Metallica vs. Guns N' Roses

[JONEZY]

Metallica wins this battle. GnR was bigger/better for a few years, but for the long term its Metallica.

[mrandyk]

Its incredibly dumb to even have this kind of poll here. Metallica is one of the top 3 metal bands ever (until the abomination known as the Black Album, and everything that followed...including live performances). Guns was nothing but 2-3 actual legitamite albums. Musical tastes are always changing and I will always call Appetite for Destruction and GNR my favorite band, but Ride the Lightning and Master of Puppets pretty much blow away the entire GNR catalogue aside from AFD (which is better than both). Two different monsters really. Two monsters that arent really that much different, but different enough in that its not that fair to compare them (unless you are all for idiotic comparisons like Nirvana to Pink Floyd).

[mrandyk]

whats so wrong with the black album, i agree everything after was shit but thats always been one of my favorites. sandman, sad but true, whereever I may roam, Unforgiven, NOTHING ELSE MATTERS?? I realize that it was the start of the deviation from trrash, but it in itself is a great album still =/

None of those songs are very good though, they are all very average. I get why it was popular because its so poppy, but it isnt that good.

[JONEZY]

Metallica wins this battle. GnR was bigger/better for a few years, but for the long term its Metallica.

You talking longevity? With that logic Barry Manilow is better than both!

Nothing wrong with Barry Manilow. Although I'm more of a Neil Diamond fan.

[mrandyk]

whats so wrong with the black album, i agree everything after was shit but thats always been one of my favorites. sandman, sad but true, whereever I may roam, Unforgiven, NOTHING ELSE MATTERS?? I realize that it was the start of the deviation from trrash, but it in itself is a great album still =/

I think the only problem with the Black Album is the hardcore Metallica fans hated the fact that they did a 360 on their music style for commercial purposes.

With every post you make it becomes clearer and clearer just how dumb you are.

[Majestic Beast]

Big bands in the past,now they are shadow of their selfs,cant compare the old good 'tallica with "tallica of Load/Reload/St.Anger/Napster/S&M/etc,the same with GNR,cant compare the old good GNR with New GNR of CD story/changing line ups/Axl's bullshits 14 years of silent/failure of promotion CD/etc.

Things changed,now Metallica and GNR they're just using their good old name they did back in 80s-90s to survive.

Edited May 6, 2011 by Majestic Beast

[Talvisota]

who would have thought that Guns N' Roses wins here. For me they are better, but I also love Metallica. Then again, Metallica isn't the best metal band there is.

[Majestic Beast]

Let's say in a magical world in your mind you were right, both bands are still light years better than the garbage that is coming out today.

There is no magical world,there is a reallity,both bands are away from their old good past days with their big success, nobody disagrees that they put down many of today bands,but Metallica & New GNR of 2011 they are ghosts of their selfs,only a name with big history left to reminds us... Hetfield nowdays even he dont say a "fuck yeah!" in their concerts.

Edited May 28, 2011 by Majestic Beast

[mrandyk]

Let's say in a magical world in your mind you were right, both bands are still light years better than the garbage that is coming out today.

There is no magical world,there is a reallity,both bands are away from their old good past days with their big success, nobody disagrees that they put down many of today bands,but Metallica & New GNR of 2011 they are ghosts of their selfs,only a name with big history left to reminds us... Hetfield nowdays even he dont say a "fuck yeah!" in their concerts.

Thats because they are trying to make their shows more family friendly...

[Chewbacca]

whats so wrong with the black album, i agree everything after was shit but thats always been one of my favorites. sandman, sad but true, whereever I may roam, Unforgiven, NOTHING ELSE MATTERS?? I realize that it was the start of the deviation from trrash, but it in itself is a great album still =/

I think the only problem with the Black Album is the hardcore Metallica fans hated the fact that they did a 360 on their music style for commercial purposes.

And that's why I hate hardcore (poser) fans so much: everytime a band try do something different they're there to complain and tell us how the band should always keep doing the same shit over n over.

Instead of whinning towards an album that you don't like, simply ignore it. That's what I did with Kill Em' All and most of St. Anger.

[Chewbacca]

Indeed, DM has some killer tracks on it: TDTNC, BBn'S, Unforgiven 3, Cyanide = masterpieces.

[moreblack]

and especially All Nightmare Long.

[Chewbacca]

and especially All Nightmare Long.

+1

[Shooting Star]

Indeed, DM has some killer tracks on it: TDTNC, BBn'S, Unforgiven 3, Cyanide = masterpieces.

Ahhh... TDTNC, what a killer song (and killer videoclip).

Everytime I listen to it I start to think: Man, this Lars dude knows how to smash his drums.

Edited June 1, 2011 by Shooting Star

[Cosmo]

Indeed, DM has some killer tracks on it: TDTNC, BBn'S, Unforgiven 3, Cyanide = masterpieces.

My top is The End Of The Line!

[Mr. Dude]

I think both bands take too much heat- mostly from their own fans.

Death Magnetic was a good record I thought. I like some of the risks Metallica has taken. LuLu was interesting. Not an everyday listen, but I'd rather them do shit like that as opposed to just playing it safe. What else do they have left to prove? Do they really need more money? Why play it safe. LuLu is cool. The venom it provoked was proof of its vitality. Suing Napster was a ballsy move too. In the long run, they were right. It destroyed rock n roll at that level. It was the beginning of the end for the album era. Now there isn't even any new music worth stealing- there's no incentive to make it. Now its endless touring. Bands can't really afford to put much into albums or take many risks. I'm glad Metallica still does even if the end product isn't always to my taste.

[Rovim]

I think both bands take too much heat- mostly from their own fans.

Death Magnetic was a good record I thought. I like some of the risks Metallica has taken. LuLu was interesting. Not an everyday listen, but I'd rather them do shit like that as opposed to just playing it safe. What else do they have left to prove? Do they really need more money? Why play it safe. LuLu is cool. The venom it provoked was proof of its vitality. Suing Napster was a ballsy move too. In the long run, they were right. It destroyed rock n roll at that level. It was the beginning of the end for the album era. Now there isn't even any new music worth stealing- there's no incentive to make it. Now its endless touring. Bands can't really afford to put much into albums or take many risks. I'm glad Metallica still does even if the end product isn't always to my taste.

No, they were wrong. You don't stand a chance if you're foolishly trying to fight progress and technology. You embrace it and adapt. That's what you do to survive and that's what the record companies should have done too.

James and Lars were not capable of seeing beyond their immediate financial interests. Even if they were technically right, they should have considered the reality of the situation, but I don't think they were even aware of it at the time. Aware of the scope of the "problem". They thought they could contain it cause they're fuckin' Metallica.

Edited September 6, 2014 by Rovim

[Nosaj Thing]

Guns N' Roses › Metallica
Metallica › Axl's band

[Mr. Dude]

I think both bands take too much heat- mostly from their own fans.

Death Magnetic was a good record I thought. I like some of the risks Metallica has taken. LuLu was interesting. Not an everyday listen, but I'd rather them do shit like that as opposed to just playing it safe. What else do they have left to prove? Do they really need more money? Why play it safe. LuLu is cool. The venom it provoked was proof of its vitality. Suing Napster was a ballsy move too. In the long run, they were right. It destroyed rock n roll at that level. It was the beginning of the end for the album era. Now there isn't even any new music worth stealing- there's no incentive to make it. Now its endless touring. Bands can't really afford to put much into albums or take many risks. I'm glad Metallica still does even if the end product isn't always to my taste.

No, they were wrong. You don't stand a chance if you're foolishly trying to fight progress and technology. You embrace it and adapt. That's what you do to survive and that's what the record companies should have done too.

James and Lars were not capable of seeing beyond their immediate financial interests. Even if they were technically right, they should have considered the reality of the situation, but I don't think they were even aware of it at the time. Aware of the scope of the "problem". They thought they could contain it cause they're fuckin' Metallica.

See, I differ with you on this. You say they were looking at the short-term- I think they were looking long-term- that eventually the music would become devalued and that is what happened. I think they were being honest about reality of the situation and the bands that didn't stand-up and say something were in fact the one's looking at things in the short-term and unaware of the scope of the situation. They realized the reality of the situation- that's why they stood up and said something. I agree though- that you need to adapt and that the record companies didn't. But who's to say that by making a stand like Metallica did wasn't the adaptation needed. The record companies didn't need to fight technology. They needed to monetize it. One band can't stand up and change the industry on their own. Everyone else was worried about the bad press in the short term. Same thing with ticketmaster gouging people on prices- if more bands stood up and took a stand things might've changed. Everyone was worried about the short-term though= the loss of touring revenue.

Edited September 6, 2014 by Mr. Dude

[Rovim]

I think both bands take too much heat- mostly from their own fans.

Death Magnetic was a good record I thought. I like some of the risks Metallica has taken. LuLu was interesting. Not an everyday listen, but I'd rather them do shit like that as opposed to just playing it safe. What else do they have left to prove? Do they really need more money? Why play it safe. LuLu is cool. The venom it provoked was proof of its vitality. Suing Napster was a ballsy move too. In the long run, they were right. It destroyed rock n roll at that level. It was the beginning of the end for the album era. Now there isn't even any new music worth stealing- there's no incentive to make it. Now its endless touring. Bands can't really afford to put much into albums or take many risks. I'm glad Metallica still does even if the end product isn't always to my taste.

No, they were wrong. You don't stand a chance if you're foolishly trying to fight progress and technology. You embrace it and adapt. That's what you do to survive and that's what the record companies should have done too.

James and Lars were not capable of seeing beyond their immediate financial interests. Even if they were technically right, they should have considered the reality of the situation, but I don't think they were even aware of it at the time. Aware of the scope of the "problem". They thought they could contain it cause they're fuckin' Metallica.

See, I differ with you on this. You think they were looking at the short-term- I think they were looking long-term- that eventually the music would become devalued and that is what happened. I think they were being honest about reality of the situation and the bands that didn't stand-up and say something were in fact the one's looking at things in the short-term and unaware of the scope of the situation. I agree though- that you need to adapt and that the record companies didn't. But who's to say that by making a stand like Metallica did wasn't the adaptation needed. The record companies didn't need to fight technology. They needed to monetize it. One band can't stand up and change the industry on their own. Everyone else was worried about the bad press in the short term. Same thing with ticketmaster gouging people on prices- if more bands stood up and took a stand things might've changed. Everyone was worried about the short-term though= the loss of touring revenue.

What I think you fail to understand is that we're on the verge of a positive change. We'll find a way to sell music again in the future. We'll find the right model and medium to make it profitable and reasonable. It will take time, but it's the way of the future, way of the future. Way of the future.

No one can stop it, so might as well join it. It's evolution baby. The record company and artists were too fuckin' comfortable with the old way of doing shit. When the rug got pulled under their fit, they acted out of panic. It didn't work. Can only blame themselves.

The movie industry took a hit as well, but it's not just music and movies and media. The internet is not gonna be a free for all forever. It's not going to be the wild wild west forever. If there is potential profit, there will always be people who will want a piece of the action, but I digress.

Bottom line is this: 15 years of losing money cause you can't find a formula that works is kinda funny, but understandable and it's not going to be this way for 20 more years imo. So Metallica were wrong, the record industry lost precious time and precious money, and now they're cutting their loses and trying to find an absolute way of making a profit again. The itunes thing is cute and all, but you have to find a way to make people pay with no choice on the matter imo. And I think it's coming. Maybe it will be polite and consumers won't be fucked in the ass like they were for decades, and maybe it won't, but this vacuum will be filled somehow.

Edited September 6, 2014 by Rovim

[Mr. Dude]

I think both bands take too much heat- mostly from their own fans.

Death Magnetic was a good record I thought. I like some of the risks Metallica has taken. LuLu was interesting. Not an everyday listen, but I'd rather them do shit like that as opposed to just playing it safe. What else do they have left to prove? Do they really need more money? Why play it safe. LuLu is cool. The venom it provoked was proof of its vitality. Suing Napster was a ballsy move too. In the long run, they were right. It destroyed rock n roll at that level. It was the beginning of the end for the album era. Now there isn't even any new music worth stealing- there's no incentive to make it. Now its endless touring. Bands can't really afford to put much into albums or take many risks. I'm glad Metallica still does even if the end product isn't always to my taste.

No, they were wrong. You don't stand a chance if you're foolishly trying to fight progress and technology. You embrace it and adapt. That's what you do to survive and that's what the record companies should have done too.

James and Lars were not capable of seeing beyond their immediate financial interests. Even if they were technically right, they should have considered the reality of the situation, but I don't think they were even aware of it at the time. Aware of the scope of the "problem". They thought they could contain it cause they're fuckin' Metallica.

See, I differ with you on this. You think they were looking at the short-term- I think they were looking long-term- that eventually the music would become devalued and that is what happened. I think they were being honest about reality of the situation and the bands that didn't stand-up and say something were in fact the one's looking at things in the short-term and unaware of the scope of the situation. I agree though- that you need to adapt and that the record companies didn't. But who's to say that by making a stand like Metallica did wasn't the adaptation needed. The record companies didn't need to fight technology. They needed to monetize it. One band can't stand up and change the industry on their own. Everyone else was worried about the bad press in the short term. Same thing with ticketmaster gouging people on prices- if more bands stood up and took a stand things might've changed. Everyone was worried about the short-term though= the loss of touring revenue.

What I think you fail to understand is that we're on the verge of a positive change. We'll find a way to sell music again in the future. We'll find the right model and medium to make it profitable and reasonable. It will take time, but it's the way of the future, way of the future. Way of the future.

No one can stop it, so might as well join it. It's evolution baby. The record company and artists were too fuckin' comfortable with the old way of doing shit. When the rug got pulled under their fit, they acted out of panic. It didn't work. Can only blame themselves.

The movie industry took a hit as well, but it's not just music and movies and media. The internet is not gonna be a free for all forever. It's not going to be the wild wild west forever. If there is potential profit, there will always be people who will want a piece of the action, but I digress.

Bottom line is this: 15 years of losing money cause you can't find a formula that works is kinda funny, but understandable and it's not going to be this way for 20 more years imo. So Metallica were wrong, the record industry lost precious time and precious money, and now they're cutting their loses and trying to find an absolute way of making a profit again. The itunes thing is cute and all, but you have to find a way to make people pay with no choice on the matter imo. And I think it's coming. Maybe it will be polite and consumers won't be fucked in the ass like they were for decades, and maybe it won't, but this vacuum will be filled somehow.

I couldn't disagree more. I don't think its a positive change. Its been bad all the way around- less good music, decreased sound quality, less appreciation, etc.

That is the point- its not going to be a free-for-all forever- Metallica's point was to try to put a stop to it before it become so widespread. The fact that it has it proof of thier point.

The album era is dead. I don't think it can be revived and I think the next step will inevitably be a step backward. The premium will be on convenience not quality. Its not evolutuon, its devolutuon. Shitty compressed files played through shitty computer speakers is not an improvement in my mind. I still don't own an ipod. Fuck the convenience of it- it ain't the same. Music should not take a backseat to convenience.

Edited September 6, 2014 by Mr. Dude

[Rovim]

I think both bands take too much heat- mostly from their own fans.

Death Magnetic was a good record I thought. I like some of the risks Metallica has taken. LuLu was interesting. Not an everyday listen, but I'd rather them do shit like that as opposed to just playing it safe. What else do they have left to prove? Do they really need more money? Why play it safe. LuLu is cool. The venom it provoked was proof of its vitality. Suing Napster was a ballsy move too. In the long run, they were right. It destroyed rock n roll at that level. It was the beginning of the end for the album era. Now there isn't even any new music worth stealing- there's no incentive to make it. Now its endless touring. Bands can't really afford to put much into albums or take many risks. I'm glad Metallica still does even if the end product isn't always to my taste.

No, they were wrong. You don't stand a chance if you're foolishly trying to fight progress and technology. You embrace it and adapt. That's what you do to survive and that's what the record companies should have done too.

James and Lars were not capable of seeing beyond their immediate financial interests. Even if they were technically right, they should have considered the reality of the situation, but I don't think they were even aware of it at the time. Aware of the scope of the "problem". They thought they could contain it cause they're fuckin' Metallica.

See, I differ with you on this. You think they were looking at the short-term- I think they were looking long-term- that eventually the music would become devalued and that is what happened. I think they were being honest about reality of the situation and the bands that didn't stand-up and say something were in fact the one's looking at things in the short-term and unaware of the scope of the situation. I agree though- that you need to adapt and that the record companies didn't. But who's to say that by making a stand like Metallica did wasn't the adaptation needed. The record companies didn't need to fight technology. They needed to monetize it. One band can't stand up and change the industry on their own. Everyone else was worried about the bad press in the short term. Same thing with ticketmaster gouging people on prices- if more bands stood up and took a stand things might've changed. Everyone was worried about the short-term though= the loss of touring revenue.

What I think you fail to understand is that we're on the verge of a positive change. We'll find a way to sell music again in the future. We'll find the right model and medium to make it profitable and reasonable. It will take time, but it's the way of the future, way of the future. Way of the future.

No one can stop it, so might as well join it. It's evolution baby. The record company and artists were too fuckin' comfortable with the old way of doing shit. When the rug got pulled under their fit, they acted out of panic. It didn't work. Can only blame themselves.

The movie industry took a hit as well, but it's not just music and movies and media. The internet is not gonna be a free for all forever. It's not going to be the wild wild west forever. If there is potential profit, there will always be people who will want a piece of the action, but I digress.

Bottom line is this: 15 years of losing money cause you can't find a formula that works is kinda funny, but understandable and it's not going to be this way for 20 more years imo. So Metallica were wrong, the record industry lost precious time and precious money, and now they're cutting their loses and trying to find an absolute way of making a profit again. The itunes thing is cute and all, but you have to find a way to make people pay with no choice on the matter imo. And I think it's coming. Maybe it will be polite and consumers won't be fucked in the ass like they were for decades, and maybe it won't, but this vacuum will be filled somehow.

I couldn't disagree more. I don't think its a positive change. Its been bad all the way around- less good music, decreased sound quality, less appreciation, etc.

That is the point- its not going to be a free-for-all forever- Metallica's point was to try to put a stop to it before it become so widespread. The fact that it has it proof of thier point.

The album era is barely clinging to life. I don't think it will be revived- shitty compressed files played through shitty computer speakers is not an improvement in my mind. I still don't own an ipod. Fuck the convenience of it- it ain't the same. Music should not take a backseat to convenience.

But there was no chance. You couldn't stop it then, and you can't stop it now. And why would you want to? the record companies had it their way for far too long. Artists were being fucked by the record companies and had to be signed. Now, cause they have to, musicians do it all by themselves. At least a lot of them do.

That was my point: the sound quality is just a temporary thing until someone will come along with the right formula to sell it, and then enough companies will accept it, enough people with power and money to invest in that new model.

It is positive, and when the change is complete, it will benefit the artists and the consumers too hopefully. Radiohead and Moby are into it for example. It takes balls to do it, but you have to make money too, so Radiohead and Moby were capable of seeing the promise of it, but again: someone needs to figure out how to develop and push the right channels and technology to sell it, and make it desirable to consumers and friendly to artists, and that can only be done by a smart solution cause this is not an easy task.

It will happen, cause it has to happen.

[BreakDown2014]

Metallica's great. Huge tunes, fun stuff and awesome live shows.

But, what in earth is the point of doing this in a GN'R forum????????????????????

[DR DOOM]

While I like GNR's music more than Metallica's, Metallica shame GNR and in particular Axl's GNR on many levels.

Without trying to be negative, GNR was a circus back in the 90's and it's only gotten worse since Axl's at the helm.

[Seb91]

I think both bands take too much heat- mostly from their own fans.

Death Magnetic was a good record I thought. I like some of the risks Metallica has taken. LuLu was interesting. Not an everyday listen, but I'd rather them do shit like that as opposed to just playing it safe. What else do they have left to prove? Do they really need more money? Why play it safe. LuLu is cool. The venom it provoked was proof of its vitality. Suing Napster was a ballsy move too. In the long run, they were right. It destroyed rock n roll at that level. It was the beginning of the end for the album era. Now there isn't even any new music worth stealing- there's no incentive to make it. Now its endless touring. Bands can't really afford to put much into albums or take many risks. I'm glad Metallica still does even if the end product isn't always to my taste.

It's cool to see someone else who doesn't hate LuLu!

I'm a huge Lou Reed fan and I really like it, it did take me a while to fully get into it though. I think it's fitting it was Lou's last album, some parts of have a real Velvet Underground experimental vibe. I was amazed at how much hate Lou and Metallica got though. I mean there are parts on the album that don't work for me but it isn't as dreadful as people made it out to be. Also, I don't get why they were criticized for even accepting to do it in the first place. If Lou Reed calls you up and says "Hey want to make a record with me?" You're hardly going to say "No, it may piss off some of our fans." The problem with that record was that it was basically a Lou Reed record with Metallica as his backing band. People went in expecting a Metallica record. Plus, all the criticisms at it (eg "Lou Reed can't sing" etc etc) could have been labelled at all of his back catalogue, he's never made the most accessible music after all.

Re the poll, I went for GN'R (hardly surprising given I'm here ) I thought CD was better than DM and I like DM a lot!