Jump to content

Talk:Alice in Chains/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 19:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Genre discussion

User 4TheWynne recently changed the introductory genre and removed the warning/notices altogether. Moreover, when I restored them he reverted my edits and also posted a warning message on my talk page. 'Rock' in the lead was since the creation of this page (along with the warning message) and it should stay as the musical style section emphasizes that their sound is impossible to categorize. Besides, they are one of the four biggest bands of the Seattle scene. So, it's simply wrong and misleading to use 'alternative metal' in the lead. --Oderinnn (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I reckon your copy-paste editing of the same message, damning me, on several editors' talk pages is probably more disruptive than what I've done, let alone your obvious objective in your section headings. First of all, cut the "since the creation of this page" nonsense, as you've obviously just made that up. Second, I wasn't the first person to revert and leave a message on your talk page (at least I left an edit summary). Going on from that, there are no "rock" genres in the infobox – as I mentioned, "alternative metal" is consistent with most, if not all, of their releases, and is the first-listed genre here, therefore it would make sense to present that genre in the lead. If that's not reasonable and/or it warrants further discussion, that's fine. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 12:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
"Rock" has been there for most of the time. And whenever it was changed to something else the consensus always was to generalize it as evident in many of the discussions here. There are three subgenres in the infobox and all of them are subgenres or sub-subgenres of rock be it 'metal', 'alternative' or 'grunge'. --Oderinnn (talk) 12:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Of the historic versions of this article, the FA version has the most gravity, as it was examined by a committee of expert editors. That version lists in the infobox the genres "Alternative metal, grunge, hard rock [and] heavy metal", while calling the band "hard rock" in the first sentence. Today's version of the article has rather too many references behind "sludge metal" without it being given a even the tiniest bit of explanation – this has the look of being argumentative and petty, not worthy of a Featured Article. The word "sludge" doesn't even appear in the FA version.
The band's genres should always be a summary of third party analysis, the analysis focusing on the band's musical style rather than on specific albums or songs. (The band's own viewpoint about their genre is interesting but not definitive.) If we were to look at a list of independent sources, what genres would come to the fore in terms of frequency and weight? That's the question we must answer if genres are to be reexamined. In that case, the history of the article is not so important. Binksternet (talk) 14:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
There was only really one discussion of note where that was an option but not a definitive conclusion (to change to "rock"). Again, alternative metal is the genre that's consistent with most, if not all, of their releases – if the band's genres (or in this case, their overall genre) should always be a summary of third party analysis focusing on their musical style, and if the aforementioned fact is an obvious nod to their musical style (which I think it is), then wouldn't it be easier to further emphasise that genre? I just don't understand how and why "rock" comes into it – the genres in the infobox (which aren't the reason for this discussion) are very distantly related to rock, but not direct subgenres. I don't know, I just feel very strongly about it. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 02:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Oderinnn, again, I've tried to reinstate my edits, as per WP:BOLD (and as a result, fair enough that I was reverted), but there's no point trying to make me out to be some villain if all I'm doing at this point is following a guideline (not "tampering") and nobody else is discussing. This was out of line. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 13:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 06:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 03:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Split proposed

I think the awards and nominations part should be split into List of awards and nominations received by Alice in Chains, which is standard for many artists, especially since it takes up a big chunk of the article. RF23 (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Sludge metal

Sludge metal has far more sources cited, within the text, supporting it's inclusion, than any other genre. I propose that it should be added to the infobox. Issan Sumisu (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I was actually thinking about bring this up too. Bowling is life (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Bowling is life:@Issan Sumisu: Then provide a reference and add it to the infobox. @Issan Sumisu: Ping me if you responding to me, it’s easier. SML-speech 15:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC) SML-speech 15:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

There's already many, many sources supporting it, on the page, and on large pages such as this, these decisions are generally discussed prior, in case of any specific reason for exclusion. Issan Sumisu (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Please read through the archives. Pretty certain I remember prior discussions that decided against this. Sergecross73 msg me 02:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Pretty sure I remember those discussions too. I think the sources given for the genre (in the "Musical style" section) need to be checked as well – some of them literally mention the genre once without really calling them a "sludge metal" band. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 02:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, precisely, or they say things like "that was a sludgy guitar riff" or whatever, without even directly referring to the genre or the band, which isn't nearly enough to cite something like "sludge metal". Sergecross73 msg me 15:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I just checked through the cites, a few of the links are dead, but of the still working ones 260, 262 and 263 are the ones that are really describing them fully as sludge. Issan Sumisu (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
260 contains zero hits for "sludge metal". It says "sludge rock". 262 calls it "so-called sludge metal" while 263 says "Sludge metal, hard rock – call it what you will" - these don't look like confident assertions. It almost sounds like they're poking fun of the term. I'm against its inclusion. We've got enough redundant genre deviations in the infobox as it is. Sergecross73 msg me 15:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

"Dirt" properly displayed

@BandnamE19XX: I saw your edit summary inquiring of more experienced editors to fix the rendering of "Dirt" so that it is displayed properly. Could you please elaborate? It's not obvious to me how it is not already "proper". Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Hm, I think the error you're seeing has to do with the mobile version of the article, it looks fine to me on desktop. I tried adding a switch to force the paragraph header to render on a new line but I can't check up on the mobile rendering myself at the moment, so I'm not sure if it will work. I'll check in later when I have my mobile. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Definitely isn't "glam metal"!

Change it to "grunge" cuz that's what it is! Arbrok187 (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Genre of Music

Alice In Chains is Grunge not Rock or Hard Rock, listen to Layne Stayley’s voice it’s a grungy deep powerful sound. listen to Man in the Box or Would?, his voice is sort of like Kurt Cobain’s. as for the music it’s low and a mean sound which in my opinion sounds like Grunge. Alice in Chains have their own type of grunge like Soundgarden and Nirvana. there are different types of Grunge and Alice In Chains have their own. Aiisdku (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Information on Wikipedia is based off of what reliable sources say, such as books or journal articles. If you look in the "musical style" section then you'll see next to each genre the sources that support them. Yes, grunge is sourced but there are also many sources that cite them as other genres, such as alternative metal and sludge metal, so many that calling them just one very niche description doesn't seem apt (and that's completely ignoring the fact that many people don't even consider grunge to be a genre). Issan Sumisu (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Changing "Alternative metal" to "alternative rock"

I propose that "Alternative metal", which is listed as one of the several styles performed by Alice in Chains in the page's info-box be changed to "Alternative rock".

"Alternative rock" far better describes the music of the two EPs the band released in 1992 and 1994 than does "alternative metal", and is included in the info-boxes both for those EPs and the studio album "Dirt"; which were an essential part of the band's career and, in the instance of 1994's "Jar of Flies" in particular, represented the band's most successful and acclaimed work. The "Musical style" acknowledges "alternative rock" as a style of theirs, with many media sources continuing to label Alice in Chains "alternative rock" to the present day. Furthermore, "alternative metal" falls under both the "alternative rock" label and the already-listed designation of "heavy-metal"; the two "alternative-rock" and "heavy-metal" labels thus together forming an ample generalization, better and more representative than the more specific "alternative metal".

I am willing to discuss such a change, and the aforementioned proposals will be undertaken in a short amount of time if no objection is raised. JoeyofScotia (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Currently, alternative metal has three sources (however, the current AllMusic source should definitely be removed as it only states this in the sidebar, which isn't reliable) on the page supporting it, in comparison to alternative rock only having one. There's a copious amount of sources calling them alt metal that aren't included (www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/alice-in-chains-plot-headlining-north-american-tour-223372/, www.vh1.com/news/alt-metal-a-to-z, www.revolvermag.com/music/alice-chains-jerry-cantrell-talks-coming-full-circle-deeper-new-album, and there are also a lot for alt rock (exclaim.ca/film/article/alice_in_chains_detail_rainier_fog_inspired_film_project) but I do seem to be having a harder time finding them, and many of which mention them in the same breath as metal (www.loudersound.com/features/alice-in-chains-top-10). This is rather subjective, however there does seem to be far more sources that call them alt metal than alt rock, so I'm not sure the replacement would be apt. Issan Sumisu (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Discography

In response to the edit note and recent attempts by new editors to add the Jar of Flies EP, I renamed the section "Studio albums" to indicate that the section listed only studio albums. I was reverted by Issan Sumisu with an explanation that the manual of style requires the section to be titled "Discography", but it does not, it only lays out general guidelines for such a section. I'm not going to get into an edit war here but I do think something needs to be done to fix this section. I propose subdividing it into subsections for "studio albums", "live albums", and "extended plays", with the rest being omitted in favour of the separate discography page. The reason is twofold: for one, AIC has top-selling releases from those formats, and second, newer editors and IPs will keep trying to add them in spite of the notice until they get their way, it's just how it goes. Thoughts? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I did attach the link to the more ambiguous MOS, but here it refers to even a section only including studio albums as the Discography. But, for the point you're trying to reach, it seems quite common to put a subheading of "Studio albums" just after the link to the main article, seen in Avenged Sevenfold, Trivium (band), Gojira (band) and most similar pages. Issan Sumisu (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Sap and Jar of Flies should be added under Discography

(scroll to the bottom if you want a quick tl;dr summary)

Typically on a artist's article at Wikipedia, under the Discography section, only the main full-length studio albums are listed; however, in some cases, other releases are added too. This happens if the release has enough material that is unique enough (original songs) and if it's a prominent piece of an artist's history. Current examples can be found on the pages for Guns N' Roses (1 EP), Nine Inch Nails (3 EPs), The Beatles (1 EP & 1 compilation), Led Zeppelin (1 compilation), Peter Frampton (2 live albums), Mudhoney (1 EP), Twiztid (1 EP & 1 mixtape), etc etc etc. So now, I'd like to turn the attention to Alice in Chains' Sap and Jar of Flies EPs, which I consider both to be extremely relevant to the point of inclusion.

JAR OF FLIES

  • The EP charted in nearly a dozen countries. In addition, it topped the charts in the US, and was the first ever EP to debut at #1 on the Billboard 200 chart. The feat is important not only to the band, but historically as well. No other EP accomplished the feat until 10 years later, in 2004. Jar of Flies appeared on many other charts, but #1 on the Billboard 200 chart is a sufficient enough example. If the EP wasn't prominent, then it wouldn't have charted so highly, if at all.
  • Although the EP's chart placements is an indication of its success, its overall sales is another huge point. It sold over 2 million copies in its first year and eventually it got certified triple platinum by the RIAA; thus, it is Alice in Chains' second-highest selling release (after Dirt). If the EP wasn't prominent, then it wouldn't have sold that much whatsoever.
  • Three different singles were released to promote the album. While "Don't Follow" only got moderate airplay, both "No Excuses" and "I Stay Away" charted highly and became iconic Alice in Chains' songs in the process. "No Excuses" was also the band's first #1 hit on the US Mainstream Rock chart, another important feat historically for them. Both songs also received music videos. If the EP wasn't prominent, then three singles and two videos wouldn't have been released to promote it.
  • The EP itself was nominated for a Grammy and "I Stay Away" was also nominated for a Grammy. "No Excuses" also got nominated for a Billboard Music Award. If the EP wasn't prominent, then it probably wouldn't have been nominated, plainly.
  • Although success helps the EP's case, internally, it was an important point for the band too. It was the first release without bassist Mike Starr, and it was the first release to feature his replacement Mike Inez. The EP also served as Alice in Chains' major offering between the Dirt and Alice in Chains albums. Not including the EP in a list adjacent to the two makes it seem like it was not significant enough, which is definitely not the case.

SAP

  • Due to the timing and the overall marketibility, the sales and chart positions for Sap is not even close to Jar of Flies; however, its numbers are still notable. It is currently certified gold by the RIAA. If the EP wasn't prominent, then it wouldn't have been certified anything, most likely.
  • In 1995, Sap got reissued due to the band's increased popularity. It peaked at #29 on the Catalog Albums chart. In 2020, Sap got reissued on vinyl. It then appeared on seven different charts, peaking at #134 on the Billboard 200, #20 on the Top Rock Albums, #9 on the Alternative Albums, #4 on the Hard Rock Albums, #22 on the Album Sales, #8 on the Vinyl Albums, and #1 on the Tastemakers charts. Indeed, Sap didn't hit the top spots like Jar of Flies did, but it still had a strong showing. If the EP wasn't prominent, then it wouldn't have appeared on so many charts, especially 18 years after its release.
  • Although no singles were released at the time, in 1994, "Got Me Wrong" was included on the Clerks Soundtrack. Since the song originally appeared on Sap, a lot of context has associated the song with the EP, instead of the song with the soundtrack. "Got Me Wrong" eventually peaked at #7 on the US Mainstream Rock chart and #22 on the US Modern Rock chart. If the EP wasn't prominent, then it most likely wouldn't have contained a (future) charting single.
  • Yet again, historically, it's an important release for Alice in Chains. Musically, it showcased the band's creative shifts and acoustic capabilities. It's also notable that both Chris Cornell and Mark Arm guested on a track, basically a short-lived all-star grunge collaboration right when grunge itself was exploding in popularity. The EP served as the band's major offering between the Facelift and Dirt albums, and similar to Jar of Flies, not including Sap in a list adjacent to the two makes it seem like it was not significant enough, which is definitely not the case.
  • Finally, if Jar of Flies were to be included, then by proxy, Sap should be included as well. Not only because of Sap's merits listed above, but also because of the historical context that Jar of Flies brought onto the band.

WE DIE YOUNG

  • In contrast (as an example), Alice in Chains' first EP We Die Young should not be included. It didn't chart whatsoever, it didn't have multiple singles, and it didn't get any certifications. It's simply a promotional demo EP (or by some definitions an expanded single rather) that is only important to the band's early beginnings, and thus is not equal to the other two EPs or the full-length albums.

So, what do you think? Include both? Include one but not the other? Include neither?. Obviously, my blocks of texts indicates that I'm in favor of including both, but I would like some other opinions since Wikipedia is of course a group effort.

tl;dr: Despite both Sap and Jar of Flies being EPs, they are significant enough to be listed alongside the full-length studio albums, similar to what has been done to other artists on Wikipedia (see first paragraph above for some examples). They appeared on numerous charts, had accompanying singles, sold in vast amounts, and are important milestones to the band's history. Xanarki (talk) 03:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Removal of hard rock

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 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 21 November 2012‎ (UTC)

Jar of flies

Jar of flies should be in the discography. 100.12.138.225 (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Discography sections are for studio albums only. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
It is listed in the correct place, here, Compilation albums - FlightTime (open channel) 01:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

This is kind of a special case, as these EPs are basically considered studio albums. There was a prior discussion about it that went ignored (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alice_in_Chains/Archive_2#Sap_and_Jar_of_Flies_should_be_added_under_Discography ). It should imo be considered to make an exception here and list the EPs in the section. --FMSky (talk) 03:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC) I'm pinging @Xanarki: as hes the one who started the original discussion --FMSky (talk) 11:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that we should be making exceptions for some bands/artists and not others, and think it makes even less sense to make exceptions for only certain releases and not others as was suggested in the above discussion that unfortunately went overlooked; it will probably end up just circling back to the fact that there's a perfectly adequate discography list linked in the section. Unless you wanted to put a little more detail in the lead section, I don't see why anything needs to be done. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 05:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @FMSky: no idea how I missed this. Indeed, both of the EPs should be added to the Discography due to their relevance and how the band views them.
@4TheWynne: I absolutely think we should make exceptions for bands/artists and not others. This is because every band/artist has a different career from one another. We can't apply the "ONLY LPs allowed period" universally. You may or may not have seen my prior examples, but if not, here are some examples to prove my point: The Beatles (1 EP and 1 compilation listed under their discography), Led Zeppelin (1 compilation listed under their discography), Peter Frampton (at least 2 live albums listed under his discography), L7 (1 EP listed under their discography), Guns n' Roses (1 EP listed under their discography though its classification has been debated), and Nine Inch Nails (3 EPs listed under their discography).
All except 1 of those examples were NOT done by me, which means other people here have the same opinion to an extent. I haven't added the AiC EPs yet because, due to their popularity, I really wanted some sort of discussion first. If you still need reasons as to why these 2 EPs are significant, I urge you to re-read my old post here. Xanarki (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree with 4TheWynne "I don't think that we should be making exceptions for some bands/artists and not others." - FlightTime (open channel) 17:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Why exactly? I'd like for you to expand on this though. It doesn't really make any sense to me, because everyone has had a different career. I know he said that it would "probably end up just circling back", but that's not true at all, because of the agreements made on the talk pages. Would you go and revert all of the aforementioned examples in that case? All of those examples were discussed prior to inclusion, and agreed upon, and that suffices. So why not here too?
Because of what has already happened on Wikipedia (as seen with the examples I gave among others), it's kind of past the point of questioning the process. Unless you wanted to go restart the numerous discussions on those other artists' pages. Xanarki (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Some bands use EPs as kind of longplay singles, compilation albums, or some kind of filler. Alice in Chains used EPs as proper fully realized projects. Jar of Flies being the first EP to go number one on Billboard supports this idea.

Theyre are artists who have never released a studio album and only singles. There are artists who have only released EPs. I think consideration should be given to the context of the discography. After all, what are these categories for but to organize? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.44.179.242 (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Both Sap and Jar of Flies should be listed. But I didn't get any replies to my questions above, and there seems to be a lack of discussion about it. Apparently, the only argument is "full-lengths allowed only and no exceptions", which is an archaic reason at this point. Maybe in the future we can re-try the discussion and try to pull in comments from a WikiProject. Xanarki (talk) 03:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alice_in_Chains/Archive_2&oldid=1198566610"