------------------------------------------------
You've just made the argument for why Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Aerosmith, Van Halen, & a pile of others should be thrown out of the Hall as well.

Don't punish Pearl Jam for spawning Nickelback, Creed, etc. Judge them for the effect they had in their place & time.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Wednesday, 03.16.11 @ 18:33pm


I agree wholeheartedly. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of some people who state that acts like Def Leppard shouldn't be in because "
they influenced alot of crap" yet they say that Pearl Jam deserves it because they're influential when its literally the same thing.

Posted by Jim on Wednesday, 03.16.11 @ 18:42pm


Also, if you really think about it, if we had to throw whatever acts had bad influence out of the hall, I'm not even sure we'd have a hall in the first place, its quite possible every act has influenced a crappy performer at some point.

Posted by Jim on Wednesday, 03.16.11 @ 18:45pm


Actually, some people keep flip-flopping on Def Leppard. They say that they shouldn't get in because Van Halen was the first hair band then say they Def Leppard shouldn't get in for allowing more crap... but that's already been discussed. What Jim said, it would either be a very small Hall or NOBODY inducted if we used the negative influence barrier. Some people have said "no" to Alice in Chains for the same reason; just like PJ they contributed to the post-grunge movement, except that AIC can't seem to get over the hump because they don't get the credit they deserve. I say yes to both bands anyway.

Posted by Sam on Thursday, 03.24.11 @ 12:23pm


Pearl Jam will be inducted into the Hall of Fame and for the haters of the band, you have your opinion but you also need to respect the opinions of the millions of fans worldwide that the band have and that the band continue to play to. I love that people say that Ten is their only good album, and others argue that other albums are better and the fact remains that the albums are all different and show how the band has changed over time. Not innovative? They were the first band to offer bootlegs of every concert, they look after their fans and they have sold millions of albums without flooding the radio with single releases. If you think they are no longer relevant, listen to Unthought Known off Backspacer, and realise that this song alone is amazing and yet was not released as a single. Not to mention the amount of charity work, environmental work that the band do. The Pearl Jam V Nirvana thing is a waste of time as is the "who started grunge?" argument. The fact remains that Pearl Jam still exist from the grunge era and are still creating great music in a time where music is at its lowest ebb. The last decade has produced some utterly forgetable music and if it wasn't for bands like Pearl Jam still trying to keep rock n roll relevant than twats like Justin Bieber will continue to pollute the airwaves.

Posted by kev on Sunday, 04.10.11 @ 18:45pm


"The Pearl Jam V Nirvana thing is a waste of time as is the 'who started grunge?' argument."

I'll only say this once: The term Grunge was used as a joke, and since the term has to do with dirt and stuff it kind of fit what was going on in Seattle in the 80's. However, the term wasn't meant to be taken seriously; none of the so-called "Big Four" gave the scene a name, and none of them actually called themselves Grunge, but when Nirvana and Pearl Jam the media heard the term and just blew things way out of proportion. But yes Pearl Jam will be inducted, and rightfully so. Hopefully all of the so-called "Big Four" (the others being Soundgarden and Alice in Chains) will be inducted.

Posted by Sam on Friday, 04.15.11 @ 09:59am


Sam, if Gitarzan or Dameon were still posting on here, they'd tell you what they think about "sub-genres." Basically, the argument goes that initially it was just called "rock & roll." Then, the British Invasion came along and suddenly a group of people (or "idiots") tried separating "rock" and "rock & roll" into two separate genres.. even though rock is, in fact, short for rock & roll!! Then punk came along and suddenly something that had been around before punk became "proto-punk." Next, the term "post-punk" emerged, which is in and of itself a ridiculous term as it literally means anything recorded post-1977 is "post-punk." Then we get a movement called Indie suddenly become a "sound." And of course I haven't even gotten to alternative, or the offshoots of prog and heavy metal. (I'm oversimplifying some of the discussion, I forgot what page I saw this on, maybe it was on several different pages.. the hours I've spent meandering on this site sometimes make it all float together.)

Next thing you know, we'll have a sub-genre popping up calling itself post-post-hair-metal-grunge-revival-blues-rock-fusion-proto-funk or "Gribgrock" for short. And we'll have a legions of fans of it's two most important bands, Hands of Eden and the Darth Vader Express claiming their pet projects should be in the Hall of Fame.

As the Stones said, "It's Only Rock & Roll."

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Friday, 04.15.11 @ 10:32am


"-Some resentment over their quick rise right after Nirvana. Could that backlash hurt them?"

Despite popular belief, Pearl Jam was actually BIGGER than Nirvana while they were both around. Nirvana was only bigger for about a year, but from late 92 onward Pearl Jam was on top and was quite a bit more successful than Nirvana.

"Vs", which was released in 93, was the fastest selling album of all time, and it held that title for several years. This was while Nirvana was still around. Nirvana's "In Utero" only came out a month before "Vs" and it sold about half as many records. Pearl Jam's third album, "Vitalogy" was the SECOND fasted selling album of all time for a few years as well. As far as I know, "Vs" and "Vitalogy" still hold the 1st and 2nd spots for the fastest selling ROCK albums of all time.

It was actually after Kurt's death that Pearl Jam began actively pulling themslves out of the mainstream. You can bet that if they had stayed on course and kept their original style then they would still be HUGE today. It's only within the last year or so that they have made any effort to introduce themselve to a new generation. Up until now, they have pretty much advertised by word of mouth.

Anyway, will Pearl Jam be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame? Of course they will. They were the most successful and influential band of the 90's and one of the greatest American bands of all time. And no, Creed and Nickelback are not the only bands influenced by Pearl Jam. They have also influenced bands like: Staind, Puddle of Mudd, Silverchair, Our Lady Peace, Bush, Kings of Leon, The Strokes, and pretty much every rock band since 1993.



Posted by The Dude on Saturday, 04.16.11 @ 23:59pm


When it comes to biggest band i'd say they probably had some opposition there in the form of Oasis (this isn't me saying their better, i've never really took the time to listen to pearl jam).

Posted by GFW on Sunday, 04.17.11 @ 07:59am


"Next, the term 'post-punk' emerged, which is in and of itself a ridiculous term as it literally means anything recorded post-1977 is 'post-punk.'"

AllMusic's description of post-punk: http://www.allmusic.com/explore/style/post-punk-d2636. Hope that helps, and most of the bands listed I would say fall into that category.

"Then we get a movement called Indie suddenly become a 'sound.' And of course I haven't even gotten to alternative, or the offshoots of prog and heavy metal."

1. AMG says: "Alternative pop/rock is essentially a catch-all term for post-punk bands from the mid 80's to the mid 90's. There is a multitude of musical styles within alternative rock, from the sweet melodies of jangle-pop to the disturbing metallic grind of industrial, yet they are all tied together by a single aesthetic - they all existed and operated outside of the mainstream. In some ways, there are two waves of alternative bands, with Nirvana's unprecedented crossover success in 1991 acting as a dividing point." Essentially, it refers to bands that don't belong to any established musical genre, who generally dislike what's going on in the mainstream and offer a second musical option to whatever else is going on, and even when they desire success they want it on their own terms and without compromising; at least that's how I see it. I suppose the term "Alternative" came about because it was an alternative to mainstream music and society. Before that it was called "College Rock" because that was generally where you found it.

2. The above refers to how I see it in the context of the US (I can't give you an expert opinion as I was born in '89, and my first attachment to any kind of Alternative was Automatic For The People and Oasis' Morning Glory, both albums which hold up well to this day). In the UK, it was a similar outlook, but they called it Indie due to the artists being on independent labels; this was born out of the DIY spirit of punk, and I trace it back to the Buzzcocks' self-funded and self-released Spiral Scratch EP. I almost wrote out a basic overview of it from The Smiths to Britpop, but if you're at all interested in the latter then I highly reccomend The Last Party: Britpop, Blair and the demise of English Rock by John Harris. As well as covering Britpop it also traces where it came from, and thus goes over the roots of British Indie; it'll give do a much better job explaining things than I could. All I'll say is Indie is a scene, not a sound, as the aforementioned book would and Harris' reccomended recordings related to what he writes about shows. The Smiths, New Order and The Cure had hits and legitimate commercial success, but if you didn't have that your music was as difficult to find as your American counterparts. John Peel's radio show and small, DIY record stores were the places you could discover it.

4. I'm not sure what prog sub-genres there are. Metal sub-genres: Some are fine. Death Metal's self-explanatory, as are rap-metal and prog-metal. Thrash and speed metal are just the boundaries being pushed in terms of speed and aggression. Alternative Metal in it's original form was metal but also being pushed into new, experimental territories that were unrecognizable, which made them appealing to both metal and alternative fans. It could refer to anything from Faith No More to Jane's Addiction (couldn't be pigenholed, either one) to Soundgarden to Living Colour, and in it's next phase Alice in Chains, Tool and Rage Against The Machine were among the standouts. Extreme metal seems a bit generic as a term. After that I think we're getting a bit ridiculous.

"and pretty much every rock band since 1993."

While I agree that they're one of the most influential bands of the last 20 years (possibly the most), I have to disagree with that statement.

"When it comes to biggest band i'd say they probably had some opposition there in the form of Oasis (this isn't me saying their better, i've never really took the time to listen to pearl jam)."

Not really. Estimated record sales: Oasis 50 million, PJ 60 million. Put them both in.

Posted by Sam on Monday, 04.25.11 @ 18:41pm


Sam, I appreciate the write-up and very well said at that. However, I was more or less paraphrasing what I read somewhere (don't remember on what page), so I was oversimplifying things. Basically, it was a discussion Dameon and Gitarzan were having, they were expressing the frustration over the emergence of the subgenre, and attempts at historical revision of rock and roll history.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Tuesday, 04.26.11 @ 03:37am


Pearl Jam is the absolute worst. Along with STP and Nickleback. Absolute worst vocalists ever. Sounds like a bunch of gay bikers singing karaoke.

Posted by Jim on Friday, 06.17.11 @ 15:13pm


^Not the usual Jim that posts here. I like Pearl Jam.

Posted by Jim on Friday, 06.17.11 @ 15:24pm


Yes

Very tight, musically dedicated band that was responsible for many anthems in the 90's.

Many people call them a "sell out" which couldnt be further from the truth. PJ were always authentic and supported many other up&coming bands and musicians which is what being a successful act is all about.

I love all the grunge bands of the 90's Nirvana, RHCP, Alice in Chains however in my mind PJ are the most successful, influential and relevent of the era.

Posted by Jarrd on Saturday, 06.18.11 @ 00:55am


How could Pearl Jam NOT be a HOF band. They have been around for 20 plus years and they are clearly the biggest band of the 90's. I think Vedder is a a complete downer but their music stands alone as some of the most important of recent rock. Who cares who they have influenced...what rock band had been bigger from the US in the past two decades??

Posted by Meggiebucks on Saturday, 07.30.11 @ 23:52pm


Can I say crap?

Posted by Vince on Wednesday, 08.10.11 @ 21:12pm


Along with Nirvana, Green Day and Radiohead, an automatic first ballot. For the casual observer, they associate their greatest work with "Ten" but their followups such as Vs, Vitalogy and No Code are in most aspects better than the debut album.

Their ability to remain relevant despite their refusal to do music videos after "Ten", interviews or promoting future albums, changing their musical direction (i.e. Vitalogy, No Code) despite the backlash from the "Ten" fans.

They are well respected and revered by the majority of the rock industry. Lead vocalist Eddie Vedder has been a mainstay at this venue and has inducted several artists and bands.

They can sell out concert venues without ever doing another because of their reputation and extensive discography. A band that changes their setlists each night and doesn't appease the audience by playing "just the hits".

People talk about the "bad" influence (Creed, Nickelback, Puddle of Mud) but My Morning Jacket, the Strokes, Kings of Leon, Seether, Breaking Benjamin and Arcade Fire have emphasized how much their music impacted their lives.

The rock and roll hall of fame has proven to be a sham controlled by the politics of Jan Wenner. It is a disgrace that Yes, Rush, Chicago, Black Sabbath have not been inducted but it would be a huge oversight if Pearl Jam were denied the honor as well.

Posted by Kevin S on Tuesday, 09.27.11 @ 19:51pm


I would assume they'd be a first balloter. Not only do they deserve it, but I think they are Wenner/Rolling Stone favorites (RS's favorite son Cameron Crowe is a huge supporter--just produced their 20th anniversary Doc) and PJ has always been huge supporters of the RRHOF. Short of Springsteen and Bono, I can't think of any single artist besides Vedder who has been more of a staple at these events--has done the induction speech for 4 major acts (Doors, Neil Young, R.E.M., and Ramones).

Would be cool if they went in with Soundgarden and Alice in Chains (assuming they make it) and Nirvana (assuming they'd hold Nirvana back a few years which I think would be fair since their break through album was released same month as PJ's first release). Would be a great show since they've all played together in the past to some degree (and the other acts could fill-in for Cobain). Host it in Seattle too at the Hendrix Museum.

That said--with the friends they've made would expect a lot of bands to show up to support PJ.

Posted by Andrew on Friday, 09.30.11 @ 04:12am


If a train wreck of a band like Guns 'N' Roses can get in then it should be no problem for an actually talented band like Pearl Jam to get in.

Posted by Aaron on Wednesday, 12.7.11 @ 15:55pm


I can see why kurt cobain didnt like them. They arent good to me, like theyre good, if by good you mean "good in a pinch" or something, but there's somethign flat about their music. In the context of the 90s authenticity war, having "guitar solos" was passe. PJ began as a grungy slam up of classic rock, grunge and its own thing...I think theyre like the Corporate rock of the era. "but they have a loyal following." The guy does have a great voice, and some songs are moving, but to me cobain, when he wasnt all screamo was into a deeper vein of philosophy. But vedder is sentimental and emotive. Id have to say theyre ok, but kurt cobain snobbishness aside...theyre ok. besides vedder the other guys look like a bunch of white-trash zombies that yet again haunt our stage. In terms of taste I might choose niurvana though. I love pJs use of les paul-like sounds and looks and the telecaster: but while cobainw is perhaps too decorated with the looks and trppings of the mustangs and etc, he was a songwriter with interesting lyrics to decode, and that puts him on a high level. I tried to decode evenflow...and i suceeded marginally. I tried to decode do the evolution and well, i didnt haveto decode it, it was pretty obvious what it was about. Not subtle, it was one to hit over the head, like most of his songs.

Posted by devin reese on Wednesday, 01.11.12 @ 07:38am


Let me tell you some good noise boys and girls- Pearl Jam is a first ballot Hall of Fame band for whatever that means. Bottom line is while they have limited commercial success since Ten, they have consistantly released amazing album after amazing album and enjoy an incredible fan base along with an immense amount of respect from Rock legends such as the Stones, Bruce, U2, The Clash, The Who, Bob Dylan and the list goes on. They are the best live band currently touring. I am a U2 fan as well and they have build a reputation of being a great live band ... I dont see it, yes they sound great live but they play the same set every single night, night after night....WHy would anyone see them twice on the same tour? Pearl Jam plays an entirely different set every single night. They are one the best modern rock bands ever assembled.

Posted by Bill Mariano on Sunday, 02.12.12 @ 22:41pm


Pearl Jam blows. Nirvana, STP, Sublime, Sepultura, SoulFly, 311, and Cavelera Conspiracy kicks rock ass

Posted by Dr. Jim on Sunday, 03.4.12 @ 20:48pm


Its funny to me that people respond to these post with such hatred towards a band. Pearl Jam had consistently tried to be faithful to their fans, as I have been a member of their ten club since 94. I've seen the live and never saw the same set. I think it is absolutely crazy that we sit here and talk about whether or not they should get in, because you want to know who cares the least, Pearl Jam...and that is what makes them great. They could care less if they get into the hall of fame, its nothing to them. They have stayed true to their fans and that is what they have wanted to do all along...not get voted into a hall of fame. And seriously if you are going to talk about NIRVANA, spell their name right...jesus you guys, this is embarrassing...

Posted by Paul on Saturday, 10.27.12 @ 02:12am


Absolutely a no brainer. These guys changed music forever along with 90's counterparts Nirvana, Soundgarden, Alice In Chains, and on and on. Awesome stuff and most definitely HoF material.

Posted by JP on Thursday, 11.29.12 @ 00:42am


I don't get how anyone could call Pearl Jam unoriginal! I am asking anyone to find a more musically diverse band. For example Pearl Jam released Ten, a great "grunge" album. Years later they release No Code. NO CODE is different from Ten in literally every way I can imagine. Also with their albums today, that with each one sound completely different from any others. I call that original. None of their albums (except Ten) reflect any other bands style/sound, let alone their own style usually! GO PEARL JAM!!

Posted by Stone on Wednesday, 01.9.13 @ 23:23pm


I just watched Flava Flav inducted into the RRHoF with NWA... If Pearl Jam doesn't get in, the human race doesn't deserve to continue.

Posted by Anthony on Sunday, 05.26.13 @ 22:47pm


"I just watched Flava Flav inducted into the RRHoF with NWA"

lol

Posted by GFW on Monday, 05.27.13 @ 05:54am


So next year begins the wave of 90s alt rock acts that some would argue did irreparable harm to rock music? The joy.

Posted by astrodog on Monday, 05.27.13 @ 18:04pm


So next year begins the wave of 90s alt rock acts that some would argue did irreparable harm to rock music? The joy.



Posted by astrodog on Monday, 05.27.13 @ 18:04pm
--------------------------------------------------
Next yr. begins the wave of acts that constitute the only large scale rock Music wave of the past 30+ yrs. to rule the mainstream.

The joy? Yes, the joy! If you are a rock fan.

As to the irreparable harm part - how can they be doing it "irreparable harm"? They're the only ones who were playing "rock" music & succeeding at a popular mainstream level, en' masse, since the late 70's/early 80's? They're harming it by having success?

Hip-Hop took your pop music. Yet somehow, you have it worked out in your own mind that it was Rock that ruined your pop. They don't even have a connection, yet you want them to.

You should really be on a hip-hop page, ranting about this. I suggest going to the M.C. Hammer or Vanilla Ice page, if you will. The two are living proof that hip-hop was already taking over pop before that dreaded, nasty old music called rock turned up again. There, you can argue coherently why New Wave should've beat hip-hop at the pop game. :)

Posted by Cheesecrop on Tuesday, 05.28.13 @ 05:55am


How did alt rock ruin rock?

Posted by GFW on Tuesday, 05.28.13 @ 08:09am


Yeah, I'm curious about that, though since astro's been here awhile I can guess where he's going with it. I'd say the Seattle sound was fresh air when the mainstream was getting a bit stale.

Posted by Sam on Tuesday, 05.28.13 @ 15:56pm


The argument goes something like this: The 90s "grunge" bands were seemingly very fresh when compared to what was in the mainstream at the time. It just seemed more substantial.

However grunge also gave way to a significant degree of what became known as rockism. All the sudden rock had to be guitar based, had to be serious, had to jettison any sense of "inauthenticity" (all that weird 80s stuff). Had to reject technology. Had to reject dance rythmns (early rock was danceable). It had to be anti-pop. Frankly it became a form scared of its own shadow, tedious, judgmental, intolerant and backward-looking. Rock became define too narrowly. It became the music of old fogeys screaming "get off my lawn." It's hard to be rebellious when you are running scared, when you are always playing to formula. The kids see it. And they go where the action is. Some time ago this site linked to a poll where kids no longer identify as rock fans.

Is that a generalization? Yes. Are there exceptions? Sure. And the bands themselves didn't seem to have this idea, although the Foo Fighters sound like cranky old men nowadays. But when rock becomes nostalgia, something that is afraid of anything new, it becomes a joke. That's sort of what it is today.

I'm certainly not saying that rock is dead or that good bands are not "out there" in the unheard hinterland. Nothing beats a good rock song. But it has waned badly. But the perception that I just summarized is definitely "out there" as well. And when a band like Nirvana makes the list of worst bands of the 90s, this is actually part of the reason fairly or not. It was the symbol of early 90s rock, so it is getting blamed for rock losing its edge and its energy.

Posted by astrodog on Wednesday, 05.29.13 @ 19:07pm


Well, that actually... makes quite a bit of sense!

Although to single out Nirvana for that seems kinda unfair...

Posted by GFW on Thursday, 05.30.13 @ 05:56am


This is the same old same old here.

When you note that rock had to be guitar based, had to be serious, etc., etc., you've just described something, though it's probably not what you were aiming at.

A guitar-based music that's serious and un-danceable - you've just described the conditions in San Francisco, circa 1968. Bands were serious, there was no room to move on the dance floor, & bands had started creating heavier music that wasn't necessarily danceable. "Born to be Wild", "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida", "Sunshine of your Love", are hardly danceable tunes. Sounds like rockism started a heck of a lot sooner than Seattle.

As for the experimental part, it was happening. It simply wasn't in the form you cared for, so you choose to dismiss it as though it didn't happen. Plenty of acts were utilizing alternative tunings on their guitars, in a manner that hadn't been heard for yrs., & in many cases were pushing it to lengths no one had heard of up till this time. Besides this, just look at what came through the breach. Are you saying Nirvana & Bjork were the same? Were Blues Traveler & Tool working the same styles? How about the Smashing Pumpkins & Son Volt? There's many more instances that can be noted as well.

The rest of this about running scared, nostalgia, etc., is just an attempt to marginalize things on pop terms (through even I agree that the Foo's sound like cranky old men these days - what happened??!!! :). When Nirvana makes a list of 10 worst acts of the 90's, & the majority of the other acts are one-hit's & trivial pop acts, it means that the editors of the magazine realized that no one would care about said list, so you tinker w/it to get a reaction. It's somewhat like the MTV Video Awards from yrs. back. If you can recall the one where both Madonna, Britney, & Aguilera kissed (the planned pop "shocker") & the bassist from Rage making a fuss in the rafters (the unplanned rock moment that the allegedly daring MTV chose to shy away from). It's all there...

Beyond that, you keep saying that the kids see that rock is allegedly "playing to formula", & that they ran from it. Yet Dance pop has played to formula for yrs. now. N'Sync & Britney gave way to "American Idol" & Hannah Montana, which gave way to the Jonas Bros., which gave way to Katy Perry & One Direction. 15 yrs. of the same thing. For that matter where are the rappers from 2000 or so? Where did Nelly go? How 'bout 50 Cent? Where did Ludacris, or Chingy, or Chamillionaire, or any of those one-named creations go? They disappear after 3 or 4 yrs. at best. For that matter, Imagine Dragons is getting a push, but they sound a lot like .fun did in 2011... who sounded like Foster the People in 2009... who sounded like MGMT, to an extent, in 2007... that's a good 5 or 6 years now. Kind of interesting how the "Kids" don't seem to be getting it...

Meanwhile, an act like Tame Impala is introduced here. They've a psychedelic sound, but they're not as heavy as an act like Myrrors. At the same time, there not as heavy as an act like Junius. They might be closer to The Contrast. Of course, none of these acts sound like Guitar Wolf (a happy discovery from this site), or for that matter Priestess (another from this site). None of those acts sound like the White Stripes, or QOTSA, or Cage the Elephant, for that matter. What's amazing is that I can list all these acts, all over a 15 yr. period. They all share a few things:

1. They're all rock;
2. None of them sound like Grunge

Yet strangely enough, some of the earlier acts are unknown to people. But the "Kids" are catching all of this, correct...

The 90's were One Part of something a lot larger. Please put down the blinders & recognize this. Creativity goes on, regardless of what an individual wants. For some reason, you want rock to have waned, courtesy of your own timetable. How dare the music go on w/out me! It's only waned for you, because you clearly don't want to take the time & energy to explore things further. Therefore, you throw up flak in an attempt to hide this. If you have to, look around on this site. Look things up. Write it down, even if you have to use pen & paper. Connect the dots & recognize it. Other folks on this site are catching on.

Come To The Dark Side, Man!!! -- & take a listen. :)

Posted by Cheesecrop on Thursday, 05.30.13 @ 07:07am


Wait, Astro, were you on about just Grunge, or alt/indie rock in general?

Posted by GFW on Thursday, 05.30.13 @ 07:45am


@Cheesecrop-It is the same old. I'm simple relating what rock artists themselves are saying, that they feel outdated.

Like I said, there are always good bands "out there." But it doesn't matter if no one listens. Somewhere along the line rock became uncool and old. Which is the natural result of a form of music rejecting pop, rejecting style, shunning experimentation, becoming stale, becoming judgmental. Again we can point to exceptions, but what was the general trend? Has anything become more formulaic than indie rock?

Rockism is an idea. I don't think it is a coincidence that people started writing about rockism at the end of the 90s (when the cult of authenticity was at its height) and that rock was jettisoned from the airwaves within the same time frame. Radio stations and MTV (back when they still played music) determined that rock no longer sold, fairly or not.

And to be honest the division you make between rock and pop makes my point for me. If I recall you once said that Sgt. Pepper was a pop album, among many others. But really, if you are admitting the "real rock" is a rejection of pop, and that 90s rock (in large part) was anti-pop, should we be surprised when audiences look elsewhere? When you reject style and fun and energy and sex appeal while mere "pop" and hip hop artists seem edgier and more daring while rock artists drone on like dreary old men (did Vedder ever smile?) playing the same guitars while dressed like homeless people, what do you expect?

Now in fairness rock has been in the ditch before and all it takes is one act. But this was a self-inflicted wound.

Posted by astrodog on Thursday, 05.30.13 @ 09:16am


You're relating what rock acts feel. Really? I had no idea that you had the ability to speak for every single rock act in the U.S. of A. When did they name you spokesman for the country?

You say it doesn't matter if no one listens. My question is, where are they hearing it to begin with!? The only place where large groups can hear anything in a mass format is on radio & TV. You can listen on the Web, but it's a private experience more often that not. Fact is, Rock was tossed off television & radio because the broadcasters didn't want it there in the first place.

I noted in a posting a couple months ago (forget where, regrettably), that through the history of the music industry in the Whole of the 20th Century, it was the musicians that have been edged out as time went on. When the Jazz age ended, it was the Bix Beiderbecke's that suffered, while the Bing Crosby's, Russ Colombo's, & Dick Powell's prospered. The music picked itself up, turned into big band music - & the vocalist's came to the forefront. When the Big-Band era ended in the early 50's, who survived? The Vocalists. The musicians were left out to dry. It took Rock & Roll for the musicians to return.

All through the rock era you see the same thing. The industry as a whole has sought out easier ways to produce music w/out the musicians. Why? Cause musicians might want to break free. The musician places the artistry over the commercial. They had control again in the early 60's, but then lost it again when the British Invasion took hold. They lost it for a decade, till the late 70's, when disco made it possible to create a generic pop/dance sound. Throughout the 80's, anybody who wanted to sell submitted to what the industry wanted, & anyone who wouldn't was left out in the cold.

The period from 1991-1996 was the last large scale moment when the musicians took over again. All the other stuff you've mentioned: rejecting pop, rejecting style, etc., is all just surface material. Thing is, the industry would rather sell surface material. It's easier to do, & far more safer than trying to sell a recording of musicians performing an art.

The very thing that frightened the record executives was the idea that the musicians would be in control. They are the ones who are experimental - not multiple D.J.'s doing multiple re-mixes of someone else's work. If anything, it s hip-hop & dance music that has become pitifully stale. Every rapper has a required "guest" being featured. Safety in #'s, I suppose. Every song is re-mixed, factory style, like an assembly line. There's no thought to any artistry, since artistry runs counter to the production line mentality.

Every concert is pre-planned, & everyone is led, cheerleader style, through the correct movements. First pump your fist, then raise your hands, etc., etc. Just like the dancers onstage. Everybody moves in unison, everything choreographed, w/out anybody giving thought to what is happening. You leave, having seen "a show". You can go to Broadway & get the same thing, w/better singers, better staging, & actual acting, to boot. Why do I want to go here?

With rock, you get far more energy, far more spontaneity, & a far more interesting concert - providing the band is "on". That's a key thing - you don't know whether they'll be on or not. It's the diff. between musicians and a "show". It's not that pop can't be rock - it's that the industry wants the guarantee of a "show". It's easier to sell surface material, staged as a show, cause it's a guaranteed item. It's like I pointed out in the last post, when I brought up the MTV Video Awards. The Pop artists stage a scene, & we're all supposed to be "shocked". oohhh. Then the rock musician unleashes a spontaneous protest - & the allegedly "daring" MTV runs for cover, cause it wasn't pre-planned.

I notice you simply ignored this in your last post, so I figured I'd drag it out again. Everything you focus on - style, wardrobe, sex appeal, etc., is all surface level stuff. If the artistry is there, this shouldn't matter. Once upon a time, the audience rose up & said it didn't matter. That time ended nearly 15 years ago - & more's the pity it had to.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Thursday, 05.30.13 @ 17:11pm


@Cheesecrop-I seem to recall that it was the industry and MTV that pushed Nirvana and others to the hilt. The industry didn't have it in for rock. It's a business. When the audience moves on, so does the industry and radio and television. Rock stopped selling.
You can spin heroic tales of artists breaking free as they scurried for the best record deal. It's just rationalization. They didn't reject style and experimentation and novelty and entertainment and presentation because they had integrity. If they did it's because they lacked artistic vision.
I like rock as much as the next guy, but when you write off all of those things as artifice, don't be surprised when the audience stops paying attention.
Anyway, while I enjoyed the paean to "real" music, it sounds like dirge for the dead with extreme nostalgia googles thrown in.

Posted by atstrodog on Thursday, 05.30.13 @ 18:50pm


Astro - Allow me to refute your point, with ease:

You say rock stopped selling (when you say rock, I assume you are speaking, as I am, of the period up till about 96/97). If this is the case, & we are talking commercial music (this is what You clearly Want rock to be), then how do you explain Matchbox 20 selling millions of copies of "Yourself or Someone Like You", in 1997/1998? How about Creed going multi-platinum in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, w/the albums "Human Clay" & "Weathered"? How about Linkin Park, who as late as 2003 went multi-platinum w/the album "Meteora"? Whether you like Green Day or not, the "American Idiot" album took off in 2004, & sold a ton all through 2005. This doesn't look like it stopped selling.

Outside of this, all you ever do is rationalize away everything that doesn't suit you. I provide examples in bunches, & you just ignore what you don't like. There fore, I've decided to simply be exactly like you, & simply fictionalize the whole deal, while ignoring everything you say. Here, therefore, is my take on what went down:

"At the dawn of the 90's, the rock industry, itself having been easily co-opted by pop, was over a decade into re-making the world as a safe, commercial wonderland of easy to digest, non-musical "musical stars". That's all anyone was - a "star" (shine lights on name, as crowd dutifully applauds). All life had been drained out of rock in the popular world since somewhere between 1975 and 1979, and it hardly looked like it would ever come back.

Then - Suddenly! (shocker of shockers here) A band came out of nowhere, &, in 14 weeks time, knocked the pop star w/the greatest selling album of all-time out of the #1 spot. Yes, Nirvana had done it... & the Revolution had Begun!

The Revolution, which swept aside acts left & right through the next 18 months... the Revolution, which forced MTV to play genuine music for once... The Revolution, whereupon one of the greatest bands, Pearl Jam, did not even need MTV to debut at the top of the charts... the Revolution was Everywhere!

At it's height, over 45,000 people were turning out to see Lollapalooza... rock bands were in Washington D.C., taking on establishment corporations (P.J. & Ticketmaster)... rock bands were on Wall Street, protesting big business practices (Rage Against the Machine, 1998? I believe)... Rock bands were hobnobbing w/politicians (Oasis's Noel Gallagher & Prime Minister Tony Blair)...

It was all too much for... The Man!!!

That's right! It was the Man that took us down! The Man stopped our imminent revolution, that would've overtaken everything. We we're too close to the seats of power, clearly, & we would've affected the business world. Had the corporate structure been rattled, who knows what would've happened! chaos in the Streets!!!

AAARRRGGGHHH!!!

So the Man came in, first, courtesy of the FCC act of 1996, which de-regulated the industry & allowed for more corporate control over radio. This allowed for conglomerates to eliminate rock stations & change them over to pop stations. Then, they got the kids hooked on kid-friendly styles of music. Using these acts as corporate shills, they merged w/major businesses, who could underwrite this stuff in favor of getting free-advertising.

After this, it was simply a matter of finding those who would sell out for a price (this being the majority of hip-hop) & bringing them in. The combination of corporate synergy, pop puppets, & hip-hop greed conspired to destroy the Greatest Decade in Rock History - ever - in a matter of a few years.

Since then, popular music has become lifeless. Stale hip-hopper's ,& dance artists g through the motions for mindless kids, while having the spotlight shine upon them. "Wardrobe Malfunctions", & panels of judges have replaced fans thinking for themselves. Individuality has been crushed by greed & avarice, as corporations silence those who would challenge the Establishment by waving $ under their noses.

Yet those of us who remember the Great & Glorious Revolution, that the Man & his Establishment crushed, cannot be fooled by these folks, We see through them, knowing full well how they work their little games. The Revolution Lives!!!"


No wonder you kept this conversation going for so long, astro. It's fun when you can just tap dance around the facts & make it up to suit your own purposes! This is Great!

Posted by Cheesecrop on Friday, 05.31.13 @ 12:30pm


@Cheesecrop-So Creed selling ten years ago is proof of rock's continued commercial viability? Why don't you throw Nickleback in there too? Creed and Nickleback? Need I say anything else?

The revolution? And then "The Man" took it all away? No disrespect, but please. It doesn't take a conspiracy theory to see that the music went stale. Nor does it require too much speculation to figure out why that happened. Again, I do not blame the bands. But the rock establishment and the music press (Rolling Stone) held up creatively limited acts like Nirvana as the exemplar of real rock while marginalization anything that deviated from the formula. And at the same time they held up The Ramones as the "American Beatles." Think about how myopic that was. That's self-marginalization in a bottle.

But speaking of revolutions, let's just compare the first alt rock movement of the late 70s/early 80s with the 90s version. In the first you had the Talking Heads and the Clash and PIL and Joy Division and Siouxsie and the Banshee's and Blondie and The Police and U2 and The Cars and The Cure and Tubeway Army and Sonic Youth and REM and Devo and Depeche Mode and the B-52s and Tuxedomoon and he Specials and Gun Club and the Replacements and The Smiths and X and a host of other post-punk bands that were varied and experimental and interesting. You had albums like Metal Box or Remain in Light or even Synchonicity. Compared to that your "revolution" was incredibly lame. The problem was that while some stuff like hair metal was worth discarding, the 90s rock orthodoxy discarded everything. They turned rock into hackneyed nostalgia. Rock becoming as stale as jazz was the true legacy. Sorry.

I'm not trying to kill your idols, but no cabal put rock into a ditch. It drove there itself.

Posted by astrodog on Friday, 05.31.13 @ 13:09pm


Guys, enough with this pointless debate! Bands like Narvana and Pearl Jam represented rock in it's final major flowering in the 90s before rap and pop overtook it and now, it seems that all you hear are teenage pop stars and talentless rappers.

So, Cheesecrop, I would say that rock isn't dead, but it's not a major player in music any more as most people don't care about it much.

Posted by Andrew on Friday, 05.31.13 @ 13:14pm


Wait, so rock dying means less smashing pumpkins, r.e.m. and more Carly Rae and Kanye?

Well hell, now I love Nirvana even more!

Posted by GFW on Friday, 05.31.13 @ 14:21pm


You could say that about rock, GFW.

Posted by Andrew on Friday, 05.31.13 @ 14:28pm


Seriously, rock, please die some more!

Posted by GFW on Friday, 05.31.13 @ 17:25pm


Astrodog, just so you know, rock didn't drive itself into the ditch, it was pushed aside by rap and popas the 90s moved along and many just lost sight of it. There are still good rock groups out there, it's just hard to find them due to the fact that few people listin to or even know about bands like Nirvana, Pearl Jam, or any of the great classic rock bands anymore.

Posted by Andrew on Friday, 05.31.13 @ 20:50pm


Astrodog, just so you know, rock didn't drive itself into the ditch, it was pushed aside by rap and pop as the 90s moved along and many just lost sight of it. There are still good rock groups out there, it's just hard to find them due to the fact that few people listen to or even know about bands like Nirvana, Pearl Jam, or any of the great classic rock bands anymore.

Posted by Andrew on Friday, 05.31.13 @ 20:54pm


@GFW-I not really attacking Nirvana. They were a pretty good band. Never thought a great one, but a good one. But Rolling Stone pimped them to the point that even when their own readers just sent them a very clear message, rather than think about it they chided their own readers for being wrong. Talk about having a permanent hard-on for one band.

I think two things happened. First Nirvana and Pearl Jam were very successful and other acts copied their formula. That always happens. But I think more importantly that the music press and the rock establishment decided that this alone was rock, and that was a major blunder. It was never just about celebrating Nirvana in the music press, but about dismissing anything that didn't follow their formula. The problem was that as a big fan of alternative rock, that formula was comparatively sterile. I'm sure people will try to toss rocks at me, but the first alt movement was much deeper than the second. (Possibly the difference between the first taking root in large media centers like NYC and London and the second in...Seattle). But here we had the national music press insisting that this was "authentic" rock and everything else was "artifice." And perversely when they went back to find a hero from the rich 70s/early 80s era to champion, it was the most creatively limited of the bunch, The Ramones. When the music press and the hipsters are insisting on such a limited definition of rock music, what is the natural result?

A rock band on the charts right now is the National, which people compare to Joy Division. Arcade Fire's last album was early 80s new wave influenced. And possibly the most creative band that came out of the 90s, Radiohead, was named after the Talking Heads. How many bands recently have you heard of that consciously try to emulate Nirvana or the Ramones for that matter? Yet those are and have long been Rolling Stone's musical superheroes. And the rest of the music press follows suit.

That all said, this all sprang from a harmless single sentence written in completely passive terms. When people are that jumpy and defensive it's because they know the critics have a valid point.

Posted by astrodog on Friday, 05.31.13 @ 22:49pm


Astro: I could easily turn around & repudiate everything you said in your last post (as I've been doing for some time now) but this would only be a re-hashing of, as I put it, the same old same old. The fact of the matter is, we have followed a very simple path, as I noted earlier. I provide example after example, & you just keep saying the same thing again & again, while offering nothing to back up your claims whatsoever. Whatever you run into that you don't like, you just toss it out like I never said it.

This whole thing started from a discussion over rock vs pop, courtesy of an 80's metal fan some time ago. When we got to talking, I drew a distinction between rock & pop. You didn't like my distinction, so you tossed it out.

We talked about synthesizers, & what place they had in rock. You felt that synth & drum machine music was rock, & a form of progress at that. I disagreed, & said that bands that have no roots in blues, country, jazz, etc., couldn't really be rock. I pointed out the diff. between some of the synth acts you listed, & gave Foreigner's "Feels Like the First Time" as an example of how rock could work w/a synthesizer.

You didn't like this, so you threw it out.

I re-iterate: synthesizers are instruments that highlight texture. Music like the blues is about expression. The art of someone like Muddy Waters was expressive.

You didn't care for this then (& I presume now), so you tossed it out.

You asked me to provide specifics regarding the music of the time. I did so, citing Alice In Chains, the Pumpkins, Tool, etc., as merging diff. sounds into something new.

You didn't like this, so... (guess what)... you tossed it out.

In the meantime, all you did was toss out a few names, a few albums, & a lot of catchphrases. As I moved the discussion into a musical realm, that's all you did, or for that matter, could do, I believe. The great irony here is that you could only respond to me when I started joking about a "Revolution". I think anybody on this site could see I was joking, except you. You took what I said at face value, even when I told you it was a mock up of what you were doing. You have no musical argument here. The only way you could respond was to act as a social commentator. You don't need to know music to do this.

You never got it, did you?

Even as my joke contained bits & pieces of the truth, you felt the need to respond. You are aware that the FCC bit was true, I hope? Of course, if you don't care for anything, you just toss it out.

The Govt.? Throw it out.
Clear Channel's emergence? Toss it out.

When I introduced modern acts in the 2000's that had success (White Stripes, QOTSA), you tossed them out.

When I noted the underground acts (numerous times), rather than even bother to comment, you... well, you tossed it out. :)

You kept demanding commercial success, so I decided I would change my tactics, & present commercial acts that even I knew weren't rock (i.e. Creed/Nickelback). I figured I'd follow your line of thought. You turned around and... wait for it... Wait For The Punchline!

you tossed it out.

It is here that I realized this was becoming truly foolish. When a man turns around & ignores hos own reasoning, then there's no point in even bothering to pretend a conversation is going on. I believe there's a line in the old Missing Persons song, "Words", that says it all:

"I might as well go up & talk to a wall,
These words are having no effect at all".

For the record, you tossed out names earlier. My reply: Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Alice in Chains, Smashing Pumpkins, Screaming Trees, Radiohead, Tool, White Zombie, Soul Asylum, Beck, NIN, Blues Traveler, Dave Matthews Band, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Bjork, Oasis, Counting Crows, Blur, Weezer, Stone Roses, etc. etc. - Fair amount of variety, though I've no doubt you'll just toss them all out as well.

I recommend dropping this for good, if only because the rest of the site may wish it to end (at least one person does, ha-ha! )

I'll leave it at this: one diff. between you & I, astro, is that I was willing to do the leg work to discover something new, whereas you never seemed willing to do so. Proof? Look on the Song Project page, where a little thing called the Voter's Choice category has been set up. It's a testimony to people's willingness to step out of bounds & search.

I pointed out where to look, & where to make the connections between then (91-96) & now (21st century). I'd have appreciated your take on it more had you done so w/New Wave. I am a naturally curious sort, so I'll make one more offer: Present me w/a list of acts from the mid-80's onward, that were clearly influenced by blues, country, jazz, folk, etc., - But were not oriented along pop/dance/hip-hop lines, & which ran counter to the Grunge era. Show me the connections between New Wave & later Rock (as in Music - not social stances & trappings) & I'll believe you. I'll even vote for them, non-stop, in the Song & Album Project, till the music is represented.

btw, I do have to admit, I'd love to be at your house when you pay the bills every month. I can just imagine you tossing the bills aside:

"Phone? Nah!"
"Electric? Don't think so"
"Cable? Maybe next month." :)

Posted by Cheesecrop on Saturday, 06.1.13 @ 06:58am


If all you are hearing now 'are teenage pop stars and talentless rappers', well I don't think you are trying hard enough.

There's alot of great music being played out there right now.

Posted by Paul in KY on Saturday, 06.1.13 @ 11:08am


@Cheesecrop-I'm not ignoring out of hand, just disagreeing. It happens. Rock is now a second-class citizen. That's the reality. Rock music today? You are insisting it's out there. Let me get my spelunking gear and I'll get back to you. :)

Posted by astrodog on Saturday, 06.1.13 @ 14:00pm


If all you are hearing now 'are teenage pop stars and talentless rappers', well I don't think you are trying hard enough.

There's alot of great music being played out there right now.



Posted by Paul in KY on Saturday, 06.1.13 @ 11:08am
--------------------------------------------------
Agree. Completely.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Saturday, 06.1.13 @ 20:12pm


Pearl Jam will be inducted in 2017 into the RRHF

Inductees Members:

Eddie Vedder
Jeff Ament
Stone Gossard
Mike McCready
Matt Cameron
Dave Abbruzzese
Jack Irons

Posted by L.A on Monday, 06.17.13 @ 09:46am


Saw band at 2013 Voodoo Music & Arts Festival in New Orleans. Venue is a beautiful city park on grounds of the main art museum. Weather was great all 3 days.

As for the band, sheeeeyit! Now I know what people were raving about. Right up there with the Paul McCartney set I saw at Bonnaroo. Band was only there to support Steve Gleason, an old Saints wedgebreaker who had come down with a bad case of ALS. Mr. Gleason was from Seattle area & knew members of Pearl Jam. He came up with the set list & he loves the oldies. They played all the best songs from their earlier albums (usually they have only been playing 2 or 3 on current tour). Played for a good 2 1/2 hours. Eddie Vedder's voice was in great shape, Mike McCready is one badass guitarist. Since it was right after Halloween, there were many people in crowd in costume. A man was dressed up in a complete bunny outfit (like a team mascot would wear) & Eddie invited him & his unicorn head wearing GF up on stage during the encore. They looked pretty excited. Finished up set with Yellow Ledbetter, Mr. McCready playing the last stanzas right beside Mr. Gleason in his chair & kissed him on head as song ended. Very emotional.

Posted by Paul in KY on Thursday, 11.7.13 @ 15:52pm


There is no Question that Pearl Jam is in. First ballot in my opinion. They are the greatest and only band to survive the grunge movement of the Early nineties even though Nirvana gets more acclaim. Don't get me wrong I love Nirvana. They too are one of the all time greats. But I think they receive more praise due to Cobain's untimely death. Like most bands that have longevity their earlier stuff is considered to be their best work but their newer stuff is also quality music. It may not have the quite the commercial success that Albums Like Ten, Vs, and Vitalogy had but they are still good albums that their faithful fans appreciate. The main reason is that they still put a lot of heart and thought into their music and don't produce prepackaged garbage that most artists today come up with. I bought their new album Lighting Bolt the day it was released. It's not their best album, but it's a damn good one. The songs that most of you heard from the radio, Mind Your Manners and Sirens aren't even the tracks on the record. Pendulum happens to be my favorite. I also really like Get Away, reminds me of old Pearl Jam. It's nice to see that after 23 plus years and 10 albums later they're still doing it at a high level. They sellout wherever the go. And they do this without selling out. They've conformed to what the music industry calls rock n roll. They just do their own thing. They can rock as loud, hard, and fast as anybody then flip the script and be as soft and beautiful as anybody. Hence the reason they've survived so long. Even if you are not a fan, respect their body of work and accomplishments. I have never been a big fan of the Beatles, but I consider them the greatest band of all time because every band that came after them owes them a thank you for bringing Rock n Roll to the forefront. Long live Pear Jam. They are truly deserving of greatness.

Posted by Matt on Saturday, 12.7.13 @ 16:05pm


I will echo what many have already stated. NO BRAINER! Pearl Jam is the band of the 90's and continue to carry the voice of that generation. Best live band hands down. They will be inducted rightfully so.

Posted by Greg B on Tuesday, 12.17.13 @ 09:19am


Is that (even) the question?

Posted by Lily on Saturday, 01.11.14 @ 15:59pm


Little Richard is not DEAD! ( YET)

Posted by Rich on Tuesday, 04.29.14 @ 06:20am


Eventually, of course.
But you should induct The New York Dolls, Iron Maiden, Slayer, Mc5, Joy Division, The Smiths, Jane's Addiction ans so many others first...

Posted by BulmaPunkRocker on Monday, 07.7.14 @ 00:01am


RIP, RiCk Parashar

Posted by Aaron O'Donnell on Sunday, 08.17.14 @ 14:17pm


Leave your comment:

Name:

Email:

Comments:


Security Question:

Which letter is Springsteen's band named after?
 

Note: Emails will not be visible or used in any way, but are required. Please keep comments relevant to the topic. Any content deemed inappropriate or offensive may be edited and/or deleted. Basically, this sums up our policy.

No HTML code is allowed.




This site is not affiliated with the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum.