Red Mosquito

Strat wrote:little fish litlte fish swimming in the water
come back, man and bring me my daughter

Lament wrote:

Strat wrote:little fish litlte fish swimming in the water
come back, man and bring me my daughter

Hey man, it's "Little fish, big fish."

C'mon now. Get it right.

Lament wrote:Honestly, Led Zeppelin is probably only behind Pink Floyd when it comes to Sacred Cows who just don't seem all that special to me. Maybe the Doors as well.

Strat wrote:

Lament wrote:

Strat wrote:little fish litlte fish swimming in the water
come back, man and bring me my daughter

Hey man, it's "Little fish, big fish."

C'mon now. Get it right.

I have not heard that song in 15 fucking years i cant believe i still remember that!

stupidmop wrote:Are pearl jam considered music for jocks? what with thier baseball/basketball connections...or obsessions or whatever. They're more tied to sports than a lot of bands i think. They're always being played on sports channels apparently, or do they play loads of bands and i only hear about it when its pearl jam?

I'm in england where we don't have much baseball, basketball, jocks ...or pearl jam, so i might be talking out my ass.

Lament wrote:

Strat wrote:

Lament wrote:

Strat wrote:little fish litlte fish swimming in the water
come back, man and bring me my daughter

Hey man, it's "Little fish, big fish."

C'mon now. Get it right.

I have not heard that song in 15 fucking years i cant believe i still remember that!

That album is flawless. A very serious contender for best album of the 90's.

Lament wrote:

stip wrote:Also, I think pearl jam is better than led zeppelin

I was waiting for someone to come out and say this so I could agree with them (well, separate from the OP's lengthy assessments, which I'm not entirely sure weren't meant to mock us). In my heart I knew it'd be you, stip.

stupidmop wrote:Are pearl jam considered music for jocks?

McParadigm wrote:Zeppelin and The Who are great examples of how transient and ultimately insignificant live music becomes, as time moves on. They were amazing live bands, yeah...but what does that even mean, now? Some great live albums? Bootlegs? DVDs? Five minutes of aural heaven in the form of My Generation on Leeds, and thank goodness for it, but it'll always be the same five minutes of aural heaven, now...just like a really good studio cut.

Fortunately, both bands made incredible studio albums that will outlive any of the remaining members. Live shows unquestionably help a band achieve whatever prominence and legend they have...but it's the records that matter, in the end.

liebzz wrote:I'll say in a live recording sense that I find Led Zeppelin very difficult to listen to (I did get to see Page & Plant on the Walking Into Clarksdale tour...so half counts?). They are amazing at playing songs like Good Times, Bad Times and Immigrant Song and Rock and Roll, but once you start getting into the violin bow solos and Plant's random screetch belting indiscrimately in songs like Dazed and Confused, the Lemon Song, or Whole Lotta Love - it quickly goes from epic to insufferable.

Pearl Jam puts on a great performance all around, but what really sets them apart, in my mind, is their ability to create an experience with their setlist sequencing (forget, for a moment, individual nitpicking about which b-sides you want to hear). Eddie Vedder, if for nothing else that you hear around here, does put a ton of effort into this aspect of the show on and nightly basis, at least from what I can tell.

P.S. Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band in their prime from something like 1978-1981 cannot be touched by either of these bands...just straight up jaw dropping to the point where just hearing a rough recording of the show is better than actually being at most any other band's actual show.

warehouse wrote:

Lament wrote:

stip wrote:Also, I think pearl jam is better than led zeppelin

I was waiting for someone to come out and say this so I could agree with them (well, separate from the OP's lengthy assessments, which I'm not entirely sure weren't meant to mock us). In my heart I knew it'd be you, stip.

do u like the fixer too?

Lament wrote:

warehouse wrote:

Lament wrote:

stip wrote:Also, I think pearl jam is better than led zeppelin

I was waiting for someone to come out and say this so I could agree with them (well, separate from the OP's lengthy assessments, which I'm not entirely sure weren't meant to mock us). In my heart I knew it'd be you, stip.

do u like the fixer too?

I like it more than anything DMB has ever done. By a country mile.

warehouse wrote:

Lament wrote:

warehouse wrote:

Lament wrote:

stip wrote:Also, I think pearl jam is better than led zeppelin

I was waiting for someone to come out and say this so I could agree with them (well, separate from the OP's lengthy assessments, which I'm not entirely sure weren't meant to mock us). In my heart I knew it'd be you, stip.

do u like the fixer too?

I like it more than anything DMB has ever done. By a country mile.

problem solved, you have a terrible taste in music. hell, my screen name alone is better than most pearl jam songs.

warehouse wrote:

McParadigm wrote:Zeppelin and The Who are great examples of how transient and ultimately insignificant live music becomes, as time moves on. They were amazing live bands, yeah...but what does that even mean, now? Some great live albums? Bootlegs? DVDs? Five minutes of aural heaven in the form of My Generation on Leeds, and thank goodness for it, but it'll always be the same five minutes of aural heaven, now...just like a really good studio cut.

Fortunately, both bands made incredible studio albums that will outlive any of the remaining members. Live shows unquestionably help a band achieve whatever prominence and legend they have...but it's the records that matter, in the end.

tell that to the grateful dead