Scott Weiland and Eddie Vedder--the irony

[chinese democrazy]

Based upon what?? Your opinion on their performance on a cover of the same song?

You definitely can't reasonably reach that conclusion that Weiland "buries" Vedder in talent based upon their lyrical/songwriting abilities or based on comparing catalogues

based upon the fact it wasn't even a close call, the same exact tune, and weiland stage presence, vocal performance, and execution were in a completely different league. I should have been more clear, but those are the talents I was referring to.

[ShotgunBlues1978]

Based upon what?  Your opinion on their performance on a cover of the same song?

You definitely can't reasonably reach that conclusion that Weiland "buries" Vedder in talent based upon their lyrical/songwriting abilities or based on comparing catalogues

based upon the fact it wasn't even a close call, the same exact tune, and weiland stage presence, vocal performance, and execution were in a completely different league. I should have been more clear, but those are the talents I was referring to.

What stage presence are you referring to?  Both Vedder and Weiland stood there and did nothing.  Neither performance was particularly remarkable in any way.  And using one single performance by each, of one specific song, that neither of them had anything to do with the creation of, doesn't prove anything.  Everyone has good/bad shows, good/bad performances, and so on.  So your whole reasoning is skewed and flawed

Weiland is a more energetic and unique stage performer than Vedder, that much is true.  That's only one aspect.  I personally don't think Eddie Vedder's a particularly compelling stage performer but in fact Pearl Jam is an incredibly successful touring band, way more so than VR or STP.  The reason for that is the popularity and longevity of their material, as viewed by fans worldwide.  People still show up in droves to see Pearl Jam play songs that are 10-15 years old.  And if you're talking talent, you can give the nod to Weiland in the live performer category if you want.  In terms of lyricism, songwriting, quality of catalogue, influence it's difficult to give Weiland any sort of edge over Vedder.  And if you're talking strictly numbers, record sales and touring revenue, there's no argument whatsoever for Weiland

The original poster says Eddie Vedder is no longer relevant.  That's his opinion, but the facts show that this is not true.  You compare the amount of people willing to pay to see Vedder perform compared to those who pay to see Weiland perform and it's a wide victory for Vedder and Pearl Jam

[welshrose]

Weiland is one of the biggest posers in the history of rock n roll and has not come even close to writing anything in the same league as Eddie.

Case closed, hands down, there is no gray area.

BTW, the last Pearl Jam cd debuted in the top 5 and was on virtually every critics top ten list.

[Smoking Guns]

Vedder from 91- maybe 97, good front mand and vocals.  Now he is just lame. 

PJ were and still are a classic rock band.  Nirvana was alternative.  But alive is as classic rock as anything.  Listen to the the guitar solos. They were a good band.  A good live band.  In the STP, Nirvana crowd.  Never, ever, on the level of a GNR.  Period. 

And yes, Cobain considered them Cock Rock, a lot like what people today consider Nickelback.

[D]

[quote author=RichardNixon link=topic=47338.msg964308#msg964308

But people care about VR and their new album.

Outside of 300,000 hardcore fans (US) no one really cares about PJ.

I guess we'll see how well Libertad sells.? Pearl Jam's last album sold roughly 280,000 copies the first week and around 700,000 in the US to date, I believe

I'm sure VR would be extremely happen to have an opening week that strong.? You also are failing to account for the fact that Eddie Vedder and Pearl Jam are very content to release albums without a great deal of fanfare or hype.? VR's last album was promoted as heavily as any rock album I've seen the last 5 years

Don't even bring up touring.? Pearl Jam sells out shows across the world in big venues, the figures don't lie.? A lot more people care about seeing Pearl Jam live than care about seeing VR live

Funny how when I bring these same arguments up about my other favorite band, they mean nothing.



I don't care who u are

If u sell records and sell out Huge Arenas and Stadiums, U are still a great Rock n Roll band.

[ZRO]

Okay then. Answer my question then: Are you trying to say every artist should stick to one genre they start in?

No.

We're not talking about the music. We're talking about the image.

He's not inventing anything new as far as I can tell, he's following trends. Anything to be cool.




/jarmo

That's right, that whole cowboy image is so "in" at the moment ain't it...

Haha seriously, I was gonna say.. exactly what trend is Scott following by wearing tight leather pants and nazi hats? Is everyone else in rock doing that right now?

I don't see why Jarmo is so against musicians reinventing themselves and their image. He must hate David Bowie.

[Smoking Guns]

^^^^^^And Axl Rose, the Hip Hop king, I mean Biker Dude...

[WARose]

pearl jam are irrelevant today and VR are the best rock band of the 00`s???

some of you are definitely living in a dream world....definitely...

[Christos AG]

I don't see why Jarmo is so against musicians reinventing themselves and their image. He must hate David Bowie.

Are you fuckin kidding us?

Do you compare Weiland to Bowie?

Bowie did all that stuff back when noone had the balls to do them and he won.

Weiland is doing them 2 generations later, when noone cares enough cause they've been done to death...

And wearing the "Clint Eastwood Man With No Name" suit with a gun attached to his belt doesn't mean Weiland is re-inventing himself...

All I hear from the VR albums is STP with a dose of GN'R. A bigger GN'R dose on Libertad cause they let Slash have some solos in it.

Bowie was a fuckin pioneer, and a damn great one.

Weiland is a follower. He hasn't invented something new. When people see him on stage they think of Bowie, Iggy and others. That's not re-inventing. That's copying.

Deal with it.

[DEAD HORSE]

I don't see why Jarmo is so against musicians reinventing themselves and their image. He must hate David Bowie.

Are you fuckin kidding us?

Do you compare Weiland to Bowie?

Bowie did all that stuff back when noone had the balls to do them and he won.

Weiland is doing them 2 generations later, when noone cares enough cause they've been done to death...

And wearing the "Clint Eastwood Man With No Name" suit with a gun attached to his belt doesn't mean Weiland is re-inventing himself...

All I hear from the VR albums is STP with a dose of GN'R. A bigger GN'R dose on Libertad cause they let Slash have some solos in it.

Bowie was a fuckin pioneer, and a damn great one.

Weiland is a follower. He hasn't invented something new. When people see him on stage they think of Bowie, Iggy and others. That's not re-inventing. That's copying.

Deal with it.

You can say the same shit about a LOT of artists, in the 60's bands wanted to sound and look like beatles, 70's they wanted to sound and look like zeppelin, 80's glam & disco, 90's everyone wanted to sound like fuckin Nirvana, and 00's fuckin nu metal, linkin park and all kind of shit, so the pioneer shit is "OLD" is not new. Shit, Axl adopted the hip hop image in '02
and he wasnt playing hip hop. was it new? no, he didnt "invent" anything. GN'R Music is/was GReat but if you or someone else is talkin about image, then you are wrong.

[D]

Axl was very original on the UYI tour though

Gotta give him credit for some of the crazy shit he wore.


the 02 thing was really bad though and he'd probably be the first to admit that.



I don't think anyone is original in music.

Everyone borrows a little something from somewhere.

I prefer STP over Pearl Jam personally.

[DEAD HORSE]

Axl was very original on the UYI tour though

Gotta give him credit for some of the crazy shit he wore.


the 02 thing was really bad though and he'd probably be the first to admit that.



I don't think anyone is original in music.

Everyone borrows a little something from somewhere.

I prefer STP over Pearl Jam personally.

ME too, STP over pearl jam any day, and dont get me wrong, I LOVE GNR old, new and everything bout GN'R.  and yes 90's were GREAT for Axl. I mean he invented some crazy shit man, was awesome, a TRUE rockstar!! I live his 01 image as well, pretty cool, you know sweat pants and chinese t-shirts pretty cool.

But there are (were)  original people (bands) in music, I mean, Floyd, Depeche Mode, Tool , Frank Zappa, Sabbath and GN'R  etc.

[cfcsfc]

I like Pearl Jam. I'm not a huge fan, but I like them.

That being said I saw them live last year, and it was the worst show I've been to.
I'm sure some people loved it, but nearly everything about it was off to me. Shit crowd. No stage show (may as well have listened to a CD). Boring set (to me at least), hell they finished with an accoustic jam, I want a show to finish with a bang; this show never sped up, and finished with a slow rolling halt.

In my eyes I'm glad Weiland is nothing like Vedder. Because Vedder put me to sleep.
As I said, I'm sure some people loved the show, but to me it was terrible. I like their stuff still, but will never part with money to see them again.

Now, as far as I'm conserned, I don't give a fuck if people think Weiland is a poser (just like I'm sure a lot of you don't give a fuck what I thought of the PJ show  ); the fact is, he was picked by VR- they must have saw something in him. He is a good fit for VR, his songs are catchy and he has a great voice.
Who cares if he is 're-inventing' himself or anything? Like I always say to compulsive VR bashers who nit-pick over anything: Does it really matter? He isn't going to do anything revolutionary, but he is good at what he does- catchy songs, good voice, and entertains the corwd live (a lot better than Vedder pulled off in my book).

[twatty]

Who cares what either are doing, I love em both and what they're doing!
Saw Pearl Jam in Melbourne last year and Velvet Revolver in Melbourne the year before and both shows were brilliant!

[norway]

I'm sorry but that's a crock of shit. Just because Weiland was part of the grunge scene doesn't mean he's a 'fake' because he's a punk rocker these days. That's ridiculous logic. People change. Back during Axl's 'Appetite' days he was regarded as a bad ass rock and roll singer. Nobody back then could have imagined him sat at a piano doing his Elton John thing. As an artist you shouldn't close yourself off to one style of music or else you'll just lose all artistic integrity.

Who brought up Axl?

Look, a VR fan with the word Slash in his username!

 



/jarmo

I think PJ and STP both had super boring rock-music, go see prodigy now THATS intense
as lyricist they both are equal...eddie use so much words to express himself, scott says it straight out but the concepts don't have so much depth

They're great singers

[badapple81]

Hahaha RichardNixon is very much enjoying what he creates me thinks..   

First the Van Halen V Bon Jovi thread.. knowing full well he'll stir up D, then a Weiland V Eddie Vedder thread, knowing all too well that Pearl Jam is one of Jarmo's favourites and Scott his not so favourites 

[GeraldFord]

Hahaha RichardNixon is very much enjoying what he creates me thinks..? ?

First the Van Halen V Bon Jovi thread.. knowing full well he'll stir up D, then a Weiland V Eddie Vedder thread, knowing all too well that Pearl Jam is one of Jarmo's favourites and Scott his not so favourites?

Sure, myabe for the BJ vs. VH thread, not so much this one.

My point wasn't to say that Eddie Vedder and Pearl Jam suck or Weiland is so much better. My point was simply to say that Weiland is still doing well for himself and proved all his naysayers wrong.

[jarmo]

^^^^^^And Axl Rose, the Hip Hop king, I mean Biker Dude...

Yet another VR fan who brings Axl's name into this.

Take note all you VR fans who hate it.



And please don't compare this Weiland character to somebody like David Bowie.




/jarmo

[GeraldFord]

I think Bowie would like 12 Bar Blues!

[dankrass]

What's so wrong about bringing up Axl's name?  Jarmo is using Eddie as evidence of what a 'good rock and roll star' should be and why Weiland doesn't fit that description.   So people are, logically, bringing up Axl and that because of the original argument, he falls more to the Weiland side than the Vedder side.   Are you that much of a fanboy that you can't even consider someone's criticism of your hero?

It's sad we're discussing image here.

Bob Dylan wore a flowered hat and painted his face up like a clown on the Rolling Thunder Revue and looked ridiculous. These are some of the greatest performances in history.   I could give a toss about how he decided to dress.  And, yes, I'll answer the counter-argument before it's made.  Yes, I know 'nobody did that image before' - my overall point is WHO CARES?

As for my Weiland/Vedder thoughts:

I think both bands are great and I've seen each of them three times and really enjoyed the performances.  They rocked the house pretty equally, I'd say.     As for the image? I don't care - Eddie could've been wearing a chicken suit and Scott could've been wearing a dress.

Fortunately, Eddie didn't do his ridiculous anti-Bush puppet show at the shows I saw.  If you want to voice your thoughts on politics, go on Larry King, ok?