HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,850
- 113
Yeah, we need specifics. If those don't count then neither should post-Dimension Hatross Voivod, KMFDM, Rammstein, probably-Nightwish-although-admittedly-I-don't-know-which-albums-are-more-metallic-than-others, and a number of other bands.
You mean any of the Mosley ones? tbh I haven't given those ones that much time, so maybe if I judged them on a song-by-song I'd come to the conclusion that they had an equal/greater number of metal songs.
My point about Nirvana is that they were closer to the roots of the movement in the more indie-leaning side of alt rock and in punk. Alice in Chains were a bunch of guys that played music with nothing in common with the originators and then jumped on the bandwagon when it was opportune and when they had major label support. Therefore, saying they were "grunge" speaks only of their locale and nothing of their music.
I don't see how Angel Dust is any more a metal album than any of their Patton albums.
And grunge was much more than just Nirvana. AiC were at the forefront of Seattle grunge, one of the 'big four', with Soundgarden and Pearl Jam rounding it off.
You mean any of the Mosley ones? tbh I haven't given those ones that much time, so maybe if I judged them on a song-by-song I'd come to the conclusion that they had an equal/greater number of metal songs.
My point about Nirvana is that they were closer to the roots of the movement in the more indie-leaning side of alt rock and in punk. Alice in Chains were a bunch of guys that played music with nothing in common with the originators and then jumped on the bandwagon when it was opportune and when they had major label support. Therefore, saying they were "grunge" speaks only of their locale and nothing of their music.