Guns should be bigger than Metallica

[Apollo]

Axl has the most delusional fans in music.

[Tom2112]

Metallica have consistently released albums, and toured over their 30 + year career. They have always kept their fans in the loop, gave them behind the scenes footage, live concert downloads, free meet and greets, regular interviews. They still have the core members of the band, and they release new music every 5 or so years.

GnR have released 3 full length records in their 30 (ish) year career, they don't update their fans regularly, they don't give a glimpse into the behind the scenes, they don't do regular interviews, they disappeared for how many years? and they don't have the core members.

Metallica are bigger because they are reliable, they worked their asses off and built relationships with fans and promoters and they always give a great show (that starts and finished on time). Also, the behind the music thing may be harsh on Axl, but that was Metallica's perspective on how things happened, metallica played their show on time, gnr were always late, and GnR caused the riot I think it was pretty fair of metallica to be pissed and to call hem out.

I love GnR, and they are my favourite band, but Metallica are bigger, and they deserve it because they've put more work in. This topic is ridiculous

[Tom2112]

Metallica is a company, GNR is rock n roll. To me tallica is shit, but i do like their Load album.

GnR is a company / business too... my god! I'm just waiting for the next thing I read to be "GNR RULE! METALLICA DROOL!!!!"

But Load is a great album, I will give you kudos for that criminally underrated album.

[Sixes]

Metallica is a company, GNR is rock n roll. To me tallica is shit, but i do like their Load album.

GnR is a company / business too... my god! I'm just waiting for the next thing I read to be "GNR RULE! METALLICA DROOL!!!!"

But Load is a great album, I will give you kudos for that criminally underrated album.

I love both the Load and Reload albums. I like that they tried new things instead of being a thrash band on every album. That's boring to me. And fuck me, but I love Lulu. I love Lou Reed and it fits nicely and perfectly in his do whatever the fuck attitude. It's really not a Metallica album per se

[bran]

Metallica have consistently released albums, and toured over their 30 + year career. They have always kept their fans in the loop, gave them behind the scenes footage, live concert downloads, free meet and greets, regular interviews. They still have the core members of the band, and they release new music every 5 or so years.

GnR have released 3 full length records in their 30 (ish) year career, they don't update their fans regularly, they don't give a glimpse into the behind the scenes, they don't do regular interviews, they disappeared for how many years? and they don't have the core members.

Metallica are bigger because they are reliable, they worked their asses off and built relationships with fans and promoters and they always give a great show (that starts and finished on time). Also, the behind the music thing may be harsh on Axl, but that was Metallica's perspective on how things happened, metallica played their show on time, gnr were always late, and GnR caused the riot I think it was pretty fair of metallica to be pissed and to call hem out.

I love GnR, and they are my favourite band, but Metallica are bigger, and they deserve it because they've put more work in. This topic is ridiculous

exactly, great post.

if gnr would have worked their asses off like they did in the earlier part of their career they would be much more renowned and people would hold them in higher esteem, but when it comes to longevity and hard work gnr cant hold a candle to bands like judas priest, iron maiden, rush, or the stones or sabbath.

Edited March 8, 2015 by bran

[tomfriend]

Metallica have never done anything I gave a shit about.

[Apollo]

Metallica have consistently released albums, and toured over their 30 + year career. They have always kept their fans in the loop, gave them behind the scenes footage, live concert downloads, free meet and greets, regular interviews. They still have the core members of the band, and they release new music every 5 or so years.

GnR have released 3 full length records in their 30 (ish) year career, they don't update their fans regularly, they don't give a glimpse into the behind the scenes, they don't do regular interviews, they disappeared for how many years? and they don't have the core members.

Metallica are bigger because they are reliable, they worked their asses off and built relationships with fans and promoters and they always give a great show (that starts and finished on time). Also, the behind the music thing may be harsh on Axl, but that was Metallica's perspective on how things happened, metallica played their show on time, gnr were always late, and GnR caused the riot I think it was pretty fair of metallica to be pissed and to call hem out.

I love GnR, and they are my favourite band, but Metallica are bigger, and they deserve it because they've put more work in. This topic is ridiculous

Tom2112's post should probably end this topic.

Metallica have never done anything I gave a shit about.

The topic isn't "who is your favorite band" it is about why GnR didn't reach it's potential and Metallica did. Edited March 8, 2015 by Apollo

[tomfriend]

Metallica have consistently released albums, and toured over their 30 + year career. They have always kept their fans in the loop, gave them behind the scenes footage, live concert downloads, free meet and greets, regular interviews. They still have the core members of the band, and they release new music every 5 or so years.

GnR have released 3 full length records in their 30 (ish) year career, they don't update their fans regularly, they don't give a glimpse into the behind the scenes, they don't do regular interviews, they disappeared for how many years? and they don't have the core members.

Metallica are bigger because they are reliable, they worked their asses off and built relationships with fans and promoters and they always give a great show (that starts and finished on time). Also, the behind the music thing may be harsh on Axl, but that was Metallica's perspective on how things happened, metallica played their show on time, gnr were always late, and GnR caused the riot I think it was pretty fair of metallica to be pissed and to call hem out.

I love GnR, and they are my favourite band, but Metallica are bigger, and they deserve it because they've put more work in. This topic is ridiculous

Tom2112's post should probably end this topic.

Metallica have never done anything I gave a shit about.

The topic isn't "who is your favorite band" it is about why GnR didn't reach it's potential and Metallica did.

No it isn't.

[Apollo]

Tomfriend then why don't you contribute something of value to the topic. Explain why tom2112 is wrong.

[Strange Broue]

I always thought the Metallica/GNR tour was ill fated from the very beginning. Two totally different fanbases and 2 totally different bands. Plus, Metallica are not a band that is easily followed, especially during that time. The shows I saw on that tour, Metallica blew GNR away.

Metallica during the Black Album tours was still on their absolute prime (yeah they were commercialised from that point but who cares)

Their set not really contains 10 minute ballads, their frontman not rant so much, they were not THAT fucked up during the tour etc...

Anyway if i live in the early 90's i would kill for a Metallica/GNR stadium tour...

Guns should be bigger? yes but the mainword is: SHOULD

Do not forget Nirvana either and how Geffen want them to include on that tour, but they refuse....

[Gackt]

Metallica's been a shadow of their former self since the 90's, and the band's clearly aware of it; it's going on seven years since Death Magnetic and there's zero sign of a new album on the horizon, so the band's going out with the shitstain known as Lulu as their final effort

There was a brief period where Guns were the bigger band, but neither band currently has the moxy to even lift themselves up for a new relevant effort.

[Strange Broue]

GN'R were bigger than Metallica will ever be ... and that's due to Axl's vision ... Izzy wanted GN'R to be a bar band and Slash never was a fan of the epics ... unfortunately, looks like Axl couldn't keep it that big, alone, for too much long ...

Edit: No doubt Metallica is bigger than GN'R today ...

Sorry to break it to you, but Nirvana was bigger than GNR or Metallica with the Nevermind album despite the fact that all of the aforementioned bands DOMINATE the rock music world. Nirvana were alternative and Kurt plays some god awful shitty solos, but he looked like the epytome of the new generation, Axl and James not so much. Nirvana (although became a mainstream world wide act) was the exact opposite to GNR and Metallica. Millions of people like all of the 3 bands, but Metallica always more metal than all of them, on the other hand Axl was the best frontman at that time in the whole world, period.... GNR were hard rock (it's softened during the UYI's though), Metallica were metal (even on a commercialised way, but still heavy as fuck, they sounded the best during that tours) and Nirvana were the new real deal: alternative (the sound of Grunge although the grunge movement contains far more better bands than Nirvana lol)

I wrote this as a big fan of all of the three

Edited March 8, 2015 by Motivation

[Strange Broue]

Metallica fans were rabid during their live performances during that time period. They were into the music and acted on it on a level other bands could only dream of.

I'm not a big Metallica fan, then or now, but their live show was much more coherent and enjoyable. Their songs may have been long but there was never any lull. With GNR, there were endless, interminable guitar solos, piano solos, fucking drum solos, horn section solos for fuck sake, all these little tidbits before songs that just made everything drag....Axl's "band" still does this stuff today...and the show just lags and lags instead of song after song after song and keeping the crowd into it instead of giving them multiple bathroom breaks

metallica built a fanbase in the underground that was hardcore and loyal and these fans propelled them to become a big name before the black album released. gnr fanbase was built with some hardcore fans but with a good number of casuals that wanted to heart he ballads. even though im not a fan of the black album, metallica still showed the work ethic and a drive to make music and it payed off for them with new fans and an album that is regarded as a classic album. gnr worked hard on their one album made it rich and then became a runaway cliche of rockstar memes. if gnr worked hard at their music instead of worrying about money, whose name the band belonged to, drugs, massive egos etc they would be right there with metallica today. metallica had issues with ego and drugs and they had moments of falling out and looked silly with the some kind of monster documentary it never killed the band and they are still going strong today.

agreed, but if the bolded part could have happened they would be as big as the fucking Rolling Stones.. They could have been the Stones in the late 80's- 90s

Edited March 8, 2015 by Motivation

[moreblack]

Tomfriend then why don't you contribute something of value to the topic. Explain why tom2112 is wrong.

There isn't a credible way to answer that.

[Amir]

I saw both GNR and Metallica a month apart at the Du Arena on Yas Island in Abu Dhabi in 2013. For both gigs, the tickets were divided between a smaller "fan pit" and a larger GA, and for both my dad got me a fan pit ticket and a GA ticket for himself.

For the GNR show, there was plenty of room in the fan pit, you could walk around, GA had a decent number of people. About 15 months had passed since previous show which I think had more people (Dec 2010 - Mar 2013).

Metallica had played this venue once before (more recently, Oct 2011), but it was still pretty much a sold-out show (concerts very rarely sell out in AD, people don't rush to buy tickets, often just buy them on the day). I was packed like a sardine in the fan pit. Flags from Iran and Saudi Arabia, cars in the parking lot from Egypt, and my dad said the GA had noticeably more people than Guns. My dad and my friend who went to both shows enjoyed both about equally, but I enjoyed the Metallica show far more, even though I'm a much, much bigger Guns fan. I'd have put the 2010 GNR show I saw there above the Metallica one since that was at the end of Axl's 2009-10 hot streak.

To GNR's credit, though, they came on 15 mins earlier than Metallica did

[dalsh327]

[Dr. Who]

GN'R were bigger than Metallica will ever be ... and that's due to Axl's vision ... Izzy wanted GN'R to be a bar band and Slash never was a fan of the epics ... unfortunately, looks like Axl couldn't keep it that big, alone, for too much long ...

Edit: No doubt Metallica is bigger than GN'R today ...

Sorry to break it to you, but Nirvana was bigger than GNR or Metallica with the Nevermind album despite the fact that all of the aforementioned bands DOMINATE the rock music world. Nirvana were alternative and Kurt plays some god awful shitty solos, but he looked like the epytome of the new generation, Axl and James not so much. Nirvana (although became a mainstream world wide act) was the exact opposite to GNR and Metallica. Millions of people like all of the 3 bands, but Metallica always more metal than all of them, on the other hand Axl was the best frontman at that time in the whole world, period.... GNR were hard rock (it's softened during the UYI's though), Metallica were metal (even on a commercialised way, but still heavy as fuck, they sounded the best during that tours) and Nirvana were the new real deal: alternative (the sound of Grunge although the grunge movement contains far more better bands than Nirvana lol)

I wrote this as a big fan of all of the three

AFD = 21.3 million sold worldwide

UYIs = 20 million sold worldwide (combined both records)

Nevermind = 16.7 million sold worldwide

The Black Album = 19.9 sold worldwide

[Bono]

Metallica is a company, GNR is rock n roll. To me tallica is shit, but i do like their Load album.

Hahaha Yeah GnR is rock n' roll. It's all about the music man. Team Brazil hasn't turned them inot a shitty touring cash grab corporation at all. You say Metallica is a company and think they are shit but then say you like Load which is the album where they tried their absolute hardest to conform to a trend in music. Your post makes zero sense.

GN'R were bigger than Metallica will ever be ... and that's due to Axl's vision ... Izzy wanted GN'R to be a bar band and Slash never was a fan of the epics ... unfortunately, looks like Axl couldn't keep it that big, alone, for too much long ...

Edit: No doubt Metallica is bigger than GN'R today ...

Sorry to break it to you, but Nirvana was bigger than GNR or Metallica with the Nevermind album despite the fact that all of the aforementioned bands DOMINATE the rock music world. Nirvana were alternative and Kurt plays some god awful shitty solos, but he looked like the epytome of the new generation, Axl and James not so much. Nirvana (although became a mainstream world wide act) was the exact opposite to GNR and Metallica. Millions of people like all of the 3 bands, but Metallica always more metal than all of them, on the other hand Axl was the best frontman at that time in the whole world, period.... GNR were hard rock (it's softened during the UYI's though), Metallica were metal (even on a commercialised way, but still heavy as fuck, they sounded the best during that tours) and Nirvana were the new real deal: alternative (the sound of Grunge although the grunge movement contains far more better bands than Nirvana lol)

I wrote this as a big fan of all of the three

I love the revisionist history when it comes to Nirvana. Nirvana were NOT bigger than GnR or Metallica ever at any point. I lived it, I saw it. Yes Nirvana were big but they weren't bigger than Metallica or GnR. Never. I could make the argument that NIrvana weren't even as big as Pearl Jam at the time. Why people have resorted to beliveing this fallacy that Nirvana was the biggest band of the 90s is beyond me.

[tinyrobot]

Because of kurt cobain´s death.

When you die young so tragically like he did, you inmediately become an eternal immaculate figure.

If Axl had died after the Illusions tour, he would be God now. Pretty much like Freddy Mercury is.

[smoking guns]

Metallica was huge, but GNR has aged better on the classic rock stations... GNR had a more accessible sound. Metallica was the biggest band in the world for a long time, but GNR could and should have been just as big. Individually Axl is much more legendary than James, and Slash is much more iconic than Kirk... Lars is a more well know Drummer and Duff is more famous than any of the Metallica bass players.

[RichardNixon]

Both bands have sold over 100 million albums WW, so I'd say it's pretty close to a draw. They were both huge in 1992, one wasn't really "bigger" than the other.

[bran]

Both bands have sold over 100 million albums WW, so I'd say it's pretty close to a draw. They were both huge in 1992, one wasn't really "bigger" than the other.

the thing is metallica is still huge, with death magnetic they had 5 straight #1 albums and sold around 500,000 copies in a week. not many rock bands are doing that even back in 2008. when metallicas new album drops next year its going #1 again and will sell a boatload of albums(in 2015-2016 terms being a metal/rock album)

[RichardNixon]

Both bands have sold over 100 million albums WW, so I'd say it's pretty close to a draw. They were both huge in 1992, one wasn't really "bigger" than the other.

the thing is metallica is still huge, with death magnetic they had 5 straight #1 albums and sold around 500,000 copies in a week. not many rock bands are doing that even back in 2008. when metallicas new album drops next year its going #1 again and will sell a boatload of albums(in 2015-2016 terms being a metal/rock album)

That was 2008. How many copies did the new AC/DC album sell compared to Black Ice? Bands don't sell CDs anymore. The new Metallica album might sell a million copies, but it won't sell as much as DM.

Obviously the current Metallica is bigger than Axl's GN'R, but I would argue that in terms of having a legacy, it's more of a draw. I like GN'R more than Metallica, always have, but that's a personal preference. And like I said, in 1992, both bands were pretty huge.

[RichardNixon]

Saying that "history has erased Guns N' Roses" is just asinine. Considering that their back catalog still sells, their videos on youtube still get hits, kids today where AFD shirts and they still receive airplay, I'd say that facts say otherwise.

GN'R were bigger than Metallica will ever be ... and that's due to Axl's vision ... Izzy wanted GN'R to be a bar band and Slash never was a fan of the epics ... unfortunately, looks like Axl couldn't keep it that big, alone, for too much long ...

Edit: No doubt Metallica is bigger than GN'R today ...

Sorry to break it to you, but Nirvana was bigger than GNR or Metallica with the Nevermind album despite the fact that all of the aforementioned bands DOMINATE the rock music world. Nirvana were alternative and Kurt plays some god awful shitty solos, but he looked like the epytome of the new generation, Axl and James not so much. Nirvana (although became a mainstream world wide act) was the exact opposite to GNR and Metallica. Millions of people like all of the 3 bands, but Metallica always more metal than all of them, on the other hand Axl was the best frontman at that time in the whole world, period.... GNR were hard rock (it's softened during the UYI's though), Metallica were metal (even on a commercialised way, but still heavy as fuck, they sounded the best during that tours) and Nirvana were the new real deal: alternative (the sound of Grunge although the grunge movement contains far more better bands than Nirvana lol)

I wrote this as a big fan of all of the three

Nirvana's follow-up to Nevermind, In Utero, was a flop, selling a fraction of Nevermind and they had trouble selling out arenas in 1993, while GN'R were still selling out stadiums. Yes, Nirvana were the rock band of the 1990's and certainly a lot "cooler" from 1994 on, but they were never bigger than GN'R when they were an active band.

[Iron MikeyJ]

As an other poster said, Metallicas music really has not aged very well. You can make a case for them being the biggest band in 1992, but by the time they are done, most of their music will be done as well. Honestly they only have 1 song that will live on, enter sandman. That is their only honest to goodness hit. Yes they have other good songs, but none of them are really classic rock radio friendly, which is exactly where Metallica, gnr, and Nirvana are heading.

Gnr on the other hand have jungle, paradise, scom, patience, ycbm,knockin, lald, and November rain. Even though 2 of them are covers, all of these songs get played on even the most generic of classic rock stations. Even Nirvana doesn't have the amount of "classic" songs that for does. Even though someone is going to argue that radio doesn't matter, that is just plain not true. We listen to the radio in the car, at work, at the doctors office, in the grocery store, etc, etc. So gnr's music is being exposed to far more people on a daily basis than Metallica could ever hope to be. Honestly I see Metallica being like the Moody Blues or Uriah Heep, great bands that people rave about, but only have 1 or 2 songs the general public has even heard.

So my point is that it is debatable who the biggest band was in 1992, all three of them (Metallica, gnr, and nirvana have a claim to that throne. But honestly nirvana was bigger after Kurt died.) But the answer to the question "which bands music will live on the longest?" I think gnr is the clear winner in that category. Also from what I have seen, gnr does appear to be more popular among the youth (teens and early 20s) than either Metallica or nirvana at this point as well. Which I'm not saying gnr is "popular" among today's youth by any means. But Metallica especially seem to be a complete nonfactor.