Poll: Layne Staley vs. Kurt Cobain

[DisasterSoiree]

Since the two are - perhaps unfairly - linked as rock-and-roll martyrs, both being "grunge" (though AiC drew more on metal and Nirvana on punk):

I fully expect Cobain to win, owing to the size of his fanbase, but...


... in my opinion, Staley by far. To begin with, Staley could actually sing. Even at the height of his productive heroin addiction, in 1996, Staley was able to take part in the creation of the single best "Unplugged" album in MTV historiy, "Alice In Chains Unplugged":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dVz2D1xS-0

His rendition of "Down In A Hole" in particular is just heartwrenching, and even his fuck-up on "Sludge Factory" is endearing.

Cobain on the other hand, was a better guitarist. He was a worse lyricist and singer. I also feel that Staley was one of the few authentic voices in the 'grunge' scene. Vedder could emote, and Cornell could wail, but Staley genuinely felt the pain he sang about. And he died because of it.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

I'd go Cobain. I'm a bit of a fanboy I guess (I was born on April 6th 1994, which probably started it), but I like Kurt's honesty in his lyrics, he wasn't afraid to talk about things like his childhood. I just like a lot more Nirvana songs too, I think he was a pretty damned great songwriter. Not that I don't think Staley wasn't awesome too.

Eddie Vedder on the other hand, is awful.

 

[DisasterSoiree]

Eddie Vedder on the other hand, is awful.

No doubt. Pearl Jam is pretty awful. It says something about your band when one of your derivatives - namely, Stone Temple Pilots - is better than you are.

But, in my view, nobody ever topped Alice In Chains. A perfect combination of absolute honesty, to the point of self-denigration, and heaviness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwggcsUpcdY

 

[Artina89]

I quite enjoy Pearl Jam. I don't think they are as good as Alice in chains but I don't think they are awful. I could never get into Nirvana, which might have been because in high school all the people I hung out with was listening to them and I just got fed up with them. My brother on the other hand loves Nirvana and dislikes Alice in chains which always makes for fun discussions when I see him and we get into discussions about music

 

[DisasterSoiree]

On the other hand I haven't really found an AiC song I like. I haven't really looked for one, but eh.

Therein lies your problem.

 

[DisasterSoiree]

On the other hand I haven't really found an AiC song I like. I haven't really looked for one, but eh.

Therein lies your problem.

I wouldn't call it a problem. I'm doing just fine without AiC.

But not without Layne Staley.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aV4tnB2ZPQ

 

[DisasterSoiree]

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

You absolutely nailed it. I'm not all that much a fan of technically precise vocals - you inevitably lose some of the feeling when you aim for cold, clinical precision - but Staley's was the best of both worlds: technical excellence while remaining fully emotive and relatable.

 

[Rose and Thorn]

I in no way feel comfortable calling someone a better musician. I grew up with Nirvana and related to his music and loved his voice. I personally like Cobain better, music is all about personal preference.

I don't mind Alice in Chains, but I never really got into them majorly. I never found them as grungey.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Nirvana, on the other hand, I find entirely overrated. The others out of the Seattle Four managed to each do their own unique thing within the context of 'grunge'. Soundgarden fused it with out-there time signatures. Alice fused it with metal. Pearl Jam fused it with classic rock. All of them had a sound that was distinctly theirs. Nirvana, on the other hand, I've always felt sounded like a Pixies tribute band. And I was never a fan of the Pixies to begin with.

I'm not sure I agree with you there. I'm a big Pixies and Nirvana fan, I'd say Nirvana have a much more punk-influenced sound than the Pixies. There's definitely a bit more Melvins-ey sludgeyness in there as well, which is always a good thing.

 

[Total LOLige]

I'm going to go ahead and say Eddie Vedder, because I don't care for Cobain or Nirvana and I've not listened to Alice in Chains. I have a feeling that a grunge verses thread such as this is definitely going to end in a flame war.

 

[ElectroJosh]

Cobain for me. Staley was the better vocalist but Cobain was a better musician, song-writer and lyricist. This isn't to say Staley was terrible but, in AiC, you have to remember that Cantrel was also a big part of the song-writing process while Nirvana was very much Cobain's band.

For me the best AiC songs are among some of my favourite of all-time but they also had quite a few hokey and ham-handed songs as well. Nirvana didn't hit the same heights as them, in my view, but didn't come anywhere near their lows. So that also gives Cobain the edge.

Interesting to see someone boldly state AiC unplugged is the best unplugged from the 90s - I happen to agree but I just don't hear it very often.

 

[Jazoni89]

Chris Cornell, cmon the guy looks like Jesus, and he pretty much sings like the son of god.

Hipster Choice: Andrew Woods from the reflectively obscure Grunge and Glam Rock crossover band Mother Love Bone. Such a brilliant singer. It's a shame that he died so young too.

Spoiler

I always found out the more obscurer Grunge was much better than Cobain and his crew.

I kinda grew out of the AIC phase (I was suffering from a huge depression a couple of years back), but i still think Jar of Flies is possibly the best EP ever made.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

I in no way feel comfortable calling someone a better musician. I grew up with Nirvana and related to his music and loved his voice. I personally like Cobain better, music is all about personal preference.

Bleh. There's more to it than that. Music is a technical artform, and therefore you can judge it to an extent based on the quality of components that make up any song or piece. Things like technique, melody, chord structures... these are all things that can be analysed in a musical fashion.

For instance, from a technical perspective, Staley had a better voice than Cobain. He had a broader vocal range (his voice could cover more octaves), he had more control over it (he was able to use vocal techniques like vibrato effortlessly), and he was simply able to project his voice better. Whether you prefer Cobain over Staley is irrelevant. From a technical standpoint, Staley had the voice with more range and technique.

In terms of chord structure and melody, there's nothing in it... not that Staley could claim full credit for that shiz in the AiC songs anyway. It's basic stuff on both sides.

If you want to compare voices and claim that's why Staley is better, you should consider the vocal range that Mariah Carey(opera singers even more so) has. I'm guessing you don't rate her despite it. Which opens the door to the idea that the intangibles of a musician are very-very important, and very open to personal interpretation.

I choose Cobain, but I would be wary about saying he's "better". To my mind, he wrote better stuff, and his lyrics never made me cringe.

For the record. Everybody is wrong. Dexter Romweber is the most rockingest mofo to ever walk the walk.

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

Both are great, IMO, but Staley wins this bout.

Cobain was awesome, no doubt; but Staley was a fuckin' poet on the mic. Not to mention the immense power he had when he sang. Just unreal.

RIP both Layne and Kurt. And for that matter, all musicians who died young.