Crash Into Me

I'm surprised that you don't have DMB up there babe!

I'm cool with the first four, but the Eagles? As the Dude said, "Come on, man. I had a rough night and I hate the f-in' Eagles, man!"

Unfortunately, Amos, I disagree heartily with The Dude on that point. Great band, across genres, tons of hits, etc. etc. etc.

Is it just too early for DMB? I'm willing to buy into the list if you say yes. I'm not sure what your entire formula is, but if longevity, massive diverse fan base (culturally and across the age groups), fabulous songs, lyrics and musical talent is part of it then these guys are close. Most like U2, they have boldly tried new things almost every album and IMO pulled it off. Take It Easy, man #5 is Already Gone and One Of These Nights I have a Peaceful Easy Feeling that they're going to Crash and you will have So Much To Say. I mean, Where Are You Going putting the Eagles 5th? The Space Between shouldn't be so wide between 4th and 5th otherwise your Grace is Gone.

Robbie, don't get me wrong, DMB is my favorite band. Unfortunately, they just don't have enough musical diversity to make the list. I love their songs, but they use very similar tempos and styles in almost their whole catalog. And I disagree that they've "boldly tried new things almost every album and IMO pulled it off". When they've stuck to their successful formula, they've made great albums. But Everyday and this last one were a bit disappointing. Again, I agree with you wholeheartedly that they are a great band with enormous talent as musicians and everything else, they just aren't one of the "greatest" at this point. If it were top 10, then definitely, but as things stands, I just can't put them on there, much as it pains me.

Good b/c I hate DMB (oooh, heresy)

Okay, but if I may, why did you dislike their last album(I assume you are referring to standup?)? I think you lose your diversity argument if you admit you didnt like it because it was different. Of course, it could be different and just not be good. To state that they left their "successful formula", but accuse them of being short on diversity at the same time strikes me as inconsistent. I think Everyday was a good album and I think at least Smooth Rider and Louisiana Bayou on Stand Up had a different bluesy sound than their previous songs. But I won't go to the mattresses over where DMB should be in the top 5 or 10. From an objective standpoint (and I know this is never conclusive), since 1994 they have seen little else besides chart-topping success and droves of fans at their shows. As Q-tip put it, "the ladies love the voice, the bruthas dig the lyrics."

Robbie, I don't think it's inconsistent at all. They left their successful formula, and made a very derivative album, that sounds a lot like their other stuff, but worse. Same tempos, same rhythms (for the most part), etc. The problems stem from the way they produced it (their new producer is a big part of the problem, much like Glenn Ballard was on Everyday). What they did made it a very choppy album, with no real "thickness" to the songs. Very individualistic. I dunno, it was just more shallow, if you catch my meaning. And I definitely don't DISLIKE Stand Up, or Everyday for that matter. I'm a fan, I liked them both. But neither is up to par with what I've come to expect from my favorite band. Perhaps I'm a victim of my own expectations, I don't know. I do think they TRIED to do something different, but in some sense failed, because they sounded very similar...just not as good. If that doesn't help, I'll be in Monroe a week from today for the wedding, we can talk more about it then.

Hollie, I'm not surprised about your sentiment, being as though you spent so much time with the Wilkins, or as I like to call them, GAY HATERS.

THe beatles and zepplin are the only valids on the list. Eagles are a joke, Pearl jam, is only liked by a narrow demographic, i wont get into whether or not i like them, just that, objectively pearl jam wouldnt make the list, there are too many people that like the beatles and dont even know who pearl jam is. most of their fans are ages 20-34 or so, all the boomers have no idea who they are and anyone younger than us dont really either unless they play in a band. U2 is a joke all around, they are widely famous, and have been for a while, but as far as being great, noway. The beatles and zepplin had incredible writing skill, I dont like half of the beatles music, but its so catchy, so so catchy it stays in my head. zepplin were great because they had both, and were too insane for this world as far as skill. U2 has a couple catchy songs, but for the most part its just a bunch of anthem songs that you cant take seriously, but people like them anyway. But you cant put u2 on the same list as zepplin and the beatles, its like putting a dingdong on the same table with smoked salmon with lemon, potatoes and rice.

Oh Jason, you poor tortured soul. There was so much wrong with your post, I won't even address any of your points, save one. Pearl Jam, to this day, literally sells out stadiums all over the world, everywhere they go. Look it up, anything you can find will confirm it. Especially if you follow the DVD's, live CD's, etc. You are wrong wrong wrong about that, as well as a great many other things. But hey, that's what makes you so colorful.

Dude, what a terrible arguement. Didnt you take rhetoric? When making an arguement that say for an example "excludes" all other bands or makes a pinncale out of yours. You should make sure that pearl jam is one of the few bands that exclusively meet that criteria to be "pinnacle-ized"(new word). They may meet the requirement, (i dont know) but what i do know, is that your arguement is bogus, because tons more bands meet it too, and that doesnt make them "the greatest bands ever",,, Metallica, Bon Jovi, Dave matthews,Rolling Stones, Lenny Kravitz, Kiss, Sting, Any older classic band, and tons more will sell out stadiums consistently. Heck, linkin park as far as i know, sells out stadiums consistently. If i were gonna try to argue for pearl jam legitimately, i would argue undeniable exclusive points that nobody else can claim, like they revolutionized garage rock, they were the first ones to do it, and they changed the course of rock, and pretty much influenced an entire decade of rock. But on the flip side, if they were that good and awesome, why havent they bee inducted into the rock and roll hall of fame?

Jason, you are certainly a foolish little man. Yes, I took rhetoric. And if you had LOGICALLY followed the argument, you would have seen that I named PJ one of the all time greats, you took issue not with any other point than that they don't have a wide fan base, i.e. they only have fans of a certain age. THAT AND THAT ALONE is the only "point" of yours that I was addressing. OF COURSE if I was actually going to make a coherent argument out of this, and get behind my list argumentatively, I would point to much more than the fact that they sell out stadiums all over the world. There is tons more that I could point to. But I don't care to address your pathetic little post, other than the point I already destroyed. If you notice from my original post, I said that I"m not going to defend my statements, because I don't have the time or energy, and because I"m just right, and that's all there is to it.

You remind me of myself, really arrogant,cocky etc.. but just not as smart, and i dont even have a college education. Im at least consistent and objective. I hate u2, and on a certain level i like pearl jam. But U2 although i think laughable, i can understand being on the list. Their demographic goes from kids to my wife's mom that loves them. they have been inducted into the r/r hall of fame, and they have been around forever. Pearl jam, i enjoy a fair bit, but doesnt belong on the list. I am objective, you are not. You forfeit your ability to use logic, by your weak emotional state, such that you cant detatch from the arguement and judge it accordingly. Im willing to wager that out of 100 people more than 80 will agree with me.

Jason, the fact that you call yourself consistent and objective is one of the funniest things I have ever read in my life. You know what, I take that back, consistent I can grant, because you are consistent in your insanity. Everything you like is the best thing in the world, and everything you hate is gay and the worst thing in history. And that's why objective is beyond your grasp, old friend. See, you are assuming that I am emotional on this topic, but I submit that on EVERY topic, you are much more emotional than I. That's why you have to resort to calling music and movies gay, rather than writing a coherent argument. My wife sat right beside me as I typed my last post, and we laughed the whole way through it. You see, I freely admit that much of the basis for my list comes from my own opinion. But it's an opinion based on the facts. Pearl Jam's demographic is much wider than you think, and you don't realize the skill behind their songs. In fact, there is a lot you don't realize, including that PJ will for a 100% fact be inducted into the Rock and roll hall of fame, conversely that proves nothing, demographic means nothing, the list goes on and on. Unfortunately though, much of this exceeds your mind's grasp. And like I said, I could sit here and debate you all day long on the finer points of my non-emotional, completely rational argument, but I"m not going to. Because the fact of the matter is that when it comes down to it, you are wrong and I am right. And it's just sad that you think you are smarter...just sad. I'm done. Have a ball in your small little world. Maybe one of these days you'll wise up and we can have a real conversation.

It's good you have a wife that supports you. Its also funny that you use it as ammo. All that says is that you have the same emotional response as her (a woman) and freely admit to it. I actually thought that your other posts were fairly intelligent up untill this one. My wife would support me and laugh at your posts too, but i dont trust that, because shes always on my side. The same is with your wife whether you believe it or not. What's she gonna do, say "josh, this guy on the internet is smarter than you and seems like he understands music better". Of course not, that would really go well for your relationship and if she did think it she wouldnt say anything and probably still support you. Also to think that you understand music better than i, and the skill behind pearl jam, I find that arguement the most rediculous being that I play every Instrument that band plays, and better than they do, besides the guitarist who is really good. I can grant that. But you claim I dont realize the skill behind these songs, haha, thats hilarious. You may know more musical facts than I, but never more about the music itself. Saying you do is just hilarious. As far as being more emotional than you. If we asked 100 people on that one, that knew both you and i, 99 people would agree i was less emotional than you. Your wife would agree with you though. Im constantly told by people, i have no emotion and i need to learn to care more, or show emotion. you are a flaming ball of emotion every time we played volleyball, I find this hilarious once again. But I will say, arguing with you is entertaining, because im calm as a goat over here, and i know that you are probably turning red, getting worked up, laughing that high pitched laugh over there, calling your wife over to read the "insanity" i have been writing; and ranting on what you will say back. At anyrate, normally im one of the most stubborn people in the world, but I can see that when dealing with a real stubborn ass, the outcome will be as productive as the mating habits of an ass. Not that I ever expected to get anywhere with you, its more just funny how committed you are to nonsense.

Oh, sheesh, I'm forced to post again. Jason, once again, you miss the point completely. My wife has no idea what we are arguing about, of course she would be on my side, that's a given. I wouldn't be that obvious. What I was trying to provide an example of (with the whole wife thing) is how detached I am from this argument (i.e. unemotional). You see, it's very obvious (to everyone but you) that you are wrong 99.9% of the time, especially when arguing with me. That is why I don't get worked up over your ridiculous responses. You're like the kids I teach, I ask them a question, they just make up some answer that is complete nonsense, I say defend your answer, and they can't. I feel like I"m talking to a kindergartener. You may be calm about the whole thing, I have no idea. I don't pretend to make claims about your emotional state. My students are calm too. Calm, and totally nonsensical. But the words you say mean something. And for you to claim you know how I"m writing is like saying the sky is red when it's blue. I, too, write this in complete silence, not caring one way or the other whether you understand or not. Because, let's be honest, you probably won't. That's ok, when you have the intelligence, sense of humor, social skills, and charisma of a 12 year old, I guess that's just what I expect. Now, I freely grant that I was totally insane on the volleyball court, everybody knows that already...but what the heck does that have to do with anything? I think the height of being "emotional" on blog posts is going around calling people, movies, books, music, whatever else fags, stupid, etc. I mean, you talk nonsense, go nuts, comment on every post you can, and generally just disagree to disagree. It's pretty pathetic actually, to be such a joke, and then wallow in that. The people who make logical, cogent arguments (i.e. me) are usually the ones assumed to be calm. But whatever, I'm totally getting off topic now. Anyway, one other thing before I FINALLY quit posting: when I was commenting on the skill behind PJ's songs, I was not referring to the skill in playing their instruments. I of course admit that you know more about that than I do, being as I don't play those instruments. We've had this discussion before, and I"ve admitted as much. But I forgot, you have the short term memory of a goldfish. Anyway, I didn't really make myself clear I guess (sorry about that) but there is more skill to putting an album together than just how you play your instrument. That's what you can't get through your head of yours. Oh, BTW, where are you going to get these random samplings of 100 people? You've mentioned these like 500 times, and are of course wrong on all counts...but hey, I'd like to get them together. Maybe not though, because I"m just enjoying seeing your make these ridiculous claims and looking totally nuts. And now I"ve gone all over the place, and written stream-of-conscious-style, and I gotta get to bed. Buh-bye.

P.S.
I just realized that in my previous post it did come off sounding like I was saying that my wife was reading your post and agreeing with me, and supporting me...totally NOT what I was trying to convey. So I apologize for not being clear, that's one of the downfalls of the internet and my typing skills. What I meant to convey was that while I was typing that post, my wife was sitting beside me and we were laughing and talking about something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT...she has no idea who you are, what this is about, or anything...and now I REALLY have to get to bed, I hope that made sense.

about as much sense as your arguements make. No matter. I knew most of your friends at nsa, and they felt the same way about your arguements and the things you said as i do; not much for friends if you ask me. So i wouldnt be opposed to finding 100 people, as if we even need to. They say when using logic, its a fallacy to use an Ad Hom, but I think in many cases the Ad Hom is the perfect arguement. Why should you obstain from "attacking the man" when the man is a complete Idiot. Why should you attack his arguements when they are like diarreah of the mouth? Just attack the ass, well mouth rather, that it comes out of.

Is this argument for real or just a joke? Because I can't tell if y'all are really serious or not.