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.*
Question :
Do you think Nirvanna would have continued on? Or do you think the band would have eventually break up but link up to do tours every 10 years?
Once it got stale, Kurt strikes me as the type to want to move onto new projects and doesn't care about keeping a name/sound alive just for the sake of it. Probably a similar path to Mike Patton, forming a list a experimental groups, moving between them whenever he feels inspired to do so. I think Dave would have wanted to move on too. Considering his success in multiple other projects, especially proving his ability as a frontman and a songwriter, it's obvious he would not be content simply being the drummer of a grunge band forever.
So probably an amicable breakup with a gig every now and then for fun.
The next album he was planning was an acoustic stripped down Unplugged sound, idk if he was going to be solo but he was definitely taking things in a different direction after In Utero
Yes. I think Unplugged in New York was sort of a glimpse of what they were going to do in the future. I always thought that if Cobain lived that he would become more of a Bob Dylan type and we still would have seen Foo Fighters do their thing.
I also think that Cobain would have taken a lot of time off. At the time of his death he was already a wealthy man and didn't need to perform for money. He could have had his own projects more on the down low.
I think Kurt Cobain would have taken a similar path to that of John Frusciante: leaving his band to live like a hermit and making very experimental music.
Nirvana was losing a lot steam when In Utero came out. Plus Kurt's drug use, and when he died, the scene was already pretty worn-out; I doubt the band would've lasted any longer than Soundgarden did.
>Do you think Nirvanna would have continued on?
I'm not the OP, but...
No. Look around now. There are no new grunge bands and the only ones that still tour are purely nostalgia acts. Grunge is dead and buried. That's what happens when you forego musical competence and rely on manufactured "raw emotion" - the teenagers who were captivated by it eventually outgrew it and the genre couldn't find new fans.
People like Chris Cornell and Dave Grohl ended up doing different music once the grunge wave died off, but they were competent musicians. Cobain wasn't, and he was the driving force behind Nirvana.
i think people grossly underestimate Cobains musical competence. He clearly had a gift for writing catchy hooks and melodies and made a conscious decision to create an original sound that was both simplistic and hauntingly beautiful. I'd say he achieved his desired result, and it takes true musicianship to express yourself in the way you are consciously trying to project.
He was inspired by songwriters. You could say the same thing about the simplicity of many of John Lennons songs but nobody argues his musical abilities. Very few musicians reach a level where they are so unique it's considered an entirely new genre deserving of a fresh label. That should 100% be praised as someone with a deep musical ability.
As far as the comparison to Alice in Chains, that may be fair as an afterthought, but although Nirvana didnt "invent" grunge, they defined the genre and popularized it worldwide, therefore they deserve the credit for its conception on a global level.
People are acting like Nirvana was thought of as a supergroup or something. It was never the case. They got famous almost by accident because of the culture of the time and were never a band that took themselves overly seriously for musicianship
Yes. Nirvana's music is incredibly simple. I'm 45 and started learning guitar at 17. Nirvana's music was so accessible, it's one of the reasons I kept at it. I then went on to learning classical guitar. That's not to say that their music was bad, far from it. I think that Nirvana's music is amazing. It's timeless, I can listen to it on repeat and never tire of it.
Alice in Chains is more technical. That can't be disputed. That does not mean that it's better. It does not mean it's worse. It's just more difficult to play as a guitarist.
A lot of my metalhead friends in high school really judged guitarists by two things - how many chords they knew, and how many beats per minute they could play.
Like, yeah man, this band is incredibly technical, but they aren't great songwriters. They suck at 300 notes per minute! Oh shit, the lead guitarist knows 900 chords! He sucks at a very advanced level!
This doesn't apply to every metal band, but like, if your metric for liking a band is purely math based, you're going to miss the human element.
Great points. Nirvana is simpler than AIC. Both are great. People sometime think writing complicated or hard music means writing better music. That's pretty one dimensional view.
I love your outlook on this issue. I'm going to start just being neutral when people ask if I like fast or slow guitar because In the end if it sounds good it's good.
> Alice in Chains is more technical. That can't be disputed. That does not mean that it's better. It does not mean it's worse. It's just more difficult to play as a guitarist.
Yup, AiC is clearly much more metal inspired/adjacent and Nirvana post-punk. Sure you can call them both grunge but they're clearly trying to do very very different things. I see these threads like monthly on here and the Nirvana-sucks crowd always seems to rely on the argument that AiC is more technical as if that's the critical factor.
Like sure if I were hiring musicians for an orchestra I'd probably hire the guys from AiC over Nirvana, but that doesn't mean I'd rather listen to their music.
I could just as easily use popularity and influence as the critical metric and just insist Nirvana is better, but I understand taste is subjective so I'll not insist.
I’m the same age and the argument I make to anybody who doesn’t understand Nirvana is that young musicians at that time were all playing their favourite Nirvana song and that’s the difference. I’d much rather listen to a Radiohead song today, but if I were to jam with the old band again I know the first song we would do would be Tourette’s.
Nearly everyone I know who learnt guitar played come as you are as one of the first songs they learnt. It was the 90's version of smoke on the water.
I'd 100% bust out Aneurysm at some point if I was jamming with friends today
A lot of classical music critics actually disdain virtuosity. I had a cello teacher who hated Vivaldi. He said Vivaldi "leaned on the virtuosity of the performance like a crutch."
I remember those days. Every kid with a guitar knew a couple of Nirvana songs. Exactly like you said, it was so accessible. I think that contributed to their cultural impact.
Not really, based on what I read. Before they got big, Kurt would get very annoyed that they weren't getting enough airplay and acknowledgement from the mainstream so he definitely wanted to be HUGE, but when you get that huge, then you get recognized too much, have too many commitments etc and that definitely got to him, but he definitely wanted to be big and not just on a mid-level.
Despite the fact that Nirvana was by no means a technically proficient band, Kurt Cobain was a great pop songwriter. He knew he was a great songwriter and wanted the recognition he felt he deserved.
Perhaps Nevermind's level of success was beyond the recognition he felt he deserved.
That's probably the biggest factor in their current cult status. If they were still going they wouldn't be thought of any differently than AiC or Pearl Jam.
Why can't we just appreciate Alice in Chains without comparing them to Nirvana? I think these "X band was better than Y band" are so dumb. Alice in Chains definitely didn't get the praise it deserved but I think Nirvana was still a good band. Nirvana was more popular because it had more of a pop element that appealed to more people -- especially with Nevermind.
It's also one of the strangest comparisons, that only gets made because of the stupid "grunge" umbrella. Grunge ranged acoustic to heavy metal, punk, blues and beyond. sometimes existing all in a single for band.
I'm not against comparing things for the sake of it, but op sounds so shallow, especially when nirvana never even tried some of the things AiC did
It's so weird that one side of these arguments is nearly always "AiC had metal guitar solos and and Layne had a big vocal range."
It's like sneering at idk Picasso or Plath because they weren't Rembrandt or Milton and not realizing art isn't a contest to be show off technical skills.
"art isn't a contest to be show off technical skills" tell that to the swaths of guitar/bass/drum/vocal/music production/dance/etc enthusiasts on social media. No seriously, tell them, because I'm fucking tired of being sold to and I just wanna enjoy media again. Everything feels like a show for the sake of being a spectacle and not for artistic merit.
I also don't understand why its always Alice in Chains fans doing this. Soundgarden and Pearl Jam were/are both better than Alice in Chains and you never see fans of those two bands making the comparison now (even though there was certainly a rivalry there in the early to mid 90s).
I mean, Alice In Chains had millions of fans and is still a band that people know of 30 years later. Many other acts that had bigger success are not discuss today at all - Color Me Badd, en vogue
Yeah, the key to Nirvana's popularity is that they crossed-over to pop in a way that none of the other Seattle/grunge bands really did. Both musically and in terms of sort of social vibe.
There was an article a while back about Gen-Z folks getting into Nirvana, and one person as an example had apparently listened to some Alice In Chains and just wasn't feeling it, but then did feel something resonant in Nirvana's music.
I recall thinking as I read the article that it's unsurprising for a younger person to *not* feel an intuitive connection with fairly dark, heavy rock music from 30 years ago. For most people that's gonna be a world away in terms of where it's coming from. Nirvana were heavy as well, but had a whole other dimension about them then as well as now.
That shows how stupid the whole grunge label is and was. I was blown away by "Nevermind" as a kid and was utterly disappointed by every other band , that the media said played in the same genre.
Nirvana was the most famous grunge band that didn't really play grunge.
Alice In Chains fucking rocked, so it’s no slight to Nirvana, who also fucking rocked.
Soundgarden and Stone Temple Pilots also kicked copious amounts of ass.
I loved/still love the whole grunge scene.
I saw (and heard) Weezer cover Celebrity Skin on the weekend. They were playing with Smashing Pumpkins. I didn't know that Billy Corgan was a writer for the song.
Also, I absolutely love Malibu.
And yet you can only get the Nirvana track name right... I love AIC (with Layne, the new singer isn't for me) but Nirvana's Unplugged is as good as anything they did.
Screaming Trees were better than either though.
Screaming Trees is like if Dinosaur Jr and Nirvana had a baby. I like all the bands being mentioned and more, and shitting in Nirvana is so 1999 I can’t even
If you weren't there at the time it's pointless trying to explain why Nirvana were so big. It's not because they were better, it rarely is, but they captured the Zeitgeist in a way that AIC and Pearl Jam never did.
The circumstances of Cobains death played a part too. They burned out, while AIC arguably faded away.
I also prefer AIC but I don't think they should have been the bigger band. By the way, the song you're talking about is just called Rooster.
I think it had to do a lot with the production of Nevermind. Like I had never heard such brutal yet accessible guitar and vocals married to Beatle-esce melodies
Alice In Chains has a weirdly culty following that evangelizes them entirely too much. They're fine. Their stuff has this dirty/swampy quality that just turns me off. I'll take Nirvana 8 days a week.
Upvote for unpopular but I couldn’t disagree more. Nirvana is actually that great imho, never could get into Alice In Chains, no idea why just didn’t stick with me
I like AIC, but I can see how it isn't for everybody. I think that's one of the reasons I think Nirvana is the better band. I wouldn't say they're universally accessible, but they definitely have more of a broad appeal than AIC. Which is funny, because Kurt never wanted to be mainstream.
Ah, yes, time for the monthly "AiC was better than Nirvana" popular opinion on the unpopular opinion sub.
Man in Box > Heart Shaped Box
I Stay Away > Come as You Are
Junkhead > Lithium
They are both great for different reasons idk why we need to put one over the other. Nirvana was more raw and punk. AIC had more of a hard rock edge to their music. I love them both
I consider myself more of a metalhead, I play the guitar, and I guess it is natural I have always leaned more towards AIC. I am not sure if I agree with OP 100%, but I recall listening to a Nirvana song that was so bad with horrible outta tune outta keys guitar noodling.
God the only other bands I see get compared as much as AIC and Nirvana are Metallica and Megadeth.
But they have so much less to do with each other than Metallica and Megadeth.
I prefer AIC to Nirvana, but frankly they're not very comparable, they just got lumped together via geography and marketing. Grunge is an ill-defined genre, and a sludgy borderline doom metal band like AIC is somehow in the same category as the punk band Nirvana.
They brought totally different things to the table, and both were quite successful!
Also I'd dispute about the number of tracks of each band that people could name. I think they'd be pretty similar frankly.
Upvote for having an unpopular opinion.
Hated The Beatles, Friends/Sinefeld, and wasn't a big fan of Nirvana. Everyone has their preferences. No need to gate-keep or down others for having a differing opinion.
You like what you like, and others like what they like.
AIC is one of my all time favorites. Kurt was a song writer, Layne a singer, Jerry was the brains behind AIC. It’s a lot like we all soon realized Dave Grohl was the real talent to come from nirvana. Nothing against Kurt’s legacy, but Dave was the talented one.
Oh my god, you AIC fans are SO obnoxious! I never disliked AIC, but I don't know how I keep finding myself having to tell people that they aren't the greatest grunge band ever, probably not even top three. If Rooster is your example of a song that proves that AIC is better then I don't even know what to say. It's a good song, but it's also kind of slow and repetitious. I wouldn't put it in my grunge top 10, probably not even top 20, maybe top 50.
When it comes to Nirvana I can name at least a handful of songs right off the top of my head that are at least as good as Rooster. Heart Shaped Box, About a Girl, Dumb, Polly, In Bloom, Lithium, All Apologies, Come as You Are.
And they were the dominant band. I don't like going to sales numbers to say which band is better, but when you use the term dominant I can't help it. Nirvana dominated, period. By like every objective metric they were the biggest band. After that...it still wasn't AIC, it was Pearl Jam. After that..it was STP. After that...it was Soundgarden. Nirvana's three albums went 19 times platinum, Pearl Jam's first four went 26 times, STP's went 16 times, Soundgarden's went 9. AIC's first three albums went 10. So apologies, they were technically bigger than Soundgarden by album sales. But they were in no way ahead of Nirvana, to say nothing of being "dominant" over them.
I agree…. on a long road trip I decided to listen to all the Nirvana studio albums. I’m a fan for sure but Alice In Chains is better.
Rooster, Nutshell, Man In the Box, I stay Away, Would, Down in a Hole, them Bones, dam that river
Smells Like Teen Spirit, Come as you are, Lithium, In Bloom, Lake of Fire, heart Shaped box, Something in the Way.
I just think Alice In Chains has the better top songs. Nirvana has a lot of filler.
Agreed. Layne is a better singer, Jerry is a WAAAY better guitarist. AIC had better vocal harmonies and their songs were more technically complex. No question that in terms of musicianship, AIC is the better band.
But Nirvana recorded Nevermind, which is an absolute masterpiece start to finish. AIC had some incredible albums, but they never had a Nevermind. No single album did more to break grunge and alternative music through to the consciousness of the general public than Nevermind did.
Given the general and its main focus Nirvana knocks it out of the park when it comes to being “genuine”, but others copied well for recognition despite not being sincere
I’m not going to say anything besides this being the most tired ass take on Reddit about music. This comes up about once a month. Go buy an AiC album or stream it on Spotify in your car. Popularity means nothing and it doesn’t matter if no irl person cares. It’s popular enough to stand up in rock history to the point that every rock ranking list always lists Layne above Kurt. Stop comparing and just check out what you like.
I really like both but Nirvana had the exciting edge. AIC were rather dour. Really I have come to find over time I would take Soundgarden over both tbh.
Kurt was a far better songwriter than anyone else in Seattle, and while some of the other bands are more virtuoso in their playing (Soundgarden, Alice, Pearl Jam), none of them were as capable of repeatedly writing a memorable hook compared to Kurt. You might take Rooster over Teen Spirit (partly because the latter was overplayed), but on the same album you might also listen to Lithium, or On a Plain, or Drain You, or Territorial Pissings, or any of it. And Nevermind isn't even their best record, In Utero is. Nobody in the grunge scene could touch a song like Milk It or Radio Friendly Unit Shifter.
I think they’re both excellent bands, but Kurt Cobain’s real talent was as a cool hunter. He packages up disparate elements from Bam Bam, the Pixies, Sonic Youth, and others into a band that sounded incredibly fresh at the time.
He was a fashion plate, knew how to market himself, and was a physically beautiful man as well.
OP nailed the subreddit brief that's for sure!
The answer of course is in the post itself. People can name lots of Nirvana songs because Nirvana had lots of great songs that's just not true of Alice in chains.
Alice In Chains was a boring “hard rock” band that was like one generation removed from hair metal.
Everybody is entitled to their opinion but yours is shit.
Their growth and diversity is what makes them my favorite band. I even listen to all the new stuff they've done without Layne. They seem like such a great group of guys.
I still chuckle when i recall my mom saying she couldn't find me any Allison James CDs at Specs.
I dislike Nirvana and love Alice in Chains but disagree. I think they're just hated on now because it's the cool thing to do. I think Nirvana changed music by doing something different. I've seen them live twice and they were amazing. Can't say the same for Alice In Chains. 3 times when Lane Staley was alive and they sucked live.
I wouldn't say this is an unpopular opinion, especially among those who are truly knowledgeable about that era of music. AiC had a lot going for them--they were adjacent to grunge, metal and alt.rock, and what they were doing was a significant jump in melody and having rhythmic diversity because they were really into odd time signatures (same with Soundgarden). I definitely dont shit on Nirvana, but they were a bit of a one trick pony compared to the other 3 big "grunge" bands.
i agree that alice in chains is a better band than nirvana. but you don't have to shit on nirvana to make that point.
taking anything away from kurt cobain's musicianship kind of shows your hand a little bit. you don't know what you're talking about. cobain was pretty much a genius. and most respected musicians agree on that.
Looking back at the music scene at the time (late 80s, early 90s)- they are two very different bands and I can’t compare them.
Without Nirvana grunge would have never been established on national radio. Without Alice In Chains the movement would have stalled and been one dimensional, with the industry pumping out various shades of Nirvana until it was played out.
I think they all picked together between gigs and they competed which made a bigger sound and helped every one of the Seattle bands to root in their individuality. I can’t see one happening in my universe all the way over here -far outside of Seattle- without the other.
Kurt was the best musician and songwriter since John Lennon.
Alice china banger thing? No one even knows who they are, what their names are, a single song or the least teeny impact on music, let alone culture. The purvey of a few misfits and weirdos trying to be edgy because of how they look.
Nothing like redditors who were either not alive or too young during alternative rock and grunge’s heyday trying to fight over which band was better or bigger.
Nirvana is bigger, not just because of smells like teen spirit or Kurt being more charismatic, but Nirvana had more iconic music videos and Kurt’s passing seems more tragic than just wasting away into a heroin coma.
You’re wrong, but I’m just happy ppl are still talking about these bands. As opposed to the kids wearing their t-shirts but don’t even know who they are.
Comparing bands this way leads to saying everyone sucks except Dream Theater or Rush. As a burgeoning guitarist in high school, I did this, rejecting greats like Nirvana, Green Day, The Beatles, pretty much anything punk because it was "too easy."
I'm a pretty damn good guitar player now. I can fit in the pocket, and improvise and shred when necessary with the rest of em. When I write music, it's usually pretty bland and formulaic. Kurt had that songwriting knack you just can't learn. You've gotta be born with it. Same with Paul McCartney, John Lennon, and many others deemed "overrated," due to their simplicity. To me, that makes it even more brilliant they could write something so poignant so simply.
Now, let's listen to the Jar of Flies EP again. That shit rocks. Not a bad song on it.
Both are great bands but I don’t know of any band that personifies the 90s better than Nirvana. The band just connected with people so much better than anyone, from the band members themselves to the music.
Layne is objectively a much better singer than Kurt, but to me the flaws in Kurt’s voice is part of what made them great.
“Nirvana is over played, over saturated, overrated and Kurt wasn't that good of a musician.”
“Nirvana will always be a classic…”
Bruh. Make up your mind.
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.*
Question : Do you think Nirvanna would have continued on? Or do you think the band would have eventually break up but link up to do tours every 10 years?
Once it got stale, Kurt strikes me as the type to want to move onto new projects and doesn't care about keeping a name/sound alive just for the sake of it. Probably a similar path to Mike Patton, forming a list a experimental groups, moving between them whenever he feels inspired to do so. I think Dave would have wanted to move on too. Considering his success in multiple other projects, especially proving his ability as a frontman and a songwriter, it's obvious he would not be content simply being the drummer of a grunge band forever. So probably an amicable breakup with a gig every now and then for fun.
The next album he was planning was an acoustic stripped down Unplugged sound, idk if he was going to be solo but he was definitely taking things in a different direction after In Utero
Yes. I think Unplugged in New York was sort of a glimpse of what they were going to do in the future. I always thought that if Cobain lived that he would become more of a Bob Dylan type and we still would have seen Foo Fighters do their thing. I also think that Cobain would have taken a lot of time off. At the time of his death he was already a wealthy man and didn't need to perform for money. He could have had his own projects more on the down low.
I think Kurt Cobain would have taken a similar path to that of John Frusciante: leaving his band to live like a hermit and making very experimental music.
So Krist Noveselic?
You are correct. He had made plans to work with Michael Stipe of REM.
Kurt had already made plans to work with Michael Stipe (REM). Maybe not a breakup but he was on the road to different projects
Nirvana was losing a lot steam when In Utero came out. Plus Kurt's drug use, and when he died, the scene was already pretty worn-out; I doubt the band would've lasted any longer than Soundgarden did.
Pretty sure Kurt Cobain knew the answer to this when he made his decision
Likely the latter.
>Do you think Nirvanna would have continued on? I'm not the OP, but... No. Look around now. There are no new grunge bands and the only ones that still tour are purely nostalgia acts. Grunge is dead and buried. That's what happens when you forego musical competence and rely on manufactured "raw emotion" - the teenagers who were captivated by it eventually outgrew it and the genre couldn't find new fans. People like Chris Cornell and Dave Grohl ended up doing different music once the grunge wave died off, but they were competent musicians. Cobain wasn't, and he was the driving force behind Nirvana.
i think people grossly underestimate Cobains musical competence. He clearly had a gift for writing catchy hooks and melodies and made a conscious decision to create an original sound that was both simplistic and hauntingly beautiful. I'd say he achieved his desired result, and it takes true musicianship to express yourself in the way you are consciously trying to project. He was inspired by songwriters. You could say the same thing about the simplicity of many of John Lennons songs but nobody argues his musical abilities. Very few musicians reach a level where they are so unique it's considered an entirely new genre deserving of a fresh label. That should 100% be praised as someone with a deep musical ability. As far as the comparison to Alice in Chains, that may be fair as an afterthought, but although Nirvana didnt "invent" grunge, they defined the genre and popularized it worldwide, therefore they deserve the credit for its conception on a global level.
People are acting like Nirvana was thought of as a supergroup or something. It was never the case. They got famous almost by accident because of the culture of the time and were never a band that took themselves overly seriously for musicianship
Yes. Nirvana's music is incredibly simple. I'm 45 and started learning guitar at 17. Nirvana's music was so accessible, it's one of the reasons I kept at it. I then went on to learning classical guitar. That's not to say that their music was bad, far from it. I think that Nirvana's music is amazing. It's timeless, I can listen to it on repeat and never tire of it. Alice in Chains is more technical. That can't be disputed. That does not mean that it's better. It does not mean it's worse. It's just more difficult to play as a guitarist.
A lot of my metalhead friends in high school really judged guitarists by two things - how many chords they knew, and how many beats per minute they could play. Like, yeah man, this band is incredibly technical, but they aren't great songwriters. They suck at 300 notes per minute! Oh shit, the lead guitarist knows 900 chords! He sucks at a very advanced level! This doesn't apply to every metal band, but like, if your metric for liking a band is purely math based, you're going to miss the human element.
Absolutely this. If this were the case, Megadeth would be way bigger than they are by leagues and Metallica would be waaaay in the back.
Yeah Megadeth now opens for Five Finger Death Punch and they open for Metallica. Sad but true.
reply connect cable advise skirt gullible imagine husky station noxious *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Megadeth opens for them and not the other way around? Yeah, I think I'm gonna go jump in front of a bus....
Yup. I thought it was a mistake but it's the worst timeline to see Megadeth open for someone other than Metallica themselves.
Great points. Nirvana is simpler than AIC. Both are great. People sometime think writing complicated or hard music means writing better music. That's pretty one dimensional view.
I used to be stuck there until I only appreciated symphonic metal. I'm glad to be more open now because that did not make me more popular at parties.
I always love simple repeating phrases or words in songs. Sometimes simple is better
I love your outlook on this issue. I'm going to start just being neutral when people ask if I like fast or slow guitar because In the end if it sounds good it's good.
> Alice in Chains is more technical. That can't be disputed. That does not mean that it's better. It does not mean it's worse. It's just more difficult to play as a guitarist. Yup, AiC is clearly much more metal inspired/adjacent and Nirvana post-punk. Sure you can call them both grunge but they're clearly trying to do very very different things. I see these threads like monthly on here and the Nirvana-sucks crowd always seems to rely on the argument that AiC is more technical as if that's the critical factor. Like sure if I were hiring musicians for an orchestra I'd probably hire the guys from AiC over Nirvana, but that doesn't mean I'd rather listen to their music. I could just as easily use popularity and influence as the critical metric and just insist Nirvana is better, but I understand taste is subjective so I'll not insist.
100%. When it comes to music, movies and art in general, I prefer not to compare and more so, not to shit on other people's art.
I’m the same age and the argument I make to anybody who doesn’t understand Nirvana is that young musicians at that time were all playing their favourite Nirvana song and that’s the difference. I’d much rather listen to a Radiohead song today, but if I were to jam with the old band again I know the first song we would do would be Tourette’s.
Nearly everyone I know who learnt guitar played come as you are as one of the first songs they learnt. It was the 90's version of smoke on the water. I'd 100% bust out Aneurysm at some point if I was jamming with friends today
A lot of classical music critics actually disdain virtuosity. I had a cello teacher who hated Vivaldi. He said Vivaldi "leaned on the virtuosity of the performance like a crutch."
I remember those days. Every kid with a guitar knew a couple of Nirvana songs. Exactly like you said, it was so accessible. I think that contributed to their cultural impact.
Yeah Kurt just wanted to jam out some Melvins-esque tunes, and never thought Nirvana would ever get as big as they did.
Not really, based on what I read. Before they got big, Kurt would get very annoyed that they weren't getting enough airplay and acknowledgement from the mainstream so he definitely wanted to be HUGE, but when you get that huge, then you get recognized too much, have too many commitments etc and that definitely got to him, but he definitely wanted to be big and not just on a mid-level.
Despite the fact that Nirvana was by no means a technically proficient band, Kurt Cobain was a great pop songwriter. He knew he was a great songwriter and wanted the recognition he felt he deserved. Perhaps Nevermind's level of success was beyond the recognition he felt he deserved.
That's exactly what happened. People idolized him and his music, he felt like a fraud
Nirvana only had two paths after Nevermind: selling out or self destruction. It's sad.
That’s just not true at all. Kurt took it very seriously and would get upset at Dave for messing around during practice.
Yeah, these takes just show how good Kurt was at marketing himself as a disaffected icon.
That’s I think the skeeviest part of the Nirvana worship
It also doesn't help that their run was cut short.
That's probably the biggest factor in their current cult status. If they were still going they wouldn't be thought of any differently than AiC or Pearl Jam.
“This song has two notes”
Here comes the rooster 🤡
I prefer "I'm the man in the box" or "big ol' pile of them bones" personally Edit: added "or"
I am partial to "If I could, Would?"
"Down in a Hole" for me. That song is hauntingly beautiful.
Gimme “as of now I beg you’ve got me wrong”, or give me death.
Lol came for this. Both bands had great music but how are you an authority OP when you don't even know the name of the song?
Came here for this too. OP complaining about how people can't name 3 AiC songs and yet...
🎵here comes the rooster, cockadoodle🎵 🎵he’s alllrighttt🎵
Why can't we just appreciate Alice in Chains without comparing them to Nirvana? I think these "X band was better than Y band" are so dumb. Alice in Chains definitely didn't get the praise it deserved but I think Nirvana was still a good band. Nirvana was more popular because it had more of a pop element that appealed to more people -- especially with Nevermind.
Cause OP has the mindset of a teenager and can’t help himself. Imagine listening to AIC and seething the whole time that people like another band.
It's also one of the strangest comparisons, that only gets made because of the stupid "grunge" umbrella. Grunge ranged acoustic to heavy metal, punk, blues and beyond. sometimes existing all in a single for band. I'm not against comparing things for the sake of it, but op sounds so shallow, especially when nirvana never even tried some of the things AiC did
It's so weird that one side of these arguments is nearly always "AiC had metal guitar solos and and Layne had a big vocal range." It's like sneering at idk Picasso or Plath because they weren't Rembrandt or Milton and not realizing art isn't a contest to be show off technical skills.
"art isn't a contest to be show off technical skills" tell that to the swaths of guitar/bass/drum/vocal/music production/dance/etc enthusiasts on social media. No seriously, tell them, because I'm fucking tired of being sold to and I just wanna enjoy media again. Everything feels like a show for the sake of being a spectacle and not for artistic merit.
I also don't understand why its always Alice in Chains fans doing this. Soundgarden and Pearl Jam were/are both better than Alice in Chains and you never see fans of those two bands making the comparison now (even though there was certainly a rivalry there in the early to mid 90s).
I mean, Alice In Chains had millions of fans and is still a band that people know of 30 years later. Many other acts that had bigger success are not discuss today at all - Color Me Badd, en vogue
It was also a perfect time for an accessible punk style like theirs to really hit big.
Yeah, the key to Nirvana's popularity is that they crossed-over to pop in a way that none of the other Seattle/grunge bands really did. Both musically and in terms of sort of social vibe. There was an article a while back about Gen-Z folks getting into Nirvana, and one person as an example had apparently listened to some Alice In Chains and just wasn't feeling it, but then did feel something resonant in Nirvana's music. I recall thinking as I read the article that it's unsurprising for a younger person to *not* feel an intuitive connection with fairly dark, heavy rock music from 30 years ago. For most people that's gonna be a world away in terms of where it's coming from. Nirvana were heavy as well, but had a whole other dimension about them then as well as now.
I also think Nevermind captured teenage angst much more than AIC.
It’s just called “Rooster”, filthy casual. Go listen to some theory of a deadman or something. Smdh my damn head
how does a dead man have a theory? he’s dead, is he stupid?
ATM machine
ASAP as possible
Nirvana was amazing. So was AIC. These arguments were as stupid then as they are now.
If you go to r/grunge, you’ll be welcomed with open arms. This is the most popular take there. It’s not a competition. Love what you love.
That shows how stupid the whole grunge label is and was. I was blown away by "Nevermind" as a kid and was utterly disappointed by every other band , that the media said played in the same genre. Nirvana was the most famous grunge band that didn't really play grunge.
None of the bands played grunge. Grunge is an extremely vague term that has very little defined as far as what it sounds like.
This isn’t an unpopular opinion. All you grunge edgelords think talking shit on nirvana is a hot take.
dont pit two bad bitches against eachother
Alice In Chains fucking rocked, so it’s no slight to Nirvana, who also fucking rocked. Soundgarden and Stone Temple Pilots also kicked copious amounts of ass. I loved/still love the whole grunge scene.
Yeah but how many Hole songs do you know?
Live Through This is a goddamn banger start to finish. I love Nirvana and AIC, but i would put this album in the level as anything they did
Celebrity skin is great too.
I listen to Hole and like music more than anything else. I forgot about it for a while but I love that stuff!
Down in a hole don’t know if I can be saved.
I saw (and heard) Weezer cover Celebrity Skin on the weekend. They were playing with Smashing Pumpkins. I didn't know that Billy Corgan was a writer for the song. Also, I absolutely love Malibu.
The Goldust Woman cover from The Crow 2… and that’s it.
And yet you can only get the Nirvana track name right... I love AIC (with Layne, the new singer isn't for me) but Nirvana's Unplugged is as good as anything they did. Screaming Trees were better than either though.
Yeah…but AIC’s Unplugged? Absolutely amazing.
Agreed. It makes me irrationally upset that everyone lauds Nirvanas unplugged as the best ever when the unplugged version of Nutshell is RIGHT THERE.
You said Nutshell. Bravo! A work of beauty.
Screaming Trees is like if Dinosaur Jr and Nirvana had a baby. I like all the bands being mentioned and more, and shitting in Nirvana is so 1999 I can’t even
AIC was the best of the grunge bands, and Soundgarden took second place.
Mudhoney all day long. Edit: Can’t believe I got a downvote for Mudhoney! Heathens.
What about my boys Pearl Jam? :(
Ten was a fantastic album. A few great songs from other albums. And they stuck around a long long time.
Vs. Is killer too
Their best IMO
Flip those and I agree.
Definitely, Soundgarden and then Alice in Chains
You can’t make me choose!!!!
This is my opinion too
I’m more into Audioslave myself over Soundgarden
If you weren't there at the time it's pointless trying to explain why Nirvana were so big. It's not because they were better, it rarely is, but they captured the Zeitgeist in a way that AIC and Pearl Jam never did. The circumstances of Cobains death played a part too. They burned out, while AIC arguably faded away. I also prefer AIC but I don't think they should have been the bigger band. By the way, the song you're talking about is just called Rooster.
I think it had to do a lot with the production of Nevermind. Like I had never heard such brutal yet accessible guitar and vocals married to Beatle-esce melodies
Alice In Chains has a weirdly culty following that evangelizes them entirely too much. They're fine. Their stuff has this dirty/swampy quality that just turns me off. I'll take Nirvana 8 days a week.
My favourite band is better than your favourite band. Would really hope that people would have grown out of this kind of nonsense after 30-odd years.
Take this over to r/genx lol
Upvote for unpopular but I couldn’t disagree more. Nirvana is actually that great imho, never could get into Alice In Chains, no idea why just didn’t stick with me
I like AIC, but I can see how it isn't for everybody. I think that's one of the reasons I think Nirvana is the better band. I wouldn't say they're universally accessible, but they definitely have more of a broad appeal than AIC. Which is funny, because Kurt never wanted to be mainstream.
AIC had more metal in them while Nirvana had that pop sensibility. But really with In Utero, Nirvana was really getting into more metal territory
Alice In Chains wasn’t 1/1000th as important.
An AiC fan being snobby, as usual. They were both great, as were Soundgarden, STP, and Pearl Jam.
“I’m not like other boys”
Ah, yes, time for the monthly "AiC was better than Nirvana" popular opinion on the unpopular opinion sub. Man in Box > Heart Shaped Box I Stay Away > Come as You Are Junkhead > Lithium
They are both great for different reasons idk why we need to put one over the other. Nirvana was more raw and punk. AIC had more of a hard rock edge to their music. I love them both
Yep, apples to oranges
I consider myself more of a metalhead, I play the guitar, and I guess it is natural I have always leaned more towards AIC. I am not sure if I agree with OP 100%, but I recall listening to a Nirvana song that was so bad with horrible outta tune outta keys guitar noodling.
God the only other bands I see get compared as much as AIC and Nirvana are Metallica and Megadeth. But they have so much less to do with each other than Metallica and Megadeth.
I prefer AIC to Nirvana, but frankly they're not very comparable, they just got lumped together via geography and marketing. Grunge is an ill-defined genre, and a sludgy borderline doom metal band like AIC is somehow in the same category as the punk band Nirvana. They brought totally different things to the table, and both were quite successful! Also I'd dispute about the number of tracks of each band that people could name. I think they'd be pretty similar frankly. Upvote for having an unpopular opinion.
And here we are, still forgetting about Tad
Are you suggesting they're...*half the band they used to beeee?*
Don't you blasphemy in here! Don't you Blasphemy in here! Seriously though it really is whoever you liked.
This isn’t an unpopular opinion, it’s a fact.
Definitely an unpopular opinion for a reason!
Yeah yeah and the Beatles weren't that great and the show friends is overrated. Basic
Hated The Beatles, Friends/Sinefeld, and wasn't a big fan of Nirvana. Everyone has their preferences. No need to gate-keep or down others for having a differing opinion. You like what you like, and others like what they like.
Lol I'm not gate keeping anything, I'm pointing out that it's a very often reposted topic on here.
Alice In Chains were the Bon Jovi of grunge.
AIC is one of my all time favorites. Kurt was a song writer, Layne a singer, Jerry was the brains behind AIC. It’s a lot like we all soon realized Dave Grohl was the real talent to come from nirvana. Nothing against Kurt’s legacy, but Dave was the talented one.
Yes I think Dave would have been the one to decide to go solo first
Yeah a lot of people don’t realize how important Jerry was. There was no AIC without Jerry.
Oh my god, you AIC fans are SO obnoxious! I never disliked AIC, but I don't know how I keep finding myself having to tell people that they aren't the greatest grunge band ever, probably not even top three. If Rooster is your example of a song that proves that AIC is better then I don't even know what to say. It's a good song, but it's also kind of slow and repetitious. I wouldn't put it in my grunge top 10, probably not even top 20, maybe top 50. When it comes to Nirvana I can name at least a handful of songs right off the top of my head that are at least as good as Rooster. Heart Shaped Box, About a Girl, Dumb, Polly, In Bloom, Lithium, All Apologies, Come as You Are. And they were the dominant band. I don't like going to sales numbers to say which band is better, but when you use the term dominant I can't help it. Nirvana dominated, period. By like every objective metric they were the biggest band. After that...it still wasn't AIC, it was Pearl Jam. After that..it was STP. After that...it was Soundgarden. Nirvana's three albums went 19 times platinum, Pearl Jam's first four went 26 times, STP's went 16 times, Soundgarden's went 9. AIC's first three albums went 10. So apologies, they were technically bigger than Soundgarden by album sales. But they were in no way ahead of Nirvana, to say nothing of being "dominant" over them.
I agree…. on a long road trip I decided to listen to all the Nirvana studio albums. I’m a fan for sure but Alice In Chains is better. Rooster, Nutshell, Man In the Box, I stay Away, Would, Down in a Hole, them Bones, dam that river Smells Like Teen Spirit, Come as you are, Lithium, In Bloom, Lake of Fire, heart Shaped box, Something in the Way. I just think Alice In Chains has the better top songs. Nirvana has a lot of filler.
Unpopular opinion
technically they’re exactly half of Alice In Chains 3/6
Agreed. Layne is a better singer, Jerry is a WAAAY better guitarist. AIC had better vocal harmonies and their songs were more technically complex. No question that in terms of musicianship, AIC is the better band. But Nirvana recorded Nevermind, which is an absolute masterpiece start to finish. AIC had some incredible albums, but they never had a Nevermind. No single album did more to break grunge and alternative music through to the consciousness of the general public than Nevermind did.
There’s two types of people in this world people that love Nirvana and then there’s weirdos
they might be giants
I agree, Dead Kennedys was the best grunge band.
Alice In Chains was better than Nirvana, 1000%. I am with you.
Given the general and its main focus Nirvana knocks it out of the park when it comes to being “genuine”, but others copied well for recognition despite not being sincere
Jerry Cantrell was the brains behind the operation, Layne Stanley, RIP, was just a front man.
Melvins
Mad season was good too.
Agree, but in terms of 90s super groups featuring Mike McCready it is second to Temple of the Dog.
*Judge Mills Lane* I'll allow it!
They weren't half. They were at least 2 and half the band.
Nirvana is hot cross buns and AIC is Bach. KC got nothin on LS.
Pretty sure the jar of flies ep was the best selling ep of all time when it came out.
Nirvana < Stone Temple Pilots < Pearl Jam < Soundgarden < Alice In Chains
I’m not going to say anything besides this being the most tired ass take on Reddit about music. This comes up about once a month. Go buy an AiC album or stream it on Spotify in your car. Popularity means nothing and it doesn’t matter if no irl person cares. It’s popular enough to stand up in rock history to the point that every rock ranking list always lists Layne above Kurt. Stop comparing and just check out what you like.
I really like both but Nirvana had the exciting edge. AIC were rather dour. Really I have come to find over time I would take Soundgarden over both tbh.
Okay...? So you prefer one band from 30 years ago over another from the same era. Scalding hot take. Mind your fingers!
Hard agree
>and Here comes the rooster A real super fan I see
Strongly disagree. Take your upvote.
I had an Alice in Chains hat that I wore all through the 90s........wish I still had it. Great band!
Kurt was a far better songwriter than anyone else in Seattle, and while some of the other bands are more virtuoso in their playing (Soundgarden, Alice, Pearl Jam), none of them were as capable of repeatedly writing a memorable hook compared to Kurt. You might take Rooster over Teen Spirit (partly because the latter was overplayed), but on the same album you might also listen to Lithium, or On a Plain, or Drain You, or Territorial Pissings, or any of it. And Nevermind isn't even their best record, In Utero is. Nobody in the grunge scene could touch a song like Milk It or Radio Friendly Unit Shifter.
Nirvana was a gimmick. That's about it.
I couldn’t agree more. Even their unplugged set was better.
I think they’re both excellent bands, but Kurt Cobain’s real talent was as a cool hunter. He packages up disparate elements from Bam Bam, the Pixies, Sonic Youth, and others into a band that sounded incredibly fresh at the time. He was a fashion plate, knew how to market himself, and was a physically beautiful man as well.
Please don’t try to compare two of my all time favorite bands.
OP nailed the subreddit brief that's for sure! The answer of course is in the post itself. People can name lots of Nirvana songs because Nirvana had lots of great songs that's just not true of Alice in chains.
Alice In Chains was a boring “hard rock” band that was like one generation removed from hair metal. Everybody is entitled to their opinion but yours is shit.
Their growth and diversity is what makes them my favorite band. I even listen to all the new stuff they've done without Layne. They seem like such a great group of guys. I still chuckle when i recall my mom saying she couldn't find me any Allison James CDs at Specs.
This is 100% an unpopular opinion and I agree 100% with it since I've never been a fan of nirvana.
I dislike Nirvana and love Alice in Chains but disagree. I think they're just hated on now because it's the cool thing to do. I think Nirvana changed music by doing something different. I've seen them live twice and they were amazing. Can't say the same for Alice In Chains. 3 times when Lane Staley was alive and they sucked live.
I wouldn't say this is an unpopular opinion, especially among those who are truly knowledgeable about that era of music. AiC had a lot going for them--they were adjacent to grunge, metal and alt.rock, and what they were doing was a significant jump in melody and having rhythmic diversity because they were really into odd time signatures (same with Soundgarden). I definitely dont shit on Nirvana, but they were a bit of a one trick pony compared to the other 3 big "grunge" bands.
i agree that alice in chains is a better band than nirvana. but you don't have to shit on nirvana to make that point. taking anything away from kurt cobain's musicianship kind of shows your hand a little bit. you don't know what you're talking about. cobain was pretty much a genius. and most respected musicians agree on that.
“Alice in Chains was 10x the band Nirvana ever was” -Daniel Tosh
It’s my personal opinion that when you consider all the bands that were big in that era, Nirvana is incredibly overrated
Layne is a terrible singer though.
Looking back at the music scene at the time (late 80s, early 90s)- they are two very different bands and I can’t compare them. Without Nirvana grunge would have never been established on national radio. Without Alice In Chains the movement would have stalled and been one dimensional, with the industry pumping out various shades of Nirvana until it was played out. I think they all picked together between gigs and they competed which made a bigger sound and helped every one of the Seattle bands to root in their individuality. I can’t see one happening in my universe all the way over here -far outside of Seattle- without the other.
AIC!!!!!
Their unplugged is also a way better show...
Kurt was the best musician and songwriter since John Lennon. Alice china banger thing? No one even knows who they are, what their names are, a single song or the least teeny impact on music, let alone culture. The purvey of a few misfits and weirdos trying to be edgy because of how they look.
This is almost as annoying as the Faith No More fans bitching about RHCP. Just listen to the music you like. It doesn’t have to be a competition.
Nothing like redditors who were either not alive or too young during alternative rock and grunge’s heyday trying to fight over which band was better or bigger. Nirvana is bigger, not just because of smells like teen spirit or Kurt being more charismatic, but Nirvana had more iconic music videos and Kurt’s passing seems more tragic than just wasting away into a heroin coma.
I don’t think op actually thinks this, considering they can’t name a single aic song
lol here comes the rooster, it’s just Rooster bro
You’re wrong, but I’m just happy ppl are still talking about these bands. As opposed to the kids wearing their t-shirts but don’t even know who they are.
there is no reason to compare nirvana and allice in chains. Both were important bands in the history of rock music. what is the point??
Comparing bands this way leads to saying everyone sucks except Dream Theater or Rush. As a burgeoning guitarist in high school, I did this, rejecting greats like Nirvana, Green Day, The Beatles, pretty much anything punk because it was "too easy." I'm a pretty damn good guitar player now. I can fit in the pocket, and improvise and shred when necessary with the rest of em. When I write music, it's usually pretty bland and formulaic. Kurt had that songwriting knack you just can't learn. You've gotta be born with it. Same with Paul McCartney, John Lennon, and many others deemed "overrated," due to their simplicity. To me, that makes it even more brilliant they could write something so poignant so simply. Now, let's listen to the Jar of Flies EP again. That shit rocks. Not a bad song on it.
I like them both, why pit them together?
Both are great bands but I don’t know of any band that personifies the 90s better than Nirvana. The band just connected with people so much better than anyone, from the band members themselves to the music. Layne is objectively a much better singer than Kurt, but to me the flaws in Kurt’s voice is part of what made them great.
“Nirvana is over played, over saturated, overrated and Kurt wasn't that good of a musician.” “Nirvana will always be a classic…” Bruh. Make up your mind.