Talk:Alice in Chains

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Alice in Chains is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 27, 2009.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Musicians (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject Alternative music (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to Alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Metal (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject United States / Washington / Seattle (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Washington - Seattle (marked as Low-importance).
Talk archives:
*Archive One

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

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 -- (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 (talkcontribs) 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 -- (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. -- (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. -- (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. -- (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: (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. -- (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? (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 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[edit]

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. -- (talk) 08:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Do you consider this a reliable source? -- (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. -- (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? --- (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Sludge is not a genre[edit]

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[edit]

  • 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)" -- (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. 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)
  • 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. -- (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. -- (talk) 08:23, 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 - 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? [1]=[2]: 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. -- (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. NECRATPlates 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. NECRATPlates 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 -- (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Auctoritas non veritas facit legem. -- (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[edit]

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. NECRATPlates 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 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 DirtTripod-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 meconcerning 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 meconcerning 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.

Removal of hard rock[edit]

I'm removing hard rock since 4 genres are enough, heavy metal already covers hard rock, and it was added by a banned sock account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I call the big one bitey (talkcontribs)

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

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[edit]

Recent interview with Jerry Cantrell where he states that a new album will be in the works for 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Add EPs to the Timeline and Discography?[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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)