Guitar Tricks - Alice in chains is better than nirvana

View Full Version : Alice in chains is better than nirvana

yamazaki

08-03-2006, 01:12 AM

I just thought I should make this thread, Because I really see nothing special about nirvana. They aren't that good, And I think that Alice inchains is much better. The songs are better, And cantrell is much better than cobain, and staley is a better singer too. Also there are a lot more good songs from alice in chains, like "Sea of Sorrow" and "Junkhead". This is just my opinion.

acapella

08-03-2006, 01:21 AM

I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. In terms of musical ability maybe AIC is better, but in terms of having good songs and not being boring, Nirvana beats them hands down. I like both bands, but I like listening to Nirvana a lot more.

earthman buck

08-03-2006, 01:33 AM

I as well will disagree. Alice in Chains was a great band, and I think everyone will probably agree that the members were more talented than those of Nirvana. However, there is little variety in Alice in Chains. Facelift is a pretty boring album. Every song sounds very much the same. And Layne Staley moaning a long vowel sound for several minutes wears pretty thin after a while.

They're two of my very favourite bands, but I like Nirvana more.

ren

08-03-2006, 04:27 AM

Yep - same again. Alice in Chains were better musicians, but Nirvana had better songs and (like it or not) were largely responsible for one of the many shifts in popular music.

aschleman

08-03-2006, 07:19 AM

I will go ahead and say..... The following were better bands than Nirvana....

IMHO

Temple of the Dog (Come on!! Chris Cornell, Mike McCready on guitars, Eddie Vedder guest vocals...)
Pearl Jam (A LOT Better guitar work, similar yet more dynamic vocals, great lyrics)

The following are bands from that era that >>I<< like more than Nirvana.
Candlebox (eh... I have a thing for them... I don't know why. I know everyone will disagree with this one... But I like the song writing style they use.... But this is all opinion anyway. haha)
Silverchair... (Have a listen to "Frogstomp" that album is pretty killer. It's kind of a mix between Nirvana and Blind Melon...which leads me to...
Blind Melon... haha. (The lead singer was from a small town right outside Lafayette... so sue me.)

My personal favs are just some that I added in. It's hard to hold a candle to a mythical figure like Kurt Cobain is... because, I mean... Let's all face it... That's what he is... a Myth. He didn't write most of "Smells Like Teen Spirit"... They're ticket to legend status... He couldn't play the guitar better than anyone of us could when we were one year into learning... He was basically an urban poet with a guitar. Nirvana was a good band. Don't get me wrong. I just think that Cobains suicide has been massively exploited by their marketing company to cash in. It's very largely been successful... A lot of music media writers from that era have written that Pearl Jam was largely more popular amongst the "Grunge" scene than Nirvana...... right up until that legendary gun shot.

ren

08-03-2006, 07:57 AM

'Black' and 'Even Flow' from Pearl Jam's album 'Ten' are a couple of my favourite non-crazy-guitar tunes - agree entirely that there are a load of bands better than Nirvana....

Silverchair were cool, but i my opinion went downhill after frog stomp. The song 'tomorrow' has this classic lyric:

'the water out of the tap is..... very..... hard to drink'

I dunno what they were smoking, but I gotta get some :D

aschleman

08-03-2006, 08:09 AM

Silverchair were cool, but i my opinion went downhill after frog stomp. The song 'tomorrow' has this classic lyric:

'the water out of the tap is..... very..... hard to drink'

I dunno what they were smoking, but I gotta get some :D

haha!! Yeah... I like them a lot.

"You got me stooooooooned, sittin in my bedroom thinking"

I like a few of the songs from the Diorama album. "Without You" isn't too bad.

"You brighten my life like a polystyrene hat, but it melts in the sun like a life without love, and I've waited for you so I can't go on without you. without you"

I also like "Israel's Son" by them.

Some tracks to check out from Temple of the Dog if you haven't checked them out already... They only had one album... it was a side project collaboration between Vedder, Cornell, McCready and a few others...

Say Hello 2 Heaven
Call Me a Dog
Pushing Forward Back
Hunger Strike
Times of Trouble

Some Candlebox tunes all from their first album in '93:
Cover Me
You
Change
Far Behind
He Calls Home
No Sense

magicninja

08-03-2006, 10:21 AM

Far Behind was like the 4th song I ever learned. Not perfect mind you just well enough that you knew what song it was.

Raskolnikov

08-03-2006, 12:10 PM

but in terms of having good songs and not being boring, Nirvana beats them hands down.
And I'd have to disagree with you there.

But this stuff is all entirely subjective

polansky

08-07-2006, 12:03 PM

Alice in Chains for me is a better band than Nirvana.

I like more the sound of AIC cause it's totally different from other bands of the "Seattle" sound, darker and heavier, and of course in a better technicall place than nirvana.

Although I used to be a drummer, and I gotta say... playing nirvana songs on drums it's the more fun stuff I ever did, dynamics are so relaxed and groovier, that you can do it almost without thinking with you thecnicall part of your brain, you just let it flow. The point is I don't know if it's the same guitar wise (maybe it is), but I like more AIC (even when till now I just can't figure out the drums for "no excuses" wich it's brilliant).

In bases od enjoyment, Nirvana it's a great band, and sure a legacy but AIC went to that other part of the audience, who wanted more than three cord songs (wich are good, I'm not against them).

Gotta say I's a matter of taste and there is no right or wrong here, you just take wathever you liked from those bands and use it to get somewhere with your music.

Raskolnikov

08-07-2006, 12:32 PM

(even when till now I just can't figure out the drums for "no excuses" wich it's brilliant).
See, that's one of the things that makes AiC such a great band to me; Sean Kinney's drumming.

Most drummers are lucky to have one "signature beat" in their entire career.

Sean averages about three or four per album.

And it's not that they're all technically impossible (not even close), but they're inventive and tricky and interesting.

PRSplaya

08-07-2006, 12:40 PM

The only decent thing that came out of Nirvana was Dave Grohl. But, all in all, they're my least favorite band that came out of that period.

aschleman

08-07-2006, 01:02 PM

The only decent thing that came out of Nirvana was Dave Grohl. But, all in all, they're my least favorite band that came out of that period.

That's probably the most perfect two sentences to come out of this thread... haha

Drummers... Dave Grohl is a great musician... Not overpowering behind a guitar... but he was the best guitarist in Nirvana... if that says anything... His drumming for Nirvana was more or less the background music to all the songs. Like was said... it's thoughtless beats that compliment the 3 chords that Cobain would sloppily play and whine over... It was never meant to stretch the boundaries of the sonic mix... AIC always had the type of drum tracks that you could listen to without even having the guitars, bass, or vocals in the mix.

Guitars... Jerry Cantrell versus Kurt Cobain... honestly... I mean... come on... Out of all fairness to Nirvana I will neglect any album that AIC has done with electric leads from Cantrell... and we'll simply compare the "Unplugged" sessions... oh.... wait... that wouldn't be fair either...

Vocals... Kurt Cobain had a unique way about him that could be appreciated. He had that "I'm going to mumble and I don't care if you can't understand me" mentallity... which embodied the grunge theme... Layne Staley and Jerry Cantrells vocals were more musically inspired and less "dying stray cat" inspired... "Rooster", "Angry Chair", "Wrong", "Excuses", "Heaven Beside You"... all unbelievably vocal tracks...

Alice in Chains... as my opinions state above... is a better band...

Along with plenty of other bands of that time period... Need not mention Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Red Hot Chili Peppers..etc...etc...

iiholly

08-07-2006, 01:29 PM

The only albums I like really that came out of both of those band are their unplugged albums. I'm an acoustic freak though. If I had to choose imho Alice in Chains is a creatively and technically better than Nirvana. I do have an extreme distate for overuse of power chords though... and all the hype that surrounds Cobain's suicide. Annoys me, but its not his fault I suppose. Layne Staley did sort of have the mumbling mentality as well, but with Jerry Cantrell accompanying him it made it ten times more tolerable. I don't know much though, I'm just an indie freak that digs acoustic/unplugged albums.

z0s0_jp

08-07-2006, 02:03 PM

The only decent thing that came out of Nirvana was Dave Grohl. But, all in all, they're my least favorite band that came out of that period.
i love you...come here big guy.... ;)
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b80/scleppe/deliverance_pants.jpg nirvana irritated my ears to no end...

PRSplaya

08-07-2006, 02:52 PM

i love you...come here big guy.... ;)
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b80/scleppe/deliverance_pants.jpg nirvana irritated my ears to no end...
Haven't we been through this before... I will NOT squeal like a pig! :rolleyes:

z0s0_jp

08-07-2006, 02:55 PM

i'm sorry..that was intended to be a pic of nirvana irritating MY ear :D

earthman buck

08-07-2006, 07:00 PM

See, that's one of the things that makes AiC such a great band to me; Sean Kinney's drumming.

Most drummers are lucky to have one "signature beat" in their entire career.

Sean averages about three or four per album.

And it's not that they're all technically impossible (not even close), but they're inventive and tricky and interesting.

Yeah, Sean Kinney is a really good drummer. One of my faves.

That's probably the most perfect two sentences to come out of this thread... haha

Drummers... Dave Grohl is a great musician... Not overpowering behind a guitar... but he was the best guitarist in Nirvana... if that says anything... His drumming for Nirvana was more or less the background music to all the songs. Like was said... it's thoughtless beats that compliment the 3 chords that Cobain would sloppily play and whine over... It was never meant to stretch the boundaries of the sonic mix... AIC always had the type of drum tracks that you could listen to without even having the guitars, bass, or vocals in the mix.

Guitars... Jerry Cantrell versus Kurt Cobain... honestly... I mean... come on... Out of all fairness to Nirvana I will neglect any album that AIC has done with electric leads from Cantrell... and we'll simply compare the "Unplugged" sessions... oh.... wait... that wouldn't be fair either...

Vocals... Kurt Cobain had a unique way about him that could be appreciated. He had that "I'm going to mumble and I don't care if you can't understand me" mentallity... which embodied the grunge theme... Layne Staley and Jerry Cantrells vocals were more musically inspired and less "dying stray cat" inspired... "Rooster", "Angry Chair", "Wrong", "Excuses", "Heaven Beside You"... all unbelievably vocal tracks...
I agree with pretty much everything you said there, but I still like Nirvana more. For me it all comes down to listenability (if that is indeed a word). Like I said before, Alice in Chains is one of my favourite bands, easily in my top 10, but they had a lot of songs that I simply cannot stand. Dirt is absolutely 100% amazing, and so is Jar of Flies. I have never heard Sap or the MTV Unplugged one, so I really can't speak for either. But I can only really listen to about half of Facelift, and it's the same with their self-titled 1993 album. A lot of those songs come across to me as filler. Intense, screeching filler.

A lot of this is due to Layne's voice. Yes, he was very good, but sometimes I think he was a little bit too Axl-esque. Wailing a note and holding it through 2 verses and a chorus is all well and good, but not in every damn song.

Kurt Cobain did kind of the same thing, but he wasn't as good a singer and his voice would crack halfway through. That to me is far more interesting to listen to.

And it's the same with the issue of guitars. Jerry Cantrell is obviously amazing, but this doesn't mean he was always interesting. I'd take a short and sweet atonal Cobain feedback solo over a 3-minute Cantrell solo that drags on and on. But that's just me. :)

As for Dave Grohl, same goes. He's a better player than Kurt, but I find him incredibly boring. The Foo Fighters are guilty of using that homogenized distortion tone which can be found in most of today's rock. It sounds like someone went over the soundwaves with a power sander and smoothed it down, getting rid of all the grit and growl that makes me like rock.

In conclusion, that's everything I can possibly think of to say on said matter.

Raskolnikov

08-07-2006, 08:12 PM

3-minute Cantrell solo
Oh, I see the problem...

You're from an alternate reality.

Jolly McJollyson

08-07-2006, 08:36 PM

A lot of this is due to Layne's voice. Yes, he was very good, but sometimes I think he was a little bit too Axl-esque.

...3-minute Cantrell solo

I could be wrong...but based on those statements, I'm willing to bet you've never heard Alice in Chains before.

hunter60

08-07-2006, 08:44 PM

I don't know, maybe I am becoming the middle-aged man I am afraid I am becoming but quite frankly, I never really cared for either band. I think that they both offered some decent songs but nothing that was going to set the world on fire. But then again, I was convinced that once REO Speedwagon earned a platinum album, I thought both pop and rock were doomed. ( I was wrong of course, but hey....)

jiujitsu_jesus

08-07-2006, 08:51 PM

metalshadow

08-07-2006, 09:58 PM

iiholly

08-07-2006, 10:04 PM

Like many of you I think that AIC was more talented, but in terms of just having presence, Nirvana takes it hands down. They were much more interesting lyrically and although Kurt had the skill of a newborn on guitar, he could use the few chords he knew and do amazing things with them for his time. I can't think of another band that has had such a big influence on rock.

The Beatles!

I think Alice in Chains had much more interesting lyrics, not that I don't like Nirvana lryics. I just feel sometimes, especially now, Nirvana is a teenage angst band... and Alice in Chains is more than that.

These are just opinions of course. And power chords never impress me. I compare Nirvana to Green Day with their use of power chords. It gets very old, very fast.

metalshadow

08-07-2006, 10:20 PM

How could I forget the Beatles?! *is ashamed of self*

earthman buck

08-08-2006, 12:31 AM

I could be wrong...but based on those statements, I'm willing to bet you've never heard Alice in Chains before.
Actually, I have all their albums except for Sap and MTV Unplugged. I was just exaggerating to make my point, which no one really cared about anyway.

Ah, GT.

acapella

08-08-2006, 01:26 AM

earthman buck

08-08-2006, 01:31 AM

You know what I think? That most of you don't want to like Nirvana because everybody likes Nirvana.
Really? I think they probably just like music that sounds challenging.

acapella

08-08-2006, 01:52 AM

Could be that. I still stand by what I said.

metalshadow

08-08-2006, 02:11 AM

I'd pick Alice In Chains as the more sophisticated and instrumentally skilled band, but I think Nirvana had a creative energy and lyrical honesty that AIC just didn't quite have. Both were important and talented bands.

Also, +1 for mentioning Silverchair - but I've got to say, Frogstomp is actually my least favourite Silverchair album. I prefer Freak Show.

I have seen Silverchair come up a few times, and thought that I would post this:
http://www.chairpage.com/news/news.htm

A friend in Australia told me that they sound a lot like they did during the freakshow/frogstomp era. He said that they have a great stage presence and that they are playing like they never stopped.

aschleman

08-08-2006, 07:27 AM

There is a lot of Nirvana and Kurt Cobain instilled in Silverchair... but I like them a TON more than Nirvana. To me, they take what Nirvana was and put it at that next level. And yes, I'll take credit for mentioning them. haha.

To comment on what acapella said about people disliking Nirvana because everyone likes him. I think that's true to an extent. Most people that like technical bands like Dream Theatre, for example, dislike Nirvana. Mosyl becaue subconsiously they can't understand why a band like Nirvana and a simplistic style of music like grunge could be so popular where as a great band like Dream Theatre is largely a cult favorite without mass popularity.

I never said I don't listen to Nirvana from time to time... I own the Unplugged album and the Live From The Muddy Banks of The Wishkah (or whatever it is)... I've always thought that there were much better bands out there... and I've always been more of a Pearl Jam fan than a Nirvana fan specifically...

It's all a matter of taste though... just like sooooooo many other topics.

metalshadow

08-08-2006, 08:18 AM

earthman buck

08-08-2006, 12:20 PM

I as well like most bands that came out of that era/area. Nirvana, AIC, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Mudhoney....that's all good stuff.

Raskolnikov

08-08-2006, 12:43 PM

You know what I think? That most of you don't want to like Nirvana because everybody likes Nirvana. I know because I feel the same way. Nirvana is super-hyped and all manner of idiots claim to like it, and this sickens and apalls me. But as much as I wish I liked something more underground, the fact is Nirvana is irresistible because they are so great. Most bands get boring really fast, and/or you have to try to like them. I have neither problem with Nirvana.
It can't be that because Nirvana is so infectious to you, you can't comprehend why it is that they can bore somebody else?

Personally, I'm quite at odds with the "GT stereotype" -- for starters, I'm a bassist, my roots are in the "Alternative" music of the 90's and Dream Theater and Steve Vai induce me to power-nap. Need proof? My favorite band, ever is Morphine.

That said, I can only enjoy Nirvana in limited doses. I've always been a much bigger fan of Soundgarden and Alice in Chains and if I want to listen to something more in the lines of Nirvana, I'll throw in 7 Year B*tch or The Gits over Nirvana [i]any day. I just find all of those bands more lyrically, dynamically, rhythmically and compositionally interesting.

AiC very much typifies what I'm talking about here: They were absolutely unafraid to show off their 80's hair-metal roots, venture into intricate, layered vocal harmonies, play with chord voicings, mix Country with Rock and Metal, turn 4/4 time in against itself or strip everything down to a one chord stomp. Everybody in that band found quirky, unique ways of doing things that you don't hear anywhere else -- even in the legions of Nu-Metal imitators who try so hard to follow in AiC's footsteps but never measure up.

Recognizable as Nirvana may be, their musical DNA comes almost directly from The Melvins and Mudhoney and the likes of Bush had their formula down squarely within only a few years.

It's all a matter of taste though... just like sooooooo many other topics.
^^^^^

Don't get me wrong, though...

I love discussing this stuff.

earthman buck

08-08-2006, 01:14 PM

Personally, I'm quite at odds with the "GT stereotype" -- for starters, I'm a bassist, my roots are in the "Alternative" music of the 90's and Dream Theater and Steve Vai induce me to power-nap. Need proof? My favorite band, ever is Morphine.
Morphine, huh? Given your musical roots, I'd probably like them too. What are some of your favourite songs?

And while we're on the topic of AIC, what do you guys think of Jerry, Sean and Mike going on a 'reunion' tour with Phil Anselmo as a singer?

alucard0941

08-08-2006, 02:05 PM

To comment on what acapella said about people disliking Nirvana because everyone likes him. I think that's true to an extent. Most people that like technical bands like Dream Theatre, for example, dislike Nirvana. Mosyl becaue subconsiously they can't understand why a band like Nirvana and a simplistic style of music like grunge could be so popular where as a great band like Dream Theatre is largely a cult favorite without mass popularity.

Couldnt of said it better. Honestly, I dislike both bands, but thats besides the point. It occurs to me now that the people like you mentioned, only like music for because of its technical side. They examine music as if it were a science and dont really listen to the song. Whether Nirvana had good or bad songs is totally subjective, but if anyone hates Nirvana because of their lack of technical ability but acknowledges their songwritting skills, then they dont truly understand music. You cant judge the quality of music on how fast, or how sophisticated it is. It then appeals too much to the brain and not enough to the heart.

earthman buck

08-08-2006, 03:00 PM

Here's something kind of interesting I just realized:

Although I keep saying I like Nirvana more than AIC, I would rather listen to AIC than Nirvana in many cases. I figure this is because Nirvana was the first band I ever really liked. Although I still enjoy Nirvana quite a lot, I've heard all of their songs so many times I could very well just never listen to them ever again, whereas Alice in Chains has songs in which I notice new things each time.

Raskolnikov

08-08-2006, 08:20 PM

Morphine, huh? Given your musical roots, I'd probably like them too. What are some of your favourite songs?
All Your Way, The Night, In Spite of Me, Do Not Go Quietly Unto Your Grave, Candy, Buena, I'm Free Now, Have A Lucky Day, I Know You (Part II), I Know You (Part III), You're An Artist, Cure For Pain, Like Swimming, Empty Box, All Wrong, Wishing Well...

I could keep going.

And while we're on the topic of AIC, what do you guys think of Jerry, Sean and Mike going on a 'reunion' tour with Phil Anselmo as a singer?
Phil's voice is WAY too gone to handle Layne's vocals.

acapella

08-09-2006, 12:04 AM

I was listening to some Soundgarden today while I was working, and realized that I in fact like them more than either Alice in Chains or Pearl Jam, and almost as much as I like Nirvana. As Brendon said, they were pretty much the first band I ever liked. For that reason they will probably always be my favourite. Soundgarden has musical skill without being boring, and that's something grand indeed. In fact, out of the big four, Soundgarden is probably my all-around favourite.

aschleman

08-09-2006, 07:14 AM

Soundgarden has musical skill without being boring, and that's something grand indeed. In fact, out of the big four, Soundgarden is probably my all-around favourite.

Check out Temple of the Dog then. It was a one album side project between Soundgarden and Pearl Jam. Some of the songs have Eddie Vedder and Chris Cornell trading off vocals like 'Hunger Strike' and 'Times of Trouble'. Mike McCready of Pearl Jam also lends some lead guitar work to the project. It's one of my favorite... lesser known... albums from that era. Check out the two songs I mentioned above and also 'Say Hello 2 Heave', 'Call Me a Dog', and 'Pushin Forward Back'. You should like'em.

Raskolnikov

08-09-2006, 09:46 AM

Mad Season is another outstanding Seattle 'crossover' band.

Above is easily one of the best albums I own.

aschleman

08-09-2006, 10:43 AM

Mad Season is another outstanding Seattle 'crossover' band.

Above is easily one of the best albums I own.

+1

10 characters

acapella

08-09-2006, 11:27 PM

Yeah, I've been meaning to get the Temple of the Dog album, but I keep living on a farm. :p

tehplatypus

08-10-2006, 01:15 AM

alice in chains and nirvana are different.

nirvana grew up more in punk and some heavy metal and alice in chains were a glam band at one point(hence the name).

that being said...i like both for different reasons...and if you can listen to in utero and alice in chains' self titled and see any reason why they should be compared other than they were around at the same, you're musically impotent. other than them both having junkies and distorted guitars, they're nothing alike.

edit: upon looking up on wikipedia, it says that alice n chainz was supposed to be layne's speed metal band....but i remember jerry talking about some glam band pre-aic in an interview around the time boggy depot was coming out.

Raskolnikov

08-10-2006, 12:19 PM

but i remember jerry talking about some glam band pre-aic in an interview around the time boggy depot was coming out.
That would be "Diamond Lie."

tehplatypus

08-10-2006, 07:54 PM

ahhhhhhh. i guess i must have remembered the article wrong. i thought there was glam in there somewhere.

but yeah...coming from two different places.

acapella

08-11-2006, 12:10 AM

alice in chains and nirvana are different.

if you can listen to in utero and alice in chains' self titled and see any reason why they should be compared other than they were around at the same, you're musically impotent. other than them both having junkies and distorted guitars, they're nothing alike.

Dude. That's the only good point I've seen in this thread yet, my own included. Rep points.

earthman buck

08-22-2006, 08:31 PM

*revived* (http://www.toothpastefordinner.com/081206/desk-box.gif).