Pearl Jam and Language

I really have to disagree with Feddie; there's no way that Nirvana was better than Pearl Jam.

I especially disagree with the reasons Publius outlines. I've written about this before, I think. In short, language is the house of being.

All that we are and experience filters through language. Talking about feelings or thoughts outside of language is preposterous. Putting an idea into words doesn't limit it. Rather, it expands that thought and makes it available to all of human history, so that the thought can be critiqued and strengthened or be discarded.

Ever had a really great idea? Ever try to write it out or explain it to someone only to realize that your great idea was nonsense?

Music, by the way, is not opposed to language. Music is inherently linguistic. When you listen to notes you are listening to linguistic messages that transfer the thoughts of the artist to you. A solid piece of music is solid because it, well, effectively effects the transfer.

Modern art stank because it denied language. Charlatans sprayed colors on a canvas and somehow expected that to resonate with people. The resonance that occurred was on a very shallow level, effectuated only because colors themselves are linguistic (thanks to a shared culture, blue represents sadness, for instance).

One might as well stop using words and instead grunt and scratch to communicate. Good luck.

As for Nirvana vs. Pearl Jam in particular, PJ certainly had the edge musically. They composed great songs. They understood the power of their instruments. Eddie Vedder has a great voice, and they've created some amazing riffs and solos. PJ also had superior lyrics, by far.

I disagree with the politics that PJ stands for, but at least they wrong compelling songs about interesting issues. Nirvana was more about teenage angst, which is probably why they were so popular with young people (despite the fact that PJ, Alice in Chains, and Soundgarden were much better).