what an irrelevant band

Even someone that hates Pearl Jam as much as me still cannot deny that pic number 3 (the horns and the motörhead shirt) is awesomely rocking.

Even someone that hates Pearl Jam as much as me still cannot deny that pic number 3 (the horns and the motörhead shirt) is awesomely rocking.

Thanks. Didn't even try for it! ROCK!

Brassbonanza must be the luckiest boy!!! Whoever thinks pearl jam is irrelevant is too young (maybe 22) to know what happened to music in the early 90's.

PEARL JAM FORVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

what an irrelevant band.

ditto.

99% of the bands in the world today are irrelevant. If people like 'em, what the fuck do you care?

seriously....totally irrelevant.

i can't believe people support a band who's sound never changed or evolved. Talk about being stuck in a moment.

KURT IS DEAD BE HE'S STILL ALIVE... UGH!
MOST ANOYING VOICE IN ROCK!
OTHER THAN THE COUNTLESS LOSER BANDS THAT TRY TO MIMIC IT... CREED

that should tell you a lot though, all pearl jam could spawn off is shitty bands like creed.

I hate the term relevant to describe bands. I hate people who use the term relevant to describe bands. What the hell does it even mean? And at what point does a band cross the line between between being relevant and merely jumping on the bandwagon of whatever the current popular style is? I guess all one hundred bajillion disco punk bands are relevant? I don't get it. If it gets you off, listen to it. If it doesn't, don't. Is that relevant?

I hate the term relevant to describe bands. I hate people who use the term relevant to describe bands. What the hell does it even mean? And at what point does a band cross the line between between being relevant and merely jumping on the bandwagon of whatever the current popular style is? I guess all one hundred bajillion disco punk bands are relevant? I don't get it. If it gets you off, listen to it. If it doesn't, don't. Is that relevant?

ramones sound never changed or evolved. and they're the best band ever.

c-mon. relevace is a fairly easy thing to grasp. a band that actually is moving the music scene along is relevant.

Relevance can happen one of two ways, it can be a flash in the pan band that happens to be catering to whatever style is in style, and pushing that style somewhere new (but those bands die out fast, since they quickly become dated due to another band's release), or it can be and old band pushing the entire music world in a new direction (see anything radiohead has done)...

relevance and musical taste are two different ideas, but relevance does impact a band's status.

while pearl jam might still be making decent music, they are completely irrelevant and unimportant in this day an age (and i would venture to even say that in the grand scheme of things, they've had very little influence at all (besides the 90's crap-rock imitators, but who will ever go back to listen to any of those?)

Creed is so relevent. Creed gets me off. creed creed creed creed creed. creed never evolved. creed didnt jump on the bangwagon of the popular style. creed isn't disco punk. creed isnt an annoying voice of rock music. creed. creed. creed. aaaaaaaah creeed. Who cares, ok? I like what I like! I like creed! Whatever, your mom. I want more CREED.

I'm going to form a relevant band and play relevant music and we'll be called The Relevants!. I just hope Scott Stapp is available to be our lead singer.

Doesn't, at least in this day and age, the fact PJ is being blogged about, by definition, make them relevant?

http://therelevants.com

I was a believer...until Gremmie made mention of the guest list. Or did the Olson girl wait in line for 35 hours?

for all you haters. go to one show. just one. they will blow your fucking brain out.

Don't even pretend your a music snob and then offer up Radiohead. It kinds of tags you as a loudmouth dabbler.

what I don't get is how can one of the reviewers compare Irving Plaza to CBGBs!?!?

CBGBs is irrelevant. New can of worms, bitches.

But seriously, very few bands are able to evolve in a Radiohead sort of way. I'm a whore for new music, new sounds, innovators... but I also have to respect a band that was at the forefront of their genre 15 years ago and continues to do what they do best. Relevancy be damned, I would have loved to be at that show.

Our precious little "indie" rock/pop/electronic/whatever is a very small and oft overlooked genre in the scope of the music world. In the scheme of things, relevant also means that enough people know about you. I'm willing to argue that Pearl Jam in the early 90s was more relevant than any band out there at the current moment. And that's got to be worth something.

Who cares if they're relevant or not? They were/are/will be terrible. Let's leave the relevance discussion for somebody worthy of that

blog comments give people an audience when they wouldn't normally have one because they are boring individuals. now that's relevant.

They achieved success quickly, raised the ire of Saint Cobain, and spawned Scott Stapp, unintentionally and in spite of themselves. (PJ-lite came onto the radio largely because the originators stopped participating in the media saturation.) If rock and roll is about communing with your audience at live concerts, then there are few bands as good (relevant, not-terrible, whatever) as Pearl Jam. And they have made some beautiful music over the years.

I still don't understand why people take time out of their day to slam a band. If I don't like the Concretes or whatever, I don't comment.

The lead singer of Anthrax is Scott Ian, and he's the only person listed in this post worth mentioning

So negative guys, geez, lighten up.

Scott Ian isn't the singer of Anthrax, nice attempt at an arguement though.

But....

Ian Scott Anderson is a singer of Jethro Tull.

Who wants to talk indie flute prog? ;-)

Yay, lets lay into the popular rock band to improve our indie cred!

Scott Ian sings and plays guitar in Anthrax, although he's not the lead singer. Not sure why that dude upthread said he wasn't...

I do not like Pearl Jam but it's foolish to say they have not evolved in their 10+ years.

They practically lost most of their audience in the late-90's when they changed their sound drastically. They have never repeated "Ten" or even "Vs." and I actually respect them for that.

Who is relevant, then? Sufjan Stevens?

Give me a fucking break...

i'd say sufjan right now is infinitely more relevant than pearl jam is at the moment

Relevant in what way?

How do you define relevance?

By impact on the world at large? If that is the case, then Pearl Jam is way for relevant than Sufjan Stevens.

If you determine relevance by how many music critics like it, then, yes, Sufjan Stevens would win out.

Just b/c radiohead bought like 50,000 more dollars worth of synthesizers and kaos pads to start making new records doesn't make them relevant; relevant today is still a rehash of something either beatles or 79' nyc which produces such "awesome, relevant, innovative" new bands like bravery and she wants revenge....pssssh suckers

Joey Belladonna is the lead singer of Anthrax.

Relevancy by nature is a function of time. How can you honestly say how relevant a new or emerging artist is untill you know what sort of impact they have on the music community as a whole. If you claim that a new or emerging artist is relevant, that's a prediction of what sort of influence that artist will have on future artists and therefore just a subjective opinion.

However, to look back on the career of more established band or artist, the idea of relevancy becomes much more objective. PJ was a relevant band because they bridged the gap between metal and grunge and spawned imitators(like it or not). The catch 22 is that by the time you can objectively look back at a band and say whether or not they were relevant, its at the end of their career. At that point the music scene has changed around them and therefore its easy to say they're not relevant. But really they may have been.

Hence, I don't like it when people use the term relevant to describe bands. Its a word that makes people feel smart when they use it, but when used haphazardly, they just sound stupid.

U2 is the most "relevant" band around by any definition and has been for the last twenty years. That is why they are the greatest band ever.

What do you mean by relevant? It seems to me that both of you have relevant confused with popular.

To me, relevant means having an actual artistic impact on the music scene, which U2 clearly does not. Yes, Pearl Jam popularized grunge, but in that period, will always be in the shadow of nirvana.

personally, i feel that the most relevant band right now is radiohead. there a band that people still actually care how their new music sounds. even after ten+ years, most audiophiles still eagerly anticipate there next album.

This is one of the worst set of comments I have ever read on a blog.

indie music fans are a fairly self-congratulatory bunch...if you want to talk about relevance, what impact is indie music really having on anyone besides those sporting vintage t-shirts and assymetrical haircut?

pearl jam was relevant, now they are not. who cares?

besides, if pearl jam is going to be maligned for spawned scott stapp, shall we hold radiohead's trangressions agains them? i mean: coldplay, starsailor, travis...

This is one of the worst set of comments I have ever read on a blog.

PJ Rocks

y do ppl even post if they don't like the band? i dont get it....anywho, for ppl who say pj never evolved and sounds the same are freaking deaf...sound similar yes but not the same...sheeesh clean out ur ears..

I'm 24 yrs old so maybe I dont know what a band with any "revelence" is, but to me, at my time, PJ has been very "relevant" and is one of the best bands of all time...how else are they still around??? they haven't been around for 16 yrs cus they suck....they dont sell out shows cus they suck...name some bands that came out in the early 90s that are considered "relevant"....cus i dont know what the hell that means..

again for you kiddies

c-mon. relevace is a fairly easy thing to grasp. a band that actually is moving the music scene along is relevant.

Relevance can happen one of two ways, it can be a flash in the pan band that happens to be catering to whatever style is in style, and pushing that style somewhere new (but those bands die out fast, since they quickly become dated due to another band's release), or it can be and old band pushing the entire music world in a new direction (see anything radiohead has done)...

relevance and musical taste are two different ideas, but relevance does impact a band's status.

while pearl jam might still be making decent music, they are completely irrelevant and unimportant in this day an age (and i would venture to even say that in the grand scheme of things, they've had very little influence at all (besides the 90's crap-rock imitators, but who will ever go back to listen to any of those?)

pearl jam = irrelevant

to claim that u2 is not relevant is absurd and the same is true for pearl jam.

all these bands are relevant to music. radiohead, pearl jam, u2.

they all have massive impact when they release albums, they spawn imitators, they sell lots of records, they change music (even slightly...)

you might say that radiohead is more experimental and pushes boundaries more than pearl jam or u2 but they are all relevant to the current musical climate.

if you keep arguing the same point the exact same way it doesn't make you right, but go ahead...

PJ's amazing relationship with it's loyal fan base sets it apart from any band out there today. Find me a band that's going to go to the lengths that they go through to ensure that concerts, tickets, etc are available to their hardcore fans.

You can have your brit sounding NYC flavor of the month. I'll take PJ any day...

the point is that pearl jam is NOW irrelevant. the music they are NOW making, not that they were irrelevant in terms of music. i mean, we've already stated that they were responsible for creed.

how can you possibly say that they are NOW irrelevant? how could you possibly even measure that?

exactly.. I think this argument is irrelevant. So... the CD that has been released for all of one week is irrelevant? um... okay...

they really are irrelevant

I like Pearl Jam and Sufjan Stevens. Not in that order. I used to like Anthrax, the band not the agent of terror. A relevant is, a relevant does. The Olsen twins should have been eating hamburgers instead of sitting on line. Street cred is cool, I read about it in Rolling Stone. My mohawk grew out, now I part to the side. I work in an office, it makes me cry, but I have health benefits to pay my shrink. He's nice. PC QUEST 2006!

I'll concede that Pearl Jam's new records might not re-define rock in the way that the White Stripes or Radiohead have done in the last few years. But they have had a mutually influential relationship with Sleater-Kinney, which made the hardest and most guitar-heavy record of its career after touring with PJ. They're also now reaching out to bands like the Strokes and Kings of Leon after their buzzes have faded, which is a lot cooler than latching onto the flavor of the month as Bowie and Byrne do at Webster Hall. Pearl Jam is one of the few bands so self-conscious about both their antecedents and their successors and that in itself is a reason to admire and root for them, besides their live reputation, political commitments, and fan loyalty.

ok, relevance. relevance in music?
comon... music is a personal matter. u guys have really nothing to do apart coming here and talking shit about a band. it 's a victory. i was at the Irving and it was a great show. Irrelevant. Relevant. it was good.

IRRELEVENT- adj.-not pertinent;not to the point.

RELEVENT -adj. - relating to the matter under consideration; pertinent

PERTINENT-adj.-having some connection to the matter at hand.

Everyone has different views on what sounds good, what smells good, what looks good and what tastes good. Stop judging so much and open up your mind.
Also the next time you want to call someone/something irrelevent try stating what they are irrelevent to.

Relevant/listeners sample A(age group 18-25)= radiohead is god; i know more about music than you

relevant/listeners sample B(age group 25-32)=
Nirvana is god. hey man grunge had some cool stuff you never knew about

Relevant/listeners sample A(age group 18-25)= radiohead is god; i know more about music than you

relevant/listeners sample B(age group 25-32)=
Nirvana is god. hey man grunge had some cool stuff you never knew about

Relevant/listeners sample A(age group 18-25)= radiohead is god; i know more about music than you

relevant/listeners sample B(age group 25-32)=
Nirvana is god. hey man grunge had some cool stuff you never knew about

a lot of ridiculous arguments here but the greatest of which is criticizing one band for the influence and / or existence of another- Pearl Jam/Creed. If you follow that logic the Jackson 5 suck because of N Sync, the Stones suck because of Buckcherry, Social D sucks because of the Offspring, and The Beatles suck as a result of every third jerk that picks up a guitar and presses record.

Relevant/listeners sample A(age group 18-25)= radiohead is god; i know more about music than you

relevant/listeners sample B(age group 25-32)=
Nirvana is god. hey man grunge had some cool stuff you never knew about

Sample A+Sample B= sonic youth!! yaay

Hipsters are irrelevant to anything that matters.

pearl jam is like so awesome. the kid is crazy and makes some mad music. i don't care what you says, but pearl jam is monsters of rock. and they care for the fans man, they like gives me tickets to all their gigs. and what's with all the creed hate, is they also irrelevant?

oh my god.

awfulness.

Pearl Jam is a great band. They put out better records and were more acclaimed in the early 90's than they do/are now, yet they still produce music that is fresh and meaningful. Musically, they may be a bit more on the traditional side than say radiohead, who combine electronica with rock, but the music is still packed with emotion and is beautifully executed. Not to mention the lyrics which are highly "relevant" to today's times. Pushing musical boundaries does not make you any better than those who don't- how good music is should be judged by the power and emotion involved in the music/lyrics-NOT THE STUPID CRITICS REVIEWS CLAIMING RADIOHEAD AS THE BEST BAND IN THE WORLD

Pearl Jam is a great band. They put out better records and were more acclaimed in the early 90's than they do/are now, yet they still produce music that is fresh and meaningful. Musically, they may be a bit more on the traditional side than say radiohead, who combine electronica with rock, but the music is still packed with emotion and is beautifully executed. Not to mention the lyrics which are highly "relevant" to today's times. Pushing musical boundaries does not make you any better than those who don't- how good music is should be judged by the power and emotion involved in the music/lyrics-NOT THE STUPID CRITICS REVIEWS CLAIMING RADIOHEAD AS THE BEST BAND IN THE WORLD

What I love about this post is that it just took one person to make everyone angry by using the word 'irrelevant.' Funny thing is that I agree.

What I love about this post is that it just took one person to make everyone angry by using the word 'irrelevant.' Funny thing is that I agree.

i'd bet anything that the poster who first posted it doesn't even know what 'irrelevant' means.

or that they are themselves 'irrelevant' to society.

**They're also now reaching out to bands like the Strokes and Kings of Leon after their buzzes have faded, which is a lot cooler than latching onto the flavor of the month as Bowie and Byrne do at Webster Hall.**

Buzzes faded? Whatever. Both are huge in Europe. "First Impressions.." will be near the top of the critics polls at year end. This declaration makes no sense as anything other than "I think PJ are cool and real, and Bowie and Byrne are old and desperate." "Latching onto" is dripping with contempt. Like PJ, Bowie and Byrne do what they want. Sorry it makes you angry.

:)

Who cares if Pearl Jam is relevant? I know so many people to whom songs like "Black" or "Alive" were the only thing that somehow cheered them up for 2 or 3 years.

Sure, Radiohead are relevant, but we cannot compare angst, to politics in a world gone mad. So it is rather stupid to compare pj to rh. This is not even saying that so many dumb americans don't even get radiohead...

And how come relevance is an issue at all?
PJ are and will be classics. They have gone beyond time. No one can't take that away from them. Even if Binaural sucked ass.

Not sure if this story will interest anyone but Pearl Jam will be taping a performance on VH-1 Storytellers on Wednesday May 31 in NYC. Tickets were given out in a Fan Club contest if you submitted a two sentence email explaining why you should go.

Winners were informed today and the location will be emailed 24 hours before the event.

I think Pearl Jam rocks and the leader singer along with the band members make awesome music, and the band sounds nothing like creed they suck who ever thinks they sound like creed must be tripping becuase they are nothing alike i luv them rock on Pearl Jam.

Pearl Jam are still amazing after 16 years.
People who hate Pearl Jam never shut up, and they love to act like thier opinion matters to everyone. Oh well, its thier fault they don't appreciate them. Pitty.

not too bad