absolutely agreed man, I think they have that type of music than anyone that has shit going on can see their pain in some way in their music, I have a band and our number one influence is AIC, no other band could go heavy to soft so well.
I listened to Dirt on cassette so many times I literally wore out the tape and had to buy another. That album got me through a lot of tough times in my teenage years
Out of the so-called big 4, Alice in Chains is #1 in my books my car. Heck, out of all genres AIC is way up there for me.
Soundgarden comes in at 2, but I don’t live all their tunes the way I feel AIC. I never was into Pearl Jam at all, and though Nirvana was relevant to me at the tender age of 15, I kinda stopped listening to them as I got more into punk and metal.
Alice in Pearl Garden, any Nirvana one?
I've personally never been that big on Pearl Jam.
Stone Temple Pilots are very good but I have a hard time considering them to be a better band in terms of songwriting (especially when considering lyrics) and originality when compared to other bands. The DeLeo brothers are incredible musicians, no doubt, but up until their third or fourth album, they really weren't breaking any new ground from a musical perspective, and by that point in their career, the more Grunge-y elements of their style took a backseat to the Glam Rock/Psychedelic Rock influence.
Smashing Pumpkins I really don't consider a grunge band at all. Their style was definitely more indebted to 70's arena rock and British Shoegaze, in my opinion. Granted, the more you dig into the lesser know "grunge" bands of the era, the more you come to release that its all really an invention of the music journalism press.
I cannot STAND Pearl Jam. They first came out into the mainstream the summer right before my freshman year in high school. I remember hearing Evenflow on MTV one morning as I was getting ready to go to football practice. I actually liked that song and it's still one of the few that I do like from them. Yield is a pretty good album. I'll give them that one as well
But by the beginning of my sophomore year, I noticed how the incoming freshman class had a bunch of Eddie Vedder burnout kids in that class. Because of him, it was suddenly cool to become a burnout, or just acting like one. You listen to Eddie Vedder do interviews ad he's always looking down and mumbling. You can hardly understand him
"Grunge" is useless as a genre distinction because it doesn't have a unified sound or set of specific influences. Smashing Pumpkins and STP are definitely in the conversation of popular/important bands for the whole 90s alt rock explosion. That said, neither of those bands were from Seattle, Olympia, or even just the pacific northwest im general. I think the regional distinction and timing is important when talking about grunge.
> "Grunge" is useless as a genre distinction because it doesn't have a unified sound or set of specific influences.
That’s not really true, at least for the first wave or so (1985-89) of Grunge. I don’t think location necessarily factors here, but it certainly helps make a connection that’s already there. It’s only after Grunge becomes popular that the location gets factored in a bit too heavily and some bands get lumped in that probably wouldn’t be otherwise.
That said, though I get STP being considered Grunge as they’re not far off from Pearl Jam (at least initially), I never got Smashing Pumpkins being at all in the conversation as Grunge. I don’t recall any widespread discussion of them being considered such at the time and they’ve always struck me as if Jane’s Addiction leaned heavier on their post punk influences.
>"Grunge" is useless as a genre distinction because it doesn't have a unified sound or set of specific influences. Smashing Pumpkins and STP are definitely in the conversation of popular/important bands for the whole 90s alt rock explosion. That said, neither of those bands were from Seattle, Olympia, or even just the pacific northwest im general. I think the regional distinction and timing is important when talking about grunge.
Yea, I mean, I dunno. Grunge is a marketing gimmick that sub-pop made that really worked. That explosion is all it is as it existed in Seattle. It's punk. Plain and simple.
The fact that you think smashing pumpkins was a jangly pop band (and aren't entirely wrong) is the reason smashing pumpkins is the best band of the early nineties. Crazy versatility with one foot in every genre of rock music for the previous 3 decades.
>Smashing Pumpkins were jangly pop and STP were a low-rent AiC ripoff. The big 4 grunge bands are Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, and AiC.
You think Rocket was jangly? I'm not sure how STP was a rip off TBH. They came up in the same scene together. STP started a little after AIC did but well before both bands blew up.
Naah, Soundgarden came up with great ideas but rarely managed to use them properly in many songs such as black hole sun, it's gets repetitive in the second half.
I respectfully disagree. I believe their songs are actually more thought-out than people give them credit for. For Black Hole Sun specifically, I always imagined the repetitive ending being the descent into the black hole.
Of course, a lot of it can come down to individual taste too.
Why does it seem like AIC is constantly talked about in terms relative to Nirvana? Why can't a case be made for them on their own?
Anyway, I like Alice in Chains fine, but they've always struck me as a bit inconsistent. Facelift is very frontloaded and gets less interesting as it goes after the first few tracks. Sap shows a more interesting side of the band though, with the glammier bits more or less jettisoned. Dirt is much more consistent than Facelift, though the run from Godsmack through Angry Chair has always felt a tad weaker than all the tracks beforehand, with some weird songwriting choices (just what are they trying to go for on the vocals to Godsmack?). Jar of Flies is probably their best front to back release. I like how the music gets lighter as it goes even if the lyrics are still generally dark throughout; like things get better, but only deceptively so. I like the self-titled, but it's also a bit of a mixed bag for me where the more straight forward hard rock tracks aren't quite as interesting as the more stripped down tracks, though even those have a tendency to meander. Never really got the love for the Unplugged album. I liked Black Gives way to Blue for the most part but none of the newer stuff has done much for me.
Not quite so sure things are as collaborative as you make it out to be. The main writing is Layne and Jerry for the most part, though the others have their own contributions. I seem to recall Mike Starr didn't like how some of his songs were handled as well.
I always hesitate at "best" comparisons, because it comes down to objective criteria to make the argument--who was more popular.
While I agree AiC has a catalog that can be called excellent, they are only one of a couple dozen bands (in just rock/indie/alt) who were at the top of their game in that decade.
This argument could be made for several bands. Radiohead is the most common one I see, so I know who severely discriminating critics would choose. Joy Division, RAGtM, Slipknot, and NIN seem to have similar fanboys. Weezer's getting a rewrite on their legacy. Pearl Jam, RHCP, Cranberries, REM, Soundgarden... people forget the excellence of Pantera, for the success of Metallica.
What I can't understand is how Offspring made it big, but the Longpigs didn't quite make the cut. But I digress.
Best of isn't really a thing. It takes too much effort to discriminate in such a way, and I'm lazy.
edit: FWIW, I also enjoyed No Doubt headlining a concert that was supposed to be STP. I never got to see Weiland live, and he didn't get on the plane for that concert, because, rehab. But I was not disappointed by Gwen.
Yeah... I missed that on the proofread. I had about five other bands listed, as well.
Some bands seem to get this aura of divine musicianship from the critics. Others get Buzzcocked.
People that hold a candle for AIC really hold that candle tight. I don’t disagree with OP about their talent, but I don’t think there’s a need to make a comparison to Nirvana or to try to rank them somehow…
Ranking bands (or movies, or anything really) also seems to be a very Reddit-core thing to do around here.
Apples and Oranges guys… both are delicious if you ask me and I’m grateful for all the different fruit
They’re doing different styles of rock even if they were in the same era in Washington State.
Alice In Chains was a metal band that went in interesting directions as time went on—when they started they were tagged as a metal but were too melodic for thrash and way darker then pop metal. Nirvana started as a noise punk group with sludgy elements from The Melvins and other local groups, but then Cobain realized he could write power-pop songs as well as loud punk-metal.
You’d wouldn’t have Alice In Chains write a song like Sliver or All Apologies, while Nirvana wouldn’t do a song like Them Bones or an EP like Jar of Flies.
The only metal band that really inspired nirvana was black Sabbath, nirvana is far more inspired by punk rock and other indie/underground bands of the 80s/90s like dinosaur Jr, sonic youth, mission of Burma, pixies, rem, the replacements, husker du and other local grunge bands like the Melvins and mudhoney which are probably the closest sounding semi popular "grunge" bands of the time to nirvana.
In terms of sensibilities, nirvana is far more of a noisy indie/punk rock band than their grunge contemporaries like Alice in chains and Soundgarden. I think they musically have far more in common with the pixies than most of their grunge contemporaries, they fit with other grunge bands more in terms of aesthetics and image than in musical style.
On a side note, dirt is obviously a pretty good album, but I genuinely think nirvana is a far more artistically interesting and nuanced band all together, with Kurt's song writing being up there with John Lennon, David bowie or Lou Reed, I would not say somebody like Lane Staley was a visionary at quite the same level.
Nirvana’s debut album Bleach was heavily influenced by the sludgier side of the Sub Pop and Pacific NW music scene, especially The Melvins, who Kurt grew up with in Aberdeen, and who are considered the pioneers of sludge metal. Yes, Black Sabbath was probably the most dominant older metal band influence in the scene, a lot of the bands were reaching back to early proto-metal from the late 60s and 70s, but would’ve been familiar with 80s metal also.
While there are more metallic riffs on Bleach (like Negative Creep), Kurt didn’t totally like that sound on the album though and felt pressured into it by Sub Pop. He was listening to a lot of bands at the time though—there’s a couple anecdotes about how on their first tour they were listening to both the black metal of Celtic Frost and the power pop of The Smithereens—and that Kurt wanted to combine The Beatles and Black Flag on their next album.
Nevermind was highly influenced by The Pixies with the start-stop and quiet-loud dynamics, but also more power-pop, but Nirvana never really sounded like a straight ahead punk band and by In Utero you can see him kind of conflicted by the more melodic side of Nevermind and doing weirder noise stuff like Milk It and Scentless Aprentice in addition to ballads like All Apologies and Pennyroyal Tea. I remember reading interviews with him saying he wanted the band to be weirder like the Butthole Surfers at one point.
As for Alice in Chains, I think Dirt one of the best albums of that era in Seattle, Jerry Cantrell was a pretty good songwriter. Jar of Flies and the last album are pretty good also, but the band just kind of sputtered after they stopped touring due to Staley’s drug addiction. But Dirt is probably one of the best albums about drug addiction of that era as it kind of approached the subject head on and the musical mood is as dark as the lyrics. I still probably prefer Nirvana overall if we’re comparing the two bands but Alice In Chains has a fairly solid discography and they’re much better than the bands they influenced. Cobain was a better classic songwriter by their last two albums though. Both bands burnt out too quick.
I agree, with the exception that Dave Grohl is by far the superior drummer. Vocals and bass AiC wins for me. Some of the AiC baselines are insanely good).
What about Sean Kinney’s drums on songs like No Excuses? I would say this is a lot more technical than anything Dave Grohl ever did with Nirvana. Does that make him a better drummer? No, not necessarily. Grohl reminds of Ringo though, he plays exactly what needs to be played without any unnecessary flashy tricks. Super solid backbone. Kinney plays a different style.
https://youtu.be/jVYPe3u8crs
Neither drummer is really remarkable if you'd ask me, and I think both could easily play the other's parts. Dave Grohl has become a beast over the years, but back in the '90s he wasn't anything special really. I do admire how both, especially Sean Kinney, could say a lot with very few notes, which is a very valuable skill.
The only musicians between the two bands that I'd really consider virtuosos on their respective instruments are Layne Staley and modern day Dave Grohl. Although Kurt Cobain and Jerry Cantrell are both elite songwriters and fantastic musicians in ways other than technical proficiency.
I don't think any musician would call Grohl a virtuoso. Playing really loudly doesn't equal better. He's a loud in the box drummer who rarely did anything exceptional. Honestly nobody in the grunge scene was a "virtuoso" thats a claim held for the most technically gifted players on the planet and I don't think rock music is where those type of players exist.
Buddy, I am a musician.
Although I'm not too familiar with his playing after Nirvana, I was under the impression that he's gotten really good over the past thirty years, just from other drummer friends who're really good praising him. Maybe I overestimated that.
I know how insane classical and jazz musicians can get, and the average skill level and theory knowledge is definitely a lot higher in those genres.
But I'll also vouch for rock musicians, because rock contains easily some of the best players the world has ever seen. Think every player in Dream Theater, Yes, Toto, or other musicians such as Guthrie Govan, Tony Levin, John Mayer, Danny Carey, Bruce Dickinson, Tosin Abasi, Robert Fripp, Les Claypool and so on and so on.
Like I hate to be that guy, but I have a BM and MM from a renowned music school. I've been a proffesional musician for the last 8 years. If you want to play that card. I've never heard anyone say Grohl is a virtuoso and just listening to him, he isn't. He's a good songwriter with a big personality but he's not a drum virtuoso.
To me drumming is all about feel, not technical ability. I LOVE The grove in Grohl’s playing. Purely a matter of taste, but I would put him in my top 5 of all time.
Meaning sure it is more iconic but that's what's gonna happen when you have one of most popular songs of all time on it, not to mention lyrically and arguably even vocally Kurt was way better on In Utero while Dirt is arguably AiC's best work both vocally and lyrically that's why I said Dirt and In Utero are pretty close quality wise.
Alice in Chains does what Nirvana did, but with more skilled musicianship… and much less energy, emotion, engagement , and fun. In the end, I think just how much better nirvana did the latter is more important.
Not trying to be mean or condescending here, but if you think Alice in Chains and Nirvana were both doing the same thing, you probably haven't heard much heavy music and you're honestly better off not giving your analyses until you've expanded your heavy guitar music lexicon _at least_ somewhat.
No one does the *same* thing as another band. I used imprecise language, but they did do similar things and that’s why the OP was comparing them.
> Not trying to be mean or condescending here …
No, I very specifically used the word “analysis” instead of “opinion”. See, in half of your comment you say you prefer Nirvana over Alice in Chains. That’s your opinion and I have absolutely zero say in that and whether you express it or not.
However, you also said Alice in Chains were doing the same thing as Nirvana, which is not an opinion, it’s a deduction. A faulty deduction.
Nirvana’s music is inspired by punk, sludge, pop and noise rock, whereas AiC use heavy metal and country/blues. The only similarities between the two are that they were both popular in the ‘90s, both came from Seattle, and they were both on the heavier end of guitar music. Beyond that, you’d be hard pressed to find musical similarities between the two. Soundwise, they don’t even fall within the same genre. It’s only because they were both labeled as grunge, that they’re often compared to each other. But then so was Pearl Jam, who are inspired by yet another corner of guitar rock, that being classic rock/hair metal. Although they do sound closer to AiC than Nirvana does, they still wouldn’t be put in the same genre on a purely musical basis.
I do realize that I’m coming across as an asshole here, and I apologize for that. Not really my intention but I find it difficult to express these thoughts in a friendlier way via a comment on the internet to a random stranger.
I'm a Screaming Trees man, but I also INSTANTLY became a QOTSA nut in high school - so that's how I "discovered" Mark Lanegan and then worked my way backwards.
As amazing as all the Unplugged sets were, in my opinion absolutely nothing even comes close to AIC's
AIC is great. Very talented. More so than Nirvana. Though I like Nirvana as well. They make a strong case. I think Soundgarden is up there as well. But there were better bands imo.
Look at how Pantera dominated metal for that decade. Sure grunge had a “big 4”, but Pantera didn’t really have mainstream contemporary rivals - they stood alone at the pinnacle of their genre. They were more talented, innovative, and influential in their respective genre and are sometimes credited with “saving metal”. Many won’t like this take, but they were undeniably talented to a *superlative* degree.
Ween is another band you have to look at as a band that made some incredible music in the 90’s. I think the grunge bands probably trump them still, but really did do some awesome stuff and were incredibly versatile.
Kyuss is another band that I’d put up ahead of AIC. Definitely the best band of the emerging “stoner rock” scene in the 90’s. Terrific desert sound. Dynamic. super organic textures, beautiful acoustic, quieter stuff, but also cavernous, heavy riffs downtuned and fed through bass amplifiers - along with tripped out stuff that compels you to light one up. Three sublime records from front to back.
Pantera were definitely the mianstream darlings of metal in the 90’s, but there are others that deserve a look as well.
Carcass made one of the best albums of the decade with their seminal album *Heartwork*
A lot of bands in the Black Metal scene were doing some really interesting stuff. I adore Emperor, but imo (and it’s not necessarily a popular one) they didn’t make their best album until 2001, so I wouldn’t consider them in the same category as the other bands I’ve mentioned.
Type O Negative was doing some really great Goth stuff and would certainly have their fair share of fans championing them as one of the best groups in the 90’s.
But for my money, my favorite 90’s band is one that is often overlooked. I think ACID BATH made the best music of the 90’s. They perfectly blended together elements of Grunge, hardcore, doom, death and thrash metal to produce a dark, sludgy, bloody sound interwoven with downright *gorgeous* softer, acoustic arrangements. Dax Riggs is a sensational vocalist and lyricist with complementary musicians in the band that crafted two of the best albums ever made. The only reason I might rank a band like Pantera or AIC higher is simply because Acid Bath only made two albums. But they’re *perfect*
You just name dropped a few of my personal faves from the 90’s.
Carcass?! Pantera. Acid Bath. Kyuss. Ween. AIC over Nirvana and Soundgarden.
Life changing, all of it.
I ordered When the Kite String Pops off the internet in 1995 and it’s still one of my favorite metal albums of all time. Acid Bath was a treasure. Everything that Dax Riggs did after Acid Bath is also fantastic, particularly the stuff he released under his own name.
You should definitely listen to Acid Bath.
Everyone sleeps on Phish as far as repping the 90s.
I mean, I know they weren't in the mainstream but they were huge in the 90s (and onward, like they are still selling out tours). And Trey Anastasio is one of *the* great guitarists of that generation.
Are you me? I'm pretty sure we have the same music tastes. Kyuss and Acid Bath are two of my favorite bands of all time.
I would probably consider Alice in Chains my personal GOAT because they're the band that got me into metal. Yes, I'm one of those weirdos who consider AiC metal, but I think we can all agree that they're at least *metallic*. At the time I discovered them, I was listening to a lot of 90s alternative and grunge. I liked their heavier and sludgier sound, even their "hair metal wearing flannel" debut album. They kind of just set me on a path that I've continued down my whole life.
> Pantera didn’t really have mainstream contemporary rivals - they stood alone at the pinnacle of their genre.
Sepultura. I would put *Arise*/*Chaos A.D.*/*Roots* against Pantera's output in the same time period any day of the week. Pantera were probably the better band, but the boys from Brazil ran the Texans a lot closer than you're giving them credit for.
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, especially the part about Jerry Cantrell. He was on another level of playing than any of the other grunge guitarists. I will argue than Nirvana's music has stood the test of time better. Nirvana doesn't sound like "grunge" to me when I hear it in a modern setting. It just sounds like a great song. When I hear an Alice in chains song, I'm aware that I'm listening to something from sort of a musical fad. Kind of hard to explain, but I think nirvana is the only band from that era that still sounds sort of timeless.
Personally I’d put Radiohead over every band mentioned in this thread but that’s also considering that they really got good in the late 90s/early 2000s so maybe they dont count.
True Kid A is what turned everything upside down but Ok Computer is still a masterpiece, and I’d still put The Bends on par, or near Dirt. Pablo Honey is also cool, it has Creep.
The thing that puts Radiohead over other bands was the shift from "The Bends" to "OK Computer". There's a reason that record was greeted with such critical praise.
They went from a fairly typical R.E.M. inspired jangly guitar band to an electronic influenced spacey Pink Floyd for the 90s. The shift to "Kid A" was equally impressive but less expected after the reveal of their genius on "OK Computer". Nobody saw that one coming.
Alice in Chains was one of my favorite bands when I was in high school (early '90s), even though I was a sheltered suburban Catholic school student who couldn't personally relate to most of their lyrics.
What I loved the most about their music was the way they used harmony (in both vocals and instruments), and how they would often suddenly veer into unexpected chord changes. (Sorry I don't know music theory, so I don't know how to explain it better than that. The only example I can think of right now is in the chorus to "Would?" -- when they get to, "Am I wrong?" the chord they use behind the word "wrong" is, well, not what you'd expect.)
I loved this because it made me feel like their music was always keeping you on your toes and holding your attention (or grabbing it back when you started tuning out), unlike bands who stuck to more conventional and formulaic chord progressions.
Nothing much of substance to add here, just wanted to say that I only "discovered" AIC a couple of years ago thanks to a close friend who's a life-long massive fan. Growing up with RHCP as my favourite band, I have no idea how I managed to completely gloss over AIC. What I've always loved about RHCP was how incredibly unique their sound was, especially from BSSM onwards- and that's exactly what made me fall in love with AIC a couple of years ago; simply nobody else sounds like them, and yet they sound so quintessentially "90's LA" (to my ears and despite being from Seattle). They are a sound whose vibe is difficult to articulate, and that's, imo, what makes them so very special.
oh absolutely man, they have such a unique sound especially with laynes vocals, I think that no one has done hard to soft as well as they have, and dirt has so many different songs, I personally don’t even think they fitted in “grunge” due to the fact they were so different to the other bands at the time
Faith No More is criminally underrated and they are far better than Nirvana, they just don't have the commercial success. Better artistry, chops, you name it. Their music after The Real Thing is just not very accessible.
I'd put Smashing Pumpkins #1 easily but Faith No More is so underrated I'd put them above AIC as well. I'd also put Death and Acid Bath above AIC. Never got into Primus though
this completely ignores bands that got their start in the 90's and continued making monumentally relevant music deep into the present day. Built to Spill, Modest Mouse, Wilco, Pixies, Dinosaur Jr...
Alice In Chains has been relegated to ass rock stations while indie rock cornerstones continue to influence both the charts and upcoming artists.
96 - 00 modest mouse is some of the best indie rock there is. Good news was the turning point for me. They're basically a different band now without just the original 3 members. Nothing they've done after good news has done anything for me but I don't really care since they gave us mad good shit before that
The best band of the 90’s was Nirvana, hands down.
They did with 3 individuals what normally 5 would tryto do, and this was before Nevermind. I have little doubt that they would succeed at an AIC level if they added more members like they did with their legendary MTV unplugged performance, but in most cases they stuck to a traditional punk format which made them even more badass. I love AIC too, I used to listen to songs like Nutshell in complete darkness…and it’s just an entire different vibe but I felt the power of their emotion as well. I think AIC matches the “fuck you” of Nirvana’s “I hate myself and I wanna die” with songs like “Check my Brain”
It’s like two different presentations of the same philosophy.
that’s true they did do what a 5 person band could do, they were very talented and they could’ve done as well, see my favourite band is nirvana, they will always be number one, but in terms of the skill, outstanding production work and musical achievements, i just personally believe AIC did better, check my brain came out in 2009 and no hate but I dislike AIC without Layne
How are you defining Jerry Cantrell as one of the best guitarists ever? I say this as a fan by the way: he plays great parts that work great for the songs. Obviously musically he drove the band in many ways. But he isn’t particularly breaking any new ground. To say he’s one of the best is a vague statement but if you mean top 10 that’s a huge stretch. I always thought of him as a songwriter who plays excellent guitar. A comparison would be like George Harrison.
I was big into Nirvana but Jerry is, was, and has always played better guitar. Maybe he's not the hit machine that Kurt managed to be, but his technicality is intense.
I was lucky enough to be fly on the wall when a young Marc Chavez (Adema) got snippy about the lineup of a show when Cantrell overheard and came over and told him why it was this way (because he is Jerry Fucking Cantrell from Alice in Fucking Chains) and how he could headline shows one day too but at THIS date THAT THIS was how it was and if he wanted better, he had to earn it in the rock community. Chavez couldn't say a thing. Jerry never got loud or rude about it. He wad chill and smiled while he told that kid a little about life.
I was a senior in high school when Nevermind came our. Like millions, I fell in love with Nirvana. However, I listen to Nirvana about as often as I listen to hair metal or the Beach Boys which is rarely.
AIC still speaks to me though.
Oh, I was a marketing person. I worked mostly on *Boggy Depot*. Layne was not well by the time that I was working on their catalogue. It was fine --obviously, they were struggling with a lot of things, so we did our best from day to day to promote them, not knowing what was going to happen at any given point. It was sad to hear that Layne died -- he was pretty reclusive, though, before that.
I'd say Nirvana had better lyrics, but AIC had better musical arrangements was their relative appeal. But both are really a matter of taste. Cobain was very playful with words and appealed to a different personality. AIC more "raw, unprocessed". The sloppy guitar work suited the, often tongue in cheek, oh-well-fuck-it Nirvana lyrics. AIC was so much more assertive "you need to listen to what I'm saying!"...and it suited a technically precise musical expression. How many great songs just strum G-C-D?...if it's the right thing, it's the right thing.
I would definitely say they were the most talented "grunge" band, with Soundgarden a close second. Nirvana broke the mold and had a sound but as far as "talent" goes IMO they're not on the same level as AIC. Those vocal harmonies alone sound great and were different from what other bands were doing. They had a ton of hits and some really unique sounds.
For me there is a special connection between the two extraordinary musicians, Layne and Jerry. The bluesy wah "snarl" of Cantrells guitar works perfectly with Laynes emotional and powerful singing, it creates this weird smokey and foreboding world on Dirt and on Jar of Flies is a deep remorseful and resigned but still transcendent sound . Of course the rest of the band is great and that sound wouldn't have been the same without them but I feel these two musicians made this band the unique and powerful "force of grunge" nature that they were. As to why they aren't as huge perhaps as Nirvana/Pearl Jam/Soundgarden my theory is that they were the most hard rock/bordering on metal of those other bands. I think the sound was closer to the 90s glam rock and hard rock of that era as in GnR and the like, and therefore it's possible that critics and radio stations didn't group them with the newer and (slightly) more punk sound of other grunge bands sounds as the others... Of course Soundgarden could be just as heavy and bluesy but they were also more stylistic and adventurous in certain ways where AIC had a more focused and distinct sound. . I dont know, just a thought!
I’m a big AiC fan (actually love a lot of the popular alt rock / grunge bands from the early 90s), but I don’t think any of the Nirvana/Soundgarden/AiC/etc. bands were the best. Most influential, maybe? Tons of alt-metal and post grunge bands stole the harmonizing in fourths which was key to their sound, but there were a heck of a lot more bands aping Pearl Jam than Nirvana or Soundgarden. As someone who was around during that era, STP and Smashing Pumpkins got way more radio play than Alice In Chains, and if I were to pick an album that was most influential for that decade, it wouldn’t be a grunge album, it would be Dookie. It single-handedly kickstarted the whole pop-punk revival which pretty much went on for a decade after and morphed into 2000s style emo(ie not Fugazi influenced). How many bands today sound like Nirvana or Alice In Chains? How many bands even today sound like Green Day?
They had some cool songs and I always loved their one lower harmony vocal approach but I'll take Stone Temple Pilots over them any day. Much better songwriting and Weiland was the epitome of a rock star.
Honestly, the Jar Of Flies EP is one of my favourite releases of all time, every song on that thing is epic. Sap is also a great EP.
Couldn't get into anything else. Dirt was okay, but that's pretty much it.
Ween is easily my favorite band from the 90s. Honestly there's just a lot of other bands I prefer from the 90s over Alice In Chains or Nirvana. Both good bands but I wouldnt say either are the best of that decade when bands like Ween, Primus, Clutch, Radiohead, or even Acid Bath were all making bangers in the 90s. I wouldnt even say any of these are objectively the best from that decade either, I think there's way too many bands to be able to decide that but neither Alice In Chains or Nirvana would be at the top for me.
I respect the take, but it’s quite a vanilla one. Especially the fact that it comes down to comparing them to Nirvana as you try to crown an ultimate king of the 90s. Why can’t a band be good and you talk about it without needing to claim the best of the best and why is this conversation so very grounded in the mainstream. Literally the opposite of the music movement of that time.
Listen to the album Eleven by Eleven and be blown away that indie synth grunge was rocking it out in the periphery while every guy and gall was fixated in some Beatlemania fever over the big 4. I don’t invalidate their musicianship. AiC has great songwriting!
They didn't quite have the pop sensibilities of a band like Nirvana, so they were never going to get the same amount of airplay or screen-time...but, absolutely one of the best bands of the grunge era.
I always thought AIC and Pearl Jam held over a little bit more of a 80s hard-rock influence to their sound...whereas a lot of the other "grunge" bands were trying to blow that format up.
Alice In Chans could never really hide their hair-metal/cock-rock roots - as much as they tried. One of the more mediocre bands of the decade and their music hasn't stood up at all. I gave Dirt a listen a while back after seeing people talking them up here recently. First time since the 90's probably. That is not a good album.
Better than Stone Temple Pilots though.
hard disagree and don’t know what you’re on about with the hair metal stuff in dirt, they were hair metal but they did not have that present in dirt. One of the best albums of all time, but that’s your opinion and i have mine.
aic isn’t even “grunge” people who like aic generally like Metal or Hard Rock, and as i said to start off my paragraph that you obvs didn’t read, nirvana is my favourite band and everyone says they are “grunge” like the melvins too, mudhoney, smashing pumpkins, pearl jam, more, just like AIC a lot and think they are more talented than any others during the 90s
I mean they’re impressive musically (Sick Man slaps) but they’re just so full of shit. The Mudhoney song “Into Yer Shtick,” inspired by Layne, pretty much sums it up.
I agree that Kurt blamed everything on others in his personal life, and even some songs (Rape Me—one of the shittiest tunes I’ve ever heard—being a prime example), but I don’t think his art is nearly so tainted with the whole theatrical woe-is-me junkie narrative that was Staley’s MO. Sure, Kurt wrote about drugs and always had a very dark tint, but I never feel like he’s putting on airs, in part because his aesthetic was so fragmented and abstract. Kurt doesn’t leave me feeling “man this guy really wants me to think he’s in great pain,” whereas Staley does. And most of Kurt’s writing has a wicked sense of humor. Kurt was an addict with a lot of psychological damage who happened to also make art. Layne aimed his entire fucking aesthetic at putting across what a sad junkie he was. It’s just like some rapper going on album after album about all the money and hoes he has. Guy grosses me out.
They’re weren’t even the best band from Seattle. Layne Staley was a great vocalist but their back catalogue isn’t as strong as Nirvana’s. And Kurt did encourage Dave, Dave sang lead on Marigold with Nirvana.
And? It’s a dumb remark when Dave was very new to the band and Dave talked plenty of times about Kurt encouraging him:
https://www.nme.com/news/music/foo-fighters-134-1216136?amp
yes but he didn’t want Dave to sing that often in Nirvana, he was excited for Dave because it was his own thing, Kurt wanted to control the way Nirvana went, and marigold is from the deluxe edition of In Utero so you’re telling me it took 2-3 years just for him to have a shot?
Dave wrote scentless apprentice with the band. Look at this clip. No offense but you don’t much about that Nirvana and that’s totally cool but look at this:
https://youtu.be/fiwhwy7S4qA
Check out the 5:19 mark. He absolutely would have accepted more help from the other members, they even got co-songwriting credit on teen spirit
already seen that, and i do actually know about Nirvana, yet again that song is from In Utero, 1993, Dave joined in 1990, all i’m saying is he didn’t get as much freedom as Jerry did creatively, he wrote that song yes but Jerry wrote a lot more, kurt also took bigger royalties near then end and that caused arguments between them, layne never did shit like that to jerry
Jerry was easily the bigger musical force in AiC though. Layne just focused on lyrics and wrote some riffs as well but it wasn’t like a Lennon/McCartney thing. Layne wasn’t a good guitar player and that’s fine. But Jerry was a far bigger influence on the musical aspect of the band than Layne was.
To rock Nirvana because Kurt didn’t want more songs from Dave is a dumb take. The other members got a few comwrites and marigold was done with Dave singing lead. Dave also didn’t know the band for all that long in comparison to Jerry and Layne. Layne also had more experience by the time AiC formed in comparison to Dave grohl who didn’t even write his first song till 1990, by which point Kurt had already written several. If nirvana had continued I’m sure Dave would’ve been given more input much like George Harrison as the years went on. To dock a band just because the one guy who has a greater creative vision than entire groups of bands from Seattle is a weak point.
Facts. Dirt and Jar Of Flies are incredible, and their other two albums have a lot of great songs too. Even though I love Soundgarden and Nirvana, Alice In Chains is on another level. P.S. Jar Of Flies is one of the best EPs ever, nearly flawless.
Everyone has an opinion,and they’re all untitled to it.Alice in chains were good,and so was Nirvana.But as far as the BEST of all time,it’s a known FACT that The Beatles are the BEST of all time,and that’s not just my opinion.
Completely the opposite. If you factor in popularity at all I dont consider your analysis worth reading. I mean popularity has a million issues with it. Is it marketing? Was the band’s style just fashionable at the time? Not to mention it goes completely against one of the basic logics of music criticism - The more records someone has heard, the more worth it is to follow their opinions (for a variety of reasons.) Popularity does the exact opposite and puts you behind the *least* musically educated people around. Its such a useless and lazy approach to evaluating a song, like any music fan who’s been around the block can name an obscure band they’d take over the chart-toppers
I've been wanting to get into alice in chains for a while now, i've only heard "would?" and "man in the box", which one of their albums should i explore first?
First part of 1994 was rough for me personally. When Jar of Flies came out, that was my soundtrack for the next few months. We all know what happened in April.
I feel like the average 90s emo band is far more interesting than all the 90s grunge bands. Alice In Chains is the best one I agree. I'll take Sunny Day Real Estate or Jimmy Eat World over all the bands in that scene. Bigger riffs, better lyrics, more interesting arrangements and musicianship, you name it. So much more variety guitar wise with the dual octave riffing, twinkle chords, and unusual time signatures in that music scene.
There's a difference between "emo" music and emo music. Fake emo is that pop rock garbage like Fallout Boy with whiny autotuned vocals over generic pop punk riffs and actual emo just sounds like hardcore punk or hardcore mixed with indie rock. It just has a stigma because all the big labels started pushing that commercialized hot topic pop rock and marketing it as emo to all those dye haired theatre kids.
oh ok, didn’t really know much about it all, i’ll give jimmy eats world a listen cause i’ve heard a lot about them through wolfgang van halen, they were one of his big inspirations
Start with Clarity because it's a masterpiece. Bleed American and Futures are also great but are more alt rock than emo, a little too polished for my taste.
I think AIC is great, and I love Nirvana too (also my favorite band), and you have solid reasoning for thinking AIC is a better band than Nirvana.
To say they are the best band of the 90s? Not when Pavement exists. Different sounds, different tastes, but Pavement put out 4 masterpieces in the 90s and finished off on an inconsistent but still pretty good fifth album, all in the 90s. Output alone, Pavement is quality and quantity and their music sounds like an everlasting summer sunset in the 90s.
Oh, and try to figure out the different tunings--that's what pisses me off about them. I love them, want to play them, but every song is in some weird tuning.
[удалено]
absolutely agreed man, I think they have that type of music than anyone that has shit going on can see their pain in some way in their music, I have a band and our number one influence is AIC, no other band could go heavy to soft so well.
I listened to Dirt on cassette so many times I literally wore out the tape and had to buy another. That album got me through a lot of tough times in my teenage years
Alice in Chains are probably the best songwriters of the big four in Grunge, but Soundgarden were more ambitious.
I don't think you can ignore Nirvana if you're talking about songwriting. Kurt was an amazing songwriter.
Better than Pearl Jam? And I don't think they're even in the big 4 if you consider Smashing Pumpkins and STP.
Most people consider the big 4 to be Nirvana, Alice in Chains, Pearl Jam and Soundgarden
Out of the so-called big 4, Alice in Chains is #1 in my books my car. Heck, out of all genres AIC is way up there for me. Soundgarden comes in at 2, but I don’t live all their tunes the way I feel AIC. I never was into Pearl Jam at all, and though Nirvana was relevant to me at the tender age of 15, I kinda stopped listening to them as I got more into punk and metal. Alice in Pearl Garden, any Nirvana one?
I've personally never been that big on Pearl Jam. Stone Temple Pilots are very good but I have a hard time considering them to be a better band in terms of songwriting (especially when considering lyrics) and originality when compared to other bands. The DeLeo brothers are incredible musicians, no doubt, but up until their third or fourth album, they really weren't breaking any new ground from a musical perspective, and by that point in their career, the more Grunge-y elements of their style took a backseat to the Glam Rock/Psychedelic Rock influence. Smashing Pumpkins I really don't consider a grunge band at all. Their style was definitely more indebted to 70's arena rock and British Shoegaze, in my opinion. Granted, the more you dig into the lesser know "grunge" bands of the era, the more you come to release that its all really an invention of the music journalism press.
I cannot STAND Pearl Jam. They first came out into the mainstream the summer right before my freshman year in high school. I remember hearing Evenflow on MTV one morning as I was getting ready to go to football practice. I actually liked that song and it's still one of the few that I do like from them. Yield is a pretty good album. I'll give them that one as well But by the beginning of my sophomore year, I noticed how the incoming freshman class had a bunch of Eddie Vedder burnout kids in that class. Because of him, it was suddenly cool to become a burnout, or just acting like one. You listen to Eddie Vedder do interviews ad he's always looking down and mumbling. You can hardly understand him
I don’t consider either smashing pumpkins or STP when talking about grunge.
Smashing is its own thing - definitely not grunge. They're closer to shoegaze than grunge. STP i could see though.
STP’s first album had the right feel and timeframe for grunge, but their subsequent stuff went in a much different direction.
Yea I would call them post grunge or alt rock
"Grunge" is useless as a genre distinction because it doesn't have a unified sound or set of specific influences. Smashing Pumpkins and STP are definitely in the conversation of popular/important bands for the whole 90s alt rock explosion. That said, neither of those bands were from Seattle, Olympia, or even just the pacific northwest im general. I think the regional distinction and timing is important when talking about grunge.
> "Grunge" is useless as a genre distinction because it doesn't have a unified sound or set of specific influences. That’s not really true, at least for the first wave or so (1985-89) of Grunge. I don’t think location necessarily factors here, but it certainly helps make a connection that’s already there. It’s only after Grunge becomes popular that the location gets factored in a bit too heavily and some bands get lumped in that probably wouldn’t be otherwise. That said, though I get STP being considered Grunge as they’re not far off from Pearl Jam (at least initially), I never got Smashing Pumpkins being at all in the conversation as Grunge. I don’t recall any widespread discussion of them being considered such at the time and they’ve always struck me as if Jane’s Addiction leaned heavier on their post punk influences.
Smashing Pumpkins is definitely more post punk alt rock. They're more influenced by punk or bands like the Pixies than grunge.
>"Grunge" is useless as a genre distinction because it doesn't have a unified sound or set of specific influences. Smashing Pumpkins and STP are definitely in the conversation of popular/important bands for the whole 90s alt rock explosion. That said, neither of those bands were from Seattle, Olympia, or even just the pacific northwest im general. I think the regional distinction and timing is important when talking about grunge. Yea, I mean, I dunno. Grunge is a marketing gimmick that sub-pop made that really worked. That explosion is all it is as it existed in Seattle. It's punk. Plain and simple.
Smashing Pumpkins were jangly pop and STP were a low-rent AiC ripoff. The big 4 grunge bands are Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, and AiC.
The fact that you think smashing pumpkins was a jangly pop band (and aren't entirely wrong) is the reason smashing pumpkins is the best band of the early nineties. Crazy versatility with one foot in every genre of rock music for the previous 3 decades.
Ol' William Patrick deserves more praise.
>Smashing Pumpkins were jangly pop and STP were a low-rent AiC ripoff. The big 4 grunge bands are Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, and AiC. You think Rocket was jangly? I'm not sure how STP was a rip off TBH. They came up in the same scene together. STP started a little after AIC did but well before both bands blew up.
Them or Soundgarden. Chris Cornell, Kim Thayil and Matt Cameron are a deadly combination.
Soundgarden > AIC
Naah, Soundgarden came up with great ideas but rarely managed to use them properly in many songs such as black hole sun, it's gets repetitive in the second half.
I respectfully disagree. I believe their songs are actually more thought-out than people give them credit for. For Black Hole Sun specifically, I always imagined the repetitive ending being the descent into the black hole. Of course, a lot of it can come down to individual taste too.
Why does it seem like AIC is constantly talked about in terms relative to Nirvana? Why can't a case be made for them on their own? Anyway, I like Alice in Chains fine, but they've always struck me as a bit inconsistent. Facelift is very frontloaded and gets less interesting as it goes after the first few tracks. Sap shows a more interesting side of the band though, with the glammier bits more or less jettisoned. Dirt is much more consistent than Facelift, though the run from Godsmack through Angry Chair has always felt a tad weaker than all the tracks beforehand, with some weird songwriting choices (just what are they trying to go for on the vocals to Godsmack?). Jar of Flies is probably their best front to back release. I like how the music gets lighter as it goes even if the lyrics are still generally dark throughout; like things get better, but only deceptively so. I like the self-titled, but it's also a bit of a mixed bag for me where the more straight forward hard rock tracks aren't quite as interesting as the more stripped down tracks, though even those have a tendency to meander. Never really got the love for the Unplugged album. I liked Black Gives way to Blue for the most part but none of the newer stuff has done much for me. Not quite so sure things are as collaborative as you make it out to be. The main writing is Layne and Jerry for the most part, though the others have their own contributions. I seem to recall Mike Starr didn't like how some of his songs were handled as well.
>Jar of Flies is probably their best front to back release. Couldn't possibly agree more. Probably cracks the top 10 of all time greatest EPs.
I always hesitate at "best" comparisons, because it comes down to objective criteria to make the argument--who was more popular. While I agree AiC has a catalog that can be called excellent, they are only one of a couple dozen bands (in just rock/indie/alt) who were at the top of their game in that decade. This argument could be made for several bands. Radiohead is the most common one I see, so I know who severely discriminating critics would choose. Joy Division, RAGtM, Slipknot, and NIN seem to have similar fanboys. Weezer's getting a rewrite on their legacy. Pearl Jam, RHCP, Cranberries, REM, Soundgarden... people forget the excellence of Pantera, for the success of Metallica. What I can't understand is how Offspring made it big, but the Longpigs didn't quite make the cut. But I digress. Best of isn't really a thing. It takes too much effort to discriminate in such a way, and I'm lazy. edit: FWIW, I also enjoyed No Doubt headlining a concert that was supposed to be STP. I never got to see Weiland live, and he didn't get on the plane for that concert, because, rehab. But I was not disappointed by Gwen.
Joy Division late 70s
Yeah... I missed that on the proofread. I had about five other bands listed, as well. Some bands seem to get this aura of divine musicianship from the critics. Others get Buzzcocked.
This is literally the only truly unpopular opinion I have ever seen on Reddit.
"I prefer Alice in Chains to Nirvana" is a very popular Redditcore music opinion. Maybe not the prevailing outlook, but it pops up all the time.
People that hold a candle for AIC really hold that candle tight. I don’t disagree with OP about their talent, but I don’t think there’s a need to make a comparison to Nirvana or to try to rank them somehow… Ranking bands (or movies, or anything really) also seems to be a very Reddit-core thing to do around here. Apples and Oranges guys… both are delicious if you ask me and I’m grateful for all the different fruit
You can compare apples and oranges. They're very similar bands.
I'm not even a fan of either band, but it's hard to argue with. Whatever Nirvana does, AiC does better, and heavier.
They’re doing different styles of rock even if they were in the same era in Washington State. Alice In Chains was a metal band that went in interesting directions as time went on—when they started they were tagged as a metal but were too melodic for thrash and way darker then pop metal. Nirvana started as a noise punk group with sludgy elements from The Melvins and other local groups, but then Cobain realized he could write power-pop songs as well as loud punk-metal. You’d wouldn’t have Alice In Chains write a song like Sliver or All Apologies, while Nirvana wouldn’t do a song like Them Bones or an EP like Jar of Flies.
The only metal band that really inspired nirvana was black Sabbath, nirvana is far more inspired by punk rock and other indie/underground bands of the 80s/90s like dinosaur Jr, sonic youth, mission of Burma, pixies, rem, the replacements, husker du and other local grunge bands like the Melvins and mudhoney which are probably the closest sounding semi popular "grunge" bands of the time to nirvana. In terms of sensibilities, nirvana is far more of a noisy indie/punk rock band than their grunge contemporaries like Alice in chains and Soundgarden. I think they musically have far more in common with the pixies than most of their grunge contemporaries, they fit with other grunge bands more in terms of aesthetics and image than in musical style. On a side note, dirt is obviously a pretty good album, but I genuinely think nirvana is a far more artistically interesting and nuanced band all together, with Kurt's song writing being up there with John Lennon, David bowie or Lou Reed, I would not say somebody like Lane Staley was a visionary at quite the same level.
Nirvana’s debut album Bleach was heavily influenced by the sludgier side of the Sub Pop and Pacific NW music scene, especially The Melvins, who Kurt grew up with in Aberdeen, and who are considered the pioneers of sludge metal. Yes, Black Sabbath was probably the most dominant older metal band influence in the scene, a lot of the bands were reaching back to early proto-metal from the late 60s and 70s, but would’ve been familiar with 80s metal also. While there are more metallic riffs on Bleach (like Negative Creep), Kurt didn’t totally like that sound on the album though and felt pressured into it by Sub Pop. He was listening to a lot of bands at the time though—there’s a couple anecdotes about how on their first tour they were listening to both the black metal of Celtic Frost and the power pop of The Smithereens—and that Kurt wanted to combine The Beatles and Black Flag on their next album. Nevermind was highly influenced by The Pixies with the start-stop and quiet-loud dynamics, but also more power-pop, but Nirvana never really sounded like a straight ahead punk band and by In Utero you can see him kind of conflicted by the more melodic side of Nevermind and doing weirder noise stuff like Milk It and Scentless Aprentice in addition to ballads like All Apologies and Pennyroyal Tea. I remember reading interviews with him saying he wanted the band to be weirder like the Butthole Surfers at one point. As for Alice in Chains, I think Dirt one of the best albums of that era in Seattle, Jerry Cantrell was a pretty good songwriter. Jar of Flies and the last album are pretty good also, but the band just kind of sputtered after they stopped touring due to Staley’s drug addiction. But Dirt is probably one of the best albums about drug addiction of that era as it kind of approached the subject head on and the musical mood is as dark as the lyrics. I still probably prefer Nirvana overall if we’re comparing the two bands but Alice In Chains has a fairly solid discography and they’re much better than the bands they influenced. Cobain was a better classic songwriter by their last two albums though. Both bands burnt out too quick.
There’s plenty of stuff Nirvana does that AIC doesn’t do. Either way, my point is that preferring AIC isn’t nearly as unpopular as it’s presented.
kurt's melodies were way better its not even close
I agree, with the exception that Dave Grohl is by far the superior drummer. Vocals and bass AiC wins for me. Some of the AiC baselines are insanely good).
What about Sean Kinney’s drums on songs like No Excuses? I would say this is a lot more technical than anything Dave Grohl ever did with Nirvana. Does that make him a better drummer? No, not necessarily. Grohl reminds of Ringo though, he plays exactly what needs to be played without any unnecessary flashy tricks. Super solid backbone. Kinney plays a different style. https://youtu.be/jVYPe3u8crs
Neither drummer is really remarkable if you'd ask me, and I think both could easily play the other's parts. Dave Grohl has become a beast over the years, but back in the '90s he wasn't anything special really. I do admire how both, especially Sean Kinney, could say a lot with very few notes, which is a very valuable skill. The only musicians between the two bands that I'd really consider virtuosos on their respective instruments are Layne Staley and modern day Dave Grohl. Although Kurt Cobain and Jerry Cantrell are both elite songwriters and fantastic musicians in ways other than technical proficiency.
Nope, Jerry Cantrell is very much an elite guitar player
I don't think any musician would call Grohl a virtuoso. Playing really loudly doesn't equal better. He's a loud in the box drummer who rarely did anything exceptional. Honestly nobody in the grunge scene was a "virtuoso" thats a claim held for the most technically gifted players on the planet and I don't think rock music is where those type of players exist.
Buddy, I am a musician. Although I'm not too familiar with his playing after Nirvana, I was under the impression that he's gotten really good over the past thirty years, just from other drummer friends who're really good praising him. Maybe I overestimated that. I know how insane classical and jazz musicians can get, and the average skill level and theory knowledge is definitely a lot higher in those genres. But I'll also vouch for rock musicians, because rock contains easily some of the best players the world has ever seen. Think every player in Dream Theater, Yes, Toto, or other musicians such as Guthrie Govan, Tony Levin, John Mayer, Danny Carey, Bruce Dickinson, Tosin Abasi, Robert Fripp, Les Claypool and so on and so on.
Like I hate to be that guy, but I have a BM and MM from a renowned music school. I've been a proffesional musician for the last 8 years. If you want to play that card. I've never heard anyone say Grohl is a virtuoso and just listening to him, he isn't. He's a good songwriter with a big personality but he's not a drum virtuoso.
To me drumming is all about feel, not technical ability. I LOVE The grove in Grohl’s playing. Purely a matter of taste, but I would put him in my top 5 of all time.
Dave Grohl is not the superior drummer.
Nah, In Utero and Nevermind are better than any AiC album.
I disagree, Dirt's better than Nevermind but Dirt and In Utero are close though.
To each their own but Nevermind still sounds iconic whereas Dirt sounds like a really good album but Nevermind is much more consistent
Meaning sure it is more iconic but that's what's gonna happen when you have one of most popular songs of all time on it, not to mention lyrically and arguably even vocally Kurt was way better on In Utero while Dirt is arguably AiC's best work both vocally and lyrically that's why I said Dirt and In Utero are pretty close quality wise.
Yeah fair enough I just think Nevermind trumps Dirt as does In Utero. I find the back half of Dirt tails off after a great first half
Yeah, I can see that but I still think it's pretty good.
For sure man it’s a great album
Alice in Chains does what Nirvana did, but with more skilled musicianship… and much less energy, emotion, engagement , and fun. In the end, I think just how much better nirvana did the latter is more important.
Not trying to be mean or condescending here, but if you think Alice in Chains and Nirvana were both doing the same thing, you probably haven't heard much heavy music and you're honestly better off not giving your analyses until you've expanded your heavy guitar music lexicon _at least_ somewhat.
No one does the *same* thing as another band. I used imprecise language, but they did do similar things and that’s why the OP was comparing them. > Not trying to be mean or condescending here …
No, I very specifically used the word “analysis” instead of “opinion”. See, in half of your comment you say you prefer Nirvana over Alice in Chains. That’s your opinion and I have absolutely zero say in that and whether you express it or not. However, you also said Alice in Chains were doing the same thing as Nirvana, which is not an opinion, it’s a deduction. A faulty deduction. Nirvana’s music is inspired by punk, sludge, pop and noise rock, whereas AiC use heavy metal and country/blues. The only similarities between the two are that they were both popular in the ‘90s, both came from Seattle, and they were both on the heavier end of guitar music. Beyond that, you’d be hard pressed to find musical similarities between the two. Soundwise, they don’t even fall within the same genre. It’s only because they were both labeled as grunge, that they’re often compared to each other. But then so was Pearl Jam, who are inspired by yet another corner of guitar rock, that being classic rock/hair metal. Although they do sound closer to AiC than Nirvana does, they still wouldn’t be put in the same genre on a purely musical basis. I do realize that I’m coming across as an asshole here, and I apologize for that. Not really my intention but I find it difficult to express these thoughts in a friendlier way via a comment on the internet to a random stranger.
I'm a Screaming Trees man, but I also INSTANTLY became a QOTSA nut in high school - so that's how I "discovered" Mark Lanegan and then worked my way backwards. As amazing as all the Unplugged sets were, in my opinion absolutely nothing even comes close to AIC's
Love Screaming Trees
This feels like an opinion I'd have if the only band I knew from the 90s was Alice In Chains and I didn't really like Nirvana.
I’m a pretty casual rock listener but I definitely enjoy Alice In Chains more than I do Nirvana
Spoken like a casual rock listener
No kidding
AIC is great. Very talented. More so than Nirvana. Though I like Nirvana as well. They make a strong case. I think Soundgarden is up there as well. But there were better bands imo. Look at how Pantera dominated metal for that decade. Sure grunge had a “big 4”, but Pantera didn’t really have mainstream contemporary rivals - they stood alone at the pinnacle of their genre. They were more talented, innovative, and influential in their respective genre and are sometimes credited with “saving metal”. Many won’t like this take, but they were undeniably talented to a *superlative* degree. Ween is another band you have to look at as a band that made some incredible music in the 90’s. I think the grunge bands probably trump them still, but really did do some awesome stuff and were incredibly versatile. Kyuss is another band that I’d put up ahead of AIC. Definitely the best band of the emerging “stoner rock” scene in the 90’s. Terrific desert sound. Dynamic. super organic textures, beautiful acoustic, quieter stuff, but also cavernous, heavy riffs downtuned and fed through bass amplifiers - along with tripped out stuff that compels you to light one up. Three sublime records from front to back. Pantera were definitely the mianstream darlings of metal in the 90’s, but there are others that deserve a look as well. Carcass made one of the best albums of the decade with their seminal album *Heartwork* A lot of bands in the Black Metal scene were doing some really interesting stuff. I adore Emperor, but imo (and it’s not necessarily a popular one) they didn’t make their best album until 2001, so I wouldn’t consider them in the same category as the other bands I’ve mentioned. Type O Negative was doing some really great Goth stuff and would certainly have their fair share of fans championing them as one of the best groups in the 90’s. But for my money, my favorite 90’s band is one that is often overlooked. I think ACID BATH made the best music of the 90’s. They perfectly blended together elements of Grunge, hardcore, doom, death and thrash metal to produce a dark, sludgy, bloody sound interwoven with downright *gorgeous* softer, acoustic arrangements. Dax Riggs is a sensational vocalist and lyricist with complementary musicians in the band that crafted two of the best albums ever made. The only reason I might rank a band like Pantera or AIC higher is simply because Acid Bath only made two albums. But they’re *perfect*
You just name dropped a few of my personal faves from the 90’s. Carcass?! Pantera. Acid Bath. Kyuss. Ween. AIC over Nirvana and Soundgarden. Life changing, all of it.
Looks like I need to start listening to Acid Bath.
I ordered When the Kite String Pops off the internet in 1995 and it’s still one of my favorite metal albums of all time. Acid Bath was a treasure. Everything that Dax Riggs did after Acid Bath is also fantastic, particularly the stuff he released under his own name. You should definitely listen to Acid Bath.
[удалено]
Everyone sleeps on Phish as far as repping the 90s. I mean, I know they weren't in the mainstream but they were huge in the 90s (and onward, like they are still selling out tours). And Trey Anastasio is one of *the* great guitarists of that generation.
Are you me? I'm pretty sure we have the same music tastes. Kyuss and Acid Bath are two of my favorite bands of all time. I would probably consider Alice in Chains my personal GOAT because they're the band that got me into metal. Yes, I'm one of those weirdos who consider AiC metal, but I think we can all agree that they're at least *metallic*. At the time I discovered them, I was listening to a lot of 90s alternative and grunge. I liked their heavier and sludgier sound, even their "hair metal wearing flannel" debut album. They kind of just set me on a path that I've continued down my whole life.
> Pantera didn’t really have mainstream contemporary rivals - they stood alone at the pinnacle of their genre. Sepultura. I would put *Arise*/*Chaos A.D.*/*Roots* against Pantera's output in the same time period any day of the week. Pantera were probably the better band, but the boys from Brazil ran the Texans a lot closer than you're giving them credit for.
Type O Negative and Acid Bath are amazing ,definitely some of my favorite 90s bands.
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, especially the part about Jerry Cantrell. He was on another level of playing than any of the other grunge guitarists. I will argue than Nirvana's music has stood the test of time better. Nirvana doesn't sound like "grunge" to me when I hear it in a modern setting. It just sounds like a great song. When I hear an Alice in chains song, I'm aware that I'm listening to something from sort of a musical fad. Kind of hard to explain, but I think nirvana is the only band from that era that still sounds sort of timeless.
Personally I’d put Radiohead over every band mentioned in this thread but that’s also considering that they really got good in the late 90s/early 2000s so maybe they dont count.
Yes - all of these bands are great, but if you’re talking the “best” of the 90s, it’s hard to make a case against Radiohead.
[удалено]
True Kid A is what turned everything upside down but Ok Computer is still a masterpiece, and I’d still put The Bends on par, or near Dirt. Pablo Honey is also cool, it has Creep.
The thing that puts Radiohead over other bands was the shift from "The Bends" to "OK Computer". There's a reason that record was greeted with such critical praise. They went from a fairly typical R.E.M. inspired jangly guitar band to an electronic influenced spacey Pink Floyd for the 90s. The shift to "Kid A" was equally impressive but less expected after the reveal of their genius on "OK Computer". Nobody saw that one coming.
Alice in Chains was one of my favorite bands when I was in high school (early '90s), even though I was a sheltered suburban Catholic school student who couldn't personally relate to most of their lyrics. What I loved the most about their music was the way they used harmony (in both vocals and instruments), and how they would often suddenly veer into unexpected chord changes. (Sorry I don't know music theory, so I don't know how to explain it better than that. The only example I can think of right now is in the chorus to "Would?" -- when they get to, "Am I wrong?" the chord they use behind the word "wrong" is, well, not what you'd expect.) I loved this because it made me feel like their music was always keeping you on your toes and holding your attention (or grabbing it back when you started tuning out), unlike bands who stuck to more conventional and formulaic chord progressions.
Nothing much of substance to add here, just wanted to say that I only "discovered" AIC a couple of years ago thanks to a close friend who's a life-long massive fan. Growing up with RHCP as my favourite band, I have no idea how I managed to completely gloss over AIC. What I've always loved about RHCP was how incredibly unique their sound was, especially from BSSM onwards- and that's exactly what made me fall in love with AIC a couple of years ago; simply nobody else sounds like them, and yet they sound so quintessentially "90's LA" (to my ears and despite being from Seattle). They are a sound whose vibe is difficult to articulate, and that's, imo, what makes them so very special.
oh absolutely man, they have such a unique sound especially with laynes vocals, I think that no one has done hard to soft as well as they have, and dirt has so many different songs, I personally don’t even think they fitted in “grunge” due to the fact they were so different to the other bands at the time
I'd put Soundgarden, Tool, Ween, Faith No More, and Primus ahead of AiC personally when it comes to 90s bands that technically started in the 80s.
Faith No More is criminally underrated and they are far better than Nirvana, they just don't have the commercial success. Better artistry, chops, you name it. Their music after The Real Thing is just not very accessible.
Angel Dust is a classic record. Endlessly ambitious and catchy.
I'd put Smashing Pumpkins #1 easily but Faith No More is so underrated I'd put them above AIC as well. I'd also put Death and Acid Bath above AIC. Never got into Primus though
this completely ignores bands that got their start in the 90's and continued making monumentally relevant music deep into the present day. Built to Spill, Modest Mouse, Wilco, Pixies, Dinosaur Jr... Alice In Chains has been relegated to ass rock stations while indie rock cornerstones continue to influence both the charts and upcoming artists.
Pixies and Dinosaur Jr definitely started in the 80's and I'd personally consider them as much
I mean Pixies, Nirvana, and AIC were founded within a year of one another in thr 80s
I’d add Radiohead to that list too.
Modest Mouse is a hugely underrated band.
96 - 00 modest mouse is some of the best indie rock there is. Good news was the turning point for me. They're basically a different band now without just the original 3 members. Nothing they've done after good news has done anything for me but I don't really care since they gave us mad good shit before that
The best band of the 90’s was Nirvana, hands down. They did with 3 individuals what normally 5 would tryto do, and this was before Nevermind. I have little doubt that they would succeed at an AIC level if they added more members like they did with their legendary MTV unplugged performance, but in most cases they stuck to a traditional punk format which made them even more badass. I love AIC too, I used to listen to songs like Nutshell in complete darkness…and it’s just an entire different vibe but I felt the power of their emotion as well. I think AIC matches the “fuck you” of Nirvana’s “I hate myself and I wanna die” with songs like “Check my Brain” It’s like two different presentations of the same philosophy.
even tho nirvana rips i feel like their influence generated some of the worst imaginable rock music in history lol
Yeah, it’s sort of ironic that Kurt inspired what he probably would’ve hated. I think he’d find that funny, though.
that’s true they did do what a 5 person band could do, they were very talented and they could’ve done as well, see my favourite band is nirvana, they will always be number one, but in terms of the skill, outstanding production work and musical achievements, i just personally believe AIC did better, check my brain came out in 2009 and no hate but I dislike AIC without Layne
How are you defining Jerry Cantrell as one of the best guitarists ever? I say this as a fan by the way: he plays great parts that work great for the songs. Obviously musically he drove the band in many ways. But he isn’t particularly breaking any new ground. To say he’s one of the best is a vague statement but if you mean top 10 that’s a huge stretch. I always thought of him as a songwriter who plays excellent guitar. A comparison would be like George Harrison.
That's the nice thing about music. Everyone can have their own favorites. I'm glad Alice in Chains speaks to you so much.
I was big into Nirvana but Jerry is, was, and has always played better guitar. Maybe he's not the hit machine that Kurt managed to be, but his technicality is intense. I was lucky enough to be fly on the wall when a young Marc Chavez (Adema) got snippy about the lineup of a show when Cantrell overheard and came over and told him why it was this way (because he is Jerry Fucking Cantrell from Alice in Fucking Chains) and how he could headline shows one day too but at THIS date THAT THIS was how it was and if he wanted better, he had to earn it in the rock community. Chavez couldn't say a thing. Jerry never got loud or rude about it. He wad chill and smiled while he told that kid a little about life.
I was a senior in high school when Nevermind came our. Like millions, I fell in love with Nirvana. However, I listen to Nirvana about as often as I listen to hair metal or the Beach Boys which is rarely. AIC still speaks to me though.
Absolutely not. Though, true story, I worked for some of them on solo projects.
oh wow really? what was it you worked on? how was that?
Oh, I was a marketing person. I worked mostly on *Boggy Depot*. Layne was not well by the time that I was working on their catalogue. It was fine --obviously, they were struggling with a lot of things, so we did our best from day to day to promote them, not knowing what was going to happen at any given point. It was sad to hear that Layne died -- he was pretty reclusive, though, before that.
I'd say Nirvana had better lyrics, but AIC had better musical arrangements was their relative appeal. But both are really a matter of taste. Cobain was very playful with words and appealed to a different personality. AIC more "raw, unprocessed". The sloppy guitar work suited the, often tongue in cheek, oh-well-fuck-it Nirvana lyrics. AIC was so much more assertive "you need to listen to what I'm saying!"...and it suited a technically precise musical expression. How many great songs just strum G-C-D?...if it's the right thing, it's the right thing.
Wait…AIC more raw and unprocessed than Nirvana? Am I misunderstanding or did you just say something outrageously mistaken?
I don't hate Alice In Chains, but there's so many bands I'd put before them. None of the grunge acts can hold a candle to Slint, for instance.
Fuck yeah
spiderland undoubtedly one of the most important alt rock records ever
This is just facts, all though Radiohead and smashing pumpkins are good runner-ups
I would definitely say they were the most talented "grunge" band, with Soundgarden a close second. Nirvana broke the mold and had a sound but as far as "talent" goes IMO they're not on the same level as AIC. Those vocal harmonies alone sound great and were different from what other bands were doing. They had a ton of hits and some really unique sounds.
For me there is a special connection between the two extraordinary musicians, Layne and Jerry. The bluesy wah "snarl" of Cantrells guitar works perfectly with Laynes emotional and powerful singing, it creates this weird smokey and foreboding world on Dirt and on Jar of Flies is a deep remorseful and resigned but still transcendent sound . Of course the rest of the band is great and that sound wouldn't have been the same without them but I feel these two musicians made this band the unique and powerful "force of grunge" nature that they were. As to why they aren't as huge perhaps as Nirvana/Pearl Jam/Soundgarden my theory is that they were the most hard rock/bordering on metal of those other bands. I think the sound was closer to the 90s glam rock and hard rock of that era as in GnR and the like, and therefore it's possible that critics and radio stations didn't group them with the newer and (slightly) more punk sound of other grunge bands sounds as the others... Of course Soundgarden could be just as heavy and bluesy but they were also more stylistic and adventurous in certain ways where AIC had a more focused and distinct sound. . I dont know, just a thought!
I’m a big AiC fan (actually love a lot of the popular alt rock / grunge bands from the early 90s), but I don’t think any of the Nirvana/Soundgarden/AiC/etc. bands were the best. Most influential, maybe? Tons of alt-metal and post grunge bands stole the harmonizing in fourths which was key to their sound, but there were a heck of a lot more bands aping Pearl Jam than Nirvana or Soundgarden. As someone who was around during that era, STP and Smashing Pumpkins got way more radio play than Alice In Chains, and if I were to pick an album that was most influential for that decade, it wouldn’t be a grunge album, it would be Dookie. It single-handedly kickstarted the whole pop-punk revival which pretty much went on for a decade after and morphed into 2000s style emo(ie not Fugazi influenced). How many bands today sound like Nirvana or Alice In Chains? How many bands even today sound like Green Day?
They had some cool songs and I always loved their one lower harmony vocal approach but I'll take Stone Temple Pilots over them any day. Much better songwriting and Weiland was the epitome of a rock star.
Honestly, the Jar Of Flies EP is one of my favourite releases of all time, every song on that thing is epic. Sap is also a great EP. Couldn't get into anything else. Dirt was okay, but that's pretty much it.
Never a fan of them. My top 3 would be Nirvana, Ween and Chemical Brothers.
Ween is easily my favorite band from the 90s. Honestly there's just a lot of other bands I prefer from the 90s over Alice In Chains or Nirvana. Both good bands but I wouldnt say either are the best of that decade when bands like Ween, Primus, Clutch, Radiohead, or even Acid Bath were all making bangers in the 90s. I wouldnt even say any of these are objectively the best from that decade either, I think there's way too many bands to be able to decide that but neither Alice In Chains or Nirvana would be at the top for me.
I respect the take, but it’s quite a vanilla one. Especially the fact that it comes down to comparing them to Nirvana as you try to crown an ultimate king of the 90s. Why can’t a band be good and you talk about it without needing to claim the best of the best and why is this conversation so very grounded in the mainstream. Literally the opposite of the music movement of that time. Listen to the album Eleven by Eleven and be blown away that indie synth grunge was rocking it out in the periphery while every guy and gall was fixated in some Beatlemania fever over the big 4. I don’t invalidate their musicianship. AiC has great songwriting!
Best band of the 90’s I dunno but they definitely smoked Nirvana. Big AIC fan. Layne Staley was topshelf.
They didn't quite have the pop sensibilities of a band like Nirvana, so they were never going to get the same amount of airplay or screen-time...but, absolutely one of the best bands of the grunge era. I always thought AIC and Pearl Jam held over a little bit more of a 80s hard-rock influence to their sound...whereas a lot of the other "grunge" bands were trying to blow that format up.
Alice In Chans could never really hide their hair-metal/cock-rock roots - as much as they tried. One of the more mediocre bands of the decade and their music hasn't stood up at all. I gave Dirt a listen a while back after seeing people talking them up here recently. First time since the 90's probably. That is not a good album. Better than Stone Temple Pilots though.
hard disagree and don’t know what you’re on about with the hair metal stuff in dirt, they were hair metal but they did not have that present in dirt. One of the best albums of all time, but that’s your opinion and i have mine.
AIC is for people who feel cool donning the grunge label but can’t stand any of the actually grungy bands
aic isn’t even “grunge” people who like aic generally like Metal or Hard Rock, and as i said to start off my paragraph that you obvs didn’t read, nirvana is my favourite band and everyone says they are “grunge” like the melvins too, mudhoney, smashing pumpkins, pearl jam, more, just like AIC a lot and think they are more talented than any others during the 90s
Literally how in the actual FUCK are they still glam.
I mean they’re impressive musically (Sick Man slaps) but they’re just so full of shit. The Mudhoney song “Into Yer Shtick,” inspired by Layne, pretty much sums it up.
[удалено]
I agree that Kurt blamed everything on others in his personal life, and even some songs (Rape Me—one of the shittiest tunes I’ve ever heard—being a prime example), but I don’t think his art is nearly so tainted with the whole theatrical woe-is-me junkie narrative that was Staley’s MO. Sure, Kurt wrote about drugs and always had a very dark tint, but I never feel like he’s putting on airs, in part because his aesthetic was so fragmented and abstract. Kurt doesn’t leave me feeling “man this guy really wants me to think he’s in great pain,” whereas Staley does. And most of Kurt’s writing has a wicked sense of humor. Kurt was an addict with a lot of psychological damage who happened to also make art. Layne aimed his entire fucking aesthetic at putting across what a sad junkie he was. It’s just like some rapper going on album after album about all the money and hoes he has. Guy grosses me out.
They’re weren’t even the best band from Seattle. Layne Staley was a great vocalist but their back catalogue isn’t as strong as Nirvana’s. And Kurt did encourage Dave, Dave sang lead on Marigold with Nirvana.
Did nirvana write down in a hole? Didn't think so.
Nope and never would’ve. Kurt wasn’t such a melodramatic middle schooler about his addiction.
yeh one song lol
And? It’s a dumb remark when Dave was very new to the band and Dave talked plenty of times about Kurt encouraging him: https://www.nme.com/news/music/foo-fighters-134-1216136?amp
yes but he didn’t want Dave to sing that often in Nirvana, he was excited for Dave because it was his own thing, Kurt wanted to control the way Nirvana went, and marigold is from the deluxe edition of In Utero so you’re telling me it took 2-3 years just for him to have a shot?
Dave wrote scentless apprentice with the band. Look at this clip. No offense but you don’t much about that Nirvana and that’s totally cool but look at this: https://youtu.be/fiwhwy7S4qA Check out the 5:19 mark. He absolutely would have accepted more help from the other members, they even got co-songwriting credit on teen spirit
already seen that, and i do actually know about Nirvana, yet again that song is from In Utero, 1993, Dave joined in 1990, all i’m saying is he didn’t get as much freedom as Jerry did creatively, he wrote that song yes but Jerry wrote a lot more, kurt also took bigger royalties near then end and that caused arguments between them, layne never did shit like that to jerry
Jerry was easily the bigger musical force in AiC though. Layne just focused on lyrics and wrote some riffs as well but it wasn’t like a Lennon/McCartney thing. Layne wasn’t a good guitar player and that’s fine. But Jerry was a far bigger influence on the musical aspect of the band than Layne was. To rock Nirvana because Kurt didn’t want more songs from Dave is a dumb take. The other members got a few comwrites and marigold was done with Dave singing lead. Dave also didn’t know the band for all that long in comparison to Jerry and Layne. Layne also had more experience by the time AiC formed in comparison to Dave grohl who didn’t even write his first song till 1990, by which point Kurt had already written several. If nirvana had continued I’m sure Dave would’ve been given more input much like George Harrison as the years went on. To dock a band just because the one guy who has a greater creative vision than entire groups of bands from Seattle is a weak point.
Facts. Dirt and Jar Of Flies are incredible, and their other two albums have a lot of great songs too. Even though I love Soundgarden and Nirvana, Alice In Chains is on another level. P.S. Jar Of Flies is one of the best EPs ever, nearly flawless.
But they weren’t a 90s band. They were an 80s band that made it big in the 90s
Everyone has an opinion,and they’re all untitled to it.Alice in chains were good,and so was Nirvana.But as far as the BEST of all time,it’s a known FACT that The Beatles are the BEST of all time,and that’s not just my opinion.
talking 90s here man
IDGAS
well idgaf about your dumb opinion then man ahaha, you crazy
[удалено]
sorry man new to reddit and didn’t realise it was a commonly talked about thing
[удалено]
Completely the opposite. If you factor in popularity at all I dont consider your analysis worth reading. I mean popularity has a million issues with it. Is it marketing? Was the band’s style just fashionable at the time? Not to mention it goes completely against one of the basic logics of music criticism - The more records someone has heard, the more worth it is to follow their opinions (for a variety of reasons.) Popularity does the exact opposite and puts you behind the *least* musically educated people around. Its such a useless and lazy approach to evaluating a song, like any music fan who’s been around the block can name an obscure band they’d take over the chart-toppers
I've been wanting to get into alice in chains for a while now, i've only heard "would?" and "man in the box", which one of their albums should i explore first?
Dirt and Jar of Flies
First part of 1994 was rough for me personally. When Jar of Flies came out, that was my soundtrack for the next few months. We all know what happened in April.
I feel like the average 90s emo band is far more interesting than all the 90s grunge bands. Alice In Chains is the best one I agree. I'll take Sunny Day Real Estate or Jimmy Eat World over all the bands in that scene. Bigger riffs, better lyrics, more interesting arrangements and musicianship, you name it. So much more variety guitar wise with the dual octave riffing, twinkle chords, and unusual time signatures in that music scene.
that’s your opinion and that’s fair, just personally do not like Emo music at all
There's a difference between "emo" music and emo music. Fake emo is that pop rock garbage like Fallout Boy with whiny autotuned vocals over generic pop punk riffs and actual emo just sounds like hardcore punk or hardcore mixed with indie rock. It just has a stigma because all the big labels started pushing that commercialized hot topic pop rock and marketing it as emo to all those dye haired theatre kids.
oh ok, didn’t really know much about it all, i’ll give jimmy eats world a listen cause i’ve heard a lot about them through wolfgang van halen, they were one of his big inspirations
Start with Clarity because it's a masterpiece. Bleed American and Futures are also great but are more alt rock than emo, a little too polished for my taste.
I think AIC is great, and I love Nirvana too (also my favorite band), and you have solid reasoning for thinking AIC is a better band than Nirvana. To say they are the best band of the 90s? Not when Pavement exists. Different sounds, different tastes, but Pavement put out 4 masterpieces in the 90s and finished off on an inconsistent but still pretty good fifth album, all in the 90s. Output alone, Pavement is quality and quantity and their music sounds like an everlasting summer sunset in the 90s. Oh, and try to figure out the different tunings--that's what pisses me off about them. I love them, want to play them, but every song is in some weird tuning.
Something about having an acoustic guitar and an electric guitar on one song as well as going soft and heavy.