bjaiken

If someone clashes with Bruce, and you decide to go see them instead, make sure it is someone you will be able to tell your kids you once saw...because that is what you are passing up if you pass on Bruce.

Yeah, they played "Growin Up."

I think you guys should lobby for a Radiohead sub-forum. I love Radiohead, but this would help me avoid seeing a Radiohead thread at the top of WOM every time I log in.

1. It is a "happy Bruce." He stopped before and after the show to meet the fans and sign autographs, which is practically unheard of. 2. The show was awesome, despite the fact that I think Bruce was slightly under the weather. He opened with Badlands and played most of the songs you would expect (except no Atlantic City or Dancing in the Dark). It's hard to believe a man pushing 60 still goes for 3 hours every night he plays. The night before he played "Ghost of Tom Joad" with Tom Morello, and the night I went he played "Bad Luck" with Mike Ness from Social Distortion. Bruce is one of my absolute favorites. He makes a stadium gig feel like you are at a small pub with an amazing house band that rocks the place all night. There's no one like him.

I saw him a week ago today. It was epic. One of the greatest live performers of all time...period.

^ No, it's fine with me. I just didn't want to be offensive if you like the site, visit the site, participate on the site, or are some way connected to the site. I just think idol worship is a very dangerous thing, and I mean that in a very secular way. Being such a huge music fan, I have to watch myself to make sure that I am enjoying the artist and their music and, yet, not worshiping them. Sometimes that line gets a little blurry, and this imagery was kind of a wake up call. Just speaking from my own opinion and experiences...

No offense, but this makes me slightly uncomfortable. I mean, I like Chris Martin, but this is a bit much.

Yeah, that's a good example, but I just enjoy it in general.

NOOOO! One of my favorite pastimes is corrupting online poll results. Don't take that away from me.

He seems to have no problem doing both. My understanding is that he writes and works extensively, so there should be no shortage of solo material.

In Between Days - The Cure

Why?

^ it just didn't seem like the right time or place. It made me uncomfortable, and it was just excessive.

^ It was pretty good. A little too much cussing and swearing for me, but it still was an overall winner. You could tell that Flea was a genuine fan of their music.

Blink 182 Pixies or Nirvana

Sweet Jane - The Velvet Underground

Yeah, ignoring them is the best policy. But have you ever noticed that people like this never tend to go away? It's almost like the crazier or more stupid their opinion is, the more they feel obligated and determined to share it with everyone. Just a general observation that I've noticed as I've marched through life.

It's just the time we live in. Any crazy person with a wacky opinion now has a forum to let it be known via the internet. What can you do?

1. Finest Worksong 2. E-Bow The Letter 3. Fall On Me 4. Nightswimming 5. The Sidewinder Sleeps Tonight

This is a great idea. I love to see what albums people like the most. For me, these lists are always personally frustrating. You pick what you think are a good top 5, and then you start thinking of albums and saying to yourself, "there is no way I can leave this album off the list." Also, my musical tastes are constantly changing. My top 5 will vary depending on the week you ask me. Nevertheless, I will try to come up with a list because it's fun.

Yeah, I agree with you completely. I don't really get it either, and I don't understand why the majority of young kids aren't into stuff that is more "edgy" or "progressive." Maybe that is what rap/hip-hop is achieving, but I would not know because I am not a fan of this music. I am really at a loss for words on this one, but I keep waiting for the pedulum to swing back in the other direction.

Fortunately, Pearl Jam did a very nice job with their greatest hits collection, "Rearview Mirror." Disc 1 has all the hard hitting rock songs, and disc 2 has all the softer, more mellow songs. There are obviously going to be key omissions, but I would say that most of the key songs are here. Also, it draws heavily on the bands early days, or back when their music was more accessible and dominated the airwaves. For a casual fan, anything after Vitology is going to be a difficult listen. However, the first three albums are absolute gold (with the exception of 1 or 2 songs on Vs. and Vitology that are absolute garbage, IMO). Also, I know people who don't even listen to their studio albums, and instead, only listen to their live recordings, which are plentiful. No band that I know of has released as many concert recordings as Pearl Jam. But I also love all the other 90s alt. bands. My own personal preference has always been as follows: Pearl Jam>Stone Temple Pilots>Nirvana>Alice in Chains>Soundgarden This is just an overall, personal generalization, as some of Soundgarden's material (the lowest on my ranking) is some of my absolute favorite stuff. It was a good time for great music.

It's debatable. I am not a big lyrics guy because most of the stuff I listen to has fairly cryptic lyrics. In other words, your guess is as good as mine in terms of song meaning. But most of the information I have read over the years holds them both in pretty high regard. You show me one list/article claiming Cobain is a better lyricist, and I'll show you one with Vedder at the top, and this will go on til the end of time. MOST of this stuff is subjective, and these arguements take place on 99% of the discussion boards I read regarding 90s Grunge/Alternative music. If I had a nickel for every time I saw the Vedder, Cobain, Weiland, Cornell, Staley/Cantrell debate, I would not need to worry about money ever again. My suggestion would be that you don't hold so tight to your personal preference and try to expand your horizons. Honestly, I did not like Eddie Vedder's voice when I first heard Pearl Jam back in the 90s, and some of my friends have made similar comments. However, it would be one of the biggest regrets of my life if I had not kept listening. The other artists in "The Big 5" are great, too. They all have greatest hits albums, so you can get only the highpoints, or most accessible moments, and decide if you wish to listen further.

That's fine. I don't have a problem with a single thing you said here. You're correct, Nirvana is one of the greatest bands in music history, and they made amazing contributions. I would never try to debate that issue. I like Eddie's voice a lot, but I am also a fan of Kurt's. Like I said, if we were talking about level of emotion, distinctness, vulnerability, or proper fit for the style of music, I got nothing. But when we are talking about power and strength in vocals, let's call a spade a spade.

Here's a few examples for you. Both come from MTV Unplugged. Notice how Eddie is able to go up and down in vocal range effortlessly. Not that we are even talking about range, but Eddie is not even pushing that hard most of the time and his voice is flawless. Kurt, on the other hand, is hardly able to sustain any notes, his voice is cracking throughout the song, and he is barely able to get to the high notes. Now, if you want to talk about emotion or vulnerability in voice, or perhaps another issue, I will entertain that conversation. But not vocal power. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH8fQT-147A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH8fQT-147A[/ame] [ame= ] [/ame]