What does /mu/ think of Pearl Jam?

>>69811493
No Code was better

>>69811527
No Code was mostly stellar. But a quarter of it sounded like filler.

>>69811493
Their 90's albums are great.
Ten gets all the attention but I don't think it was close to their best.

Yield is their worst if you ask me. Well, if it wasn't for Lightning Bolt that is.

Binaural and Riot Act are vastly underrated records

>>69811875
Ten is kind of a mixed bag for me. A lot of great songs are on there, but yet there's also some that just don't make sense to be there. Also, the sound is drowned in reverb, which is not good.

File: dancy.gif (2MB, 498x280px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 498x280px

Still like them. Little disappointed that they're raping all their shit off youtube and everywhere else. Feels like when Metallica went after napster and fucked themselves.
Have all the albums, but fuck I'd either have to try to dig up a cd player or buy one to listen to them again.

I guess they didn't make enough money, so the plan is to alienate their fan base because of it.
Sad, lost respect. I thought they were better than that. Guess I was wrong again.

>>69811995
How exactly did they alienate their fans? Binaural? Riot Act?

>>69811993
Which ones don't make sense on Ten? That album is pretty much entirely prime cuts

>>69812023
Garden, Release and Oceans. Can't place it. They just don't fit to me.

Bland

>>69811555
3/4 of Yield sounded like filler

>>69812065
to each his own. I thought it was top-notch all the way through. Even Untitled.

Not worth listening to any of their "music" past the 90s, but that's not really a dig, because their 90s music is God-tier and definitely does still hold up.

Also, Stapp > Vedder

>>69812045
Ah, the best and most dynamic songs on it, I see

>>69812110
>Stapp > Vedder
wat

>>69812096
Maybe you just don't know what filler is

>>69812134
Not to me. Standalone they're okay (except for Garden) but when paired with the rest of the album it sounds a little forced.

>>69812175
>Maybe you just don't know what filler is
We got an edgelord here.

Ten, Vs and Vitalogy are all solid alt-rock records. No Code and Yield are alright but feels like half the albums are filler

Everything past Yield is bland and derivative but Lighting Bolt was their best record in years

>>69812236
It's full of songs they they had mostly road tested and refined for nearly two years. It's obviously not filler at all, is it?

Or, again, you just don't know what filler is

>>69812307
Or maybe, that's just your opinion man...

>>69812325
No, I never stated my opinion.

>>69812307
filler is literally "songs I don't like"

>>69812357
It is not. Filler is literally songs meant to "fill out" an album because the artist did not have enough songs to *fill* an album.

>>69812253
>Everything past Yield is bland and derivative but Lighting Bolt was their best record in years

I feel the exact opposite of this. They started embracing more straightforward rock again with s/t which was great but then they blew their load, Backspacer and LB sucked. Binaural and Riot Act are far more interesting and creative albums than any of them.

File: Laughing_pepe.jpg (60KB, 500x495px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 500x495px

>>69812349
So what you're saying is that objectively, Yield is full of filler. Fucking kek man

>>69812390
No that was using anon's flawed logic against him so he'd realize how flawed his opinion was.

Yield was fine, I saw them on that tour. But I think No Code is a stronger album.

>>69812367
>Filler is literally songs meant to "fill out" an album because the artist did not have enough songs to *fill* an album.
You don't know what the artist was doing, you're assuming those songs were hastily thrown together due to time constraints just because you don't like them.

>>69812390
Yield is pretty fillery to be fair

>>69812436
>how FLAWED his OPINION was

Dude, come on. Think before you post.

>>69812469
Yeah but filler can be subjective.

>>69812466
>You don't know what the artist was doing
You can if you research it. For instance, there are extensive setlist notes for the live shows in between Vitology and No Code, so we can actually gauge the refinement of the songs on No Code.
>you're assuming those songs were hastily thrown together due to time constraints just because you don't like them.
When did I say I didn't like them?
>>69812594
filler =/= I don't like them, it's all subjective
>>69812473
What do you mean?

Remember: not all opinions are equal.

>>69812615
You called my opinion flawed, as if there was something objectively wrong with my opinion. How is that possible? How can an opinion be flawed? Saying that honestly makes you look stupid.

>>69812615
>I've researched the set-lists to see how much older some songs are to others and have determined that the songs not on those set-lists, or that make fewer appearances on those set-lists to be 'filler', which makes the album not as good as other albums with less "filler", but I still like the filler.

This is getting ridiculous senpai

>>69812615
Some songs can sound like filler to some, good to others. Why would anyone who likes Song A consider Song A filler just because someone else does?

>Be 21 years old
>Radio contest for Pearl Jam tickets. I call >everyday for a week and don't get them
>At work a few days later, my coworkers sister >said she got tickets to that show through her job
>"Holy shit, it must have been great! What was >their set? New stuff, old, or both"
>She looks at me like I'm from fucking Mars and >says "I don't know, I just talked to a friend >outside the whole time"
>I had always known something wasn't right about >that girl

>>69812749
kek what a waste

>>69811493
I like how instead of mainly talking about pear jam, you guys just whined and bitched about fillers and shit haha

Vs is great and No Code is the best. Its too bad these guys were dismissed by many as grunge/nirvana copies for some reason

>>69812656
>You called my opinion flawed
Correct
>as if there was something objectively wrong with my opinion. How is that possible? How can an opinion be flawed?
Well you based it on a misunderstood paradigm. It's like if you were talking about calculus while thinking 2+2=5
>>69812720
Quote me where I said that
>>69812723
>Some songs can sound like filler to some
Not relevant
>Why would anyone who likes Song A consider Song A filler just because someone else does?
They should consider it filler because it is filler. If they like it or not is not relevant.

>>69812749
reddit

>>69812786
Funny how that happens right?

>>69812791
stfu dude? why do you give such a fuck to prove your superiority to some anon on 4chan

>>69812791
Alright you know what. You just do you, okay sir.

>>69812827
Some things don't need to be proved, if you know what I mean

>>69812823
Yeah it's a shame, it's so counterproductive

>>69812848
Welcome to 4chan

>>69812842
Then why sit there bitching about who's right even though everything you argue about is subjective, AS OPPOSED to what the thread was made for

>>69812594
>>69812615
I hate the word filler too, but Yield kind of feels like one big filler album before they got to the good stuff

>>69812880
hey to each his own. I like Yield mainly because it was like one of the few albums from them that was not only straight-forward but optimistic too.

>>69812868
>everything you argue about is subjective
No, the definition of filler is quite clear.

It's OK to like filler, anon. 1979 was pretty much filler.
>>69812880
have you seen Single Video Theory?

>>69812935
okay but the other guy's
O p i n i o n
Is that it isnt just a filler to him

>>69813016
>to him
Not relevant.

>>69813040
>being this sexist
you chauvinist pig

>>69812935
>have you seen Single Video Theory?
No, might check it out, thanks.

>>69813180
It's the making of the album. Very interesting. Very chill.
>hey bro I have this riff
>hey cool let's jam

>>69813204
been wanting to see more making-of-album docu's so this is great. Don't know if it will change my opinion on the album but should be interesting