Alice In Chains are back...

[Liam]

As for Nirvana, they weren't all that talented, they weren't all that original, but it's listenable, and it worked. They only got as famous as they did because the media needed a pretty face to put on a movement that was going to happen regardless, and found it with Kurt, and they only stayed that famous because Kurt ensured it, and I still consider his suicide a conscious attempt at cultural immortality.

Essentially, far from the greatest band in the world, but not worthy of the hate that gets directed at them.

I made an argument a little while back that Nirvana in ten years will probably be viewed as under-rated (ok, moderate hyperbole, but meh ), just because the amount of hate that is directed at them is immesurable at times, and un-deserved.

At the time, none of the 3 were amazing at what they did, they weren't the most talented band going, but they got by on Cobain being able to write a good "pop" song, even one which was still alternative in style.

You also have to look at the time they came about during, and what other stuff was in the charts to see why Nirvana was viewed by a lot of the more general music fans as a breath of fresh air, comparitively.

EDIT: Yeah, I never said Pantera were bland...I said they took Metal to the masses, without really compromising much.

Edited February 23, 2006 by rvdwannabe

[Ash J. Williams]

Wow...for some reason, I thought "band" said "bland", and the sentence still made sence to me...

[Skummy]

You also have to look at the time they came about during, and what other stuff was in the charts to see why Nirvana was viewed by a lot of the more general music fans as a breath of fresh air, comparitively.

I understand that, definitely, but it would have happened with or without Nirvana, in my opinion, they were just the "face" given to a movement that had been building since the mid-80s, and the media needed to put a pretty face on it, and Nirvana were perfect. Handsome, marketable blue-eyed frontman, and a far more palatable sound than the likes of Mudhoney. That way, rather than try and cease the inevitability of this new subculture breaking through, they could ride it and market it (which would, of course, eventually kill it, in much the same way the media and the fashion industry killed punk in the 70s).

[Liam]

You also have to look at the time they came about during, and what other stuff was in the charts to see why Nirvana was viewed by a lot of the more general music fans as a breath of fresh air, comparitively.

I understand that, definitely, but it would have happened with or without Nirvana, in my opinion, they were just the "face" given to a movement that had been building since the mid-80s, and the media needed to put a pretty face on it, and Nirvana were perfect. Handsome, marketable blue-eyed frontman, and a far more palatable sound than the likes of Mudhoney. That way, rather than try and cease the inevitability of this new subculture breaking through, they could ride it and market it (which would, of course, eventually kill it, in much the same way the media and the fashion industry killed punk in the 70s).

Yeah, thats what I meant, reallly. They came along at the "commercially" right time, more than anything. Right place, right time, when there was a change needed. Nirvana were generally not overly special to bigger music fans due to them (as you said) not being overly original, but since they had the cross over appeal)that had been looked for I assume, but not many of the grunge bands had(, it was a big difference to the more casual music fan, especially comparitive to the Guns N Roses, Def Leppard, Bon Jovi, Motley Crue and stuff that had been in the charts in the 80's

Edited February 23, 2006 by rvdwannabe

[Ash J. Williams]

See, that's why I don't like Nirvana...I was like 5 or 6 when they got big, so I wasn't sucked into the "commercial" part of music then...and when I heard how awesome they were from other people and then listened to them, I was like "Wow...this isn't that good"

[Liam]

That's probably because very few bands will measure up to the "awesome" tag, let alone a "they changed music" tag

[Skummy]

Imagine if someone in the mid-90s time travelled to 2005/2006, found that Radio 1 was playing Oasis, and that everyone was discussing Alice In Chains, Nirvana and Guns & Roses. I'd be right fucked off.

[Steeb]

Depending on which day of the week it is, I'd arguably say Pearl Jam owned them all >_>

[Liam]

The only thing with Audioslave is that bringing in Cornell with 3/4's of RATM will be totally different to RATM. With AIC, you are looking at arguably the main writing force, who also sung a lot of the stuff (like, the harmonies and what not) along with Staley, in Cantrell, whilst Staley is replaced probably with someone of a similar vocal style I guess.

EDIT: And SSTB, listen to some Alice In Chains, its worth it IMO.

Edited February 23, 2006 by rvdwannabe

[Steeb]

I see your point. I guess I get the trouble now, but hey, who knows, it might be for the best that they get a new guy in. He might end up being better than Layne, voice and show wise.

And recommend me some AIC then, beyotch.

[Liam]

Songs wise:

Down In A Hole

Hate To Feel

I Stay Away

Got Me Wrong

Nutshell

Man In A Box

Rooster

Dirt

Godsmack

Heaven Beside Me

Bleed the Freak

There whole back catalogue is arguably worth checking out, as they had 3 albums, 2 live albums (one unplugged) and 2 EP's, so there isn't much (....that's if I got most of thier stuff noted down ). If you want a specific album to check out, check out "Dirt".

[Benji]

How dare you not mention Sunshine.

[Liam]

.....I said check the whole back catalogue...good enough >_>

They were just the songs that came to my head first, as the ones I like the most from AIC change daily

Edited February 23, 2006 by rvdwannabe

[Ash J. Williams]

AIC Songs

Over Now

Nutshell

Got Me Wrong

Brother

Head Creeps

Frogs

Rotten Apple

...like RVDWannabe said though, just check it all out, haha.

[Cactus Drags]

I only have AIC's best of, but it's excellent. Usually, I would think that reforming without the frontman would be grounds for making a new band. but if Cantrell wrote most of AIC's stuff anyway, and as long as the new vocalist is decent enough, it should be pretty good and close to what AIC used to do.

[Liam]

As I'd mentioned in the Drowning Pool discussion a little while ago, I was against a non-Dave Williams DP, but with AIC's reformation, you at least have one half of the "important" part of the band (ok, they are all important, but you get my point ).

I'll still love to see some more Cantrell solo work, though.

Add "Sludge Factory" to my list for the AIC songs to get, brilliant!

SSTB, check out Cantrell as well....."Angel Eyes", "Mother Spinning In Her Grave" and "Anger Rising" are all class...have his first album, but listened to the second album a lot more.

Edited February 23, 2006 by rvdwannabe

[Steeb]

I like the solo Cantrell stuff I have heard. I'll check out whatever I can get hold of by them tomorrow - probably just try and pick up 'Dirt' - and let ya'll know what I think.

[GhostMachine]

If you really want to see how brilliant Jerry Cantrell is as a songwriter, take a listen to "Rooster". If I remember correctly, the song is about his father, who was a sniper in Viet Nam.

And Nirvana and Pearl Jam are both so overrated that it isn't even funny.

[Liam]

If you really want to see how brilliant Jerry Cantrell is as a songwriter, take a listen to "Rooster". If I remember correctly, the song is about his father, who was a sniper in Viet Nam.

And Nirvana and Pearl Jam are both so overrated that it isn't even funny.

Yeah, it was about his Dad in Vietnam, who was nicknamed "Rooster". IIRC, allmusic.com could tell you what songs people had written on thier biography pages, but I dunno if that had been removed...worth a look to see what Cantrell had written over the years for AIC.

How are Pearl Jam over-rated, btw (I'm just genuinely interested in your reasons)? At the start, they were MTV's darlings, but they cleverly (and conciously, as far as I'm aware) removed themselves from the commercial eye, doing more and more "eclectic" albums (relatively) amongst other things. Not huge amounts of people are into them today, and it's very rare that people are "oh my god, Pearl Jam are like the best thing ever" (as some people admittedly get like with Nirvana).

To be honest, I'm always surprised by the lack of interest in Pearl Jam, but that's just me.

Edited February 24, 2006 by rvdwannabe

[TOG]

Yeah, I know one person that lists Pearl Jam as their favorite band, and I was fucking shocked.

Everything AIC has ever done is pretty good, and that's not even the fanboy in me, but I like the Facelift album best.

To me, AIC without Layne Staley is an AIC that actually gets shit accomplished. I'm a huge Layne fan, but he wasn't exactly the ideal frontman.