Alice in Chains vs Nirvana

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



golem370
I think Nirvana over rated.

Solidus Snake
what the hell is going on in here?

Zahit
I love them both, but I'd have to go with Nirvana....they sound more unique.
I like them a lot for that.

GalacticStorm
Why is this here? There is a music discussion forum

Zahit
i guess we're waiting around for a witty remark followed by the phrase: closing.

ScarletSpider
Alice in Chains...because they have...talent. They didn't revolutionize anything, but the guitar work was great, the songs were solid, and Layne had an awesome voice.

Nirvana just ripped of the lesser known Washington bands hardcore, like the Melvins, Mudhoney and Screaming Trees/Mark Lanegan. But no one really knows who those people are, which is why Nirvana never got caught. At least Alice was foreward with who they were; they were a rock/hard rock band, and they made no qualms about it.

Dr. Diamond
i have that mini series and alice in chains totally owns nirvana

Zahit
I like Mudhoney, Melvins, Screaming Trees and Nirvana......
they were definitely a heavy influence on Nirvana, but not a rip-off.
A lot of the bands in Seattle back in the late 80's had that sound.
They combined punk song-writing and ethics with classic rock riffs
and heavy-ness. Not so much a rip-off as cross-polination of influences.
Nirvana also had a strong pop influence from The Vaselines and Fastbacks.
If anything, Nirvana may have ripped-off GODZILLA by Blue Oyster Cult,
and EIGHTIES by Killing Joke.

Next Venom_girl
Originally posted by Dr. Diamond
i have that mini series and alice in chains totally owns nirvana laughing

Zahit
and just for the moderators....

http://tonykurtsandy.homestead.com/files/Captain_America.JPG

mr.smiley
AIC all the MOther &$&$&$&$&$&$&$&7 way.Nirvana sucks.

MERCILOUS
Well this is totally the wrong place for this kind of thread but before it gets closed down...

Alice in Chains Owns Nirvana and anything they ever put out. One day Kurt Kobain woke up sober and heard his own music, that's why he blew his head off.

Chains Rules!

And as for you Mr. Smiley, please change your sig, it causes me so much pain to see my hero getting his ass handed to him...Damn you Silva!!!

whirlysplat
I always like Pearl Jam better than bothbig grin

Keep the faithbig grin

Stay Whirlyrock

who?-kid
Originally posted by Zahit
i guess we're waiting around for a witty remark followed by the phrase: closing.
Yup.

And in the mean time: Nirvana is much better. Better lyrics, better melodies, better riffs. But this is all only my opinion of course.

But it is a fact Nirvana was/is much more important in the music history than Alice in Chains.

long pig
Nirvana.
AOC is technically better at everything, but I always dug Nirvana more.

MERCILOUS
Originally posted by who?-kid
Yup.

And in the mean time: Nirvana is much better. Better lyrics, better melodies, better riffs. But this is all only my opinion of course.

But it is a fact Nirvana was/is much more important in the music history than Alice in Chains.

Blah! Better lyrics my eye. Better melodies like drinking pee is better than drinking wine.

Important to music history? You mean because there was a thousand other bands just like them at the time and anyone of them could have taken there place? They weren't the first and they weren't even the best at what they do and that's just sad 'cause they didn't do much.

Originally posted by long pig
Nirvana.
AOC is technically better at everything, but I always dug Nirvana more.

I spit on that! And I hurl fish flavored jam at you!

who?-kid
Originally posted by MERCILOUS
Important to music history?
That's right. Like them or hate them, you can say what you want, but the fact remains that Nirvana was really important in the music history. Isn't this common knowledge ?

It's without any doubt one of the most influential bands of the nineties. They didn't invent grunge. They just put it on the world map. We can't say the same of Alice in Chains.

Could could could... but they didn't, did they ?

Of course they weren't the first. It's impossible to say : here, this one was the first. D'uh. But they were certainly one of the first who made raw music with solid melodies that sold millions of albums.

Very mature counter argument.

MERCILOUS
Originally posted by who?-kid
That's right. Like them or hate them, you can say what you want, but the fact remains that Nirvana was really important in the music history. Isn't this common knowledge ?

No they weren't.

Originally posted by who?-kid
It's without any doubt one of the most influential bands of the nineties. They didn't invent grunge. They just put it on the world map. We can't say the same of Alice in Chains.

Who did they influence?

Originally posted by who?-kid
Could could could... but they didn't, did they ?


Oh right, when Nirvana came out they were the only ones around, I completely forgot they carried the grunge movement all by themselves.

Originally posted by who?-kid
Of course they weren't the first. It's impossible to say : here, this one was the first. D'uh. But they were certainly one of the first who made raw music with solid melodies that sold millions of albums.


Not impossible, quite possible.

Originally posted by who?-kid
Very mature counter argument.

I'm glad you noticed.

long pig
Ha! I fart in your general direction Merc.

Anyone in rock from the last 10 years is influenced by Nirvana, good or bad.
AIC was a bit......too little too late.

Nirvana owns. evil face

MERCILOUS
Originally posted by long pig
Ha! I fart in your general direction Merc.

Anyone in rock from the last 10 years is influenced by Nirvana, good or bad.
AIC was a bit......too little too late.

Nirvana owns. evil face

Anyone in rock? No one who was worth a damn.

AIC wasn't that big cause they were doing there own thing. Not following fads doesn't get you too far.

long pig
They weren't as big because they weren't as appealing.

You think Nirvana followed trends? Like what?

MERCILOUS
Originally posted by long pig
They weren't as big because they weren't as appealing.

You think Nirvana followed trends? Like what?

Not as appealing to uneducated masses that listen to whatever the radio shoves down there throats.

What trends? The almighty whatever seattle was doing at the time trend.

long pig
Wouldn't AIC be considered under that same spell of "trendyness"?

Dark angsty rock mixed with psychadelica?
I mean, AIC members roadied for Kyuss for a minute.

But, Kyuss owns too.

long pig
I still think ACDC is > All 90's bands.

MERCILOUS
Originally posted by long pig
Wouldn't AIC be considered under that same spell of "trendyness"?

Dark angsty rock mixed with psychadelica?
I mean, AIC members roadied for Kyuss for a minute.

But, Kyuss owns too.

The distinction here lies in the purpose. Some guys are playing there stuff until there day comes, other are seeing what day it is and jumping on the train. If you ears can't tell the difference you should try listening more carefully.

I actually have no idea what style AIC plays. But the fact that they roadied just shows how much work they were willing to put into it. You honestly think they couldn't at any second dumb down there music and make way more money. I and my ears appreciate talent, that's why AIC is superior.

MERCILOUS
Originally posted by long pig
I still think ACDC is > All 90's bands.

I wouldn't say all, just the vast majority.

long pig
I understand what you are saying, completely.

But there are two sides of that coin, dumb down=simple, simple music has it's place, and yes Nirvana is VERY simple, and that's one of the reasons I liked them.

AIC played a mix of simple and highly interwoven complex and distorted music, which has it's place as well.

I have an ear for both, and I like and appreciate both styles.

Are we seriously trying to debate who is better when it's all opinion?
I have every album of both AIC and Nirvana AND Kyuss and screaming trees.....I like it all.
But I have a more solid connection with Kurt's style of "singing".

ACDC owns you, don't deny it....wait....

Pantera vs ACDC rip dime bag sad

MERCILOUS
Originally posted by long pig
I understand what you are saying, completely.

But there are two sides of that coin, dumb down=simple, simple music has it's place, and yes Nirvana is VERY simple, and that's one of the reasons I liked them.

AIC played a mix of simple and highly interwoven complex and distorted music, which has it's place as well.

I have an ear for both, and I like and appreciate both styles.

Are we seriously trying to debate who is better when it's all opinion?
I have every album of both AIC and Nirvana AND Kyuss and screaming trees.....I like it all.
But I have a more solid connection with Kurt's style of "singing".

ACDC owns you, don't deny it....wait....

Pantera vs ACDC rip dime bag sad

Yes there are two sides to that coin and one of them is very ugly. It's simply a crime to like crappy music. Alot of my friends are in the music world and I too have been in it at some time. You meet band after band with talent that pompus so called highly eductated musicians wish they could have, who play day after day gig after gig and are reduced to begging for food (literally I've seen this more than once from signed and unsigned bands alike.) And instead you have this clown who learned two cords last week and is living like a sultan because people will listen to whatever they're told to listen to.

Being a passionless music whore is a crime.

AC/DC's always cool.

You really think I'd rip Dime Bag? I'm always ****ing metal! I can honestly say if you ripped on Dime Bag in front of me I would without any hesitation break your sorry face. And I dare any sorry Nirvana loving wuss to do the same after I piss on Kobain's grave.

long pig
<<You really think I'd rip Dime Bag? I'm always ****ing metal! I can honestly say if you ripped on Dime Bag in front of me I would without any hesitation break your sorry face. And I dare any sorry Nirvana loving wuss to do the same after I piss on Kobain's grave.>>

Huh? RIP=Rest in Peace to a fallen brother. (and you know what I mean)


Some of the greatest songs of all time are 3 chordes and simple.
But, your point is valid.

To be honest, though....I'm hardly a fan of much 90's rock, I'm into older 70's southern rock and such.

MERCILOUS
Originally posted by long pig
<<You really think I'd rip Dime Bag? I'm always ****ing metal! I can honestly say if you ripped on Dime Bag in front of me I would without any hesitation break your sorry face. And I dare any sorry Nirvana loving wuss to do the same after I piss on Kobain's grave.>>

Huh? RIP=Rest in Peace to a fallen brother. (and you know what I mean)


Some of the greatest songs of all time are 3 chordes and simple.
But, your point is valid.

To be honest, though....I'm hardly a fan of much 90's rock, I'm into older 70's southern rock and such.

I can dig that. I'm a Ed head. And I devotley follow all that stems from it.

long pig
BIG ED?

MERCILOUS
hahhahahah, Eddie (the maskot) of Iron Maiden. Give me Ed 'til I'm dead.

long pig
haha. I've tried to draw him for years, it's impossible.

MERCILOUS
Originally posted by long pig
haha. I've tried to draw him for years, it's impossible.

Actually It's quite simple. His lack of a normal relationship between his nose and mouth make his face easy to render.

MERCILOUS
I'd love to continue this conversation, but It's like three hours past my bed time. Hope this thread isn't closed next time I visit.

ScarletSpider
Alice in Chains not important to music history?

They had the first EP to hit number one on the charts, and blended haunting, low-keyed acoustic works with their previous, more blistering affair, this move and melding of styles has influenced a great many artists. So what if some of the members roadied for Kyuss? If you listen to early, early AIC, there's no Kyuss connection at all, they sound like GN'R mixed with some Bowie.

Early Nirvana sounds like Melvins, and the songs that don't (such as Love Buzz) are covers, which doesn't give them any originality points. Kurt spoke to angst and reached a wide audience, then shot himself in the face and gained excessive notoriety, but in my opinion, his greatest accomplishment was getting the Seattle scene noticed, and letting bands like Alice in Chains, Soundgarden and others be exposed to the public.

who?-kid
Nobody said that AIC isn't important. Not even me lol.

But they are just not as big, known, popular or important as Nirvana (was). That's a FACT people.

I like Nirvana, but I am not that big a fan. But it was Nirvana who put Seattle (and all the bands in it) on the musical world map.

Oh, ScarletSpider, why do you speak of covers ? Kurt Cobain wrote the vast majority of his music/hits himself.

ScarletSpider
I was talking about their early stuff, specifically Bleach. The songs that didn't sound like Melvins rip offs were covers of other bands.

who?-kid
Oh the very early stuff. Well, most bands start with covers.

whirlysplat
They did sound a lot like the Melvins, that said no band is totally original, they are all influenced by others.

who?-kid
Indeed. I can't name one band or artist that wasn't influenced by somebody else.

whirlysplat
Nope me neither.

MERCILOUS
Originally posted by ScarletSpider
Alice in Chains not important to music history?

They had the first EP to hit number one on the charts, and blended haunting, low-keyed acoustic works with their previous, more blistering affair, this move and melding of styles has influenced a great many artists. So what if some of the members roadied for Kyuss? If you listen to early, early AIC, there's no Kyuss connection at all, they sound like GN'R mixed with some Bowie.

Early Nirvana sounds like Melvins, and the songs that don't (such as Love Buzz) are covers, which doesn't give them any originality points. Kurt spoke to angst and reached a wide audience, then shot himself in the face and gained excessive notoriety, but in my opinion, his greatest accomplishment was getting the Seattle scene noticed, and letting bands like Alice in Chains, Soundgarden and others be exposed to the public.

Very good post.

Originally posted by who?-kid
Nobody said that AIC isn't important. Not even me lol.

But they are just not as big, known, popular or important as Nirvana (was). That's a FACT people.

I like Nirvana, but I am not that big a fan. But it was Nirvana who put Seattle (and all the bands in it) on the musical world map.

Oh, ScarletSpider, why do you speak of covers ? Kurt Cobain wrote the vast majority of his music/hits himself.

AIC was bigger and better known for a while than Nirvana, after the last of Nirvana's fad followers stopped caring that Kobain killed himself, but before the tragic event that occured to AIC.

As of today, AIC has far more followers than Nirvana, and it will continue to be so far longer than Nirvana's legacy could have ever hoped to last.

As for influence, it's impossible not to be influenced.

who?-kid
This whole thread is ridiculous. Everybody knows that the best rock band is Tenacious D.

MERCILOUS
That lucky bastard got to meet Dio. Damn him. I wonder if that's before or after he made that song about Dio.

Tron
Originally posted by Zahit
i guess we're waiting around for a witty remark followed by the phrase: closing.

Too lazy for a witty remark at the moment.

Originally posted by Zahit
and just for the moderators....

http://tonykurtsandy.homestead.com/files/Captain_America.JPG

Bwahahahahahaha, nice try.wink

Closing

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.