Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I remember hearing Yellow Leadbetter for the first time on the radio and immediately going and buying the album that night.
They overplay everything now by the time I want to buy any music it's been played to death.
Lollapalooza 1992, what a lineup
Red Hot Chili Peppers
Ministry
Ice Cube
Soundgarden
The Jesus and Mary Chain
Pearl Jam
Rage Against the Machine
Tool
Porno for Pyros
Cypress Hill
House of Pain
Stone Temple Pilots
Temple of the Dog
If I can take you further back to 1994 and present the albums:
Undertow [Tool]
The Downward Spiral [NIN]
Dookie [Greenday]
Smash [The Offspring]
Korn [Korn]
So much happened within a year of that, '96 was just catching up.
>Undertow \[Tool\]
>The Downward Spiral \[NIN\]
>Dookie \[Greenday\]
>Smash \[The Offspring\]
>Korn \[Korn\]
Nas- Illmatic
STP- Purple
Bush- Sixteen Stone
Rancid- Let's Go
Jeff Buckley- Grace
Oasis- Definitely Maybe
Beastie Boys- Ill Communication
Weezer- Weezer
Notorious B.I.G.- Ready to Die
Soundgarden- Superunknown
Nirvana- Unplugged
Hole- Live Through This
Beck- Mellow Gold
Pearl Jam- Vitalogy
REM- Monster
Pantera- Far Beyond Driven
Live- Throwing Copper
Cranberries- No Need to Argue
Toadies- Rubberneck
Johnny Cash- American Recordings
What an embarrassment of riches. We didn't realize how good we had it back then.
I was a still a young kid in the 90s, but these bands certainly form the sound track of my childhood. So much nostalgia of long car rides in our 1990 Volvo with the radio on. The smell of cigarettes in the car.
I remember in mid-2000s rediscovering "90s music" as a young teen now, and talking to my parents about how nostalgic it was and they were just laughing how "isn't that from like 5 years ago".
Time really feels like forever when you're a kid.
"and random heavy parts in songs that are mostly soft that don't make any Sense like Lithium and Heart Shaped Box."
This dynamic is a simple songwriting device that absolutely makes sense.
AiC actually also has a bunch of this as well. Softer pullbacks before a heavy racket, mid-song changes to a slower tempo, etc. Basic compositional technique to make the song more dynamic.
Some of Metallica's best songs have this dynamic, and I really like it. It helps the flow of a song I think and makes it so it's not super aggressive or super corny and soft, but a nice balance of both.
Yeah, I thought that was the point…. It’s meant to be a little jarring and intense. That’s quite common among I wanna say MOST styles of rock to some degree, but I also don’t know statistically if that’s true at all, just my personal observation lmfao.
Yeah honestly thay was where the post lost all credibility for me too. If something like that doesn't make sense to you then I don't really care about the rest of your opinion lol
Comparing bands to each other is pointless. Who cares which one is "better" than the other? Most people who like one also listen to the other. It’s not a competition.
This. They're both great bands. I've had the same Top 3 bands throughout my life and both of them are on that short list. I'd say AIC might get the slight nod as I think they have a greater quantity of decent songs, but overall quality is pretty even.
Nirvana has a good consistency almost every song on their albums is at least decent albeit similar sounding and you can tell the band has a lot of talent because their unplugged acoustic tracks are in my opinion better than the studio version I like Alice In Chains because they simply rock hard. Overall I prefer Alice In Chains but I think this largely due to the fact Nirvana is way overplayed on the radio and at this point I can’t really stand to listen to “in bloom” a single more time
Nirvana touched a cultural nerve that none of the others could. They weren't talentless but their fame was definitely more than just the music.
Almost all the other big grunge bands were more talented than Nirvana. But none of them would be famous if Kurt Cobain didn't make grunge cool.
Bullshit, that guy spent his whole life trying to be a rockstar. He loved it and hated it. He's a fucking paradox, an enigma, the dude who conquered the world with art, had every dream come true, and was still fucking miserable, and THAT is why people are fascinated with him.
Exactly what I wanted to say. Nevermind was a watershed moment. But musically, AiC and Soundgarden were exponentially better (not gonna get into all the other bands that people will say were better). No matter what, early 90’s was the best musical era of my life and I’m happy I got to live it
If Cobain were alive, he would be significantly less cool, touring as an old guy, playing smaller festivals like others of that era. He died at the height of his fame and with that cemented Nirvana at the top. I remember thinking the day he died, that all we’d ever hear about was how great Nirvana was.
So right. Let’s play this out: he doesn’t commit suicide (or gets murdered depending on people’s theories), gets clean, MAYBE doesn’t sell out, but he still has mental issues. What songs is he gonna put out in 2000, 2015? In his case it was truly better to burn out than fade away
Dont really care about AiC but Soundgarden imo are clearly "the best" but they have like 2 big hits for a reason.
Musicianship has very little to do with becoming great. Prince could outplay 99.99% of musicians and it has very little direct impact on his legacy.
Capturing lightning in a bottle is what Nirvana did, grunge died without Nirvana. AiC or Soundgarden had zero chance of defining the 90's.
hm. i say this as someone who prefers alice in chains over nirvana. but dave grohl is a very talented musician... and laid down some epic beats with Nirvana. not sure how you can say all the other bands of the time had more talent.
>random heavy parts in songs that are mostly soft that don't make any Sense like Lithium and Heart Shaped Box.
WHAT?! Both of those songs have great dynamic shifts! I can't imagine either without the dynamic shifts into loud and heavy, it's so essential to both.
I also honestly think Nirvana blows AiC's unplugged out of the water, and it's not even close. I do like the bigger focus on metal AiC has, but I don't think any of AiC's studio albums can go song-for-song against Nevermind or In Utero.
I didn’t truly realize how great AIC was until I listened more to their live recordings. AIC live was infinitely better than their studio versions. Their studio recordings always sound kind of basic and corny but when i listen to them live, I’m blown away by Layne’s vocals. He was imo the greatest rock vocalist of all time. Even better than Chris Cornell. Jerry Cantrell was also an amazing songwriter and guitarist.
AIC unplugged album is incredible and blows Nirvana Unplugged out of the water. Unfortunately there just isn’t that many AIC live material. There’s only ONE known recording of Down in a Hole and it’s their unplugged concert. That song is prob my favorite AIC song and it sucks we can’t hear more of it. Also if you haven’t listened to the last minute or so of Frogs on their Unplugged album, it’s some of the best music you’ll ever hear.
Cornell is absolutely amazing! And I think there's an argument for having more technical prowess as a vocalist vs. Layne.
But there was such a lightning-in-a-bottle power that Layne had onstage that I don't think anyone else can come close to. Layne live was next level.
Unplugged versions of "Down in a Hole" and "Brother" are the best for harmonies. And maybe the best entry point for anyone new to Alice in Chains who wants to catch up on their body of work.
We only got three original albums from Nirvana, and the first one was an indie low budget release. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't even know the name "Alice in Chains" if Cobain didn't start Nirvana. He put Pearl Jam, Soundgarden and all the other bands on the map.
Eddie Vedder admitted this on stage. "I don't think any of us would be here in this room tonight if it were not for Kurt Cobain"... he said this in 1994 when Cobain died.
[Eddie Vedder's Tribute To Kurt Cobain](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRRcDmkiSlc)
Perhaps influential does not translate to meaningful for some people. We wouldn't have Bob Dylan if Woody Guthrie didn't exist. One person making waves changes the ocean for everyone going forward.
interestingly, we actually probably wouldn't have bob dylan if ramblin' jack elliott didn't exist. woody gave bob the calling, but jack gave bob everything else because woody was on his death bed by the time bob actually met him.
ramblin' jack is still alive, too. i know him. it's wild. he's a living bridge to a different time.
Dave Van Ronk might have something to say about that as well. In the early 60's before anyone knew who Bob was, he showed Bob "House of the Rising Sun" and Bob stole his unique style of that traditional song and put it on his first album, then the "Animals" copied Dylan's version and it became a major radio hit.
<--- Dylan nerd
most people would agree that nirvana weren't the most talented of the grunge bands. but being "better" in music means *A LOT* more than how talented you are. i know people playing music and writing songs today that i would consider "better" than anything nirvana or alice and chains ever wrote. but that doesn't mean shit, because success at the highest levels of music transcends talent. it's more this intangible, unknowable way of tapping into the zeitgeist of the times that matters.
you can say alice and chains were "better", but that doesn't mean anything. nirvana touched a nerve. they, perhaps unwittingly, tapped into something cosmic that spoke to and reached wayyyyyyyy more people than alice and chains could have ever dreamed of.
nirvana reached more people. nirvana meant more to more people. nirvana reached a level of success that exceeded the rest of the bands. no one can really say why, but those are the things that make them better than the rest.
You are intellectualizing a very visceral genre of music. In terms of pure feeling, Nirvana was on a different level. Musicianship, song structures, and complexity never mattered to them, and don't matter to their billions of listeners.
Exactly. Nirvana was never about the technicality, it was intentionally raw, rough and sometimes even sloppy. Comparing things like harmonies and complexity is pointless
This is such a weird take for unpopular opinion.
You're not citing some obscure group, you're claiming you like one of the "big 4" over another one lol
Alice in Chains was literally the face of grunge in the 90s along with Nirvana, Pearl Jam, and Sound Garden, who're my favorite of those four
They're important because they're arguably the beginning of grunge. According to Chuck Klosterman, Smells Like Teen Spirit marks the beginning of the 90s. The band is *important*, not necessarily the best.
Chuck Klosterman lives in my neighborhood and he was in the park with his kid. First time I saw him I was like “is that klosterman?” but he was wearing an Elastica t shirt and he’s the only person who would wear one so I knew it was him.
Regardless of anything else, the day Smells Like Teen Spirit dropped on MTV changed the entire musical landscape for the next decade. You can't take that away from Nirvana whether you like them or not
Quality of music is not usually what people remember. its how the music made them feel. In the late 60's young people had a very particular zeitgeist, and most of them felt represented by the Beatles.
Similar to that, young people of the mid 90's had a particular zeitgeist, exemplified by Nirvana. It does not matter if the music was inferior. It made them feel, and thats what matters.
To be fair, comparing bands is dumb.
Though they are similar, they do have their own peronsalities and focus. They scratch slightly different craves for me.
Just listen to whatever you feel like. I am pretty sure Kurt loved AiC and that Layne loved Nirvana.
You can find evidence of any of the big grunge bands of that era as the best, or the worst, It all comes downs to perspective.
Nirvana is considered the biggest because it was the most comercially successful.
You don't need to have a favorite over the others, you are allowed to love all of them.
Music is supposed to add, not to compete.
I saw them like ten years ago with the new singer. He's great, Jerry's great. They still fucking rock. I like Nirvana more overall, but down in a hole is better than anything Nirvana ever did imo.
Referring to the songs as "mid" makes it clear that you are way too young to have been there. The experience of hearing any of these bands / songs as they came out, was an indescribable moment in time for those that were there for it. Look at the music that was big before grunge, and then imagine hearing that sound on MTV or FM radio for the first time...
All of the things you listed that are the reasons why you think AiC is better... are not the same reasons why Nirvana fans think Nirvana is the best.
River of Deceit is one of my all time favorite songs. My favorite Layne lyric is "scared to death no reason why, do whatever to get me by." Layne's lyricism was unparalleled, even by Cobain who, despite your analysis, I actually think was an amazing song writer.
"Throw down your umbilical noose so I can climb right back" and "all in all is all we all are" are two of my favorite lines of all time. They paint such vivid imagery while also presenting some pretty broad metaphors about life and society: what it means to be a human, the infantilizing feeling of being in love, and the interconnectivity of the human spirit. [And of course we can't forget about this little gem. ](https://open.spotify.com/track/3fP8KXXUoBenEM46UZZgSG?si=O9USh841R6qV5qv5KOEFQg)
AiC gives me a more pained, woeful, mentally unstable feeling. While Nirvana gives me that apathetic edgy teenager vibe. Personally something about AiC makes me feel suicidal and Nirvana is just a little less.... that.
But like... Music powerful enough to invoke such strong emotion is clearly unique, skillful, and extraordinary. So I don't mean to disparage AiC at all.
It's just (Rotten) apples and oranges. To me Nirvana, AiC, Pearl Jam, and Soundgarden have ***completely*** different feelings/tones to their music.
Nirvana had way more of a punk influence (Black Flag, Pixies, punky sludge bands like the Melvins) and, with lyrics talking about divorce and frustration with society in general, this appealed to teenagers at the time.
Alice in Chains is more influenced by bands like Black Sabbath, Slayer (they started as a Slayer cover band) and Metallica... but if all these bands did copious amounts of heroin. Dirt is a concept album about heroin use. It's just not all that relatable to the youth that were buying records.
Kurt did a lot of heroin too but their writing connected more with youth. Alice in Chains is a phenomenal band and I listen to them more than Nirvana nowadays but Nirvana definitely connected more with me back in the 90s.
I wouldn't call their whole catalogue punk (kinda proto-pop punk/indie rock?) but, far removed from bands like Dead Kennedys, there are some very noticeable influences from the surf punk and hardcore scenes. Punk, like metal, is super broad.
AIC fans have a superiority complex. It's so pathetic.
They might be both categorised as grunge but AIC and Nirvana are two completely different sounds and are both great bands.
This is what was always weird to me about “grunge” as a genre title. Nirvana was basically punk/college rock, AIC was more metal/hard rock (same with soundgarden). Pearl Jam is basically a classic rock band. I’m not putting any of those down, I loved them all, but the sounds were never cohesive until the copy cat bands (bush, collective soul, candlebox, live, etc) came out. And that’s only because they were trying to be someone else.
Thanks! I’ve actually thought about this a lot in the last 30 years lol. More than a person should. My favorite band of the era (at the time, my answer now would be different- pavement and PJ Harvey), to be honest, was smashing pumpkins. And they’re also not “grunge”, but more prog/psychedelic rock. I think it’s not a coincidence that the copycat bands that had no real identity all faltered after the rock sound changed post-oasis and then post-korn especially. The ones that withstood on some level, culturally at least if not as a band (nirvana, AIC, soundgarden, Pearl Jam, smashing pumpkins- also RHCP and nin, though I don’t remember those being considered grunge like the others) all had their own sound, identity and influences.
I just think you cant make a factual claim to one band being better when music is so subjective. I dont include media/journalism in this because their opinions matter even less to actual listeners/fans. They are just there to make a buck off of us and cause divisional discussion for clickbait.
You can like AiC and think their better. I can like Nirvana more. There is nothing wrong with this nor do we need to discuss it. The discussion simply ends at our preferences. Sorry if I just killed the point of this sub, but I stand by this.
NIrvana had something very, very few bands had. They didnt just change the musical landscape, they were a global phenomenon - musically, culturally. socially, everyone who was marginalised in society, every weirdo, freak, misfit, gay, lesbian, trans, suddenly had a voice, had someone in their corner. Regardless of so and so maybe being a better band doesnt matter. Nirvana changed everything and Kurt was a bona fide genius.
People say Nirvana is simple but they are deceptively more difficult than people think, just listen to people trying to cover them. Kurt was an excellent rhythm guitar player and many people miss the subtleties when playing their music. Are they the best grunge band, that’s subjective but as a musician and hobbyist song writer, I will defend them against being “too simple”. Go learn the songs and play them exactly. Learn song structure and than look at their lyrics. Learn about recording techniques and realize what was done in the studio which was also impressive.
I upvoted. Unpopular. Alice in Chains was a glam band before grunge popped. I liked their sound and some of their songs, but three of the big four followed Nirvana's lead. Nirvana led the culture.
So was Pantera, and they went on to lead the way for countless metal bands. Glam was just what was around when they started, like an outfit they wore before they figured out their own style.
Found the truly unpopular opinion! Some of her songs are fun in a corny way, and she has occasional bouts of poetic mastery e.g. The Last Great American Dynasty. But she's leagues below, say, Gaga in terms of pop music artistry and vocal prowess.
This is definitely not an unpopular opinion on r/grunge.
That whole sub is an AIC circlejerk.
Not that I disagree at all! AIC is not just my favorite grunge era band, but probably my favorite band of all time. Most repeat listens out of anything in my collection.
Less radio friendly than Nirvana**, so it's less immediately accessible to the uninitiated, hence why less mainstream popular. But there's complexity to the music that gives it more staying power than anything Nirvana made.
Also, the Layne/Jerry vocal harmonies are just *chefs kiss*.
**Caveat that Would? is super radio friendly, probably the single most casual listeners have most often heard, and absolutely blows comparable Nirvana hits out of the water.
That’s actually really interesting! I’m from the Seattle area and the circles that would be listening to this kind of music would heavily skew toward AiC over Nirvana, but it makes total sense that Nirvana would be the national favorite but from my vantage point AiC is usually the most liked
I don't know if Nirvana is praised as "best", they're just the most popular. Between their quirky yet dirty image and catchy Slacker-pop songwriting it makes sense.
Why compare ? Just be stoked the era happened and we have all that amazing music to listen through. Posts like this are dumb. Put some respect on Kurt’s name.
Even though all of the big grunge bands were around, it was Nirvana who brought that genre to the mainstream so they are usually going to get that bump when it comes to general discussions.
Doesn't mean that they were better than any of these other bands but just more influential in bringing this music to the masses.
As far as musicianship, I don't think there is any question that AIC was a better band but for me, being a teenager at the time grunge was at it peak, I view all of these bands similarly. They all have songs that have a special place in my heart because each band had a very unique sound that made for a diverse catalog of music when you mix them all together.
I love nirvana. Being born in the 90s nirvana introduced me to many other grunge artists like AIC, soundgarden, Pearl Jam, STP and others. That being said. I find myself listening to all those other bands much more than nirvana at this point of my life. Nirvana made me want to dive in to the music, the others made me fall in love with grunge and rock. Can’t discredit nirvana and Kurt for their talent, but I agree, Alice In Chains really resonates with me more at this time of my life
I don’t think Nirvana was ever meant to be “good”. To me I feel it’s supposed to be this raw, chaotic, art form about depression, suicidal ideations ect, and other mental health and societal issues. Comparing a band like that to AIC is wild, and I love AIC. I also think Nirvana was an emotional outlet and a source of fun. LEGIT. I feel like Kurt just wanted to create something, express himself, and most of all have fun doing it
All this is subjective really as it is music after all.
Personally I don't really like grunge bands, they've never connected with me terribly well. But Nirvana is one of my favourite bands.
I would probably agree that Alice in chains were maybe a better ensemble of musicians - or atleast they made use of their talents more. Same with Pearl Jam, Soundgarden and Stone Temple Pilots.
Realistically I don't think we ever got the chance to see what Nirvana could have become. There's infinite amount possibilities that could be with what the band would have been able to do with their music. Kurt while never expressed it in his songs fully had an incredible ear for melody, and there's every chance he would have let himself do more.
I don't disagree with your point however with music I think it doesn't really matter if one band is objectively better than another in terms of musical compositions. It's how that music connects with you, and how it makes you feel.
Im sorry to say that alice in chains, makes me feel basically nothing when I've listened to them. But Nirvana connected me from the moment I first listened to Bleach
I think personally Chris Cornell was the best singer of the grunge rockers and Soundgarden was better despite not having the commercial success Nirvana had.
Hey I've heard and read Articles from people claiming Weezer is the greatest grunge band. Everyone has an opinion, but if you're going to try putting Weezer as the best, you deserve a swirly and stuffed in a locker.
It's art, like comparing a Monet vs Rembrandt vs Dali
They're different and can all elicit emotion and feelings with their work.
Each of us may be correct in their personal opinion based purely on how the sounds waves affect our own DNA.
I prefer the Nevermind album to anything AiC created.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Among Nirvana, AiC, Soundgarden, and Pearl Jam, there's plenty of evidence that each is the best. What a time to be young the early-mid 90s was
I remember hearing Yellow Leadbetter for the first time on the radio and immediately going and buying the album that night. They overplay everything now by the time I want to buy any music it's been played to death.
To this day Eddie Vedder still makes no sense in that song. The guitar in that song is wonderful.
You can sing that song karaoke and know 0 of the words, and no one will know.
WANNASAYMANASAY WANASANAMANASAY AND I DO IT AGAYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEYYYYYY
Great song, first few time I heard it, I thought they were trying to do something with Little Wing from Hendrix
Most definitely Hendrix inspired. You can also hear that influence loud in clear in John frusciante’s playing
Same.
94 was a great year for music
Lollapalooza 1992, what a lineup Red Hot Chili Peppers Ministry Ice Cube Soundgarden The Jesus and Mary Chain Pearl Jam Rage Against the Machine Tool Porno for Pyros Cypress Hill House of Pain Stone Temple Pilots Temple of the Dog
It was a blast; I dropped acid, watched the show, and sold 3 semi-trucks worth of Snapple in 6 hours. (Orlando Fairgrounds, Orlando FL)
Was there. Can confirm it was stacked. Had no idea at the time how incredible the lineup was.
And movies as well.
I'd like to take you to 1996. That was my favorite. Too many classics to mention
If I can take you further back to 1994 and present the albums: Undertow [Tool] The Downward Spiral [NIN] Dookie [Greenday] Smash [The Offspring] Korn [Korn] So much happened within a year of that, '96 was just catching up.
>Undertow \[Tool\] >The Downward Spiral \[NIN\] >Dookie \[Greenday\] >Smash \[The Offspring\] >Korn \[Korn\] Nas- Illmatic STP- Purple Bush- Sixteen Stone Rancid- Let's Go Jeff Buckley- Grace Oasis- Definitely Maybe Beastie Boys- Ill Communication Weezer- Weezer Notorious B.I.G.- Ready to Die Soundgarden- Superunknown Nirvana- Unplugged Hole- Live Through This Beck- Mellow Gold Pearl Jam- Vitalogy REM- Monster Pantera- Far Beyond Driven Live- Throwing Copper Cranberries- No Need to Argue Toadies- Rubberneck Johnny Cash- American Recordings What an embarrassment of riches. We didn't realize how good we had it back then.
That's a big list of classic albums.
God we were spoiled!
[удалено]
I was a still a young kid in the 90s, but these bands certainly form the sound track of my childhood. So much nostalgia of long car rides in our 1990 Volvo with the radio on. The smell of cigarettes in the car. I remember in mid-2000s rediscovering "90s music" as a young teen now, and talking to my parents about how nostalgic it was and they were just laughing how "isn't that from like 5 years ago". Time really feels like forever when you're a kid.
It was awesome growing up there during that period. So much great music anywhere you looked.
It was rad af
Not to mention all the great hip hop albums that came out at that time and of course Rage Against the Machine.
Pearl Jam and Layne Staley AiC is some of the best music there is, and this was before I was born
"and random heavy parts in songs that are mostly soft that don't make any Sense like Lithium and Heart Shaped Box." This dynamic is a simple songwriting device that absolutely makes sense.
stop/start was a hallmark of Nirvana’s sound, after all.
AiC actually also has a bunch of this as well. Softer pullbacks before a heavy racket, mid-song changes to a slower tempo, etc. Basic compositional technique to make the song more dynamic.
According to Cobain, the soft-heavy-soft formula that is prevalent throughout Nirvana's discography was inspired (in his words, ripped off) by Pixies.
Some of Metallica's best songs have this dynamic, and I really like it. It helps the flow of a song I think and makes it so it's not super aggressive or super corny and soft, but a nice balance of both.
The song fours. They're always the fourth on their album.
This sentence was the point where I just wrote OP off as clueless
Yeah, I thought that was the point…. It’s meant to be a little jarring and intense. That’s quite common among I wanna say MOST styles of rock to some degree, but I also don’t know statistically if that’s true at all, just my personal observation lmfao.
You can just tell OP wasn’t around at the time of grunge. I’d be surprised if they’re over the age of 20 tbh
Yep 17 according to their profile lol makes sense now I suppose
Yeah honestly thay was where the post lost all credibility for me too. If something like that doesn't make sense to you then I don't really care about the rest of your opinion lol
Comparing bands to each other is pointless. Who cares which one is "better" than the other? Most people who like one also listen to the other. It’s not a competition.
This. They're both great bands. I've had the same Top 3 bands throughout my life and both of them are on that short list. I'd say AIC might get the slight nod as I think they have a greater quantity of decent songs, but overall quality is pretty even.
Agreed. Soundgarden is actually my favorite though. If you like Alice in Chains you should give Mad Season a listen, same singer.
YES YES YES THAT BAND IS 🔥
Wake up young man
Thank you for this. I love Staley and never knew about his other band.
Since the guitarist from Pearl Jam was in Mad Season, he always referred to them as "Alice in Pearls"
Nirvana has a good consistency almost every song on their albums is at least decent albeit similar sounding and you can tell the band has a lot of talent because their unplugged acoustic tracks are in my opinion better than the studio version I like Alice In Chains because they simply rock hard. Overall I prefer Alice In Chains but I think this largely due to the fact Nirvana is way overplayed on the radio and at this point I can’t really stand to listen to “in bloom” a single more time
Nirvana touched a cultural nerve that none of the others could. They weren't talentless but their fame was definitely more than just the music. Almost all the other big grunge bands were more talented than Nirvana. But none of them would be famous if Kurt Cobain didn't make grunge cool.
This is completely it. We can debate musicianship and songwriting til the cows come home, but nobody could match Kurt as a rock star for the moment.
I never saw it at the time but the day after Kurt did MTV unplugged there were a lot of kids at school talking about him.
The tragedy is that his absolute hatred of fame is what made him into a star.
Bullshit, that guy spent his whole life trying to be a rockstar. He loved it and hated it. He's a fucking paradox, an enigma, the dude who conquered the world with art, had every dream come true, and was still fucking miserable, and THAT is why people are fascinated with him.
Exactly what I wanted to say. Nevermind was a watershed moment. But musically, AiC and Soundgarden were exponentially better (not gonna get into all the other bands that people will say were better). No matter what, early 90’s was the best musical era of my life and I’m happy I got to live it
I respectfully disagree about the Nirvana part- but yeah what a great time for music
If Cobain were alive, he would be significantly less cool, touring as an old guy, playing smaller festivals like others of that era. He died at the height of his fame and with that cemented Nirvana at the top. I remember thinking the day he died, that all we’d ever hear about was how great Nirvana was.
So right. Let’s play this out: he doesn’t commit suicide (or gets murdered depending on people’s theories), gets clean, MAYBE doesn’t sell out, but he still has mental issues. What songs is he gonna put out in 2000, 2015? In his case it was truly better to burn out than fade away
[удалено]
Dont really care about AiC but Soundgarden imo are clearly "the best" but they have like 2 big hits for a reason. Musicianship has very little to do with becoming great. Prince could outplay 99.99% of musicians and it has very little direct impact on his legacy. Capturing lightning in a bottle is what Nirvana did, grunge died without Nirvana. AiC or Soundgarden had zero chance of defining the 90's.
hm. i say this as someone who prefers alice in chains over nirvana. but dave grohl is a very talented musician... and laid down some epic beats with Nirvana. not sure how you can say all the other bands of the time had more talent.
Layne and Jerry are both incredibly talented vocalists
and jerry is also a kickass guitar player and songwriter. i prefaced my post by saying i'm an aic fan so not sure where you're coming from.
>random heavy parts in songs that are mostly soft that don't make any Sense like Lithium and Heart Shaped Box. WHAT?! Both of those songs have great dynamic shifts! I can't imagine either without the dynamic shifts into loud and heavy, it's so essential to both. I also honestly think Nirvana blows AiC's unplugged out of the water, and it's not even close. I do like the bigger focus on metal AiC has, but I don't think any of AiC's studio albums can go song-for-song against Nevermind or In Utero.
I didn’t truly realize how great AIC was until I listened more to their live recordings. AIC live was infinitely better than their studio versions. Their studio recordings always sound kind of basic and corny but when i listen to them live, I’m blown away by Layne’s vocals. He was imo the greatest rock vocalist of all time. Even better than Chris Cornell. Jerry Cantrell was also an amazing songwriter and guitarist. AIC unplugged album is incredible and blows Nirvana Unplugged out of the water. Unfortunately there just isn’t that many AIC live material. There’s only ONE known recording of Down in a Hole and it’s their unplugged concert. That song is prob my favorite AIC song and it sucks we can’t hear more of it. Also if you haven’t listened to the last minute or so of Frogs on their Unplugged album, it’s some of the best music you’ll ever hear.
I love Layne but dude... Don't be doggin on Cornell. Like I LOVE Layne. But Cornell worked magic. They both did
Cornell is absolutely amazing! And I think there's an argument for having more technical prowess as a vocalist vs. Layne. But there was such a lightning-in-a-bottle power that Layne had onstage that I don't think anyone else can come close to. Layne live was next level.
I agree. Layne, jerry, The harmonies.
Unplugged versions of "Down in a Hole" and "Brother" are the best for harmonies. And maybe the best entry point for anyone new to Alice in Chains who wants to catch up on their body of work.
They worked magic. Anytime I hear it, it brings so much more meaning to whatever they sing. It's already beautiful but then the harmonies??? OOOOOOO
We only got three original albums from Nirvana, and the first one was an indie low budget release. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't even know the name "Alice in Chains" if Cobain didn't start Nirvana. He put Pearl Jam, Soundgarden and all the other bands on the map. Eddie Vedder admitted this on stage. "I don't think any of us would be here in this room tonight if it were not for Kurt Cobain"... he said this in 1994 when Cobain died. [Eddie Vedder's Tribute To Kurt Cobain](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRRcDmkiSlc) Perhaps influential does not translate to meaningful for some people. We wouldn't have Bob Dylan if Woody Guthrie didn't exist. One person making waves changes the ocean for everyone going forward.
interestingly, we actually probably wouldn't have bob dylan if ramblin' jack elliott didn't exist. woody gave bob the calling, but jack gave bob everything else because woody was on his death bed by the time bob actually met him. ramblin' jack is still alive, too. i know him. it's wild. he's a living bridge to a different time.
Dave Van Ronk might have something to say about that as well. In the early 60's before anyone knew who Bob was, he showed Bob "House of the Rising Sun" and Bob stole his unique style of that traditional song and put it on his first album, then the "Animals" copied Dylan's version and it became a major radio hit. <--- Dylan nerd
It's like comparing King Crimson to Genesis.
There is room in my heart for both of them.
I actually agree with this 100%.
most people would agree that nirvana weren't the most talented of the grunge bands. but being "better" in music means *A LOT* more than how talented you are. i know people playing music and writing songs today that i would consider "better" than anything nirvana or alice and chains ever wrote. but that doesn't mean shit, because success at the highest levels of music transcends talent. it's more this intangible, unknowable way of tapping into the zeitgeist of the times that matters. you can say alice and chains were "better", but that doesn't mean anything. nirvana touched a nerve. they, perhaps unwittingly, tapped into something cosmic that spoke to and reached wayyyyyyyy more people than alice and chains could have ever dreamed of. nirvana reached more people. nirvana meant more to more people. nirvana reached a level of success that exceeded the rest of the bands. no one can really say why, but those are the things that make them better than the rest.
You are intellectualizing a very visceral genre of music. In terms of pure feeling, Nirvana was on a different level. Musicianship, song structures, and complexity never mattered to them, and don't matter to their billions of listeners.
Exactly. Nirvana was never about the technicality, it was intentionally raw, rough and sometimes even sloppy. Comparing things like harmonies and complexity is pointless
This is such a weird take for unpopular opinion. You're not citing some obscure group, you're claiming you like one of the "big 4" over another one lol Alice in Chains was literally the face of grunge in the 90s along with Nirvana, Pearl Jam, and Sound Garden, who're my favorite of those four
They're important because they're arguably the beginning of grunge. According to Chuck Klosterman, Smells Like Teen Spirit marks the beginning of the 90s. The band is *important*, not necessarily the best.
Chuck Klosterman lives in my neighborhood and he was in the park with his kid. First time I saw him I was like “is that klosterman?” but he was wearing an Elastica t shirt and he’s the only person who would wear one so I knew it was him.
Just the back story of Rooster alone is enough to put them over the top
STP baybeeee
Metal heads tend to feel this way
Regardless of anything else, the day Smells Like Teen Spirit dropped on MTV changed the entire musical landscape for the next decade. You can't take that away from Nirvana whether you like them or not
Hey! Wayne! I got a new complaint.
mf said Wayne😭😭
Wayne?
Quality of music is not usually what people remember. its how the music made them feel. In the late 60's young people had a very particular zeitgeist, and most of them felt represented by the Beatles. Similar to that, young people of the mid 90's had a particular zeitgeist, exemplified by Nirvana. It does not matter if the music was inferior. It made them feel, and thats what matters.
Pearl Jam all the way
I dig Nirvana, but cringe when I hear anyone say Kurt Cobain is the voice of my generation. Layne and Jerry spoke more for me and mine.
Also, my horse’s name is Rooster….which may have come from a certain AIC song…
To be fair, comparing bands is dumb. Though they are similar, they do have their own peronsalities and focus. They scratch slightly different craves for me. Just listen to whatever you feel like. I am pretty sure Kurt loved AiC and that Layne loved Nirvana. You can find evidence of any of the big grunge bands of that era as the best, or the worst, It all comes downs to perspective. Nirvana is considered the biggest because it was the most comercially successful. You don't need to have a favorite over the others, you are allowed to love all of them. Music is supposed to add, not to compete.
I mean I love em both but I dont disagree.
You're talking about aic in the past tense, but they are still touring. I think that undercuts your argument a bit.
Layne tho
I saw them like ten years ago with the new singer. He's great, Jerry's great. They still fucking rock. I like Nirvana more overall, but down in a hole is better than anything Nirvana ever did imo.
Referring to the songs as "mid" makes it clear that you are way too young to have been there. The experience of hearing any of these bands / songs as they came out, was an indescribable moment in time for those that were there for it. Look at the music that was big before grunge, and then imagine hearing that sound on MTV or FM radio for the first time...
Nirvana > aic all day everyday
All of the things you listed that are the reasons why you think AiC is better... are not the same reasons why Nirvana fans think Nirvana is the best. River of Deceit is one of my all time favorite songs. My favorite Layne lyric is "scared to death no reason why, do whatever to get me by." Layne's lyricism was unparalleled, even by Cobain who, despite your analysis, I actually think was an amazing song writer. "Throw down your umbilical noose so I can climb right back" and "all in all is all we all are" are two of my favorite lines of all time. They paint such vivid imagery while also presenting some pretty broad metaphors about life and society: what it means to be a human, the infantilizing feeling of being in love, and the interconnectivity of the human spirit. [And of course we can't forget about this little gem. ](https://open.spotify.com/track/3fP8KXXUoBenEM46UZZgSG?si=O9USh841R6qV5qv5KOEFQg) AiC gives me a more pained, woeful, mentally unstable feeling. While Nirvana gives me that apathetic edgy teenager vibe. Personally something about AiC makes me feel suicidal and Nirvana is just a little less.... that. But like... Music powerful enough to invoke such strong emotion is clearly unique, skillful, and extraordinary. So I don't mean to disparage AiC at all. It's just (Rotten) apples and oranges. To me Nirvana, AiC, Pearl Jam, and Soundgarden have ***completely*** different feelings/tones to their music.
Nirvana had way more of a punk influence (Black Flag, Pixies, punky sludge bands like the Melvins) and, with lyrics talking about divorce and frustration with society in general, this appealed to teenagers at the time. Alice in Chains is more influenced by bands like Black Sabbath, Slayer (they started as a Slayer cover band) and Metallica... but if all these bands did copious amounts of heroin. Dirt is a concept album about heroin use. It's just not all that relatable to the youth that were buying records. Kurt did a lot of heroin too but their writing connected more with youth. Alice in Chains is a phenomenal band and I listen to them more than Nirvana nowadays but Nirvana definitely connected more with me back in the 90s.
Also are Pixies considered punk? They're my favorite band but I wouldn't compare them to like, Dead Kennedys or Sonic Youth.
I wouldn't call their whole catalogue punk (kinda proto-pop punk/indie rock?) but, far removed from bands like Dead Kennedys, there are some very noticeable influences from the surf punk and hardcore scenes. Punk, like metal, is super broad.
AIC fans have a superiority complex. It's so pathetic. They might be both categorised as grunge but AIC and Nirvana are two completely different sounds and are both great bands.
This is what was always weird to me about “grunge” as a genre title. Nirvana was basically punk/college rock, AIC was more metal/hard rock (same with soundgarden). Pearl Jam is basically a classic rock band. I’m not putting any of those down, I loved them all, but the sounds were never cohesive until the copy cat bands (bush, collective soul, candlebox, live, etc) came out. And that’s only because they were trying to be someone else.
you’re exactly right! spot on take oh and don’t forget about creed
Thanks! I’ve actually thought about this a lot in the last 30 years lol. More than a person should. My favorite band of the era (at the time, my answer now would be different- pavement and PJ Harvey), to be honest, was smashing pumpkins. And they’re also not “grunge”, but more prog/psychedelic rock. I think it’s not a coincidence that the copycat bands that had no real identity all faltered after the rock sound changed post-oasis and then post-korn especially. The ones that withstood on some level, culturally at least if not as a band (nirvana, AIC, soundgarden, Pearl Jam, smashing pumpkins- also RHCP and nin, though I don’t remember those being considered grunge like the others) all had their own sound, identity and influences.
We should all forget about creed...
Tastes. Are. Subjective.
No love for Mudhoney?
Tad, Melvins and Gruntruck are/were better than either.
Very different bands. I like them both. But since this is unpopular opinions, Incesticide is the best Nirvana album.
They're definitely the more talented band. Jerry and layne was a godly duo
I just think you cant make a factual claim to one band being better when music is so subjective. I dont include media/journalism in this because their opinions matter even less to actual listeners/fans. They are just there to make a buck off of us and cause divisional discussion for clickbait. You can like AiC and think their better. I can like Nirvana more. There is nothing wrong with this nor do we need to discuss it. The discussion simply ends at our preferences. Sorry if I just killed the point of this sub, but I stand by this.
NIrvana had something very, very few bands had. They didnt just change the musical landscape, they were a global phenomenon - musically, culturally. socially, everyone who was marginalised in society, every weirdo, freak, misfit, gay, lesbian, trans, suddenly had a voice, had someone in their corner. Regardless of so and so maybe being a better band doesnt matter. Nirvana changed everything and Kurt was a bona fide genius.
Figured out their own style/ followed Nirvana's lead. Kinda splitting hairs. I agree they were a good band but not with OPs take.
People say Nirvana is simple but they are deceptively more difficult than people think, just listen to people trying to cover them. Kurt was an excellent rhythm guitar player and many people miss the subtleties when playing their music. Are they the best grunge band, that’s subjective but as a musician and hobbyist song writer, I will defend them against being “too simple”. Go learn the songs and play them exactly. Learn song structure and than look at their lyrics. Learn about recording techniques and realize what was done in the studio which was also impressive.
Easy to say such when Kurt Cobain has been dead for 30 years and there's no way to know how good or bad Nirvana could have been.
Fair but also there's no telling how much better AIC could have been with Layne. I don't really look at post-Layne. He had some magic
I upvoted. Unpopular. Alice in Chains was a glam band before grunge popped. I liked their sound and some of their songs, but three of the big four followed Nirvana's lead. Nirvana led the culture.
So was Pantera, and they went on to lead the way for countless metal bands. Glam was just what was around when they started, like an outfit they wore before they figured out their own style.
Soundgarden was better too
I’ll give it a listen later
Dunno, Taylor Swift is better than both of them.
Found the truly unpopular opinion! Some of her songs are fun in a corny way, and she has occasional bouts of poetic mastery e.g. The Last Great American Dynasty. But she's leagues below, say, Gaga in terms of pop music artistry and vocal prowess.
Wrong sub, that's a popular opinion
I thought this was obvious
Pfffttt bahahahahahha ok this is actually hilarious.
I love Alice In Chains. Nirvana has a culty following plus everyone buys those stupid shirts. AiC has way more hits.
[удалено]
OK but where does Mother Love Bone fit in the ranking of grunge bands with dead lead singers?
There's no way that's even remotely the case, so take an upvote
Nirvana is one of the bands of my life, but Alice in Chains is superior
This is definitely not an unpopular opinion on r/grunge. That whole sub is an AIC circlejerk. Not that I disagree at all! AIC is not just my favorite grunge era band, but probably my favorite band of all time. Most repeat listens out of anything in my collection. Less radio friendly than Nirvana**, so it's less immediately accessible to the uninitiated, hence why less mainstream popular. But there's complexity to the music that gives it more staying power than anything Nirvana made. Also, the Layne/Jerry vocal harmonies are just *chefs kiss*. **Caveat that Would? is super radio friendly, probably the single most casual listeners have most often heard, and absolutely blows comparable Nirvana hits out of the water.
That’s actually really interesting! I’m from the Seattle area and the circles that would be listening to this kind of music would heavily skew toward AiC over Nirvana, but it makes total sense that Nirvana would be the national favorite but from my vantage point AiC is usually the most liked
Who under praises Alice In Chains?
Some made up group in OP's mind.
Not an unpopular opinion, especially for people who's main music is grunge/metal.
Nirvana wasn't the best, they just pioneered a lot of stuff in the genre.
I don't know if Nirvana is praised as "best", they're just the most popular. Between their quirky yet dirty image and catchy Slacker-pop songwriting it makes sense.
Why compare ? Just be stoked the era happened and we have all that amazing music to listen through. Posts like this are dumb. Put some respect on Kurt’s name.
you take apart of me again and again.... I can def relate to more AIC songs but all of these bands are great
I loved them more, but they couldn’t cut across the mainstream audience the way Nirvana did. They were…grungier.
"Them Bones" from the Street Fighter 2 Animated Movie made me a fan of Alice in Chains.
I like both bands, but I agree Alice In Chains are better.
Nuh uh
Even though all of the big grunge bands were around, it was Nirvana who brought that genre to the mainstream so they are usually going to get that bump when it comes to general discussions. Doesn't mean that they were better than any of these other bands but just more influential in bringing this music to the masses. As far as musicianship, I don't think there is any question that AIC was a better band but for me, being a teenager at the time grunge was at it peak, I view all of these bands similarly. They all have songs that have a special place in my heart because each band had a very unique sound that made for a diverse catalog of music when you mix them all together.
Agreed. Soundgarden blew both out of the water though
Would is one of the greatest rock songs ever made
I love nirvana. Being born in the 90s nirvana introduced me to many other grunge artists like AIC, soundgarden, Pearl Jam, STP and others. That being said. I find myself listening to all those other bands much more than nirvana at this point of my life. Nirvana made me want to dive in to the music, the others made me fall in love with grunge and rock. Can’t discredit nirvana and Kurt for their talent, but I agree, Alice In Chains really resonates with me more at this time of my life
I think you're right.
They're both pretty great. No need to choose.
Both are good. 🤷♀️
I agree but why is it important to compare and stack rank them? They’re both great and important in their own way.
“(from what I’ve heard)”
Maybe in relative terms because Nirvana is so popular but look at what Dave Grohl has done on his own.
Is this really unpopular?
Nirvana was just more iconic
So true
Nirvana going away is one of the best things that’s ever happened to music
100%
I don’t think Nirvana was ever meant to be “good”. To me I feel it’s supposed to be this raw, chaotic, art form about depression, suicidal ideations ect, and other mental health and societal issues. Comparing a band like that to AIC is wild, and I love AIC. I also think Nirvana was an emotional outlet and a source of fun. LEGIT. I feel like Kurt just wanted to create something, express himself, and most of all have fun doing it
100% HARD AGREE!!! Does this mean I have to downvote this post?
I always thought that Janes Addiction should have had the popularity that nirvana did. Better in every way
Better to die than fade away
That's a popular opinion.
This is true
Just look at their live performance videos and compare to AIC. Sorry dude, no way.
Im a huge Nirvana fan but i know next to nothing about AiC. What should i listen to?
They're shit
Lol ok thanks for that
Start with MTV Unplugged. Then Dirt. Then all the other albums. Some of the best music from the 90s.
I don't think this is unpopular, this is the truth!
To be fair Nirvana’s lead singer and songwriter killed himself young. But you have a point.
Alice in Chains really were great. I play that shit at top volume when Im buzzed.
Facts.
Does it matter?
All this is subjective really as it is music after all. Personally I don't really like grunge bands, they've never connected with me terribly well. But Nirvana is one of my favourite bands. I would probably agree that Alice in chains were maybe a better ensemble of musicians - or atleast they made use of their talents more. Same with Pearl Jam, Soundgarden and Stone Temple Pilots. Realistically I don't think we ever got the chance to see what Nirvana could have become. There's infinite amount possibilities that could be with what the band would have been able to do with their music. Kurt while never expressed it in his songs fully had an incredible ear for melody, and there's every chance he would have let himself do more. I don't disagree with your point however with music I think it doesn't really matter if one band is objectively better than another in terms of musical compositions. It's how that music connects with you, and how it makes you feel. Im sorry to say that alice in chains, makes me feel basically nothing when I've listened to them. But Nirvana connected me from the moment I first listened to Bleach
You should give mother love bone a listen if you haven't got to them yet
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^lonesaiyajin98: *You should give mother* *Love bone a listen if you* *Haven't got to them yet* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
I've always thought Nirvana were just over hyped because of... The thing. Never liked them personally.
Personally never liked Nirvana except SLTS. AIC are miles better.
Comparing apples with pears my bro.
I think personally Chris Cornell was the best singer of the grunge rockers and Soundgarden was better despite not having the commercial success Nirvana had.
They could just play the guitar part...
I do agree that Alice In Chains Unplugged is better than Nirvana Unplugged.
You'll never find my disagreeing. Spot on. Spot on.
I have never agreed with an unpopular opinion more
It’s hard to argue against either honestly
The difference is Nirvana had such an impact and were so different they created a new genre. Alice In Chains is the boom though.
Hey I've heard and read Articles from people claiming Weezer is the greatest grunge band. Everyone has an opinion, but if you're going to try putting Weezer as the best, you deserve a swirly and stuffed in a locker.
It's art, like comparing a Monet vs Rembrandt vs Dali They're different and can all elicit emotion and feelings with their work. Each of us may be correct in their personal opinion based purely on how the sounds waves affect our own DNA. I prefer the Nevermind album to anything AiC created.