Alice in Chains 'Vs' Nirvana

1,2, Draw I mean Pick

  • Total voters
    94
*bump*

I voted Nirvana, no contest imo.

And whoever said Pearl Jam kicks arse also, I agree, greatest grunge band ever.
 
Nirvana all day I just compare there MTV unplugged albums. I dunno I like both bands but Nirvana had me hooked from the first time I heard them.
 
I went with Nirvana. I had a major love for them growing up.............

On a strange note, when I was younger-
My mother was friends with some people in the music industry (like 3-4 haha) but one was one of Alice in Chains Bass players........
He 'taught' me to play pool (and told me to tell people that hahah I suck, b/c he sucks is what he said) when I was like 12. :)

But woohoo for Washington State musicians! ;)
 
I went with Nirvana earlier in the thread but after just a couple years my opinion has already changed. I'm going to go with AIC as I rarely ever listen to Nirvana anymore aside from a few tracks off of In Utero. I dont listen to AIC either really but I would be more inclined to listen to them over Nirvana anymore.
 
Hmm, so it's a AIC fanboy vs Nirvana fanboy thread? If not, what else is this? They both suck, btw. Mainstream tripe that I liked when I was 14 because I hadn't listened to enough music to know better.
 
i dont think that most people here are fanboy
and your assertion that they both suck cuz you cant enjoy them anymore, and you conclusion that its cause you have listen to enough music to know better might suggest that you havent listen to enough music to understand how subjective our appreciation for music really is and how limited you can be in your appreciation of any music if you can care to be so judgmental about other peoples taste cuz they dont fit your own
 
Look at the orchestration of each band, and the audience which said orchestration is to speak to the most. Maybe some of the music which either band made before they signed to a major label had something to do with an honest intent. However, their sole existence as a musical group involved copying what everyone else was doing (making it more likely that they will be noticed by record labels) and making minor changes in composition and making as much money as possible. The audience of course involves as many people as possible, so the concepts which are covered of course cover a broad range in the most general way.

Once you have delved deeply enough into the Seattle grunge/"alternative" rock scene, you will realize that these two simply are taking influences of what they've been exposed to (Melvins/Mudhoney/The Frogs(if you want to look beyond Seattle)/Velvet Underground/"New Wave"+Distortion/etc), and can have a greater appreciation for the core ideas being presented and then will understand that their ideas are a lot of Copy Pasta.
 
see ive just put on a thread about ray charles vs james brown so ill use ray as a example here but thats the story of most musician back in the days

ray would do what was popular at the time cuz it was his job to please people and give them what they wanted, thats how he made money
then as a bigger artist he changed the music scene by doing his own stuff but why did he do that, he didnt do it to please himself he did it to please his record company cuz they wanted to sell records

and if you knew more about music im pretty sure you could realize that there always have being musician doing just what you are "denouncing" and im pretty sure it doesnt stop you from loving those bands

cuz you aint saying you dont like the music you are saying you cant appreciate their music cuz it doesn't fit your narrow perspective of what makes music ok to appreciate
 
Yet, Nirvana and Alice in Chains didn't do much in changing the music industry for the better. They only made MTV more popular. Then, MTV of course had their own vision. I'm sure you can see the progression to today.
 
Apostacious said:
Look at the orchestration of each band, and the audience which said orchestration is to speak to the most. Maybe some of the music which either band made before they signed to a major label had something to do with an honest intent. However, their sole existence as a musical group involved copying what everyone else was doing (making it more likely that they will be noticed by record labels) and making minor changes in composition and making as much money as possible. The audience of course involves as many people as possible, so the concepts which are covered of course cover a broad range in the most general way.

Once you have delved deeply enough into the Seattle grunge/"alternative" rock scene, you will realize that these two simply are taking influences of what they've been exposed to (Melvins/Mudhoney/The Frogs(if you want to look beyond Seattle)/Velvet Underground/"New Wave"+Distortion/etc), and can have a greater appreciation for the core ideas being presented and then will understand that their ideas are a lot of Copy Pasta.
Click to expand...

You could make the same critique of The Beatles. They just took what was going on and built upon it. When The Beatles were signed rock n roll was the hot new thing and they were picked up along with countless other bands just like them. However, before long THEY were the ones being copied and imitated. Same can be said about both Nirvana and AIC.
 
Yet, Nirvana and Alice in Chains didn't do much in changing the music industry for the better. They only made MTV more popular. Then, MTV of course had their own vision. I'm sure you can see the progression to today.
Click to expand...

well i would have to disagree
over here when nirvana started to play on the radio everything changed
for the better or worse is another thing
but nirvana was one of the biggest influence of the 90s
why didnt the pixies do that, why did the scene in boston 10 year earlier didnt caught on the way the grunge scene in Seattle did ?
i dont know how old you are but the 80s had lots of really shit stuff like hair metal and whatever else that was fake and empty with emphasis on looks due to mtv and videos, things like make up, wigs or crazy hair and girls clothes which kinda lead to empty and stupid lyrics...
and the grunge scene really worked against all of that
it was a change for the better imo
and i know that it all went wrong real quick but that aint related to those two bands
thats related to what came after them

so again you are saying you cant appreciated them for what they represent for you instead of what their music stand for in itself
and i get how thats part of the music for you but that doesnt make them "shit bands for fanboy who dont know any better"
 
So, you liked the change in fashion trends, the popularization of a different type of derivative orchestration and lyrics (which were one of the good parts of these two bands)? That's cool. Also, I agree that the 80s had its share of Mcdonald's-style music. It is just that Nirvana and Alice In Chains ultimately became McDonald's-style music. Sure, they wore different clothes, referenced different cultural issues and used different orchestration, but in the end, they had a hand in the end of the ability for a small group of very talented musicians to make a living doing what they do best (without having to work in restaurants) in the United States.
 
Bardo5 said:
You could make the same critique of The Beatles. They just took what was going on and built upon it. When The Beatles were signed rock n roll was the hot new thing and they were picked up along with countless other bands just like them. However, before long THEY were the ones being copied and imitated. Same can be said about both Nirvana and AIC.
Click to expand...

Yet, the difference between Elvis and the Beatles is much more significant compared to the difference between the Cure and Nirvana/AliceinChains.
 
I'm talking about the local bands that the Beatles drew from. Much like Nirvana drew from the Melvins, Mudhoney ect. The Beatles early on were heavily influenced by local skiffle and American rock n roll, which they imitated and rehashed. It wasnt until they started blowing up in Europe and eventually the US that they started to change up their sound and begin the path that they took. As far as Nirvana goes, I dont know about you, but I find In Utero to be much more ambitious and unique than Bleach.
 
^ I agree. Nirvana drew from more influences as they went on, and were trying to get out of the public light with In Utero. In Utero is certainly better than Nevermind, and Bleach, because the group was starting to free itself from making derivative music. If Kobain had not killed himself, Nirvana would have disappeared into the background, and several other alternative bands (Silverchair, Goo Goo Dolls, etc) would take their place. This would have been a great thing for the band, because they would have more intellectual freedom to do what they want. But as Nirvana stands, they are a band which is not quite complete in "fermentation."
 
David Grohl was the only good thing to come out of Nirvana.

I can't stand listening to them anymore. Not so much because I'm such a big AIC fan, but because of how their popularity stemmed so much out of Cobain's death. Seriously, they wouldn't have been so popular if Cobain hadn't have died.

If Staley had died first, there'd be no question.

If you ever read Cobain's memoirs you'd see he was in it to be a rockstar... not make music.

AIC didn't give a fuck. They played to whoever would listen.
 
I can't even begin to describe my anger..........AIC beats Nirvana???? Why because AIC were signed to a major label first? Because AIC plays great scale based solos vs. the frantic notes of Cobain? I love AIC.......but come on!!! Nirvana FTW!

Now Pearjam vs. Nirvana would be an even match!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top