Talk:Alice in Chains/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Clerks Soundtrack Contribution

wouldn't it be worth mentioning they made a song for the movie Clerks

Oh Yeah whoever did the logo/picture work rules! (on the right side)

Its made this page look way better than those standard wiki pages! -unsigned

uuuh.. am i missing something?? or has it changed since you posted this??124.184.70.211 07:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

AIC Singles

Hey dude at the bottom who wants to know shiz about the singles that were released... Well i jst got the information that was previously on the page and wasnt set out very good and put the albums n singles in tables n shit so they look better so cant answer ur question anyways np everybody for doing the tables no need to thank lol chris...ChrisMHMChris

Obit line, Italics

The obit line clearly belongs in the article about the person, not the band, and that article needed major surgery anyway to remove all the effusive nonsense, so I put it there. Also, album titles should be italicized in running text, but not is a bullet list discography. LDC

Why no italicization? That seems to be more common, e.g. Bad Religion, Beatles discography, Patti Smith. --Eloquence 23:50 29 May 2003 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Filmographies and Discographies, that page would disagree, as do I. (I.e., we agree they should be italicized.). -- John Owens 00:03 30 May 2003 (UTC)

Prior name

Quoted from article: "Staley met and was joined by guitarist and song-writer Jerry Cantrell in 1987, renaming the band Alice in Chains, and, along with two of Cantrell's friends, bassist Mike Starr and drummer Sean Kinney, they began writing original material and playing local Seattle clubs" What was the band renamed from?

Alice 'n Chains. --jh51681 23:33, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

In actuality, it was Alice 'n Chainz, but no big deal.La Pizza11 22:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually the original name was "Fuck". They used to hand out condums at their shows that said "Fuck" - the Band. Read from AIC box set insert. Although when the Alice name was adopted it was originally as stated above.

thanks

AIC fan here (since after they disbanded), but for some reason i never thought to visit this article. thanks to all who made it a well written and informative blast. dug the chronology. SaltyPig 11:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Staley/Cantrell

Alice in Chains is definetly my favorite band, but I only wish that Jerry Cantrell would have allowed Layne to sing more of the songs in their catalouge (especially for lead vocals). While Jerry may have been a more consitent song writer and less dependant on drugs, it is Layne's exceptionally powerful voice that put this band over the top and Jerry's mediocre voice is not what the fans really wanted to hear in the end. TKforever 16:04, 27 March 2006(UTC)

You got that right!

Comparing the two, its pretty obvious that the better vocals were of Layne Staley anyday I feel this certain angst (sorry for the cliché) while I hear him sing,its probably the shrillness of his voice and the fact that its not a very often heard vocal pattern that gives hid voice this certain character which sets him apart. Or maybe I am just obsessed with this bands music!

Vijeth 14:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been listening to the band for a long time, and I always liked the combination of the two voices and particularly the great harmonies in a lot of the songs. It really sets Alice apart from the other bands of the same period.12.162.189.80 19:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The Pic

... looked a lot better large. Laszlo Panaflex 19:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Clash of the Titans?

Anyone know anything about Alice in Chains opening the Clash of the Titans tour in 1991? I've heard that was a big boost toward their mainstream success. 72.40.53.121 23:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Classic lineup?

the years on the "classic lineup" are misleading... the band was inactive for much of it due to Layne's health. For me, the "classic" (if there was one) AiC lineup was with Mike Starr on bass, not Mike Inez. With Starr they recorded Facelift, Sap and (most importantly) Dirt. With Inez they recorded only Jar of Flies and the self-titled release.

Dirt was their artistic peak according to most critical sources and, I would guess, is most popular with the diehard fans. Added to that, the Facelift/Sap/Dirt era was their most active touring period (although I guess Inez came in for the Dirt tour). I know I'm just being pedantic, but Alice in Chains were a very special band for me, and I loved them at a time when I was way too serious about music fandom. So it looks like I still take them too seriously.

I think perhaps it would be best just to refer to the different lineups as "original lineup" and "second lineup". Starr was an important part of the Alice legend even if he did fuck things up (and even if Inez was way better). Alice was one of those bands where you could take snapshots -- "classic" snapshots -- from various points of their career. You watch the video for Would? and it's Starr there with the intro and that is their all-time pinnacle. Or if you prefer Man In The Box it's Starr there again. The classic Inez moment was probably the Unplugged set, but man it was sad to see Layne look like that.

--217.158.132.130 03:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Nu-metal

Due to the fact that Alice in Chains has no turntables, no rapping, and predates the "nu-metal" genre by a full decade, I can't see how anyone could seriously suggest that this band is nu-metal. They fit squarely into the grunge/alternative genre of the late 80s and early 90s. My conclusion is that the recent edits are a prank by someone who is just not a fan of the band. Rhobite 05:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

They are indeed nu-metal. Paul Pierce Fan 23:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Alice In Chains is not nu-metal. I agree with Rhobite's comment.La Pizza11 18:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they are nu-metal. Stop trying to defend them as not being Nu-Metal because they are.

If they truly are nu-metal, provide a source which verifies this. Googling "alice in chains grunge" comes up with 314,000 results. Googling "alice in chains nu-metal" comes up with 65,000. I check the first few pages and most are not actually refering to Alice In Chains as nu-metal, but are either: 1)Explaining the bands influence on nu-metal (without them being nu-metal, or 2)Talking about Godsmack not being nu-metal but instead being post-grunge (because of their obvious AIC influence). If you can provide proof, I will allow you to change the genre. Until then, though, they remain classified as grunge.La Pizza11 23:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Please please do not insult Alice in Chains by calling them nu-metal. They were around way before any of the so called "nu-metal bands" and probably had more talent in sean kinney's drum sticks then in most nu-metal bands as a whole. Seriously, I can see the debate being Metal vs. grunge but calling AiC nu-metal is ignorant and nothing short of insulting Jason Scalia 06:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Alice in Chains is not a nu-metal band. If you can provide some proof, I'll agree with you upon the fact that Alice in Chains is a nu-metal band. Otherwise, every edit you make claiming they are will be reverted, and if must, we will have someone block you. Squid Vicious 19:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice that the people saying AIC is nu-metal are almost all IP adresses, not user names. The one supporter of the "nu-metal movement" who is a user has a vandalism message on his Talk page. Just an observation. La Pizza11 00:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Just because you feel the term nü-metal is insulting to them because most nü-metal groups are bad (like Alice in Chains, however that's irrelevant) does not change the fact that they are a nü-metal group. You do not see people trying to change KoRn or Linkin Park's classification to something else. PaulPierceFan 23:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you freaking serious "Paul Pierce Fan"? Get the hell out of hear with Korn and Linkin Park references in a discussion about AIC. Nobody cares about Korn, they have no relation to this article and only show your complete ignorance on the matter. Everything you say in this discussion takes me one step closer to the edge and I'm about to break. I find your answers aren't so clear and all your thoughts on this matter make no sense, you find bliss in ignorance and you won't seem to go away... 67.171.17.174 22:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

They're not nu-metal. Not only do sources not place them in that category, but Alice in Chains preceded the nu metal phenomenon by a good number of years. WesleyDodds 01:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't bother with this guy. I happened to check the code of the page, and in it the vandal lists the group's status as "Crappy" or the like. This link[1] shows it.

I listed them as crappy because they are. However, this is irrelevant. http://www.last.fm/music/Alice+in+Chains/+tags shows that they are categorized as nu-metal.

Yes, they have 8 votes for nu-metal, but they also have tags for genres they obviously are not, e.g. jazz, female vocalist, trip-hop, etc. That is not a valid source. La Pizza11 21:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Alice In Chains are not Nu-metal, but I can understand that many find them similar, as they probably influenced an good deal of Nu-metal bands. However the argument that Alice In Chains existed previous to the "Nu-metal movement" is not a good one, the music is what matters. Give a good reason, related to the music, as to why they're not Nu-metal so that everyone can see that it is so. I am also sceptic as to calling them grunge, they seem more of an alt. metal band lumped into that category simply for being contemporary to it.

"I listed them as crappy because they are". You're such a penis. There is no way that Alice In Chains could possibly be considered Nu-metal. Do you hear rapping and/or turntables in their songs? The argument about them not being Grunge is a better argument. But what does define Grunge? It's a very loose definition applied to many bands from the Seattle area.

They came out of the scene with the likes of Nirvana, Pearl jam, Soundgarden, Mudhoney, Screaming Trees, etc etc they even recorded Right Turn with members of Soundgarden and Mudhoney on Sap calling themselves "Alice Mudgarden" as a joke. how does this make them "nu-metal"? this makes no sense to lump them in a genre they predated by a number of years. I'll say stick to "grunge". Xuchilbara 04:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Nu Metal? Alice In Chains? Go fuck your self! They are pure grunge and even associating them with that crap genre is an insult in itself. First time I'm hearing this crap. Guys, don't let that fool get the better of it. AiC is grunge and that's never gonna change. -Ozzmen-

ALICE IN CHAINS ARE GRUNGE ALL THE WAY!!!

Not necessarily grunge...

Since grunge was such a blanket term for the emerging seattle music scene in the early nineties, it's hard to really place any one particular band under this genre. Alice in Chains were definitely more metal but were classified grunge more because of where they were from and when.

Metal? I considered them to be grunge, but not because of where they were from. I classified them to be grunge because of their fusion of metal/punk/alternative influences. TearAwayTheFunerealDress 15:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Grunge is the label that they were/are put under, that really shouldn't be disputed. It is blatantly evident that the traditional heavy metal influences are very apparent on their debut, as well as other albums. I guess most people that edit this page are somewhat unfamiliar with either their early work or what metal is, to be reverting these edits. I even cited the Encyclopaedia Metallum entry, who are well-known in the metal realm for their strict submission guidelines. A good amount of the so-called "heavy metal" bands on Wikipedia do not show up there. There really isn't much reason for getting rid of metal other than ignorance. --Ryouga 00:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Alice is way more metal than grunge the only reason they were labeled grunge is because of there seattle roots and look, all of the grunge bands (Nirvana, Mudhoney, Screamin Tress etc) were on Sub Pop and playing local shows while Alice was out toruing with Van Halen, and if you listen to the music its obvious that facelift, dirt, & tripod are Hard Rock albums if not metal albums

Not Grunge

If someone would care to revisist their alice in chains albums, they will note that they are not grunge but metal. the reason aforementioned for being labeled grunge is widely held to be true, just ask some actual fans. and for that matter, soundgarden is also not grunge and to a lesser extent, neither is pearl jam. anyone care to comment? Lue3378 08:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Though you definitely have point, I disagree withyou. Grunge is the term used to describe early 90 bands almost exclusively from Seattle that fused metal and punk. Grunge music describes a large amount of bands which do not necessarily sound similar, but do have similar roots and lyrical themes.La Pizza11 18:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I do believe Alice in Chain's music would be best described as metal, but due to the fact they came from Seattle during the so called "Grunge Explosion" they would best fit under the "grunge" banner. Grunge was more a term used to describe a certain style of dress and locality as opposed to music. Most of the "grunge" bands did not sound at all similar. Alice in Chains was metal and belonged to the Seattle Sound genre of music, but history will always list them as a grunge band. Just my $0.02 on the matter Jason Scalia 03:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Alice in Chains started as a metal band but later became grunge. People used to give them shit for not being part of the Sub Pop grunge scene, although later they became friends with a lot of bands like Soundgarden. WesleyDodds 07:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I also have to add that regarding the whole Seattle scene, Layne Staley was close friends with both Mark Arm of Mudhoney and Mark Lanegan of the Screaming Trees, both of whom are considered to be musical pioneers of the Seattle movement.

I think that all grunge bands are really alternative metal bands, as they play an alternative form of metal, fusing punk/metal and whatnot. as somebody said before, grunge is a label created by mainsteam record companies and refers to the clothes and the culture rather than the actual music.

I agree with you because Pearl Jam, Alice in Chains and Sound Garden were more punky Metal or Punky Hard Rock. Thats what I liked about these bands! Is Guns N Roses not the real pioneers of turning rock around? They used punk with Metal/Rock but to a lesser extent than the 90s punky Metal/Hard Rock bands.

This debate will go on and on, I prefer Metal, they did tour with the likes of Megadeth, Slayer, & Anthrax and they started out as a hair metal band. But I can see them also labeled as "grunge'. Xuchilbara 04:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I'd add my thoughts here: Few, if any, 'Grunge' bands sound very similar; the unifying aspects of Grunge for me were: Attitude; appearance; lyrical content; geographical location and time. Those are the only things that actually tie together most Grunge bands. Anyhoo, I say keep the Grunge tag for that reason, and because most people get into AIC after hearing of them as 'a really great Grunge band' or similar. Stratpod 03:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sweet Alice: bootleg?

Is this just a bootleg? [2] (look at the cover!) and [3] ("Sponge Records"?) say it is. --jh51681 01:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is a bootleg. [4]. This shouldn't be listed here, or noted as their first release. -- ChrisB 19:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Metal-Archives.com says it's really a demo. 64.142.89.105 02:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Metal-archives is wrong. The demos are AiC demos, but Sweet Alice was not released by the band in any official capacity. The demos didn't see official release until Music Bank. -- ChrisB 03:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Photograph needs names

Could anyone please provide names by sitting order for the featured band photograph? thanks, Artsfiend 03:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ann Wilson joining at SAP

"which also featured guest artists Ann Wilson of Heart, who joined Staley and Cantrell for the chorus on "Brother"."

I am pretty sure it's not "Brother", but "I Am Inside", am I right?

She sings on both songs on Sap, but on the Music Bank version of "Brother" her vocals were removed. --jh51681 07:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

AIC template

Am I the only one kinda bothered by Layne's position in Alice's template, down in the article? It makes him look like an irrelevant, touring member for the band. --Clementduval 05:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you're certainly not the only one. At least in my opinion, Layne Staley was the very heart and soul of AiC, and I would list him at the top of both the infobox and the AiC template, because I am of the opinion that AiC died alongside of Layne.

However, Wikipedia:WikiProject Music would disagree with me (see Bands, section 3). They state that current members should be listed first and then former members. It's a travesty, I know, but I do feel that if anyone bothers to actually read the article, they will realize the integral part of AiC that Layne was.

Regardless, if there's enough of a concensus here on the talk page, we could certainly ignore Wikipedia's suggestions and place Layne higher on the list in the Infobox. What does everyone else think? - Runch 16:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps we could add the list of founding members above current members.

I dont think Layne ever left AiC. He lives on in their music. He sang most of the stuff and wrote some. He really was AiC. Jerry was really important too(he wrote so much) but its just easier to replace a guitarist if they leave a band than a vocalist. If I was Jerry I wouldve started a new band with a new name instead of trying to keep AiC going without Layne(like Dave Grohl did with Foo Fighters after Kurt offed himself). Lamentingvampire09 12:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is one of those cases where the Ignore All Rules thing makes sense. It just seems wrong. --Clementduval 03:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

dave grohl is the only nirvana member in foo fighters, man... it would have been absurd for him to get new musicians and tour and record as nirvana, as kurt WAS nirvana. the whole timbre of the band is based on his unique voice and riffs. and foo fighters are more mainstream than alternative.124.184.70.211 08:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

AIC Singles

I'm currently in the process of gathering information on all of Alice in Chains' single releases, as I'm planning to do some big improvements to Wikipedia's coverage of the subject. What I need help with is the following:

The AiC page currently lists both "Hate to Feel" and "Don't Follow" as singles, but I can't find any evidence that Alice in Chains ever released those songs as singles. If you have any information on them, please let me know, either here or on my talk page. Otherwise, I'll remove those items from the list when I start my updates. Thanks, Runch 05:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Canceled Tours and Shows

The article makes it sound like AIC just chose not to tour because of Staleys "health", but I clearly remember them just not playing shows they were schedualed at. They were supposed to be on the "Summer Shit" tour with Metallica, Suicidal and Candlebox. They were even on the advertising and merchandiseing, but failed to show up at either the L.A. or Las Vegas dates. I am thinking that at least 3 times I had a ticket to a show that they were supposed to play at and did not. The only time I actually got to see them was on the Facelift tour. It would be interesting if it could be researched what tours they actually did, and what tours and shows had to be canceled due to Staleys.. uhhh.. "health". Flagg 29

Picture

Where has the pic gone?!

aah there's a new pic, minus staley. i think the old pic should still be on there, although not at the top, as they still recorded everything with him. put it back i say, in the past members section 88.110.94.205 15:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The old picture was removed due to a lack of copyright information. I have a feeling the new picture is also a copyright infringement, since I really don't think it qualifies as a press release photo, but I'm not going to fight that battle for the moment.

In general, everyone who has been adding pics to the page over the past couple of weeks should be sure to read and understand Wikipedia's policy on copyright and images. - Runch 23:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The Picture Is Gone

Man rules rules and more rules, I thought Alice In Chains fans were rebels not copyright followers. Theres to many poseurs these days.

Haha, yup, you're right! Fuck the copyrights! Be a rebel! - ozzmen-

^^Clever. Guys? This page is not controlled by AIC in any capacity, it's controlled by Wikipedia. If it was controlled by AIC we wouldn't need the copyrights now would we? 82.27.205.126 16:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Why Does Heavy Metal be constantly removed?

Alice in Chains are Heavy Metal also so why is this removed from the info box on the left? Alternative Metal is what they are but there Heavy Metal also. Its not vandalism bitch!

It gets removed because it's redundant. By definition, Alternative Metal (which is the genre listed) is a combination of Alternative Rock and Heavy Metal. - Runch 22:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Would it not be better to put Heavy Metal, then Grunge and in brackets Alt Metal?

no, because they were more alternative/grunge with a bit of metal124.184.70.211 08:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Covers

Anyone has a clue about AiC covers performed by other bands? I only know "Nutshell" done by Adema. Staind did that one too I think. Can anyone research on that. Would be nice to mention them at the bottom of the article.

WTF was the Music Bank?

via this part: "... Early career (1987–1990) In 1987, Layne Staley met guitarist and song-writer Jerry Cantrell at a party and allowed him to stay at the Music Bank with him. ..."

Was the Music Bank his recording studio or what? I know there's an album called "Music Bank"... but, that sentence makes it sound like it was a place too. Would be nice if someone would explain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cowicide (talk • contribs) 22:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

The music bank was a rehearsal studio in Ballard Washington. The music bank had 45 rooms, a lot of Seattles finest moved in an out of the Music Bank at one time or another. Layne and Jerry used to work there when the band was still Diamond Lie, checking people in and out, opening doors, etc. It was closed down when Seattle PD busted a huge Marijuana growing operation next door, the largest bust in Seattle history at the time. The owner of the Music Bank was implicated in the bust somehow and it was shut down in the early 90s if I remeber correctly. Poncherello 21:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Pearl Jam's 4/20/02 track

I was going to add a sentence about Eddy Vedder's lament "4/20/02" - a hidden track on the Lost Dogs album, but then I wondered about whether it really fits? It is certainly relevent. aLii 00:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It's specific to Layne, so it probably belongs in his article. (It's already mentioned there.) I don't think it's relevant to Alice in Chains as a band. -- ChrisB 05:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Genre.

Look, guys, ffs, will you discuss the Genre here and stop just editing the info box? It's such a pointless edit and its all that happens to the artical, just figure it out here and lets get some proper editing done, I'm not a massive fan but I'll veture the opening of the debate: I prepose Alt-Metal.--Ferdia O'Brien 18:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Grunge should be the first one, heavy metal doesn't fit Alice in Chains at all. Nickoladze 04:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Alice in Chains (album).jpg

Image:Alice in Chains (album).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Alice In Chains Logo.png

Image:Alice In Chains Logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the bit about "a sweaty homosexual orgy" a piece of wiki vandalism or an actual joke the band made?

Martin Rundkvist

Heroin

I was at a friends house and his mom had an AIC album called heroin does anyone know anything about that? Skeeker 21:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I do believe that is an album the band put out themselves, way before Facelift or a bootleg. Can't remember which. Xuchilbara 01:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I've got a copy of Heroin myself. It is a foreign import. Or, at least, my copy is.;)--Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Its a rare bootleg, I could have bought it but someone stole it. Skeeker 02:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a compilation (bootleg) album: [5] --CircafuciX 05:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use criteria

The use of images not in compliance with our fair-use criteria or our policy on nonfree content is not appropriate, and the images have been removed. Please do not restore them. — Moe ε 09:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Alice in Bondage

I've been hearing radio stations refer to these guys as Alice in Bondage now, perhaps a move with a redirect from this is appropriate? --Charitwo^Talk

17:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I trust you have a reliable source saying the band has officially changed their name. Otherwise a move is premature. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Other than what I've heard on Radio Stations, I don't, sorry. --Charitwo^Talk 21:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

A band photograph.

This article needs a photo of the band. I see the old one was removed because, apparently, only Creative Commons photos are favored now - why not go over to Flickr and see some? I like this, it depicts all of the current members (kind of, Kinney's hiding behind the cymbal). Will the nc-sa license be a problem though? Litis 20:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If the article for AIC in a different language has a picture we can use it right? See these: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] Skeeker _[Talk] 18:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't automatically mean that..the picture should be free, or it should have a fair use rationale. I guess you can choose to have a free photo of the current reunited band in the infobox, or a promo photo of the "classic" line-up with a fair use rationale. (Or maybe even a free one can be found on the net.) My opinion is that the infobox should have a recent photo, for example from 2006, and a classic line-up photo should be included somewhere in the text. Gocsa (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because it is on Flickr it does not mean you can use it on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, most images on Flickr can't be used without permission of the author. The licensing on Flickr has to be CC-BY-SA[13] or CC-BY[14]. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyrighted pictures of bands, if they are still active, cannot be used in article infoboxes even with a fair use rationale. I have sent e-mails to users on flickr to change the license of pictures, and they are nice enough to do so. I have done the same with a nice picture of Alice in Chains, although the bassist is not in the photo. M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, is it of the current line-up or original? I would like to be able to have both sometime.
Thank you,
Skeeker _[Talk] 21:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well it's in the infobox atm. M3tal H3ad (talk) 07:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination on hold

Please leave a note on my talk page when you're done with this stuff. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"The band has released three studio albums, three EPs, two live albums, four compilations, and two DVDs" - At the moment, only EP is wlinked, which looks slightly odd. Either wlink everything (studio album, EP, live album, compilation, DVD) or nothing
"due to his death in 2002." - Reword to "who died in 2002"
I don't think ref 3 is published by All Music Guide - it seems to be AOL to me...
"Cantrell asked Sean Kinney, a drummer dating Cantrell's sister at the time, to join the band." - Add an "also" after "Cantrell" and before "asked"
"After recording a series of demos in early 1989, the band released their first official recording in July 1990" - Instead of wlinking to July and 1990 seperately, just wlink to July 1990
"preparing the way for the release later that year of the group's first full-length studio album Facelift, the album debuted at number 42 on the Billboard 200 charts" - Reword --> "preparing the way for the release later that year of the group's first full-length studio album, Facelift, which debuted at #42 on the Billboard 200 charts"
Publisher for ref 7 would be Rolling Stone in conjunction with Simon & Schuster, work would be The Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll, date would be 2001
"and since it's release it has been certified 4x platinum by the RIAA." - "it's" = "it is"...remove the apostrophe so it reads as "its"
Not sure if ref 12 is a reliable source...
"On 25 January 1994, the band released their second acoustic based EP entitled, Jar of Flies." - Remove the comma after "entitled"
"It featured their first and only number one single on the Mainstream Rock charts entitled, "No Excuses"" - Reword (move comma) --> "It featured their first and only number single on the Mainstream Rock charts, entitled "No Excuses""
"adding fuel to speculation about Staley's addiction" - Addiction to what?
"This would be the last studio album that Alice in Chains would produce" - If indeed they release a 4th studio album, you'll need to remove this sentence/reword it
"Throughout the entire show it was clearly visible that Staley's strength was decreasing. At a point in the program Staley sang the incorrect verse to the song "Sludge Factory", causing the song to break down, and restart the song." - Ref/Source? Also reword "causing the song to break down, and restart the song" to "causing the song to break down, and forcing the band to restart it"
"Cantrell continued writing and recording, releasing his first solo album in 1998 entitled, Boggy Depot." - Put the comma before "entitled", after "1998"
"A live album simply titled, Live, and a second greatest hits compilation titled, Greatest Hits are the group's last official releases." - In both cases, move the comma before the word "titled"
"released in 2002 entitled, Degradation Trip, to Staley." - Same as above - comma before "entitled"
"All music guide praises, "Alice in Chains was the definitive heavy metal band of the early '90s"," - All Music Guide (capitals). Wlink it too.
Don't think ref 35 was published by All Music Guide
Refs 19 and 36 are the same.
"Cantrell's guitar playing style is described as, "uncompromising creativity"." - Remove the comma. Also, I don't think ref 37 is very objective as it seems to be his website...
Sap (album) should probably be moved to Sap (EP) or similar...?

Reviewed version: [15]

Good luck, — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Passed. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

FAC Comments

Comments to Alice in Chains

~~To be more particular, add the caption in the photo, like where and what concert they’re having.~~

Delimit the associated acts with a comma.

Along with bands such as…

~~Alice in Chains is known for their distinct…~~
Successive use of although.
- It's only used twice, and in seperate pararaphs.
Plagued is not the proper word, I think.
- Yeah it is.
~~Change by to with, as in, with extended inactivity…~~
…after 13 years.
- No it is alright as is.
~~Capitalize S in seattle.~~

~~Link cover please…~~
Struggling is a bit POV.
- How? They wer struggling, there is no other way to put it.
~~Who included drummer…~~

Basist to Bassist

Cantrell's band full time in  I think there is a missing word here. It sounds ambiguous.

And eventually took the name of Staley's old band, Alice in Chains.  The spelling is different. So, there must be an explanation why they changed it.

References two and three have space in between; remove it.

Took notice to noticed (redundancy).

~~The police shut down…~~
~~Bust is a slang term; want to replace?~~
- Are you sure? Replace with what?
  - Replaced with "raid"
~~Put a dash in Seattle based.~~

Add apostrophe in Columbia Records.

Remove demo in Based on The Treehouse Tapes demo.

Remove soon.

~~First, surprise is mistaken spelled, as in surprise, and secondly, it is POV.~~
~~Any link to metal radio?~~
- No.
  - Metal radio is in the reference that follows - AMG Biography
~~With noted producer Dave Jerden. What?~~

Why charts? Billboard 200 is only one.

Remove just.

~~Follow up is follow-up.~~
~~Remove also.~~
- What?
  - ~~Remove the term "also".~~
Alice in Chains was nominated for its first Grammy Award in 1992 for Best Hard Rock Performance for "Man in the Box", but lost to Van Halen for their 1991 album For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge. I was counting; there are three "for" in the entire single sentence.
- and the point is?
  - Very unpleasant.
    - What is wrong with it, it flows properly.
      - Reworded to remove a "for"
~~Following the tour… Do not worry; it will not be misleading since there was only one tour mentioned in the preceding paragraph.~~
- What are you talking about?
  - Do not remention the title of the tour; thats what i mean
~~Demos for their next album…~~
But and instead. It bothers me…
- Once again, what? Be more specific.
~~Remove new. Since they’re recording, we can presume it’s new.~~
~~Italicize Billboard 200. Actually I am doubtful why this is italicized; but seeing how editors formatted it in its article, we can do but follow.~~
- No chart should be italicized.
  - Just Italicize "Billboard".
    - Why? I've never had to before.
~~Again, charts.~~

resulting in an explosion of Seattle based bands, and the term grunge music. What? Explosion?

Sap was certified gold, and features guest vocals by Ann Wilson from the band Heart, who joined Staley and Cantrell for the choruses of "Brother", "Am I Inside" and "Love Song". Sure to not split this one? Certification and Content are not related stuff.

Add comma after In 1992.

Rephrase "made an appearance in" to "appeared on" (redundancy).

To the film’s soundtrack.

~~Who’s video won for Best Video from a Film.~~
The song originally appeared on the soundtrack to the film Singles. This needs rephrasing.
- Where? You skip around wat too much.
addiciton to addiction.
- dido
~~has a darker feel.~~

"We did a lot of soul searching on this album. There's a lot of intense feelings" Cantrell said, "We deal with our daily demons through music. All of the poison that builds up during the day we cleanse when we play." There’s a missing punctuation.

~~Remove the apostrophe in Alice in Chains’~~ and change it to their.
- In English language, a band is a single entity, there for it shoud be "it's" or "its", not "thier"
  - it is a pronoun for non-gender nouns. I am thinking Alie in Chains is an animal. =)
    - Maby, but in a entry like this you should use "its" if the band is american.
Definitely remove "critically acclaimed". That’s very POV; you’re getting pre-emptive. This critically acclaimed is supported in the succeeding lines. Just state their opinions and readers will now.
~~Again, Billboard charts.~~
- Again, where?
  - italize it.
~~Has been certified quadruple platinum by the RIAA since its release…~~

~~Remove again…~~
No other reviews other than Steve Huey’s?
- Why?
  - It would be bias. Look, to be fair, you should not stick to one reviewer only. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
~~Successive use of Dirt.~~

~~Just state spawned in lieu of would go on to spawn.~~
Link All Music Guide.
- It already is.
~~Alice in Chains was…~~
~~Left the band…~~
~~Redundant linking of Ozzy Ozbourne.~~
~~Remove new.~~
~~Link alternative music…~~
And was the last major tour Alice in Chains had with Staley.
By the way, why?
~~There’s a recurring following here…~~
Staley said the band "just wanted to go into the studio for a few days with our acoustic guitars and see what happened".[21] "We never really planned on the music we made at that time to be released" Staley said, "But the record label heard it and they really liked it. For us, it was just the experience of four guys getting together in the studio and making some music." If you want to us the whole quotation, make it as one. Remove Staley said and any words splicing the quote material.
~~Put dash in acoustic based…~~
~~Comma after Jar of Flies…~~
Written and recorded in one week, Jar of Flies debuted at number one on the Billboard 200, becoming the first ever EP—and first Alice in Chains release—to top the charts. What’s the relation of writing and recording to the album’s chart performance? Again, Billboard 200, and charts.
- I think it is pretty notable, an album written and recorded in one week was the first EP(and only AIC release) to hit number one - that is a pretty big accomplishment.
~~Do you have to mention the single’s debuts? How about its highest peak position? You mean the debut was its highest claimed?~~
~~Again, following…~~
~~Link rehab and heroine.~~
Wrong spelling of addiction.
- What is the right one?
~~Remove just…~~
~~Do not repeat hiatus that early…~~
~~Who also featured…~~
~~Spawned a number-two single…~~
~~While in the studio, an inferior version of the song "Grind" was leaked to radio, and recieved major airplay. Needs direct citation.~~
Wrong spelling of received.
- Huh?
~~Why is 1995 not linked?~~
~~Comma after November 7, 1995.~~
~~De-link Rolling Stone and remove magazine.~~
~~Also in 1995, "Got Me Wrong"…~~
Also in 1995, the song "Got Me Wrong" reached number seven on the Mainstream Rock Tracks chart, three years after its release on the Sap EP. The song appeared on the soundtrack for the independent film Clerks, and was released as a single in 1995. The flow is choppy. In the first sentence speaks of chart performance while the release was mentioned after. Release should be mentioned first then chart.
- The release is mentioned in the Facelift and Sap section.. the single unexpectedly charted three years after its release because it was included on a low budget movie that was a hit in 1995. I reworded the sentence to give it a better flow.
~~Remove also.~~
~~Add dash in six piece.~~
~~Album or a live album?~~
~~Again, the Billboard thing.~~
Wrong spelling received.
- Huh?
~~Remove just.~~
And represents the unique acoustic sound Alice in Chains has created.
- huh?
~~Add dash in 15 track…~~
~~Link the date; it’s a full date.~~
Another misspelling.
- Where?
An autopsy on April 5, 2002 revealed…
- The autopsy revealed that he died on April 5th.
~~Remove three and add comma after said…~~
~~Link south Asia.~~
~~Included and including.~~
~~Comma after March 6, 2006.~~
~~Link VH1.~~
~~And a brief tour in Japan.~~
~~That includes.~~
~~On select songs or selected songs?~~
~~Has begun.~~
~~With DuVall on lead vocals~~
~~Remove (1995).~~
~~Although Alice and Chains has…~~
~~Identified?~~
~~Use colon after in 1996 then remove the space before the inline citation.~~
~~Alphabetize the cited influences.~~
~~Link riff.~~
~~Link distorted.~~
Ooops. Punky is somewhat wrong spelling or non-existent word? It glares in red in the Microsoft word.
- Used in a direct quote.
Wrong spelling separate.
- Huh?
~~Add dash to self titled.~~
~~Alice in Chains was also noted…~~
Wrong spelling included…
- huh??
~~Were often…~~
Wrong spelling depression.
- Huh?
~~Dash for number one.~~
~~The band ranked…~~
~~Link MTV and remove .com~~

That's all. If suggestions were addressed before, crash it out. If not and been addressed, add {{tick}}. Please feel free to object. Good luck. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 08:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Italicize Billboard for it is a magazine. Like Billboard Hot 100. For the "for" issue, its fine.--BritandBeyonce (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned up most of that stuff, but I didn't understand what you meant by a few things, mostly spellings - can you clear up anything left? Thanks, Skeletor2112 (talk) 09:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry. Just follow the flow of my suggestions and you can find what was misspelled. If it was corrected, just ignore it. SandyGeorgia has been copy-editing lately like the linking of dates and hyphens. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 10:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Image...

Why is there a new image up there?

The band is nothing without Layne Stayley.. hell it's his band

Get an old image with him in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Motoko11 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding A Management category to the template

Since the templates are protected, for music artists, is it possible to add another category for management companies similiar to the one for Labels? Ivygirl16 (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Also known as "Alice N' Chainz"

Should this really be here? I mean Alice in Chains isn't colloquially referred to as "Alice N' Chainz" in the manner that Led Zeppelin is known as "Led Zep". Alice N' Chainz was essentially a different band. I think this should be removed, but I thought I'd bring it up here first. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No one opposes? Ok, I'll remove it. Please discuss here if you think it should be included. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you for getting rid of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.156.17 (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

4th album

i heard there coming with something new this year (Seth4000 (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)) Seth4000

Sales

I can't help but find the 14M/3M division of their sales between the U.S. and the rest of the world a bit strange, since most commonly, multi-platinum acts like Alice In Chains have a fairly even split. Look at Nirvana, Pearl Jam and Soundgarden, to name their cousins.Revan ltrl (talk) 12:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It does seem strange, yes. But were they really all that popular outside the U.S? Out of those bands you mentioned, I hear their songs everyday on the radio, but never have I heard Alice in Chains being played. So maybe it's possible that their fanbase was/is mostly American, in the same way Oasis was pretty huge in the U.K, but never really got a strong foothold in America. 121.222.179.94 (talk) 06:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Teen spirit is on everyday, and you'll here other nirvana pj and soundgarden songs on a few times a week, but in my life I've only ever seen would, check my brain and them bones ever be played on mtv 2, accumalating in about 10 plays altogether. Also, aic have only ever had 1 top 20 single in the uk, nirvana had 6 and pj and soundgarden had quite a lot. Given that after the us, the uk is the next biggest music market in the world, I expect that its very close to being right 93.186.28.202 (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

And still it suddenly turned out that they had indeed sold more outside the US... Revan (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Albums charting

should it be mentioned along side the fact that they had 2 number 1 albums that they also had several others in the top 10 (dirt, black gives way to blue, unplugged and other) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.151.53 (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Inactivity

I changed up the part in the third paragraph about the band's inactivity because it made it seem like that was all Layne's fault, which isn't true according to the other members. Jerry, Mike and Sean all seemed pretty candid about their own substance abuse in the book Grunge is Dead and that the reason for their inactivity was so they could all get healthy, not just Layne. Basically, Jerry said that Layne was the one who paid the ultimate price for what they were all messing around with and that it really wasn't all his fault they had two Number One albums and couldn't do much about them. Shaneymike (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sweet Alice

I've started an article for Sweet Alice. Hope it meets Wiki standards. I do realize it may not be notable enough for an article but I figured it was worth a shot. Shaneymike (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"Killing Yourself" music video

On the list of music videos, in the discography, the first one is Killing Yourself. But there's no mention to it anywhere else. I can't even find that video on the Alice in Chains official website or youtube. Neither in other web pages. Does that video even exist? I'd appreciate some links that show it or some references. By the way, that video isn't neither on Music Bank: The Videos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.5.144.81 (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Alice N' Chains

Should we really have an Alice N' Chains article? I already mentioned this on that article's talk page, so to quote myself, "Usually the hair band days of Layne Staley are considered just the beginning of Alice in Chains, not a band of it's own. Take Rolling Stone for example: "Starting out as a fledgling glam-metal outfit," this suggests that this was just an early incarnation of the group." RG (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that the two are separate entities, albeit with similar (okay, practically the same) name(s). The band's membership, sound and setlist were quite different. Nonetheless, I think that Rolling Stone quote you mention actually refers to the early days of Alice in Chains proper (i.e., the latter band formed by Staley, Cantrell, Starr and Kinney, not the former with Staley and three other musicians,) who were themselves essentially born from the glam metal scene. I think that calling Alice N' Chainz/Chains (I've seen it spelled both ways) the beginning of Alice in Chains is misleading - in fact, the latter was a new band who later adopted a moniker similar to an old, disconnected project from one of the members. Colinclarksmith (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The only real piece of evidence that I'll found that these were two separate acts was noisecreep, which really much (basically all the sources in the Alice 'N Chains article are youtube videos and blogs.) I think we'll need more editors input on this topic. RG (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you're on the hunt for evidence, I recommend the liner notes to the Music Bank boxed set, which seem to me to indicate that Alice in Chains in fact grew directly out of Cantrell, Starr and Kinney's group Diamond Lie upon Staley's joining and next adopted their moniker. I think that the years in the Wiki Alice in Chains article are a little clouded - references to 1986 might be what are confusing you, since Alice in Chains proper really began in 1987. Of course we should certainly see what other editors think about the subject. Colinclarksmith (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Here are a few other bits of 'evidence' that seem to me to support my read. I can't find an online version of the Music Bank liner notes, unfortunately. 1.) Diamond Lie press kit that cites Alice 'N Chains as a former band of Staley's and indicates Cantrell, Starr and Kinney as the band's other members, 2.) an article that mentions this press kit with some fan commentary, 3.) Some photos from pre-Alice in Chains days, including a chronology that supports my read. Again, I think these sources make clear that claims that Alice in Chains began as a glam metal band do not necessarily mean that this glam metal band was Alice 'N Chains - in fact, all of the musicians came directly out of the glam metal scene. Colinclarksmith (talk) 02:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Alice N' Chainz (Staley) and Diamond Lie (Cantell, Starr, & Kinney) were two bands at the music band who were sharing the same vocalist. Eventually they just merged and kept the Alice N' Chainz moniker for just a short bit before changing it. Burningclean _[speak] 02:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC

*Music Bank, not band. Burningclean _[speak] 02:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

If the majority of the folks weighing in on this decide to merge the Alice N' Chains article, I will respect their decision. I will have you know that we have articles for Malice and Easy Cure, which featured future members of The Cure. Of course that doesn't necessarily justify the existence of the Alice N' Chains article. I'm just throwing that out there in case you all aren't aware. Shaneymike (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I know that I, for one, am less concerned with preserving the Alice N' Chains article than I am with guarding against the error of claiming that Alice in Chains is a continuation of Alice N' Chains. This would imply that the current Alice in Chains has no original members, etc. Colinclarksmith (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The Alice N' Chains article originally focused strictly on the demos, hence it was called Alice in Chains demos. I changed to Alice N' Chains and added to it so that it also discusses the people that were involved. Shaneymike (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Lesson Learned page

can somebody make a wiki page for Lessons Learned?174.61.35.159 (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

DuVall is not a replacement for Staley

I would like to suggest one thing to whoever has been putting the articles together. As a fan of Alice in Chains as long as I can remember make sure you pay the proper respect to Layne Staley. Willam DuVall is NOT a replacement for Layne Staley if you did your research correctly, it was said they would never name anyone a fulltime replacement for Layne Staley, he's not even credited in the new album as lead singer, just vocalist. There will never be anyone who can replace Layne, even the band says so, so make sure you get it right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.148.146.80 (talk) 05:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

1980s music groups

Alice in Chains never released anything in the '80s even though they formed in 1987. So stop putting them under the "1980s music groups" category. 38.118.23.20 (talk) 08:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That is no reason for its removal. Please read Category:1980s music groups: "Musical groups active during the 1980s." - Nothing that states that this only applies to those that released an album. They formed in 1987, they played live shows and recorded demos (they began recording their debut album in 1989 as well I think) so they were active during the 80s. HrZ (talk) 10:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Genre discussion

I have removed the genre hard rock from the genres beacause due to the fact that both Grunge and heavy metal are sub-genres of hard rock, it make the page a bit redudent. I have also changed the description from hard rock to rock. Rock is more general, therby preferable. Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 02:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Should alternative metal be added to genres? 'cause it is one of there main genres. --61x62x61 (talk) 22:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No, grunge and heavy metal work fine, since those are the main genres that the group is refered to as. And personally, I never found alternative metal to be that useful of a genre discripter anyway. Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hard rock should be added. And actually, grunge should be removed. AIC was not grunge. They're from Seattle and they became big during the early 90s...that's where the comparisons to grunge start and end. --Endless dan 16:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Even their official MySpace page states that they are grunge. I think that's reason enough to list it. [16] Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 16:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not going to remove it. I realize the general concensus is that AIC is grunge, but they really are not. But that is a debate for a different forum. --Endless dan 16:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Grunge, heavy metal... done. works fine. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:46, 2 September 2008 (\\

I strongly advocate that "Glam rock" or "Glam metal" should be added as the genre of the early years of the band. Anyone familiar with the history of the band and their early cannot dispute that they started as you fairly typical 80s style glam rock/metal band —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.211.18.71 (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The main genre should not be rock. It should be grunge or heavy metal.Budtard (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Using the term "rock" in the article lead-in is never wrong. Grunge is rock, heavy metal is rock... they're all just forms of rock. And any good encyclopedia doesn't subjectively pigeonhole a subject right in the first line of an article. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

the genres in alice in chains realy seem to be clustering up so propose that we just move to heavy metal and grunge because the rest are just unnesisary. theirs no need for hard rock if we have heavy metal and no need for alternative metal if we have both heavy metal and grunge, grunge of course being a form of alternative rock —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.162.47 (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, for all your grunge/metal whatever arguing, you forgot their record breaking album/ep and also sap. Acoustic rock needs to be added 93.186.28.202 (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

i edited it so their is just Grunge and heavy metal because we dont need so many different genresFeedmyeyes (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Genre - discussion reopened

Self titled album is entirely sludge metal,more reminiscent of bands like Crowbar & Acid Bath.Even Black Gives Away to Blue is quite sludgy,more metal,less grunge.So,sludge metal definitely needs to be added. Metalvayne (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source calling them "sludge metal"? "This" sounds like "that" is just original research. Sergecross73 msg me 14:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems they have been labelled as Sludge metal,but I know this source is pretty weak as far as wiki regulation goes. http://yuforum.net/metal-rock-punk-music/alice-chains-2160/ Metalvayne (talk) 11:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

That source is more than just weak, it's unacceptable. Messageboard/forum posts are not reliable sources, as they violate WP:SPS. You'd need a far better source to include this genre... Sergecross73 msg me 17:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

"Sludge metal" is not a music genre. I worked in radio for years, and it was a common tactic of the PR reps to push the newest buzzword descriptors to set their bands apart from the others. So what the year before was an "industrial" band became "alternative grindcore", "techno" becomes "darkwave synth", and so on. Just stick to broader, legitimate categorizations and leave the "sludge" kind of terms to the body of the article when describing the sound. Tarc (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I've looked into it a little because Metalvayne keeps on pushing that, among some other obscure genre/descriptions, onto band articles, and it is not a widely used term at all. I'm not sure I'd even use it in the body of the article honestly, as it's been weeks and he hasn't been able to find a single RS connecting "sludge metal" and Alice in Chains. (Unless you just meant that last statement as a general point about more obscure terms. Then I'd agree.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

someone keeps removing alternative rock, that genre needs to stay since sap & jar of flies are both alternative rock albums, and the genre is even listed in the band's allmusic page — Preceding unsigned comment added by I call the big one bitey (talk • contribs) 01:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Main genre?

should it be alternative metal or heavy metal? because jerry's guitar playing is largely inspired by black sabbath's style of guitar playing, who are the blueprint for heavy metal music. [same goes for soundgarden who's playing sounds uncannily similar to sabbath] also it's been noted in many interviews that alice in chains main inspiration was black sabbath. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.220.148 (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

This article has been proposed for discussion at WP:ANI

User:Necrat has asked for administrators to review this page at WP:ANI#Talk:Alice in Chains - Possible intervention needed. It's not clear to me that there is anything for admins to do yet. There is a good discussion at #Proposal for the addition of 'heavy metal' in the lead with 'rock' kept intact. Perhaps an admin could be requested to check the discussion for a consensus and if so, close it and state the result. EdJohnston (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for the addition of 'heavy metal' in the lead with 'rock' kept intact

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As Alice in Chains are more often denoted as an important band in the history of metal music rather than 'alternative' or 'grunge',I'd like to propose for adding 'heavy metal' or simply 'metal' in the lead in the vein of their allmusic bio where they've been introduced as 'a definitive heavy metal band of early 90's'.I'd like to keep 'rock' intact as well.Thoughts? Bloomgloom talk 12:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys,please participate in discussion.It's frustrating to see not a single reply in 24 hours.Bloomgloom talk 14:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe I had heavy metal listed in the lead when I originally wrote the article, so I'm fine with it. Burningclean _[speak] 18:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the silence. I usually skip genre discussions. I'm fine with adding heavy metal or metal to the lead. CCS81 (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

In the lead you can already read: "Although widely associated with grunge music, the band's sound incorporates heavy metal and acoustic elements". If you begin to emphasize their metal part, then what about their acustic side, e.g. Sap or Jar of Flies? My opinion is that in the lead has already been reached a really balanced presentation. Mauro Lanari --134.255.169.95 (talk) 22:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Mauro Lanari,That's why I've stated that I want to keep 'rock' intact as well to represent their acoustic & progressive nature.:) Any more suggestions guys? Bloomgloom talk 06:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe they should be mentioned as an Alternative metal band in the lead, like Deftones and Chevelle are, since Alternative metal is the main genre they've played over their career, and it covers both heavy metal and alternative rock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I call the big one bitey (talk • contribs) 07:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No,they neither are Alt-metal nor they sound like Deftones or Chevelle,they've been associated with the label just because they incorporated some acoustic & delicate side to their music & got lumped into the 'grunge/alternative' pigeonhole just because they were from Seattle,WA.Their sound is massively similar to early Black Sabbath and Proto-doom metal bands just like Soundgarden.And lastly,their allmusic bio designates them as "the definitive heavy metal band of early 90's" as I've mentioned earlier.And I call the big one bitey, please arrange your comments with indentation in future, Thanks. Bloomgloom talk 07:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

To me, what is true is that "Alice in Chains rose to international fame as part of the grunge movement of the early 1990s" but "although widely associated with grunge music, the band's sound incorporates heavy metal and acoustic elements." (Two clauses in the current lead in separate paragraphs, but that could be placed together in a rewrite). They became famous as part of the grunge scene, and had a grunge sound, but were decidedly more a metal group. Since they did have an acoustic nature, I lean towards describing them as 'metal' rather than 'heavy-metal'. So I would be in favor of an amendment to the lead. Fylbecatulous talk 09:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes,I agree.Simply metal would be perfect as well as keeping 'rock' intact e.g.Alice in Chains is an American metal/rock band formed in Seattle. Bloomgloom talk 10:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

i think we should wait until the new album comes out, and if people are calling it heavy metal or any other form of metal (doom metal, sludge metal etc.) then we should start changing the genres and lead paragraph, but until then it's pretty stable as it is imo.

Hmm,I don't think so.Because,if we dig the history of the band we get to know that they were promoted as a heavy metal band during Facelift,then during the days of EPs,Dirt & Alice in Chains, Columbia used to market them to both metal & grunge fans.And as far as the forthcoming album is concerned,if it gets labelled as doom metal in the vein of the self-titled album & Black Gives Way to Blue which are considered as borderline doom metal albums amongst many listeners, we would think about modifying according to the requirements then.And I call the big one bitey how many times I've to tell you to indent & sign your comments please. Bloomgloom talk 11:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Further,I'd like to add that no changes required to the paragraph although widely associated with grunge music, the band's sound incorporates heavy metal and acoustic elements. The only thing that needs to be changed is the introductory sentence as I've mentined above stylized as Alice in Chains is an American metal/rock band formed in Seattle. Bloomgloom talk 11:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Instead, "that's why I've stated that I want to keep 'rock' intact as well to represent their [metal], acoustic & progressive nature". Mauro Lanari --134.255.169.95 (talk) 11:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't understand the above comment made by mr.Mauro Lanari,my bad.Can someone clarify it to me please? Bloomgloom talk 11:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Two days ago I added this source. How do you think to sum up such a variety of styles and genres without using just the one and only best word? Rock: that's it, nothing more. IMHO, of course. M.L. --134.255.169.95 (talk) 12:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The allmusic reference was there for a long time.It doesn't help the case if you intentionally add a cached copy of it & it feels awkward to be redirected to a cached version of a website.Fixed it anyway. Bloomgloom talk 13:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Moreover,all the listed umbrella genres are included in the infobox.Mauro Lanari,I don't think you've understood the topic clearly.I've said in the beginning that Allmusic has introduced them as the definitive heavy metal band of the early 90's.Therefore,likewise it's important to add metal/heavy metal in the lead.So as it stands till now it's 4 to 2 in favor of adding heavy metal/metal in the lead.Any further comments? Bloomgloom talk 14:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The Google webchace is a heuristic method, so the users can find first and better what is relevant in the reference. Someone appreciates it, someone else no, as you. By the way: you have a very, very but very personal interest for wanting this change, or not? For you, that AllMusic's statement is just an excuse, a gimmick. M.L. --134.255.169.95 (talk) 14:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Not really, if awful bands like Slipknot, Avenged Sevenfold, Disturbed can have heavy metal in the lead,then why can't a real metal band like Alice in Chains be described as metal in the lead? Simple.You can now think of me whatever you like. Bloomgloom talk 14:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

"Helter Skelter" has «a sound as loud and dirty as possible, the clangorous piece has been noted for both its "proto-metal roar" and "unique textures" and is considered by music historians as a key influence in the development of heavy metal.» Do you think to add "metal" also to the/The Beatles? M.L. --134.255.169.95 (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

That piece of logic is simply irrelevant here.And another funny thing is I just came across your userpage,you seem to be quite logical,smart & you're obsessed with Cosmology & Anthropology.But I don't understand one simple thing is that why you're exposing your IP address to everyone,LOL. Bloomgloom talk 15:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who would like to add further thoughts are welcome. Bloomgloom talk 11:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I am fine with adding 'heavy metal' to the lead's opening sentence. My only suggestion would be to avoid hyphens, for the sake of readability. I suggest something like, Alice in Chains are a heavy metal-influenced rock band, or ...rock and heavy metal band, or some such. CCS81 (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Alice in Chains are a heavy metal-influenced rock band seems to me quite well, even if right now I'm listening to the trip hop mix of "Again". Yes, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath and so on (by the way: why [heavy] metal instead of hard rock? Really, I don't know), but, with also their unplugged, the AiC are/were a band with a personality too strong, too rich and too large to be confined within a single label. AllMusic itself was forced to use a whole list of styles and genres to define them. However, any changes must be repeated in every article of their discography, where is always written "a work by the American rock band". My IP address for your LOLs: 134.255.169.95 (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Heavy metal-influenced rock band sounds extremely awkward for a wikipedia article.There are several bands in wikipedia described as heavy metal/hard rock in the lead and that's not hyphen /<-- this is called an oblique.As far as the labelling is concerned Jerry Cantrell himself told to Guitar international in an interview in 1995 that he thinks Alice in Chains is principally a heavy metal band, & they also infuse a bit of blues & punk to create the trademark sound.That's it if the founder of the band describes the band as chiefly heavy metal,I don't understand who else has a problem.And Mauro,thank you for teh lulz and another thing you listening to the trip-hop mix of 'Again'? Seriously? :D Bloomgloom talk 6:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the news, Bloomgloom, I'm 47 and therefore old enough to know these things by myself. The guitarist labelled his group in that way: by his POV it's absolutely right. But is that all-the-enciclopedic-truth about the AiC? PS: my ex bandmate has recorded two albums with Albini (post/math-rock: shit, according to me), while I remixed some nu metal songs (Korn, Deftones, ecc.) and here I'm editing the post-grunge article. Now I'm listening to the "gospel" (?) vocals by Ann Wilson in "Am I Inside" and "Right Turn". As musician and artistic producer, I hate to be labelled, I only distinguish between good and bad music. I know that someone has to do it, but at least do it right. --134.255.169.95 (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

once again, alternative metal also covers the progressive and experimental nature of alice in chains in the same way it does for faith no more, jane's addiction, tool, helmet and others, more reason for it to be used in the lead paragraph over rock

I call the big one bitey, what the hell is your problem man?Every single time you add comments without indenting and signing.Anyway, no, alternative metal is not appropriate for the lead because AiC has a rock & roll or post-glam metal-ish nature to their earlier music as well.That's why allmusic referred to them as post-Van Halen metal as well.Simply the term metal/rock in the lead is the best way to describe them. Bloomgloom talk 12:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes but alternative metal covers both heavy metal and hard rock (or post-van halen metal as allmusic calls it) and alternative/grunge, meaning other than rock, it covers the most ground I.C.T.B.O.B. —Preceding undated comment added 13:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Just one question: why do AllMusic put two Coldplay's songs among the post-grunge? Really sure that Rovi is a reliable source? I think it has its own POV as well Cantrell. So, instead of adding your info in the lead, why not simply insert them in the article? 134.255.169.95 (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

btw if anyone wants to add doom metal to the infobox they can since i found this source calling BGWTB doom metal http://www.cornellsun.com/section/arts/content/2009/10/08/test-spin-alice-chains I call the big one bitey —Preceding undated comment added 14:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fine to add doom metal in Black Gives Way to Blue but let's wait for the next album.If it gets doom metal tag by the media then it's fair enough to add doom metal to the infobox of the main article.And Mauro, as I've said in response to your illustration regarding The Beatles song the same case applies for that Coldplay example.Just bad logic. Bloomgloom talk 16:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Another thing is that Black Label Society has heavy metal in the lead.BLS's sound is very similar to Alice in Chains they have a delicate, acoustic side like AiC too in albums like Hangover Music Vol. VI or the more recent album The Song Remains Not the Same & Zakk has written couple of acoustic songs for every other album as well.So, similarly I think there's no problem in adding heavy metal to the lead of Alice in Chains. Bloomgloom talk 16:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Alternative solution

Guys, I suggest that the lead section should be like Melvins.Since AiC's style is so diverse,I think it's better to avoid putting any paticular style in the lead.Thoughts? Bloomgloom talk 07:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

According to my standards, you ask questions too deep: what is rock? I once wrote a book on the subject, then a blog, then some reviews of semiology of music. And my ideas on it continue to change. --134.255.169.95 (talk) 08:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you consider this a reliable source? --134.255.169.95 (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, affirmative to alternate solution (not the google book) . ツ The lead we have would almost work with simply subtracting 'rock' from the first sentence. The second and third paragraphs segue nicely into why "neat categorization (is) difficult", as the Melvins article says. The caveat is that Melvins have a veritible vegetable garden of genres in their infobox: (stoner rock???). Therefore, it would be more difficult to keep a gate on ours. I already like the identification of AiC as post-glam metal or glam metal, as you mentioned above and doom metal has been offered up, not incorrectly. Fylbecatulous talk 13:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Pediabook, not Google book: published the work on this topic of the editors here. --134.255.169.95 (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Fylbecatulous, Nicely said mate.And Mauro sorry to say but didn't get your notion this time, please elaborate further. Bloomgloom talk 14:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Mauro,that google book or pediabook whatever it is seems to be an imitation of an older version of AiC's wikipedia article to me. Bloomgloom talk 14:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not a simple imitation of an older version of AiC's wikipedia article, but its accurate transcription with at the end the list of all the wikipedian editors. The publisher is Pediapress: any of you know something about that? ---134.255.169.95 (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Sludge is not a genre

We've been over this stuff many, many times on this talk page...look above to the edit-warring initiated by Metalvayne (talk · contribs), now topic-banned from this article. Not every buzzword-of-the-moment gets to be listed in the infobox; keep it simple and concise with actual musical genres (alt, metal, pop, blues, etc...) Otherwise we'd be awash in PR Team catchy terms like synthcore, electro-pop, darkwave, and so on all across every musical artist article in the project. Tarc (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

it has a page on wikipedia, therefore it's a real genre and can be used in band's infoboxes, and if you're going to remove sludge metal for "not being an actual genre" than you might as well remove grunge which itself is/was a buzzword of the moment and not an actual music genre I call the big one bitey (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Tarc, according to your weird speculation about sludge metal it appears that Power metal, Thrash metal, Black metal, Stoner metal, Gothic metal, Viking metal these all are not subgenres but in reality those all have been dubbed by various professional critics in the past and as a result there are wikipedia articles about all of them, same theory applies for sludge metal.And yes, as I call the big one bitey said if you are insisted not to keep sludge then remove grunge as well.It seems I've posted a message on your talk page which has been recently removed by you.No problem I'm stating the same thing here for convenience.As you're insisted to remove all things related to sludge metal then remove it from Down's article, remove from Melvins, remove from Eyehategod, remove from Black Label Society & all other articles of metal/rock bands which are related.And finally you can help by removing the entire sludge metal article from Wikipedia.Good luck.And I don't care who has been topic-banned, all I care is that there are multiple sources calling Alice in Chains sludge metal and sludge rock which meet the verifiability & I'll keep pushing for it's inclusion because that's how Wikipedia works. Bloomgloom talk 16:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I would delete "viking metal" (WTF?) and any of those other retarded terms from any article that I came across, but its not my job to police the entire project, I have a select few band articles on the watch list, including this one. There's nothing really new being discussed here that wasn't covered up at Talk:Alice in Chains#Genre discussion. Tarc (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, all of this sucks. It's causing an unstable article, which is not good for a featured article. Why don't we just leave it all alone. all these genres are covered in the Style section of the article. If people care enough they'll read that anyway. Burningclean _[speak] 16:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. "Rock" encompases every genre currently listed in the infobox, so just leave it as is. Runch (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to state that Tarc is showing a hilariously overwhelming control over this article like it's his personal property & his statements like I would delete "viking metal" (WTF?) are ludicrous, I'd place a bet of 1M if he can remove viking metal from all the related bands & the article of the sub-genre itself.Anyway, whoever in favor of the following amendments in this article place your support below. Bloomgloom talk 07:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of sludge metal in the infobox & amendment to the lead

Support - As there are multiple sources for sludge metal that meet the verifiability I'd propose to include sludge metal in the infobox & as there is enough information in the lead about their style of music in gist e.g. Although widely associated with grunge music, the band's sound incorporates heavy metal and acoustic elements I'd suggest to avoid keeping any certain genre in the opening sente[n]ce in a similar fashion to of Melvins. Bloomgloom talk 07:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Support -and what I am supporting is the amendment to the lead as AiC is an American band... Moreover, I support sludge metal specifically in the infobox genres and for the possibility of additional genres added with the support of good references. Melvins had nine genres yesterday. I searched Wikipedia up and down last evening (which is always a tenuous thing) and nowhere can I find a MOS statement that limits band / songs genres to a certain limited number. (Please show me where). Otherwise, all this frantic guarding to keep genres down to a precious few is misguided. IMO, of course. Peace. Fylbecatulous talk 12:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Support -There are 3 reliable sources calling the band sludge metal (there are even more sources specifically calling the band sludge metal and various other genres that i couldn't add because they're pay per view articles), so i don't see why it shouldn't be included in the infobox I call the big one bitey —Preceding undated comment added 12:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Support - I quote Bloomgloom also for his amendment to the lead. Be careful to avoid duplication with the sentences below. Unaware "Pediabook(er)" --134.255.169.95 (talk) 13:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment - This isn't an issue of support or oppose. A particular sub-strain or musical sound is not a genre, and we cannot crowd the infobox with every idiot catchphrase, otherwise the list would be miles long. An infobox box is meant to be a quick and simple collection of very basic information on a musical artist. Mention sludge or whatever in the body of an article, that's ok. Leave the infobox to categorize the actual genres of music. Tarc (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Tarc by you logic "Rock/Pop" should be the genre in every band's infobox, Sludge metal has as much of a right to be in AIC's infobox as alternative rock, grunge and alternative metal do. As far as i'm aware there's no blanket policy in wikipedia against excess genres in a band's infobox or anything like that. I call the big one bitey (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment - By your logic why don't you do something about it Tarc? Why don't you remove every idiot catchphrase as you described from all the related wikipedia articles be it Viking metal bands, Gothic metal bands or Sludge metal bands.Just go ahead & remove every idiot catchphrase from all of them.I'd be very interested to see the consequences of that. Bloomgloom talk 16:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment - to Tarc, would you please show me a page of any sort in Wikipedia that limits the number, types and subtypes of genres to be placed in band / song infoboxes? (As I asked above in this section). I laughed at Stoner rock in Melvins infobox, but it is true enough as a subgenre of some pretty heavy genres to have an article, and to be used in infoboxes. ...in the interest of your position here, of course...Thanks muchly. Fylbecatulous talk 17:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment - So, a fair amount of consensus has been already gained.Then how long will it take to attain a fair conclusion regarding the topic? Bloomgloom talk 06:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Bloomgloom, so I researched Melvins article to determine how editors there went about deciding on having "an American band" in the opening sentence. Hilariously, they don't appear to have. An IP deleted "rock" on August 16, 2011 without even a whimper. However, they have not discussed much at all there except genres and an edit war I didn't research (They are still on page one of talk). At this time, I believe we have some concensus on your alternate proposal for the lead sentence, (one other support besides yours and mine) but perhaps we should be entirely clear since you moved the goal posts between your original heading and your sub-heading. (ie: rock/metal band vs band). We are less clear on genres, unfortunately. That seemed to be what ended up ruffling feathers. Tarc hasn't replied to my query re: how many. I've actually thought of inviting watchers from other AiC articles talk pages to comment here. (?) Peace. Fylbecatulous talk 21:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Yea man, I just saw this Argentinian IP made the awkward changes to the Melvins in the past as you've mentioned.But since AiC is a featured article & if it's necessary for a featured article to have a certain genre in the lead, then I'd suggest to describe them as simply metal.And if the issue of their acoustic side bothers then I'd say tons of metal bands have delicate touches to their music most relevantly Opeth.I've even heard a bestial old school death metal band God Macabre who have played an entire acoustic instrumental in their album The Winterlong....And I can name several other bands but I opt not to keep it brief. Bloomgloom talk 07:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose, plus comment - Keep the lead as general as possible when starting--remember, you are writing for a general audience. But put some genre in the first sentence. Otherwise, they could be a band of thieves for all Joe Q. Uninformed knows. Start with rock--it's the most general genre you can use; after that, you're dealing with specific forms of both heavy metal and alternative rock. And while AIC is certainly a metal band, they also fall in the alternative/grunge camp--both are essential to understanding the band. Look at what's done over at Nirvana (band)--the band is introduced as rock, and then its relationship to alternative rock and grunge (the specific forms rock music it is categorized as) is explained in the lead. Also, don't rely on reviews for reporting or factual information--reviews are opinion pieces, and should only be cited for the opinions they express, attributed to the authors in the prose. That removes two of the three sources listed for "sludge metal" from consideration, from what I can glean (I can't access the full text of two of the articles). WesleyDodds (talk) 09:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment - All the sources labelled them sludge metal are most certainly fitted with third party policies as they're not self published, written by professional journalists of renowned well established publications & as much as one can access the sources he/she can distinctly identify the word sludge rock which redirects to the sludge metal article as the two terms are uniform & mega metallic sludge band.Furthermore, Godsmack a band who took their name from an AiC song title & who are mostly identified as an AiC rip-off band has heavy metal in the lead, they are also associated with alt/post-grunge <---- can you or anyone else explain that? Anyway, keep placing thoughts everyone, this is getting interesting.Cheers and peace. Bloomgloom talk 14:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Not all sources are created equal, even when it comes to ones taken from reliable third-party sources. You wouldn't cite an editorial for factual information. There's a difference between reporting and writing a review. Furthermore, one of those sources cited for sludge metal makes a claim about "“Junkhead” is the quintessential form of music that Alice in Chains perfected and later became known as “sludge rock”" that is very dubious on the fact of it. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose, plus comment - I agree with Fylbecatulous and the first part of WesleyDodds' objections. "I got blisters on my fingers!". M.L. --134.255.169.95 (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Mauro, dude you can't support and then oppose the same issue, get your things straight.And you keep bringing on that reference to The Beatles song which is ludicrously bad logic. Bloomgloom talk 16:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Bloomgloom, if you propose a different edit every time, I will always reply differently. «Paul McCartney recalls writing "Helter Skelter" after reading a review of The Who Sell Out in which the critic claimed that "I Can See for Miles" was the "heaviest" song he'd ever heard. McCartney had not heard the song, but wrote "Helter Skelter" in an attempt to make an even "heavier" song than the one praised in the review.» [..] «On 9 September 1968, 18 takes of approximately five minutes each were recorded, and the last one is featured on the original LP. After the 18th take, Ringo Starr flung his drum sticks across the studio and screamed, "I got blisters on my fingers!".» Great. --134.255.169.95 (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Anyway, Mauro you are welcome to reply differently each & every time.But, can you explain to me that why Godsmack, basically an AiC/Pantera rip-off band has heavy metal in the lead? When they are also associated with Alt/Post-grunge cabinet.You may be very logical, but I expect a very straight-forward answer this time. P.S - Godsmack is also a featured article. Bloomgloom talk 07:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment - The guitar sound and the voice of Godsmack are (only and always) heavy metal, while not in the AiC. Simple as their samples. --134.255.169.95 (talk) 08:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Jerry Cantrell's guitar tone is much heavier & mammoth-like monstrous than shitty tone of that Godsmack guitarist & Sully Erna openly stated that his primary influence as a vocalist is Layne Staley & not to mention that the band name is after an AiC song title.Cantrell's tone is much more like Electric Wizard in some occasions.Oh, and furthermore, Alice in Chains is included in Metal Archives while Godsmack is blacklisted.LOL. Bloomgloom talk 10:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - per WesleyDodds comments. Articles are generally treated case-by-case. Don't see the relevance of Godsmack in this arguement. "AiC rip-off" band or not, they are not Alice in Chains and this is not an article or discussion about them. HrZ (talk) 13:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment - HrZ, the relevance of Godsmack was questionable only if WesleyDodds & Mauro Lanari haven't brought upon the references to the Nirvana & The Beatles song Helter Skelter respectively.As they referred those above mentioned articles I think my style of elaboration involving Godsmack is quite fair as well. Bloomgloom talk 14:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment - As far as I can make out, Nirvana was used as an example to illustrate his comments (note: he has worked on that article as well as numerous other featured articles), what can be done here and what (in my opinion) would be a suitable solution. You, however, are asking why heavy metal is included in the lead of a different article, not using it as an example but asking for an explanation, which is I don't see the point of because this isn't about Godsmack. HrZ (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Yes, I wanted an explanation from Mauro & he did so.It's a business between him & me, not between me & you.Do you have any more queries? Bloomgloom talk 16:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I made no queries in the first place, only made a statement that I don't see the relevance of Godsmack in this discussion. "It's a business between him & me, not between me & you" - I didn't ask you to comment, you chose to. HrZ (talk) 09:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

*Comment - Seriously: how much is Allmusic/Rovi a reliable source?

[17]=[18]: COLDPLAY? --Mauro Lanari (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Allmusic is generally considered reliable where there is text, but list of genres are not generated by identifiable critics, so are not considered reliable.--SabreBD (talk) 08:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, Sabrebd. Nice work. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 09:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

There is some ambiguity now with All Music since it is now a commercial site which it was not previously,and commercial sites are not considered reliable if my memory serves me right on that policy or perhaps i am wrong ,so all music may present a problem especially for music articles--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

By many, too many years I no longer believe in "reliable sources". I am an insider since 27 years, so I know how to judge by myself. It is useless for Wp, but I don't have anymore to worry about the opinions of others. If I make mistakes, I make mistakes alone. --134.255.169.95 (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose w/ Comment I've watched numerous specials and interviews with the band, Jerry solo, and read a lot about them. Not once have I ever heard them referred to as "sludge rock". The genre Grunge, I would remove too, only as it is not a genre, but rather a movement. The grunge movement was a series of alternative rock bands from Seattle. In the radio industry, there has never been a term called grunge rock , from what I know, and I've only been closely following the radio industry programming side for 15 years now. What do you classify them as? It's hard to say. According to Jerry in an interview, "so would you consider yourselves grunge or metal", his response was "we're neither", to which the interviewer asked "well what are you then?", he responded "we're Alice in Chains". But I doubt you could put THAT as a Genre. I vote for Alternative Rock, Metal, and Hard Rock. And leave it as that. Again it's just my opinion in this non official RfC here. NECRAT^{Plates On} 04:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The comment "In the radio industry, there has never been a term called grunge rock , from what I know, and I've only been closely following the radio industry programming side for 15 years now" makes no sense. Are you saying you've never heard any ever say "grunge" on the radio? And what about all the reliable sources--ranging from music press to mainstream media to peer-reviewed academic source--that I and other editors cited in the Featured Article on Grunge? Grunge exists, and is established as a genre. That cannot be questioned. And it's one AIC has been regularly grouped in. Yeah, I know AIC started out as a straightforward metal band and were considered outsiders from the Sub Pop clique. But they're widely categorized as grunge. (For what it's worth, Nirvana and Pearl Jam never liked being called grunge either). WesleyDodds (talk) 12:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you mis-understood me. I've always heard of Grunge as being a movement of alternative rock. Look at Billboard's chart history. There was never a "grunge chart". Same with Mediabase. I'm not saying it's not a genre, I was saying in radio, they never really classified it as a format. There were never "grunge" formatted radio stations, those stations reported to the alt-rock panels. I agree that it may be considered a genre, I am just inputing what I know about the genre as it officially relates to radio. I hate the "grunge" label myself, and that is a personal opinion. I don't disagree that it is a genre, but I would much prefer to see AiC classified as Alt-Rock versus grunge. This is a good discussion to have, however. NECRAT^{Plates On} 05:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Radio formats and genres don't necessarily correlate in the first place, so it's really a non-issue. There's no shoegaze or psychedelic format, either, but both are musical genres. Conversely, classic rock and modern rock are formats, not genres. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Hmm, I believe it's better we leave the infobox as it is now.As sludge metal is included in their musical styles with three third party sources it's quite balanced as of now.Since their return, William DuVall & Cantrell has stated in many interviews that they're a completely different band now, as Black Gives Way to Blue was an extremely HEAVY album & as a result it has won the Metal Hammer album of the year too by defeating candidates like Slayer, Megadeth, Mastodon & Black Sabbath in the moniker of Heaven & Hell.And a lot of critics(professional & amateur) have dubbed it as a borderline doom metal album.So, if the next album comes out as heavy as BGWTB or heavier then, an amendment to the lead is necessary.And dude NECRAT, you may be a broadcaster or somethin' but as much as I've read Jerry's interview in mostly Hard rock/metal magazines e.g.Kerrang!, Decibel, Metal Hammer & a few others, he always favoured their metal side.I've read one interview where he stated We're a heavy metal band, but we like to play a lot of other styles too at times.Or you can take the very popular interview for Guitar World in 1996, where the iterviewer asked So, you guys are still a heavy metal band or just rock?, Jerry replied No man, we are part of the metal, and we're a lot of other things too.But there's definitely metal, blues, rock 'n' roll maybe a touch of punk.Yes, like I mentioned he has always voted in for their metal side.But whenever he was asked about grunge, he used to reply, What the fuck is grunge??? Bloomgloom talk 07:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I should make it clear that I was the one who added the quote "No man, we are part of the metal, and we're a lot of other things too. But there's definitely metal, blues, rock 'n' roll maybe a touch of punk" to this article way back when. I found it in a reprint of a Guitar World article in a book collecting pieces from the magazine titled Guitar World Presents Alternative Rock. In the book, the article was placed in the Grunge section. AIC is generally considered both metal AND alt-rock. It's possible for bands to be both--see also Jane's Addiction, Soundgarden, Nine Inch Nails, and more. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know anything about any re-printed magazine or whatever, the original interview featuring a detailed discussion with Cantrell about their self-titled album is from the January 1996 edition of the Guitar World magazine entitled Alice in Chains Stairway to Hell and back.Here's the picture of the original issue of the magazine for your convenience.And I've read the interview when I was 7 years old way before the creation of this Alice in Chains article hence even Wikipedia itself. Bloomgloom talk 14:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I know where the article comes from, because the book I cited it from (and remember, I was the one who added that quote to this very article) lists the original publication date. I don't get what point you're trying to make. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It's ok man, you added that quote, fine I appreciate it.You can brag all about.I'm not trying to make any points.Just made clear above that I've read the interview before the existence of Wikipedia.As simple as that.Peace. Bloomgloom talk 06:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - I've objected to using the term "sludge metal" or rock or whatever a number of other places, because so far I haven't seen any reliable sources that use that term. I've been out of the conversation out of a while, and this conversation looks quite chaotic, so feel free to point me in the direction of a RS that calls it that. (Even beyond that, similarly to Tarc's argument, I'm opposed to putting a rather obscure/unfamiliar concept in the article, it's not helpful to the general audience's we're supposed to be writing this article for.) Sergecross73 msg me 02:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The term sludge metal originated from the word sludgy which most critics use to describe really dirty & heavy riffs & down-tempo melodies. The term was massively used by critics & press during Crowbar & Eyehategod's ascension in NOLA scene. And since the downfall of grunge the term has been associated with bands like Melvins, Alice in Chains & Tad. Now, this was a brief history about how the term came to public attention. You were asking about reliable sources labelling Alice in Chains as sludge rock or sludge metal, both are uniform anyway. Here you'll find three third party sources referring to them as sludge metal/sludge rock.Two of them are renowned newspapers & one of them is a WP:ALBUM/REVSITE. I didn't find them all by the way, I included one of the three sources. Other two were included by I call the big one bitey and Mauro. Bloomgloom talk 07:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

For further enlightenment, in a more recent review by Kerrang!, A review of Steve Harris's new solo project called British Lion the term was associated with Alice in Chains again when the reviewer compared the opening song of their debut album entitled This is My God to AiC's heavy guitar sounds. It can be found here. But, it's not quite related to this article. I just used it for detailed representation as it's a very recent work. Bloomgloom talk 07:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you misundertand me. I understand what sludge metal is. You need not "educate" me on it, you/User:Metalvayne have gone on many long winded rants about it. I get it. But we're not writing these articles for me. We're writing it for the general audience. Most people don't know what sludge metal is, and vast majority of sources don't label them as that, so I don't support it's inclusion. There's a number of other editors who opposed as well, so I'm certainly not seeing any consensus for inclusion. Sergecross73 msg me 13:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

You see, I've already closed the curtains as some good results came out from this discussion like illustrating their musical styles. And as it is their in the musical styles I feel the infobox should be as it is. And there's no need to make changes in the lead. I've thought about it I've came to a point that their metal side is well defined in the second para of the lead. Bloomgloom talk 14:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Support - I really agree with this last formulation of your opinion. Nice work and good luck. Mauro Lanari --134.255.169.95 (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Auctoritas non veritas facit legem. --134.255.169.95 (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose --- "subsubgenre" type bickering is pointless and bad for the stability of articles. The bottom line is that nobody knows what these distinctions actually mean. "Sludge" metal is not a very informative concept and each person who uses it will interpret it slightly differently. Generally the best thing to do is use the less specific genres to describe a group. Here the lead starts off mentioning rock. It then mentions "grudge" and "heavy metal"... Good enough! If genre twiddlers spent as much time worrying if articles were properly referenced and had good coverage, the encyclopedia would be a golden place by now. Instead this is the music world's equivalent of comic book nerds arguing if Hulk is stronger than Superman, etc. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I admit, this made me laugh. You do have a point there. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Further thoughts

Since this discussion causing instability for the article and the certain amount of disruptive edits by this IP from Illinois and by Indopug as he did on Dirt and Black Gives Way to Blue such as this and this I've decided to put an end to this discussion in favor of stability.Some very good results came out from this discussion like the addition of multiple third party sources to elaborate the style of the music band plays.Anyway, thanks a lot to everyone who has participated in it.Regards.Peace. Bloomgloom talk 14:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is ongoing until other editors come to a consensus. You're also assuming bad faith on the part of Indopug, an editor I've worked with frequently and who participates frequently at Featured Article Candidates. He's not someone in my experience who is intentionally disruptive. His edits are perfectly in line with the WP:BRD philosophy. More to the point, those edits you link above don't involve this page. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with WesleyDodds. There is no need to shut down this RfC at this point. It would be nice to see some more input from others as well. It would probably be best to have a "not involved" admin be the one to make the call when to close this. NECRAT^{Plates On} 05:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

WesleyDodds dude, you might know Indopug well as you've been on wikipedia longer than me obviously.On wikipedia we know that being bold is good occasionally mostly when disputes over an article take place but it's also true that third party sources trump one's personal opinion and boldness.And a few edits I've seen him make are generally against WP:BRD guidelines such as he removed the associated acts (all of which have Alice in Chains in their respective infoboxes) twice from this very article without discussing which is against the third point.And take his hilarious edit over Melvins in other hand.Seriously, just rock in infobox?? Nowhere in wikipedia I've found that sort of policy to include only a general style of genre per infobox by rejecting the verifiable sources.Does it really help a featured or good article? Anyway, to clarify I'm not assuming bad faith on anyone.I just have to see more of him I guess. Bloomgloom talk 07:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:GENREWARRIOR. Notice how this editor's contribs for the past few weeks deal exclusively with bands' genres. Further, all of them are in service of the bias he's laid out in the beginning of this section—"As Alice in Chains are more often denoted as an important band in the history of metal music rather than 'alternative' or 'grunge' ". He's subsequently been single-mindedly adding all sorts of heavy metal sub-genres to AiC and Soundgarden articles by cherry-picking his sources (including, bizarrely, "doom metal" to the latest AiC album, solely sourcing it to the sentence "Alice in Chains spew their triumphant new work from speakers with crunch and doom metal fury").

The fact is, the various styles played by a band don't always constitute that band's genre(s), and they certainly shouldn't all be crammed in the infobox (can you imagine what The Beatles' genre tab would look like then?). Brevity is an important consideration for infoboxes; the body of the article (which this editor shows little interest in expanding) is where the details come in. To put this into context here: while nobody is arguing that Alice in Chains (or Soundgarden) exhibited several heavy metal influences, they're universally classified as grunge bands primarily (whether you like it or not). In fact, grunge is already a sort of mix of punk rock and classic heavy metal, making the listing of heavy metal in every grunge-song article kinda redundant.—indopug (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

(note: I do think heavy metal belongs in the infobox and the lead here, but not excessive sub-genres. I strongly oppose the superfluous addition of heavy/alt metal, hard rock and blues-rock to albums and songs like Dirt and "Heaven Beside You")—indopug (talk) 11:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Alice in Chains & Soundgarden are as much universally classified metal as grunge, they appear in several international heavy metal magazines & interviews for metal webzines.Have you seen any articles involving Nirvana & Pearl Jam in any heavy metal journals??? And yes I listen to rock and metal and that's why I'm interested to contribute appropriate information with proper citation.If you notice you'll see that I've never put any sub-genres without proper third party citations in fact I remove unsourced genre claims as soon as I notice them.By the way, I don't always edit infoboxes.I contribute musical style & legacy sections as well.I've created the musical style section for Budgie & illustrated as much as I can.And I fixed a few issues, including removal of unsourced genres over at Fudge Tunnel which was a complete mess without citations. Bloomgloom talk 13:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Note : If I've been a genre warrior as accused by Indopug isn't it obvious that I would've received at least a couple of warnings on my [talk page] since I've been using wikipedia? WesleyDodds dude, seems you've been wrong mate.It seems Indopug has been assuming bad faith on me, hehe. Bloomgloom talk 13:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Note : I've just come across that Indopug has opened a sockpuppet case against me without even notifying. He hasn't even replied to my message which I left on his talk page. Therefore, I can safely assume that his actions are purely based on revenge. Bloomgloom talk 15:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, he should have notified you, but if you go to the SPI discussion, you'd see there's a rather large list of justifications beyond "revenge". I'd advise you to respond there. Sergecross73 msg me 13:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I notified you shortly after the SPI case was posted. Яehevkor ✉ 17:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I've retitled this section as this discussion is not finished, and given the confirmation in an open WP:SPI that Bloomgloom is a sockpuppet for a user who was given a topic ban for constant music genre debates, I definitely wouldn't put it up to him to try to force this discussion to a close. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

In that case, there was a little side discussion occuring at:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative music#Alice in Chains genre debates in which I sought the existence of a MOS directive regarding the number of genres suitable to be assigned to an infobox and learned from you, WesleyDodds what you thought. Well, instead of reiterating all that, I'm just going to drag that discussion page here for availability if anyone wants to peak at what we had going there. I had considered doing so earlier, but then let it go because of some edits here that had begun to yank things back and forth on the article page. I wanted to shy away from adding to any further instability. Way up the page in this discussion, I was all for gifting multiples and first cousins of genres in the infobox, especially if we were going to remove 'rock' from the lead sentence. I now see that my support was misguided...so if four genres is optimal, which genres would we like to settle on? Fylbecatulous talk 02:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Alternative rock, grunge, heavy metal, alternative metal. As for the lead sentence, either the present "rock" or "alternative rock" is fine. Slight aside: I feel that using 2–4 genres in the infoboxes of their Dirt–Tripod-era songs and albums is misguided, and that just "grunge" is sufficient.—indopug (talk) 03:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Dirt is included in Loudwire's top 11 metal albums of the 90's which is a very popular list. Therefore, I strongly oppose the sole inclusion of grunge in the infobox. Bloomgloom talk 06:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

If we have to remove a genre from the infobox it should be either alternative rock (since alternative metal and grunge both cover that genre), or hard rock (since heavy metal covers that genre). I would prefer to see hard rock removed. I call the big one bitey (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I like the lead section as it is now, introducing the band as a general "rock", then explaining how they relate to grunge and metal. I don't see the need for hard rock in the infobox, as "hard rock" is often used as a generic descriptor for "hard-edged rock" than a particular genre (yes, there have been some efforts to define it as a proper genre, but the generic use of "hard rock" is still prevalent and is not very illuminating when applied to this band as it is when applied to, say, Pearl Jam). For clarity and relevance's sake for the general reader, I think keeping heavy metal, alternative rock, alternative metal, and grunge in the infobox works best. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

AiC has been described as Hard rock in allmusic bio, all of their albums as well, if it can't be included here, then apply the same criteria for Nickelback as they are listed as heavy metal in AllMusic bio, & I don't think it should be there on the wikipedia article. Bloomgloom talk 07:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Dude: commenting here further is not going to help you at all. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

^^^ Is there a 'like' button on here somewhere? Burningclean _[speak] 16:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment: In light of the sockpuppeting controversy, and the discussion starter's long-term behavior, would it be acceptable to archive this discussion immediately? The discussion has been causing disruption and unrest to a featured article. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 07:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I would be open to that, but given other people have been expressing valid viewpoints, I don't mind wrapping it up right here, and it seems like it's heading that way. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, in the past, when a long-term disruptive editor does something like this, it seems like usually the discussion is closed/started over, and the user's edits are undone. (Bloomgloom, under his name, Metalvayne, was topic banned for one year from editing anyting related to band's genre/musical style, and that's virtually all Bloomgloom as done here... Sergecross73 msg me 19:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

All right, I've decided to be bold and close this discussion. Metalvayne should be prevented from tinkering with this article any further, and any discussions he starts concerning this band's genre should be reverted immediately. If input from others has already been delivered to any discussion he may start, then maybe closing the discussion like I am doing will suffice instead; I would also recommend, but not blatantly command, that any similar actions by Metalvayne on other talk pages be treated similarly. If Metalvayne gets his way with this article, then he could ruin and even demote it, although I wouldn't say he has yet. He's already caused enough unrest here, and this article was a featured article for more than two full years before Metalvayne started editing it and the corresponding talk page, and almost one year before Metalyavne was even active on Wikipedia. The genres are fine; there have been plenty of discussion about it, and plenty of overkill discussion as well. If necessary, some of Metalvayne's genre edits on this page can be reverted or otherwise discredited. I don't want to continue to hear about genre debating at this article, especially if Metalvayne is behind it. The article and the genres are fine, and were fine before Metalvayne came around. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 21:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The "Release and reception" section of various AiC singles articles need help

This isn't about this article per se, but something that involves a number of AiC singles. Look at Would?#Release and reception, the sentence structure is atrocious; ""Would?" did X". "Would?" did Y"". "Would?" did Z."" If any watchers are still lurking about, please take a minute and polish up the prose a bit if you could; this seems to mostly affect the singles articles. I did Grind (song) a moment ago (before, after), but won't have time for them all anytime soon. Thanks. Tarc (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

New Album

Recent interview with Jerry Cantrell where he states that a new album will be in the works for 2016. http://www.komp.com/episode/alice-in-chains-jerry-cantrell/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.222.205.153 (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Add EPs to the Timeline and Discography?

I see a note in the Discography section stating the following: "Full discography can be found at its own article. Please do not add "Jar of Flies," "Sap," or any other release that is not a full-length studio album."

I think the EPs are a significant part of AIC's legacy (especially Jar of Flies, which went triple-platinum and reached #1) and should be included on the band's page, not just on the discography sub-page.

They are already listed in the band's History section; Sap is lumped together with Facelift, but Jar of Flies is given its own entry, which to me suggests its significance.

I'm far from an expert on Wikipedia guidelines, but I have seen other bands with EPs listed on the Timeline and in the Discography on those bands' main pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ese76 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

All discographies (and most timelines) are meant for studio albums only. The note is there to explain that, because editors keep trying to add non-studio albums, EPs, etc. for no reason. This has got nothing to do with their legacy... we're just going by the rules here. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks- that makes sense. I'm not sure I agree with the rule, but I understand the need for consistency. Ese76 (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Daterange

{Moving this discussion from my talk page}:

I don't see anything that talks about this specific kind of instance. I think it would be important to note that Layne died while the band was sill active, making it clear that he did not leave the band. Dying in another year (or that same year, but after leaving the group) is another story. But I'd like to discuss this somewhere; do you know where I can? -- Preceding comment left by DannyMusicEditor (talk)‎ 21:11, 23 February 2016‎

DannyMusicEditor: That is all covered in the body of the article; the list of members is just a summary. You may discuss that here, or if you'd like a different interpretation of the Daterange policy, you might inquire here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Alice in Chains. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080222064518/http://www.legacyrecordings.com/Alice-in-chains.aspx to http://www.legacyrecordings.com/Alice-in-chains.aspx
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090525035102/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=107501 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=107501
Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.kerrang.com/blog/2009/08/the_2009_kerrang_awards_winner.html
Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.metalinjection.net/latest-news/revolver-golden-gods-awards-2010-winners

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Lead Vocals

The opening paragraph implies that Jerry Cantrell was not a lead vocalist for the band both by calling Staley the lead vocalists and by saying that William Duvall took over as lead vocalist after his death. The band member timeline at the bottom shows that Cantrell only provided lead vocals after Staley's death. I'm not sure what the light orange color in the pre-reunion line is supposed to signify there. All of that seems incorrect based on my knowledge of the band though. I'm not a huge fan, so correct me if I'm wrong, but it wasn't uncommon for Cantrell to sing lead vocals on songs even before Staley's death, was it? He sang the lead part on "Heaven Beside You," which was a big single. If that was the only significant song that Cantrell sang lead on, I'm fine with characterizing Staley as the sole lead vocalists, but I don't think it was. Again, please correct me if I'm mistaken. Either way, the timeline needs to be corrected to get rid of the light orange line that doesn't correspond to the key. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Offensivename (talk • contribs) 18:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Alice in Chains. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100530075734/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=140829 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=140829
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080908001221/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=104110 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=104110
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090427112318/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=118840 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=118840
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091015044748/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=128577 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=128577
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100923150541/http://www.cmc.dk/ to http:///
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090806040916/http://blog.kerrangawards.com/2009/2009/08/the_2009_kerrang_awards_winner.shtml to http://blog.kerrangawards.com/2009/2009/08/the_2009_kerrang_awards_winner.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alice in Chains. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090108155844/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=59909 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=59909

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)