Guns should be bigger than Metallica

[Len Cnut]

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.

You're absolutely right there but thats not what people really mean when they say 'bigger', Nirvana were bigger in terms of their importance to rock music, they ushered in an era and a shift in the cultural paradigm. But you're damn right, GnR were bigger. I guess people just percieve that particular audience to be somewhat insubstantial, which is an awfully snobby thing to say but by the same token you could probably conclusively argue that there is a point to be made there cuz when you appeal to the broader fans of your kinda thing as opposed to convert a wider base on the back of a few touching ballads those core audience people are with you for life, the touching ballad converted otherwise not so into rock type fans are the ones who watch you on VH1s i love the 90s 20 years later going 'oh yeah, i used to love that song!'.

[Len Cnut]

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.

He's saying something very specific about how, in the anals of rock history, GnR do not really get respect. I mean just look at these 7 part series that the BBC or whatever do and it's like 'the 7 ages of rock' and every cultural shift in that genre is highlighted or rather the key ones are. GnR never get a mention. Simply because they weren't really very original, they were a retro band even in their heyday. They were just a very good band, the surrounding fuckeries can erase that kinda thing from peoples minds though, i guess its all a question of the value vs hassle, if you get the value for the hassle then it's worth it but if you don't well then history just kinda pulls the chain on you. He's right, the history books kinda have erased GnR.

The only way GnR could ever have a decent resurgence, and this is entirely possible by the way, is based on the 'look where all that alternative shit got us in the end' kinda way But even then it'll be a resurgence in the hearts and minds of a bunch of oldies, that kinda music is dead and it's not coming back.

[Ragnar]

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 never was bigger than Guns` it`s a bullshit trotted around by Kurt`s worshippers UYIs outsold Nevernind and subsequent tour dwarfed them. Nirvana was a fad and was worn out by the end of 94.

Edited March 8, 2015 by Dark Knight

[SoulMonster]

I we count band members, Gn'R definitely is bigger than Metallica.

On topic: Couldn't give two shits which band is bigger. At times, I wish GN'R, and its fanbase, was smaller.

[Liquor & Whores]

maybe not bigger

but as big as, is a fair assumption

[Amir]

I mean just look at these 7 part series that the BBC or whatever do and it's like 'the 7 ages of rock' and every cultural shift in that genre is highlighted or rather the key ones are. GnR never get a mention.

Recent one they did said GNR were the greatest rock band of all time: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/rockandpopmusic/10558364/The-greatest-American-rock-band-of-all-time-Surely-not-Guns-N-Roses.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IoPzcybmGg

But yeah, I'd generally agree with the title of that book, The Band That Time Forgot.

[dalsh327]

RIAA stats - Nevermind 10 million, Metallica Black Album 14 million and AFD 18 million. That's just America.

Alternative rock???

Depeche Mode were headlining arenas on the Violator tour and played Pasadena Rose Bowl for Music for the Masses. REM and U2 had no problems selling out arenas in the 80s and 90s. Nirvana were the support act to the Red Hot Chili Peppers when Nevermind came out and Blood Sugar Sex Magic was one of the biggest albums of the early 90s.

Beastie Boys had as much success with Licensed to Ill as Nirvana did with Nevermind, then they became "alternative" but when Paul's Boutique came out? There's a small handful of people who thought it was an incredible album. The fans wanted more wiffle ball bats and beer songs. Now it's hailed as a classic. At that time, no one saw them lasting as long as they did.

There's 3 albums that rivaled each other on the charts - Ten, Siamese Dream and Nevermind, but Use Your Illusion and Black Album were selling WAAAAAAY more.

You're also forgetting Lollapalooza was going on, if that hadn't happened, I don't know if there would have been as much interest in Nirvana, who were Sonic Youth's support act that summer, plus you had Faith No More and Janes Addiction who had a devoted following (Axl definitely being one of them) but kind of "novelty" hits.

When people brought up "Seattle" in 1991, they would say Queensryche, Soundgarden and Alice in Chains...and Heart (I'll throw in Sir Mix a Lot and Metal Church). Nirvana wasn't even a blip on the radar.

The funny thing is Axl was there for a lot of it, first Lollapalooza tour, Janes when they were playing clubs, and was hearing a lot of stuff when it was just beginning to happen, and having to do his thing as a frontman in GNR.

Edited March 8, 2015 by dalsh327

[Słash]

It doesnt matters who sold how many records, Metallica has some good songs, but im not a die hard fan of them, the thing about Metallica is that they function and make music like a band unlike Axl's band where he or TB makes all the decisions that when to tour or when to record or when to release an album etc etc, you cant compare them both, if ur saying Guns N Roses then in my mind its the Appetite or the illusions line up, now its just Axl's band with hired members who make/release no new music

[fred_carston]

The greatest rivalry of all time is METALLICA vs WINGER

[Gackt]

WINGER

[wkuk04]

Fuck Metallica.

[Apollo]

Stop with the talk about classic rock stations. Metallica is a heavy metal band, GnR is a rock band. Of course GnR is going to be played more on the radio. And saying that GnR songs have aged better is just YOUR personal preference. I think Metallica's old stuff still sounds great, better than their newer stuff. Master, battery, fade to black, sanatarium, one, etc.

A lot of you are letting your hearts and GnR dedication overtake the actual facts of the situation.

In their prime years, Metallica and GnR were the two biggest bands out there. Throw in U2 and Bon Jovi, I suppose.

The difference is those other three bands continued to evolve and release MUSIC. You might not like the music they released, but at least they gave their fans the option of liking or not liking new stuff.

Axl, on the other hand, pretty much has just given up and is living off what he created 25 years ago.

So the opening suggestion is correct.

GnR should have and could have been bigger than any rock band in history. Their first five years and four albums were unmatched by any band in history.

But instead of keeping that going, Axl went another route. Disappearing for years. Not releasing new music. Touring 30 year old songs. Turning GnR into a revolving door of musicians.

Metallica is bigger now simply because they work harder.

Some of you are letting your love for Axl cloud your ability to use common sense and objectively look at the facts.

Edited March 8, 2015 by Apollo

[Iron MikeyJ]

@ Apollo,

I'm not using my personal preference cloud my judgement any more than you are. I was just stating that yes I do feel gnrs music has aged better due to the fact that it had more of a timeless aspects to it. Thrash metal, in all forms sounds very 80ish in today's day and age. While hard rock sounds like it could be from the 60s, 70s, 80s, or even the 90s. I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that hard rock evolved from the blues, so it has more of a "timelessness" to it, while metal, especially thrash metal was the music of a very specific time. Honestly how many bands are still playing thrash, vs how MANY bands have blues rock feel to them? Pretty obvious answer. Of course those of us that lived through it will have certain feeling come to mind, so We are all bias.

The larger point that I was making is that yes gnrs music is played far more often on the radio, hence making it more available, that's all. To say that doesn't play a role is a little ignorant. Sure radio isn't what it used to be, but that doesn't mean it's not an important medium. Obviously metal, especially thrash metal does not get played on the radio often anymore, but again that speaks to that genre more than anything. But you can't say it doesn't matter.

Is Metallica a bigger band today than gnr? Yes, I'm not debating that. What I am saying is that most of their audience is made up of late 20s and mostly 30s and 40s metal heads. Which is fine, but you don't see a lot of younger kids getting into them. Which gnr and other hard rock bands do seem to be getting more younger crowds. I saw quite a few teens and early 20s kids at both the VH and gnr shows I aattended, same goes for aerosmith. Which Metallica may be getting younger fans, I'm not saying they are not, I just haven't seen any. And I mean any, I haven't seen someone younger than 25 wearing a Metallica shirt since I was 25. Just saying.

[dando]

Every Metallica song sounds the same, it's just screaming and a rubbish noise . Them and foo fighters do my head in. Pointless noise

[Iron MikeyJ]

Also I want to add that part of the reason thrash sounds dated is because newer forms of metal have come out since then. Numetal plus whatever you call bands like Avenged Sevenfold have since come out and made bands like Slayer and Metallica sound very dated. While hard rock on the other hand has not evolved at all since gnr. So to this day, gnr are still the furthest hard rock has evolved. Yes blues rock bands like white stripes and the black keys have kept the blues sound alive, but they created their own separate genre. While all bands from thrash to Numetal fall under the umbrella of metal.

Also just to nitpick your comment, zeppelins first four are superior to gnrs. ?

[Sixes]

GNR's sound is just as dated as any other 80's cock rock band. Nothing about it sounds new or fresh. You hear it, you think 80's immediately. The power ballads, the lyrics, Axl's screeching vocals all point to 80's hard rock/hair metal.

And with that, is there any band that doesn't sound dated to the time they were around? Or the time of the album's release? You can clearly tell the difference between 60's Stones to 70's Stones to 80's Stones. Same goes for any band that were active for long periods of time and spanned decades.
Bands adapt to their time and absorb whatever is available at the time, whether it be recording techniques, new sounds being used, etc

80's Metallica sounds like the 80's while 90's Metallica sounds like the 90's and so on.

Although there are artists like Tom Waits, Patti Smith, Leonard Cohen, Lou Reed, David Bowie, Iggy Pop that don't fit into the norm. But those artists are few and far between.

Edited March 8, 2015 by Sixes

[James Bond]

The biggest shame about the downfall of Guns N' Roses is that today they could have been up there with bands like The Stones and U2 in terms of global popularity. They were that good. Granted, had the classic or Illusions line-ups stayed together then I'm almost certain one or more of them would be dead.

[RichardNixon]

GNR's sound is just as dated as any other 80's cock rock band. Nothing about it sounds new or fresh. You hear it, you think 80's immediately. The power ballads, the lyrics, Axl's screeching vocals all point to 80's hard rock/hair metal.

I don't agree at all. Sure, GN'R music sounds dated, as in you can tell that it came from a certain era, but you can say that about any band. Compared to bands like Poison and Motley Crue, GN'R's music has held up very well.

[Sixes]

GNR's sound is just as dated as any other 80's cock rock band. Nothing about it sounds new or fresh. You hear it, you think 80's immediately. The power ballads, the lyrics, Axl's screeching vocals all point to 80's hard rock/hair metal.

I don't agree at all. Sure, GN'R music sounds dated, as in you can tell that it came from a certain era, but you can say that about any band. Compared to bands like Poison and Motley Crue, GN'R's music has held up very well.

My point was that you can say that about any band.

And as far as "holding up", that's a relative and subjective term and almost nonsensical. Motley Crue fans will tell you Crue's music holds up fine, although "holding up" is a weird term.

[RichardNixon]

GNR's sound is just as dated as any other 80's cock rock band. Nothing about it sounds new or fresh. You hear it, you think 80's immediately. The power ballads, the lyrics, Axl's screeching vocals all point to 80's hard rock/hair metal.

I don't agree at all. Sure, GN'R music sounds dated, as in you can tell that it came from a certain era, but you can say that about any band. Compared to bands like Poison and Motley Crue, GN'R's music has held up very well.

My point was that you can say that about any band.

And as far as "holding up", that's a relative and subjective term and almost nonsensical. Motley Crue fans will tell you Crue's music holds up fine, although "holding up" is a weird term.

I think most people who aren't tone deaf will tell you that AFD has held up better than Girls, Girls, Girls.

[Sixes]

GNR's sound is just as dated as any other 80's cock rock band. Nothing about it sounds new or fresh. You hear it, you think 80's immediately. The power ballads, the lyrics, Axl's screeching vocals all point to 80's hard rock/hair metal.

I don't agree at all. Sure, GN'R music sounds dated, as in you can tell that it came from a certain era, but you can say that about any band. Compared to bands like Poison and Motley Crue, GN'R's music has held up very well.

My point was that you can say that about any band.

And as far as "holding up", that's a relative and subjective term and almost nonsensical. Motley Crue fans will tell you Crue's music holds up fine, although "holding up" is a weird term.

I think most people who aren't tone deaf will tell you that AFD has held up better than Girls, Girls, Girls.

ouchies!!!

Still have no fucking clue what held up means. Is there a scale that shows what holds up better than something else?

[moreblack]

As expected the thread was just for people to bag on Metallica when their only true crime was outlasting Guns.

[Iron MikeyJ]

@Sixes, I pretty much disagree with your entire post. So gnr sound like a cock rock 80s band, but David Bowie, Tom Waits, and the rest you mentioned are some how above all that. I say bullocks to all of that, they sound just as dated as anyone else, especially Bowie. I'll be the first to say I like Bowie, but China Girl is as 80s as it gets. He also made that techno sounding album in the mid 90s, I'm sure that sounds just as vibrant as ever....

The bigger issue is we all have musicians that we personally love, so by human nature we are going to put those a head of the rest. We also have acts that we have fallen out of love with, so we are going to downgrade them, like you do with guns. I'll be the first to admit that I do that as well, and Metallica and pretty much all "metal" music is that way for me. I loved those bands in my youth, especially Metallica. But now I borderline can't stand them. I still respect them, and their accomplishments. But I'm pretty sure none of their songs are on my mp3 player anymore, and I own their entire catalogue through St. Anger.

I'm not going to just sit here and say all of their songs sound the same, because I feel that is a cop out answer. But I will say this, I think I have outgrown them as a band. Throwing up the devil horns and head banging away just doesn't do it for me anymore. Why? Because I'm no longer 13-25, I'm 33 years old. I have a wife, kids, a house, and a baby on the way. I don't have anything in common with Metallica anymore. Which I could of, if as a band they would have evolved and grown as well, but the metal audience looks down on that type of thing, so Metallica gave their fans what they wanted, so congrats.

Obviously people can out grow gnr as well, which I'm sure you have. But when I think about my favorite bands; namely guns, zeppelin, and VH they all have something in common (besides being hard rock bands) their music changed and evolved a lot of their careers. At this point in my life, I can relate a lot more to songs like fool in the rain, all my love, the rain song, ten years gone, etc. Zeppelin has songs like that they are there for a guy in his 30s, that speak to me. They also had songs like whole lotta love and black dog that spoke to the man I was 10 or 15 years ago, even if those songs don't do much for me anymore. I can also say the same for VH, even though I love the early Roth years, I can't deny that songs like can't stop loving you, not enough, right now, and finish what you started speak more to me as a grown man than Panama or ain't talkin bout love does. So even though many people hate the Sammy years, I love them for being great adult rock music, while the Roth years are great party rock music.

My point also stands true for guns. Even though Appetite is my favorite, I can respect the path axl took over his career and did in fact evolve until we get to CD. Twat and prostitute are more adult favorite rock music as opposed to paradise city or rocket queen, so yes despite his flaws, even Axl has evolved more than a band like Metallica has.

Now having said all of that, I realize that there are plenty of genres that have grown up far more than hard rock has, but at this point in my life I'm not ready for them. I still want to rock, but I'd rather hear songs that I can relate to at this point in my life, and metal bands like Metallica just don't have it for me. If they work for you, that's great, I got nothing but love. I'm just speaking from my own experiences.

[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

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

Means nothing if we are speaking cultural and social impact so i'm not gonna suck on this

also i'm talking about the 90's (1991-92) specifically so AFD has nothing to do with this

Edited March 9, 2015 by Motivation

[Strange Broue]

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.

you were already old at that time bro

I mean big as an influence to the musical scene

GNR and 'tallica are for everyone, older rock fans too, Nirvana is for younger people

So in this case GNR are 'tallica just even more commerce than Nirvana, not bigger

For example Psy will be the all time biggest musical thing in the world if we use your logic

Hopefully we don't

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.

i can agree with this tinyrobot, but he wasn't died (thank god)

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)

Lol i just realised that Metallica hasn't released a proper full lenght album on their own since 2008

8 years till a fucking album came out? this is almost as bad as Axl's cocktease since 2000-2008

(despite the fact that Metallica toured every year and released their worst collaboration ever... shit i might can respect them because they survived that clusterfuck Lulu)

Edited March 9, 2015 by Motivation