>better musicians
>better albums
>nearly every song they created was a 9/10
>members are more attractive
>Nirvana is still more popular
huh?
>better musicians
>better albums
>nearly every song they created was a 9/10
>members are more attractive
>Nirvana is still more popular
huh?
Of course a metal band is going to be less popular than a punk-pop radio rock band
>Alice in Chains
>Metal
>Alice in Chains
>Good music
i know right. they're clearly the big four of hip hop
I mean they were both extremely popular. Seminal modern rock bands. At that level it's literally just a case of who's more headline and gossip worthy. Who fucking cares.
I agree with this except that AIC is more attractive.
Nirvana had vastly more attractive members than AIC which is why they were more popular.
Dave Growl and Cobain were a million times better looking than anyone in AIC or even Chris Cornell.
Dave looked like a goober back then without the beard
Because you're deluded and Nirvana were the better band
Dave Grohl looked ugly as fuck when he was younger. Even Novoselic looked better
Still better looking than me desu
>yeah nirvana is ovbviously WAY more attractive than AIC
this desu. Layne's heroin problem also really hurt the band and it's exposure
If dubs everyone in this thread fucking dies
Roll again
in the early 90's pearl jam was king. nirvana eclipsed them as 1995 was approached, and pearl jam started producing mediocre albums and vedder became more intolerable
alice in chains did not truly blow up until their unplugged. their dirt album was god tier and patrician at the time, and of course facelift even moreso
soundgarden was either 3rd or 4th at the time because of superunknown.
smashing pumpkins was respected but did not truly blow up until melancholy was released, and the other grunge bands declined - somehow SP had staying power.
stone temple pilots was considered a copycat of grunge until after Purple.
screaming trees were only if you really loved the seattle bands
Nirvana were more radio friendly and covered more topics that appealed to a broader audience. Their sound overall is more appealing to a broader audience.
Alice in Chains played in the White House so it's not like they weren't huge.
M E L V I N S
>being this new
I dont think AIC ever played in the white house
Yeah I'm gonna have to go ahead and call bullshit on that one there bud
They definitely played with Bill Clinton while he was president for some presidential function.
I'll be honest, I didn't know about this.
I found out about it watching MTV cribs when I was like 10 years old, so I'm not sure about the specifics.
>Britney Spears still more popular than King Crimson
HUH? WHAAA? WHATS GOING ON???
>comparing Nirvana to Brittany Spears
>comparing AiC to King Crimson
>Jerry Cantrell
>they
I assume that was for the '96 election, so AIC wouldn't have been playing then.
AIC and Cornell were Chads
Grohl looks like a goofy tard and Cobain was a manlet
>doing neither
>not getting my point
This is so incorrect it's not even worth arguing against
Why does this board overrate AIC so much?
AND MAMA, MAMA, OOOOOOOOOOOH
MY ANGRY BRAINS OF INFANCYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
Depends on one's personal taste.
AIC borrowed from Black Sabbath, while Nirvana were more hardcore punk in nature.
>cobain wasn't a manlet
>male sex icon of the 20th century behind Elvis and James Dean
>manlet
>being this delusional
They're one of the best heavier rock bands ever my man
Mudhoney.
dave groll
oh, Jerry's ranch in Oklahoma. Just Jerry played.