Why no Pearl Jam songs?

[MRD]

i for one am profoundly glad INXS hasn't done a beatles night. I may be the only one in the world that thinks this way but I am convinced that the beatles are not anywhere near as talented or profound as they are cracked up to be. I believe they just happened to be in the right time and place in the grand sweep of popular culture and profitted enormously from what little (and I do mean little) talent they did have.

flame away if you like but that's my stand and I'm sticking with it.

Spite you may be right. But when they came on the scene in the early sixties, Most Rock in America was being sung by the likes of Pat Boone. It was sanitized, made "white", had bobby socks put on it and therefore accetable to mom's and dad's. Then all of a sudden here comes this band with long hair (what today we wouldn't even consider long, but for the time, it was a MAJOR deal) and they did stuff no one else was doing.

I liken it to this. My teenage daughter is a horror movie aficianado. She saw the original Exorcist and then saw Jaws and said: "I don't get it. What's so special about these movies?".
Well today, nothing, they are old fashioned, their special effects are rudimentary. But AT THE TIME, we had NEVER seen anything like that. It was new, it was different, it scared us and made us afraid to go in the water.
Of course, today, that would never happen

So I think you have to put the Beatles into context of what was happening at that time and not what came later. Same for the movies. At the time they were cutting edge. As time went on and more movies were made and special effects got better, they made Jaws and Exorcist seem tame.

So while I may not agree with you about their talent. I do think that they were in the right place with the right kind of music to launch an entirely new era in rock and roll.

[giz]

i for one am profoundly glad INXS hasn't done a beatles night. I may be the only one in the world that thinks this way but I am convinced that the beatles are not anywhere near as talented or profound as they are cracked up to be. I believe they just happened to be in the right time and place in the grand sweep of popular culture and profitted enormously from what little (and I do mean little) talent they did have.

flame away if you like but that's my stand and I'm sticking with it.

I think I'm going to have to sit down now. Sometimes when I listen to the Beatles, for a second I think it's derivative, and then I realise, no: it's just that so much of what followed was derivative of them! It was partly the hairdos, but more than that it was the music. Rubber Soul was a revolution in popular music, every bit as much as Pet Sounds by the Beach Boys. Some of it was George Martin, but most of it was Lennon and McCartney (and sometimes Harrison who contributed a lot to modern popular music in the opening of ears to world music). They were one of the first bands to write songs about generalised enuii, (rather than lost love), in songs like Eleanor Rigby, and pioneered a lot of techniques, like the roller coaster rhythm of Got to Get You Into My Life, the continuous story of Abby Road, which presaged the rock opera, etc. Sgt. Pepper began the acid rock scene. I can't see listening to A Day in the Life, and not think they were musical revolutionaries. The book A Day in the Life has some very good reviews of each song they did. Each to his or her own, you may not like them, that's your taste, but I find it hard to deny the talent.

Suzie sang Get Back a few shows ago.

[Krom]

I don't even know what Pearl Jam is!

Okay. Big difference here if you don't know WHAT it is versus WHO.

This page has some theories on the name (2nd paragraph of the "History" section). The explanation about a certain body fluid sharing the nickname is indeed the most likely explanation.

[Remus Lupin]

They can't always get permission to sing certain songs. I've never heard a Beatles song on Idol & they didn't have any on this show so I imagine their rights aren't available. Pearl Jam sounds like the type of song they would want to get so I imagine the rights aren't available.

Actually, Clay Aiken sang "Here There and Everywhere" back in season 2 of AI.

[quentcomps]

I've wondered why no Prince. Seems like INXS might have been trying to approximate his sound a bit, but it just came out a bit more rock. At very least, I'm sure they respect him a lot. As to the Beatles comment, my God, you're got to go back and listen to their albums, from Help! on. I've been through many phases, including claiming that the Stones were better, but I've come back to the Beatles several times. I think it's the three great writers thing (George is my favorite). Ringo even had a few.

[Lois Lane]

i for one am profoundly glad INXS hasn't done a beatles night. I may be the only one in the world that thinks this way but I am convinced that the beatles are not anywhere near as talented or profound as they are cracked up to be. I believe they just happened to be in the right time and place in the grand sweep of popular culture and profitted enormously from what little (and I do mean little) talent they did have.

flame away if you like but that's my stand and I'm sticking with it.

Hey Spitey, there's no law that says you have to like the Beatles, so no one should flame you! I share many of Giz's sentiments and would also like to add that until the Beatles hit the scene, most folks on the radio were singing songs written by other people and had little input in their arrangements or production. The Beatles were barely in their 20's when they stormed America (I think George Harrison hadn't even turned 21 when they first appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show; the oldest was 23, I think).

Even if you don't like their music, I think you'll probably appreciate the fact that just by covering some classics by black artists, the Beatles gave a voice to many musicians who weren't getting the love they should've just because they were black. The Beatles also made it possible for other bands like the Rolling Stones and the Who to break into America. And those bands were a major influence on thousands of bands...including INXS.

Nowadays, if a band doesn't write its own material, they're considered a little bit "less than." The Beatles raised the bar on what it meant to be a musician--writing, singing, and playing your own music.

[M_shelll]

I Love Pearl Jam.
They were becoming kinda...Mehh to me, but I seen them live last week in Saskatoon and they were better than ever. It was the best show I have been to all year.
I was hoping they would play some Janes Addiction, with Dave playing along beside...that would be so awsome.

[atlantamoi]

i for one am profoundly glad INXS hasn't done a beatles night. I may be the only one in the world that thinks this way but I am convinced that the beatles are not anywhere near as talented or profound as they are cracked up to be. I believe they just happened to be in the right time and place in the grand sweep of popular culture and profitted enormously from what little (and I do mean little) talent they did have.

flame away if you like but that's my stand and I'm sticking with it.

Wow. Little talent? Wow. Just curious, who do you find talented and are you over the age of 20?

It's definitely true that some of the Beatles success is because they were in the right place at the right time. Even though a million record companies declined to sign them at first. They had to pull teeth for their own record company to release singles in the U.S. AFTER they had a couple of giant hits in Britain. It didn't all just fall in place. There was some work involved.

Anyway, there are hardly any bands that ever changed as much over such a short period of time as the Beatles. From the first few albums to the end... they radically changed how people record in the studio. I don't know, I'm still kind of amazed anyone would think they have little talent.
Kind of makes me sad.
_____________

So, no Pearl Jam was played? Big whoop. Tons of bands were not played.

[Remus Lupin]

i for one am profoundly glad INXS hasn't done a beatles night. I may be the only one in the world that thinks this way but I am convinced that the beatles are not anywhere near as talented or profound as they are cracked up to be. I believe they just happened to be in the right time and place in the grand sweep of popular culture and profitted enormously from what little (and I do mean little) talent they did have.

flame away if you like but that's my stand and I'm sticking with it.

Well, you could say that about ANYONE who achieves success but they're hardly one-hit wonders.

You might not like a particular style of music but I think their talent was undeniable. Even to this day, far from the pop culture of that time, their songs' melodies and lyrics still endure.