Heads or Tails (Band vs. Band), Pt. 1

After a cycle of grueling finals (all of which I am proud to say I got the better of), a much-needed week of time off with my loved ones, and jumping right back into the hurricane of academia, I am finally caught up on all the albums I really wanted to give my 2 cents on that have come out this year.

So, because I’m stuck at school and in between classes right now, I’m going to dig into something contentious, something that likely goes through a lot of people’s minds in its many forms, and has come up in mine every once in a while. I’m talking about when two artists dominate a similar niche almost, or even explicitly, competitively: Nirvana and Alice in Chains, Korn and Slipknot. Who to make heads or tails of?

For the sake of brevity and consistency, I’m limiting this to instances in which the big debate, at least from where I’m standing, is between just two artists, and occurs often; no big four debate, no comparing Cattle Decapitation to Black Sabbath.

And of course, this is all entirely subjective because I’m talking about my taste and what I like more about one project versus another, and while certain quantifiable, objective aspects of their music (a drummer’s consistency with respect to timing, a singer’s range, a guitarist’s dexterity) may reveal objective differences, I’m including that in a generalized statement of my preference based on other subjective characteristics of the music (sound of a vocalist’s voice, a guitarist’s creativity, the degree to which I think production fits a composition, etc.). So, without further ado, here it is.

Rush vs. Yes

They’re not exactly metal contemporaries, but these two progressive rock legends have had an undeniable influence on heavy music, assisting the integration of more progressive elements into metal. It’s hard to say what Dream Theater or Opeth or Tool would be like without the work laid out by these still-active groups, and both have managed to garner the metal community’s respect to degrees that bands with much heavier music struggle to achieve. I’ve listened to Rush for a lot longer than I have Yes, but so much of what Rush has done still feels so fresh to me and so subtly cathartic (the second and third movements of “2112”, “Cinderella Man”, the ending of “Hemispheres”) and many of their songs hit me with the intensity that much heavier songs fail to conjure (“Natural Science”, “Cygnus X-1”, “A Passage to Bangkok”, “YYZ”). While I agree with the general sentiment that their 80’s synthpop dabbling produced some lackluster results, there are plenty of gems on Hold Your Fire and Grace Under Pressure, and their recent work (Clockwork Angels especially) has really seen them recapturing the spark their earlier work had. Yes, on the other hand, haven’t really come through with anything that’s peaked my interest to the same level as their first few albums did since Relayer. I felt their infamous stylistic departure on 90125 was a gamble they just kind of broke even on, but continued to play with it and ended up losing. Still, Fragile, Tales from Topographic Oceans, and Close to the Edge, are fantastic progressive rock albums in my book and earn Yes plenty of respect. Rush’s early years, though, saw them release a string of six deservedly iconic albums and those albums alone (disregarding the merits of their recent works) are why I would pick Rush 99% of the time as my prog rock favorites over Yes, and I’m very happy to have seen them on their last tour before their retirement from touring.

Nirvana vs. Alice In Chains

I mentioned this one earlier, and it really is an iconic contest: the battle ground being the 90’s grunge landscape. While I’d say that the outside world has largely weighed in favor of Nirvana, the metal community has a greater affinity for the heaviness Alice In Chains brought to grunge and it’s a tighter competition the metal sphere. It may not be such a fair comparison since one band is now defunct and the other has recently (if you count 2009 as recent) come back with considerable fire in their stomach, but I think consideration of all the bands’ works is the most complete and fair in that sense, and this is all a matter of opinion anyway. Personally, I prefer Alice In Chain’s music over Nirvana’s, not just because Alice In Chains brought a more metal edge to grunge in contrast to Nirvana’s punk aesthetic, but because I think Alice In Chains was able to burrow deeper in the muddy despair of grunge. The bleakness that came out of Nirvana’s music was more of an apathetic numbness to the outside world than anything else, while Alice In Chain’s was darker, directed more inward, and more actively self-destructive, but also complete with highs and lows that made each record an experience in which the moment in which despair struck wasn’t always predictable. Nirvana also had a tendency to not take things very seriously a bit more than Alice In Chains did, but Alice In Chains usually sequestered it to singular spaces on their albums like “Iron Gland” and “Love Song” so that it didn’t disrupt the dreariness they were cultivating. The more structured nature of Alice In Chain’s songs also does more for me on the grunge frontier than Nirvana’s raw chaos on Bleach, and Nevermind only occasionally hits the same immersive highs that Dirt or Facelift did. Alice In Chains also displays a level of musicianship far above what Nirvana did. Layne and Jerry both harmonized with chemistry and prowess on a regular basis that was far above what Kurt kept himself to. Jerry’s guitar work is much more impressive than just about anything that shows up on Nirvana’s albums (I won’t get into the basic, vocal-line mimicking “solos” on “Smells Like Teen Spirit” and “Come as You Are”). Lastly, I’d say what really does it for me is that not only did Alice in Chains make a magnificent comeback in 2009, but I’d say Black Gives Way to Blue is their best work to date. For me, it’s an easy choice: Alice In Chains without a doubt.

Korn vs. Slipknot

Undoubtedly the most contested pair in the territory of nu metal. Many love both, and plenty with be quick to let you know they absolutely despise both of them. Apparently around the time I was learning long division and the multiplication tables, there was some kind of feud that I don’t know much about between Korn and Slipknot (which brings to mind the Slipknot/Mushroomhead fan feud and debate, but I’m ignoring that shit because it was just fans and I personally think Mushroomhead is a joke). Fast forward to 2016 and Corey Taylor is a feature on a Korn song after making numerous stage appearances with them over recent years. Korn is credited as being the originators of nu metal and have remained one of the genre’s most well-received groups, while Slipknot is often credited as the heavier of the two (obviously the faster of the two) and given similar respect. This match-up is a harder one to decide for me and it’s often I come back to these band’s work and realize the amount of respect it still demands from me. People that hated what nu metal brought to its umbrella genre (or to where it brought metal itself) love to lampoon Korn for their simplistic angst despite their music’s infectious groove and Slipknot for their inflated number of band members, their Hot Topic appeal, and (from what it seems like a lot of the time) simply not being Gorguts or Nile or Necrophagist or some other excessively brutal death metal band. While I agree that a lot of the product of the big nu metal wave produced some of metal’s most questionable material, I think Korn and Slipknot kept their heads far above the tainted, hot-dog-flavored waters below and are largely undeserving of the bashing that plenty of metalheads love to dish out. Like I said, my preference for one or the other is a hard one to generalize and it often is very dependent and varied based on whatever headspace I’m in. I often recognize Korn as the band that taught me how to headbang and I have immense reverence for the attention to detail Slipknot put into each song they make (which I know was not quite the case on All Hope Is Gone, to the band’s great retrospective dissatisfaction). While Korn has stayed pretty prolific throughout their career with no real breaks in between album cycles, Slipknot have only managed to get themselves together for five, with a few hiatuses lengthening the waits between releases (Stone Sour being a notable factor contributing to these long waiting periods). Across their twelve albums, Korn have managed to solidify their place as nu metal’s godfathers on their early work and take some time to experiment with their sound. While some experiments have gone better than others, I’ve personally enjoyed how Korn has continued to push themselves in some way instead of just riding on sequel upon sequel of Follow the Leader. Slipknot, in their tumultuous career, on the other hand have carved out a very death-shaped hole in nu metal that no one else has really come close to filling even in their times of absence. I would probably say I favor Korn a little bit more than Slipknot in a general sense, if only because there’s just so much more to choose from that works for me. I enjoy Untitled and See You on the Other Side on plenty of occasions and Issues and Untouchableson plenty of others. While I thought The Path of Totality didn’t go very well, I don’t think so because I think it was a cardinal sin to bring dubstep into the mix. Skrillex’s contributions complimented Korn’s sound and fit like a glove, but Korn’s writing was either lackluster or the guest producers’ backing tracks were unfitting on the majority of the album and I think if the album played more to Korn’s strengths and cherry-picked more suitably headbang-worthy productions it would have ended up being a much better album. I’m getting sidetracked. With Slipknot, an album’s experience isn’t really rife with surprises except that which came from their somewhat tempered level of aggression on Vol. 3. I’ll keep it at that and stick with Korn as my hypothetical choice between the two for the time being.

Katatonia vs. Anathema

Two death-doom pioneers who both moved away from their original sound in different directions. Katatonia have stuck to making melancholic, atmospheric, progressive music with very similar moods to their early work, with more of a gothic, alternative metal flair, while Anathema have done a wide-radius turn into more brightly colored, but still melancholic and emotionally complex ambient progressive rock and metal that now shows little trace of the music they started out with. Both bands, I’d say, are definitely better off making the type of music they’re currently making. Between the two, Anathema definitely has my favorite album, 2012’s Weather Systems, but I don’t know if it’s enough to make me consider them my preferred choice over Katatonia. As I’m writing this I don’t really even know who I’d pick. There aren’t really any weak spots in either of their recent works to which I would point to help me out either, and considering Anathema has another record on the way this year, this could change when The Optimist is presented to us in June. Because they’re now farther apart than they ever have been musically, this comparison feels more apples and oranges than others, though. Both bands are producing their most accomplished work as of late and both are excelling in their respective fields. If I had to make a simplified guess, I’d probably say the more pessimistic Katatonia would take it by just a hair because they’ve just been on such a roll ever since Viva Emptiness and because I can say there are more songs from their vast catalog that I regularly return to, and for Anathema, Weather Systems greatly overshadows even their other top shelf albums like Distant Satellites. Of course, depending on how well Anathema deliver with their upcoming album, this might shift my favor in their favor.

That’s all for now; this thing is getting too long. Four more coming later because I really want to do those ones too. Any I’m missing?