I'm a bit surprised there are so few Steely Dan fans around here.
Ditto. Outstanding musicianship all around. I like what SD did in a Pop context although I was never that excited about their radio-friendly releases. "Aja" was more my speed and in fact, I would count it among my list of desert-island albums if for nothing other than Chuck Rainey's and Steve Gadd's stellar performances.
I see very little difference between what SD were doing in the 70's compared to what Sting was doing in the 80's. They brought together top-notch Jazz musicians for Pop studio recordings with live performances more as an afterthought. With great success, I might add.
Re: Pearl Jam:
..because there's some substance to Pearl Jam. Love 'em or hate 'em, they defined an entire era of popular music and kept playing and growing even when they weren't writing hits and had a definite cultural relevance. Steely Dan is clinically meticulous and polished musically and sonically, but there's nothing there. The songs are pointless pondering. "Are you reelin in the years?" Huh? WTF does that even mean? That's a pretty far cry from "Jeremy spoke in class today." ...even without the video that would never be allowed to air today.
Really?!? I agree that Pearl Jam had a HUGE impact on the music scene but then again, so did Nirvana, Stone Temple Pilots, Soundgarden and the Foo fighters - all of the same genre, the latter few infinitely more prolific than Pearl Jam IMO. Regardless, to imply that SD's music has no substance ...... maybe you should give it another listen. SD may be lyrically weak to you but I think 40,000,000+ career record sales worldwide speaks for itself.
Sincerely,
Resident Middle-aged limp dick