Guns should be bigger than Metallica

[Strange Broue]

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.

TSI flopped too compared to even UYI I...

But that's a cover album i can give you that...

GNR were already finishing their last leg of touring with mostly the UYI tracks...

Also for example Linkin Park has sold over 60 million albums worldwide (remember when internet became viral) this means they are (were) bigger than Metallica and GNR or even Nirvana, i don't think so... they quickly fade away...

album sales means nothing in terms what bands "should be" bigger

Edited March 9, 2015 by Motivation

[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

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.

lol

GNR were fade out even in 93 if we followed your logic

Tell me how many people listen to GNR these days? (even the classic stuff)?

and how many people listen to Nirvana at some point in their life these days?

That is the answer

It doesn't really matter, also Nirvana was never a stadium type touring band, Grunge is rarely a genre for that....

This is what most of your are not really understand, imho

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.

Haha fucking great post man!

Also Dark Knight (an Axl worshipper in fucking 2015) talking about Kurt worshippers and accuse me of being a Kurt worshipper?

fucking lol

Edited March 9, 2015 by Motivation

[RichardNixon]

If Guns N' Roses had released an album of new material in 1995 it would have sold four million copies, easy. They would have been in the same boat as Van Halen and Aerosmith and survived the grunge-era.

[DR DOOM]

There's no point in attacking Metallica or whatever other artist or band that made a better fist of it than Axl did, GNR is where it is thanks to Axl.

[Johnny Drama]

If Guns N' Roses had released an album of new material in 1995 it would have sold four million copies, easy. They would have been in the same boat as Van Halen and Aerosmith and survived the grunge-era.

How is that a good thing? To be lumped in/at the career stage of guys that were old enough to influence you when you were kids?

[Sixes]

@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.

Rock on my man

P.S....please listen to more Bowie than the hits...give his newest album a spin...it's a remarkable piece of work for a guy his age or any age.....I'm not the biggest Bowie fan either but the guy is constantly doing something new, which gets my respect always, and yes he's got plenty of dated shit in his catalogue but more often than not, he's been ahead of the curve or better yet, not even in the curve...and then delve into more of his experimental work, if you so choose...you won't be disappointed....also, Bowie never did a techno album and China Girl is a song from 1977 that first appeared on Iggy Pop's album The Idiot (Bowie then did it in 1983)...

P.P.S. in re: Metallica...I like their fan friendly attitude and their career path of trying different things (that's a big thing for me) but never been a fan really, even when I was a young metalhead and actually remember getting Kill Em All about a month after it came out

P.P.P.S. most importantly of all, congrats on the upcoming addition

P.P.P.P.S. metal fans embrace growth...just look at bands like Opeth or Ulver as prime examples of bands that are constantly evolving and are held in the highest regard in the metal community

P.P.P.P.P.S. I also do think there is a clear line in quality among all forms of art. For example, take Akira Kurosawa and Michael Bay. 2 directors of film but there is a clear and definitive line in quality and that's nothing to do with personal preference or taste. Same with music. There are artists at the top of the heap...people like Dylan, Beatles, Stones, Hendrix, The Who, Bowie, Tom Waits, Springsteen...whether I or anyone else likes them is moot...they are masters of their art form while there are others like Nickelback, Creed that are serviceable and have millions of fans. But the quality is not the same. It's just not.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Sixes

[DR DOOM]

Yeah, 4 + hour waits for the singer to take the stage...if only more bands offered such a genuine, rock and roll experience.

[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.

lol

GNR were fade out even in 93 if we followed your logic

Tell me how many people listen to GNR these days? (even the classic stuff)?

and how many people listen to Nirvana at some point in their life these days?

That is the answer

It doesn't really matter, also Nirvana was never a stadium type touring band, Grunge is rarely a genre for that....

This is what most of your are not really understand, imho

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.

Haha fucking great post man!

Also Dark Knight (an Axl worshipper in fucking 2015) talking about Kurt worshippers and accuse me of being a Kurt worshipper?

fucking lol

You read too much between the lines champ, point out where did I call you a "Kurt worshipper" I said in general how Nirvana fans overrate them to death I could n`t care less how many listen to Nirvana. Kurt and Co were one of the most overrated bands ever conceived, their teenage angst driven bullshit was neither new nor revolutionary they tried to be unique but in the end they sucked. P.S. To be pro Axl makes me a " Axl worshipper" ? what a great logic carry on

Edited March 9, 2015 by Dark Knight

[Apollo]

So glad crash diet is here to educate us all and tell everybody how wrong their opinions are. Lol.

[Bono]

This whole idea that Nirvana was bigger than GnR and Metallica bugs the shit out of me and shows how little people really remember and how badly they've bought into the media's creation of Kurt Cobain's persona and legend over the years. It's just people making shit up years later. Nirvana wasn't even as big as Pearl Jam during the period. Both Ten and Vs outsold both Nevermind and In Utero during the time. Vs at the time was the fastest selling album ever. It was Kurt's persona created by a media desperate to label someone a "voice of a generation" that was larger than life and ONLY after he passed away. That's the truth regardless of how badly people insist on saying otherwise.

For what's it's worth, Garth Brooks has 7 of the top 100 selling albums of the 90s

Edited March 9, 2015 by Bono

[Apollo]

Like several have already said. GnR could and should have been bigger. Unfortunately Axl didn't want that.

Metallica is bigger because they release more music, tour more professionally and treat their fans a 100 times better than Axl and Team Brazil do. It's that simple.

Metallica vs GnR

Albums 12-5

EPs 5-3

Singles 37-19

Box sets 3-0

If Axl wanted it, GnR probably would have ended up being the goat. But he didn't. So now he lives off of what he and Slash, Duff, izzy created back in the late 80s and early 90s.

[Amir]

This whole idea that Nirvana was bigger than GnR and Metallica bugs the shit out of me and shows how little people really remember and how badly they've bought into the media's creation of Kurt Cobain's persona and legend over the years. It's just people making shit up years later. Nirvana wasn't even as big as Pearl Jam during the period. Both Ten and Vs outsold both Nevermind and In Utero during the time. Vs at the time was the fastest selling album ever. It was Kurt's persona created by a media desperate to label someone a "voice of a generation" that was larger than life and ONLY after he passed away. That's the truth regardless of how badly people insist on saying otherwise.

For what's it's worth, Garth Brooks has 7 of the top 100 selling albums of the 90s

Not saying that's not true for North America, but I get the impression that Nirvana were bigger in Europe/Rest of the World than Pearl Jam and other grunge bands (but still GNR/Metallica were bigger). Think the only place Garth has a following outside of North America is Ireland, shame about those cancelled gigs. I was only born in '88 so I can't say for sure and it may have been because of Cobain's death, but I heard a lot more about Nirvana than I did PJ or AiC (but still knew people who listened to all of them).

[username]

Guns n' Roses:

- 1 album in the past 20 years

- 0 new live albums in the past 20 years (I'm not counting Live Era because it's original Guns)

- 0 music video's in the past 20 years

- 1 full length live video (dvd/bluray) in the past 20 years

- nothing announced

- 1/5 founding member left + guys that were on only 1 album, nothing more

- 12 bandmember changes in the past 20 years (and we all know this is being generous)

- Touring the same material since 2001

Metallica

- 6 albums + 2 EP's in the past 20 years

- 3 big live albums in the past 20 years

- 20 music video's in the past 20 years

- 4 full length live video's (dvd/bluray) in the past 20 years

- new album announced

- 2/4 founding members left + a guitarist that was on everything but the first album

- 2 bandmember changes in the past 20 years

- Mixing new and old in their live shows

Really? Guns should be bigger than Metallica?

inb4 but those Metallica albums sucked

Seriously, you secretly wish Guns was half that active as a band. And CD was a steaming turd too.

Edited March 9, 2015 by username

[GUNNER PT]

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.

This.

[fred_carston]

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.

back then people made out no one bought albums anymore, Black Ice and Death Magnetic crushed Chinese Democracy. People still buy albums if the music is good, Thunder just got to the top 10 in the UK for the first time in 20years because the new album 'Wonder Days' is a masterpiece

[Lio]

This whole idea that Nirvana was bigger than GnR and Metallica bugs the shit out of me and shows how little people really remember and how badly they've bought into the media's creation of Kurt Cobain's persona and legend over the years. It's just people making shit up years later. Nirvana wasn't even as big as Pearl Jam during the period. Both Ten and Vs outsold both Nevermind and In Utero during the time. Vs at the time was the fastest selling album ever. It was Kurt's persona created by a media desperate to label someone a "voice of a generation" that was larger than life and ONLY after he passed away. That's the truth regardless of how badly people insist on saying otherwise.

For what's it's worth, Garth Brooks has 7 of the top 100 selling albums of the 90s

Not saying that's not true for North America, but I get the impression that Nirvana were bigger in Europe/Rest of the World than Pearl Jam and other grunge bands (but still GNR/Metallica were bigger). Think the only place Garth has a following outside of North America is Ireland, shame about those cancelled gigs. I was only born in '88 so I can't say for sure and it may have been because of Cobain's death, but I heard a lot more about Nirvana than I did PJ or AiC (but still knew people who listened to all of them).

Nirvana was the biggest. And that was before Kurt died. It's nonsense to say they only got larger than life after Kurt's death, because here in Europe, that certainly wasn't the case.

I've never even heard of Garth Brooks. That's not a dig at him, but just to show that Europe is a totally different market than the US is. So don't assume people who say Nirvana was the biggest are just full of shit/don't remember/weren't there. Maybe they're just from Europe.

[body]

Nirvana most overrated shit in music history.

[Bono]

This whole idea that Nirvana was bigger than GnR and Metallica bugs the shit out of me and shows how little people really remember and how badly they've bought into the media's creation of Kurt Cobain's persona and legend over the years. It's just people making shit up years later. Nirvana wasn't even as big as Pearl Jam during the period. Both Ten and Vs outsold both Nevermind and In Utero during the time. Vs at the time was the fastest selling album ever. It was Kurt's persona created by a media desperate to label someone a "voice of a generation" that was larger than life and ONLY after he passed away. That's the truth regardless of how badly people insist on saying otherwise.

For what's it's worth, Garth Brooks has 7 of the top 100 selling albums of the 90s

Not saying that's not true for North America, but I get the impression that Nirvana were bigger in Europe/Rest of the World than Pearl Jam and other grunge bands (but still GNR/Metallica were bigger). Think the only place Garth has a following outside of North America is Ireland, shame about those cancelled gigs. I was only born in '88 so I can't say for sure and it may have been because of Cobain's death, but I heard a lot more about Nirvana than I did PJ or AiC (but still knew people who listened to all of them).

Nirvana was the biggest. And that was before Kurt died. It's nonsense to say they only got larger than life after Kurt's death, because here in Europe, that certainly wasn't the case.

I've never even heard of Garth Brooks. That's not a dig at him, but just to show that Europe is a totally different market than the US is. So don't assume people who say Nirvana was the biggest are just full of shit/don't remember/weren't there. Maybe they're just from Europe.

It's nonsense to ignor facts. Ten out sold Nevermind during the period and Vs WAY outsold In Utero. Pearl Jam was everything Nirvana and Kurt claimed to be. They stopped making music videos and stopped pandering to the media. Meanwhile Nirvana continued making music videos and allowing themselves to be cover stories for magazines all while Kurt cried about not wanting to be a rockstar.. the media built Kurt into this messiah of sorts. Then when he died they blew his legend way out of proportion and that's why so many people fail to remember how it really was. It's revisionist history at it's finest and if people can't recognize that they're blind as fuck. Then for anyone to actually try and say Nirvana was bigger than GnR and/or Metallica during the time is just flat out stupidity.

[Len Cnut]

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.

That documentary is specifically about American Rock though.

[Amir]

This whole idea that Nirvana was bigger than GnR and Metallica bugs the shit out of me and shows how little people really remember and how badly they've bought into the media's creation of Kurt Cobain's persona and legend over the years. It's just people making shit up years later. Nirvana wasn't even as big as Pearl Jam during the period. Both Ten and Vs outsold both Nevermind and In Utero during the time. Vs at the time was the fastest selling album ever. It was Kurt's persona created by a media desperate to label someone a "voice of a generation" that was larger than life and ONLY after he passed away. That's the truth regardless of how badly people insist on saying otherwise.

For what's it's worth, Garth Brooks has 7 of the top 100 selling albums of the 90s

Not saying that's not true for North America, but I get the impression that Nirvana were bigger in Europe/Rest of the World than Pearl Jam and other grunge bands (but still GNR/Metallica were bigger). Think the only place Garth has a following outside of North America is Ireland, shame about those cancelled gigs. I was only born in '88 so I can't say for sure and it may have been because of Cobain's death, but I heard a lot more about Nirvana than I did PJ or AiC (but still knew people who listened to all of them).

Nirvana was the biggest. And that was before Kurt died. It's nonsense to say they only got larger than life after Kurt's death, because here in Europe, that certainly wasn't the case.

I've never even heard of Garth Brooks. That's not a dig at him, but just to show that Europe is a totally different market than the US is. So don't assume people who say Nirvana was the biggest are just full of shit/don't remember/weren't there. Maybe they're just from Europe.

It's nonsense to ignor facts. Ten out sold Nevermind during the period and Vs WAY outsold In Utero. Pearl Jam was everything Nirvana and Kurt claimed to be. They stopped making music videos and stopped pandering to the media. Meanwhile Nirvana continued making music videos and allowing themselves to be cover stories for magazines all while Kurt cried about not wanting to be a rockstar.. the media built Kurt into this messiah of sorts. Then when he died they blew his legend way out of proportion and that's why so many people fail to remember how it really was. It's revisionist history at it's finest and if people can't recognize that they're blind as fuck. Then for anyone to actually try and say Nirvana was bigger than GnR and/or Metallica during the time is just flat out stupidity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevermind#Charts_and_certifications

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_(Pearl_Jam_album)#Charts

Nevermind's peak position in UK in 1992 was No. 7, Ten's was No. 18. You can see similar figures for rest of Europe for both albums when they first came out.

[supercool]

too many mistakes prevented gnr from being as big as metallica nowadays... lunacy is a heavy burden.

Edited March 9, 2015 by supercool

[Asia]

I agree with Lio. In Europe Nirvana was everything in the 90-s and yes, before Kurt died. Pearl Jam was nothing in comparison, nobody cared. Nirvana was as big as GNR and Metallica but much more trendy.

That said I hated Nirvana back then. Started to appreciate it much more in recent years.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Asia

[supercool]

in europe, nirvana was touring in arenas, they never toured in stadiums.

u2 or gnr were touring in stadiums back in 1992 and 1993.

nirvana was more trendy than gnr in 1993, it doesn't mean they had more fans.

[Asia]

Regardless how large of a venue they could fill - they were it, they were the name on everybody's mouth, they were the supercool and filled much more of MTV's space than any other rock act except maybe GNR and Metallica.

[supercool]

in america, pearl jam was bigger than nirvana, probably because nirvana was too negative, too extreme.

pearl jam was more politically correct, more mainstream, more classic rock.

Regardless how large of a venue they could fill - they were it, they were the name on everybody's mouth, they were the supercool and filled much more of MTV's space than any other rock act except maybe GNR and Metallica.

u2 was huge, much more than metallica. Edited March 9, 2015 by supercool