Were they actually the biggest band in their prime?

[Nicklord]

I've seen this said over and over during the years here but I also saw the same for Metallica and Nirvana on their forums for the same period (1991-1993) also although not R'n'R bands but still rock Pink Floyd had one of the biggest tours ever, U2 was there too.

I mean, in my opinion they were top 3 but I've seen that "the biggest band" thrown around pretty easily. Any opinions? Also, please specify where are you from because it's probably not the same in USA, Europe, Australia, Asia, South America...

[Original]

I'm from US.  Guns and Metallica were 1-2..or 1A and 1B depending on the city.  I was never a Metallica guy.  To me Guns were fucking insanely good.  Just youtube them.  Axl- no wonder he can't sing like he uses to, he was balls out 110% every show.  He never mailed it in.  They were amazing.  Whatever town they were in it was insanity...just mayhem.

Edited March 1, 2016 by Original

[Ace Nova]

At their peak they were indeed the "biggest band"....right around when Illusions were first released.  They were the biggest.  First time I'd ever seen people wait for days outside record stores, camping out for the midnight release of Illusions.  Lasted for about a year or so until the grunge scene steadily took over.

 

 

[Original]

Being so unpredictable was crazy fun too....no one knew what the fuck was next with them.  It was an exciting time.

[Subtle Signs]

Kids these days will never see something as cool as the midnight releases for the Illusion albums. It was something you wanted to be a part of from smaller cities to major ones. I don't know if GNR were the biggest band (we'd need a GNR historian (TM)to look up merchandise numbers as well as album/ticket sales) but they were pretty huge.

[Sprite]

It all totally depends on what you're a fan of. Confirmation bias at it's finest. Go to a Nirvana forum and you'll read about how Nirvana "ruined" GNR, and stay here too long and read the right comments from the right people and they might try convincing you Dead Horse was a bigger hit than Smells like teen spirit. 

Does it really matter though? Also, how is "biggest band" truly measured? Sales? Tours? Merchandise? 

Even if it were in some way possible to come to an agreement, what then? How do we factor in media and technology? Both of these seemed to have really shaped music today, making it even harder to guage the pre internet days.

Didn't Adele sell like 5 million records in a week recently? Have the Beatles or MJ even done that? Would you say she is the biggest artist in the world? Maybe. But I wouldn't recognize her walking down the street. I'd probably recognize Kanye West though. Or Taylor Swift. So to me, Adele is not. Record sales might say she is?

I think it's impossible to create "the one". I think what's best and the most inclusive of everyone's opinion is to compile lists of top bands of that time so they all get respect, like you did with the early 90s.

[Ace Nova]

9 minutes ago, Subtle Signs said:

Kids these days will never see something as cool as the midnight releases for the Illusion albums. It was something you wanted to be a part of from smaller cities to major ones. I don't know if GNR were the biggest band (we'd need a GNR historian (TM)to look up merchandise numbers as well as album/ticket sales) but they were pretty huge.

They were.  Both Illusions albums and merchandise sales shattered the single day record by a landslide at the time.  I think both Illusions albums went gold and platinum a few hours after their release.  (This is when people actually had to get in their car, drive to a record store and buy the album vs. just making a few clicks on their laptop or phone.).

Edited March 1, 2016 by Kasanova King

[Original]

1 minute ago, Subtle Signs said:

Kids these days will never see something as cool as the midnight releases for the Illusion albums. It was something you wanted to be a part of from smaller cities to major ones. I don't know if GNR were the biggest band (we'd need a GNR historian (TM)to look up merchandise numbers as well as album/ticket sales) but they were pretty huge.

 "I don't know if GNR were the biggest band (we'd need a GNR historian (TM)to look up merchandise numbers as well as album/ticket sales) but they were pretty huge." 

I'm not talking the actual $$ breakdown, I'm talking they were like (work with me here) when Taylor Swift comes to town, all over the news, sells out multiple nights in 25 seconds, media covers it etc.....general electricity in the air.    

[Ace Nova]

Just now, Original said:

 "I don't know if GNR were the biggest band (we'd need a GNR historian (TM)to look up merchandise numbers as well as album/ticket sales) but they were pretty huge." 

I'm not talking the actual $$ breakdown, I'm talking they were like (work with me here) when Taylor Swift comes to town, all over the news, sells out multiple nights in 25 seconds, media covers it etc.....general electricity in the air.    

Yes and yes.  Everyone knew who they were.  Love/Hate type relationship with the general public....but they were extremely popular.....or infamous....all depending who you asked.....that's what made them who they were and are.

 

 

[Sprite]

3 minutes ago, Original said:

 "I don't know if GNR were the biggest band (we'd need a GNR historian (TM)to look up merchandise numbers as well as album/ticket sales) but they were pretty huge." 

I'm not talking the actual $$ breakdown, I'm talking they were like (work with me here) when Taylor Swift comes to town, all over the news, sells out multiple nights in 25 seconds, media covers it etc.....general electricity in the air.    

I tried touching on this a little. Short answer, no, I don't think Guns N Roses were ever as popular as what Taylor Swift is today.

You have to analyze what the term popular means though. And you have to look at different forms of media available today. Perhaps the biggest change is the information (data) that is available instantly now. As Kasanova King was saying, early 90s where a much different time. 

I work with women, young and old, all walks of life. If I mention Taylor Swift, they go insane. They all know her. They talk about Ellen. They talk about teardrops on her guitar. They talk about charity donation and how much of an Asshole Kanye West is. They all know and love her. 

I think GNR's closest level to that kind of exposure was the weekly Kurt Loder update on MTV News that you hoped you remembered to Tape.

It's apples and oranges really.

Remember popularity does not entail good music, as evidenced by the top 40 charts the past 20 years.

[Nicklord]

13 minutes ago, Sprite said:

It all totally depends on what you're a fan of. Confirmation bias at it's finest. Go to a Nirvana forum and you'll read about how Nirvana "ruined" GNR, and stay here too long and read the right comments from the right people and they might try convincing you Dead Horse was a bigger hit than Smells like teen spirit. 

Does it really matter though? Also, how is "biggest band" truly measured? Sales? Tours? Merchandise? 

Even if it were in some way possible to come to an agreement, what then? How do we factor in media and technology? Both of these seemed to have really shaped music today, making it even harder to guage the pre internet days.

Didn't Adele sell like 5 million records in a week recently? Have the Beatles or MJ even done that? Would you say she is the biggest artist in the world? Maybe. But I wouldn't recognize her walking down the street. I'd probably recognize Kanye West though. Or Taylor Swift. So to me, Adele is not. Record sales might say she is?

I think it's impossible to create "the one". I think what's best and the most inclusive of everyone's opinion is to compile lists of top bands of that time so they all get respect, like you did with the early 90s.

I don't care about that in the sense that I'm going to feel better or worse if they were or not the biggest band. Some of my favorite bands never really got to silver. I was just curious about that time because when Illusions came out I probably just used the potty for the first time and when I'm looking back now I don't recognise them like that like many on this forum do. 

 

Yeah, I've heard those stories about midnight waiting for Illusion albums. It's a shame that it's not a thing anymore.

Edited March 1, 2016 by Nicklord

[Original]

4 minutes ago, Sprite said:

I tried touching on this a little. Short answer, no, I don't think Guns N Roses were ever as popular as what Taylor Swift is today.

You have to analyze what the term popular means though. And you have to look at different forms of media available today. Perhaps the biggest change is the information (data) that is available instantly now. As Kasanova King was saying, early 90s where a much different time. 

I work with women, young and old, all walks of life. If I mention Taylor Swift, they go insane. They all know her. They talk about Ellen. They talk about teardrops on her guitar. They talk about charity donation and how much of an Asshole Kanye West is. They all know and love her. 

I think GNR's closest level to that kind of exposure was the weekly Kurt Loder update on MTV News that you hoped you remembered to Tape.

It's apples and oranges really.

Remember popularity does not entail good music, as evidenced by the top 40 charts the past 20 years.

It is a whole new world now, I agree.  And we aren't talking popularity as you suggest, rather biggest band.  Taylor is in the "biggest band" category these days, but do I consider her good music- ahhhhhh no. 

[Ace Nova]

44 minutes ago, Sprite said:

It all totally depends on what you're a fan of. Confirmation bias at it's finest. Go to a Nirvana forum and you'll read about how Nirvana "ruined" GNR, and stay here too long and read the right comments from the right people and they might try convincing you Dead Horse was a bigger hit than Smells like teen spirit. 

Does it really matter though? Also, how is "biggest band" truly measured? Sales? Tours? Merchandise? 

Even if it were in some way possible to come to an agreement, what then? How do we factor in media and technology? Both of these seemed to have really shaped music today, making it even harder to guage the pre internet days.

Didn't Adele sell like 5 million records in a week recently? Have the Beatles or MJ even done that? Would you say she is the biggest artist in the world? Maybe. But I wouldn't recognize her walking down the street. I'd probably recognize Kanye West though. Or Taylor Swift. So to me, Adele is not. Record sales might say she is?

I think it's impossible to create "the one". I think what's best and the most inclusive of everyone's opinion is to compile lists of top bands of that time so they all get respect, like you did with the early 90s.

 

 

Nirvana came after...and started to take away from G N' R's mainstream popularity.  But G N' R did indeed peak and yes, they were the most popular band in the country (and world) for a while....close to a year before Nirvana.

 

I personally like Nirvana....but their popularity pales in  comparison to G N' R's popularity on a global scale...although they helped curb G N' R's popularity, their own popularity was shared with the likes of Pearl Jam and Soundgarden...and even STP. They may have been the most popular act during their short reign....but their popularity was always associated with the grunge scene (alongside Pearl Jam, Soundgarden and later on, Stone Temple Pilots) first.  Nirvana wouldn't have been as popular without help from their grunge counterparts.

 

 

Grunge (not Nirvana) hurt Guns N' Roses.

 

 

Edited March 1, 2016 by Kasanova King

[Hollywood Gunner]

i dont think its debatable that they were at one point the biggest band in the world... even if it was just for a few months or a year... and no matter how you interpret the word "biggest"... might not mean much but metallica played before them on the guns/metallica tour and i think that says something

[Nicklord]

Just now, Hollywood Gunner said:

i dont think its debatable that they were at one point the biggest band in the world... even if it was just for a few months or a year... and no matter how you interpret the word "biggest"... might not mean much but metallica played before them on the guns/metallica tour and i think that says something

Wasn't the original plan to rotate them every other night but Metallica wanted to perform first because they didn't want to depend on Axl and co being late?

[tsinindy]

4 minutes ago, Nicklord said:

Wasn't the original plan to rotate them every other night but Metallica wanted to perform first because they didn't want to depend on Axl and co being late?

No, Guns said they'd only do it if they played last.  MET said ok.

[Hollywood Gunner]

4 minutes ago, Nicklord said:

Wasn't the original plan to rotate them every other night but Metallica wanted to perform first because they didn't want to depend on Axl and co being late?

i dont know the story but is there any way to confirm any of it? im just going with what actually happened 

[Ace Nova]

2 minutes ago, tsinindy said:

No, Guns said they'd only do it if they played last.  MET said ok.

Apparently that was just a rumor.  Metallica ended up doing it because they knew G N' R wouldn't be able to start early....and they didn't want to have to come on stage at 2 am. 

[BadApples87]

There was a "new" king of hard rock just about every year in the 80's.  Those were the glory days!  From AC/DC, Van Halen, Motley Crue, Aerosmith, GNR, Metallica, and the list goes on and on!

Guns N Roses and Metallica were the two biggest hard rock acts of the era 91-93.  Nirvana and Pearl Jam were the kings of "grunge".  From the release of the Illusions, up to mid 1992, GNR was #1, but Metallica took over at some point.  Probably the Montreal incident was the turning point. 

Guns n Roses was like a the biggest, baddest shooting star in the sky from 87-93, and it exploded (or imploded) as quickly as it arrived.  But what a great run it was!

Same could be said for Nirvana.

That leaves Metallica and Pearl Jam, whose longevity is a mark that GNR and Nirvana did not achieve.

From 2000 to present, I have to say Iron Maiden is the best, and their stuff from the 80's is amazing also.

 

Edited March 1, 2016 by BadApples87

[IncitingChaos]

GNR were the biggest band, they reached a wider audience. When you have songs like Patience, SCOM, November Rain, Don't Cry and couple that with their more "hard rock" songs, you will reach more people. 

 

I think that's what separated them at the time. Besides who else was doing million dollar music videos, and selling out every single show. 

[dontdamnmeuyi2015]

When GNR came on the scene there were so many "hair" metal bands out there. Some of them were very good and some just fell into the pile just because they looked the part.

Then came GNR. They looked different even if Axl teased his hair and their sound was like nothing out at that time. They had the look, the songs, the sound and most of all the I don't give a shit attitude that was always a staple of rock and roll.

Just like the Rolling Stones before them changed the sound of rock, GNR did the same thing 20 years later.

[Original]

Everyone (like mainstream America) knew the names- Axl-Slash-Izzy-Duff and Steven. ....mostly Axl n Slash.  No one knows the names of (who are today's mega bands?) names these days.  

[Nicklord]

1 minute ago, Original said:

Everyone (like mainstream America) knew the names- Axl-Slash-Izzy-Duff and Steven. ....mostly Axl n Slash.  No one knows the names of (who are today's mega bands?) names these days.  

Dave Grohl and umm... 

[jimisbatman]

In my opinion, I think they were the biggest band in the world during the illusion era.  This is based on media coverage, record sales, and concert ticket sales.  This is notwithstanding the fact that the music genre in vogue during the illusion era was grunge, ie nirvana and the accompanying seatlle sound, and yet sold a double album that reached no. 1&2 on the billboard charts

Edited March 2, 2016 by jimisbatman
.

[BadApples87]

9/17/91 was a good day in Rock.

Use Your Illusion 1 and 2

and.......Ozzy Osbourne No More Tears came out that day.

not to shabby.