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.
__________________
Last edited by ScarletSpider on Jul 22nd, 2005 at 06:55 PM
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.
Last edited by Zahit on Jul 22nd, 2005 at 07:08 PM
Gender: Male Location: I'm everywhere man, EVERYWHERE!
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!!!
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.
__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
Gender: Male Location: I'm everywhere man, EVERYWHERE!
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.
I spit on that! And I hurl fish flavored jam at you!
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.
__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
KMC Community Forums
Jul 22nd, 2005 03:07 PM
