Are there any bands today who are as popular as GNR was in the 80/90's or has this kind of adulation a thing of the past?

[DurhamGirl]

Just watched a vidoe of GNR in Rio 1991 and the crowd are just crazy which made me think are there any bands that ilicit that kind of response today  and if not I wonder why?  Any thoughts...

Edited May 27, 2021 by DurhamGirl

[jamillos]

It is not comparable at all. Back then, we had to rely on magazines; there was no internet, no Twitter, social media. There wasn’t much music on TV (of this sort), people’s imagination ran at full speed. We only had a few videos, if any. The musicians were… more rare to us. Imagine if The Beatles formed today – there’s no way they’d be surrounded by such hysteria like back then. If you wanted to see the show in the 90s, you had to physically go. No YouTube, no Periscopes, or Facebook. When a musician made an interview to address some media bullshit, it was a big deal. There weren’t shitloads of new bands spamming your channels every day with tons of diverse weird music, and us swiping them away, bored. Compare it to dating 30 years ago and Tinder today. 
I think the chick with the binoculars in Rio (was it 91 or 01?) sums it all up nicely. Can you imagine this today? Folks will watch close-ups on YouTube instead. We are spoiled, there’s too much of everything, and our attention and minds are shattered by thousands of dull tidbits from celebrities as well as by other information spam from the internet. 
Basically, there is more stuff, spreading with incredible speed these days, and so the times before the internet cannot be truly compared with today, regardless of what the particular theme is. 

Edited May 27, 2021 by jamillos

[EricA]

[downzy]

I think it's all age dependent. 

If you're over 25-30, you probably think most newer acts can't compete.  But the truth is there are "newer" music acts that can draw huge crowds and could be considered big by relative standards.  As big as GNR in the early 90s?  Tough to say.  

Taylor Swift, BTS, Ed Sheeran, Arianna Grande, Pink, Post Malone, Bruno Mars, Billie Eilish...  All acts that could (or are on their way to beocming) massive tour draws and who have huge streaming counts.

You'll notice that none of these acts are considered rock.  But rock acts haven't been part of the mainstream since maybe Coldplay had their day back in the 2000s.  

[DTV88]

Coldplay is rock? Listen, I know you were just making a point but Coldplay? I mean, Coldplay?!?!  *shivers*
 

[EvanG]

Coldplay is a rock-pop band.

[downzy]

2 hours ago, DTV88 said:

Coldplay is rock? Listen, I know you were just making a point but Coldplay? I mean, Coldplay?!?!  *shivers*
 

Sounds more rock to me than This I Love...

But in all seriousness, they land closer on the rock side of the spectrum than any other band/act that might claim biggest music act out there in the last 15-20 years. 

[dragan1978]

On 5/27/2021 at 10:17 AM, jamillos said:

It is not comparable at all. Back then, we had to rely on magazines; there was no internet, no Twitter, social media. There wasn’t much music on TV (of this sort), people’s imagination ran at full speed. We only had a few videos, if any. The musicians were… more rare to us. Imagine if The Beatles formed today – there’s no way they’d be surrounded by such hysteria like back then. If you wanted to see the show in the 90s, you had to physically go. No YouTube, no Periscopes, or Facebook. When a musician made an interview to address some media bullshit, it was a big deal. There weren’t shitloads of new bands spamming your channels every day with tons of diverse weird music, and us swiping them away, bored. Compare it to dating 30 years ago and Tinder today. 
I think the chick with the binoculars in Rio (was it 91 or 01?) sums it all up nicely. Can you imagine this today? Folks will watch close-ups on YouTube instead. We are spoiled, there’s too much of everything, and our attention and minds are shattered by thousands of dull tidbits from celebrities as well as by other information spam from the internet. 
Basically, there is more stuff, spreading with incredible speed these days, and so the times before the internet cannot be truly compared with today, regardless of what the particular theme is. 

The best godamn reply I have read in the last 10 years and it is brilliant, thank you

[alfierose]

There's music that's crazy popular with young people today that I barely have an awareness of. I'm thinking specifically of K Pop here, some of those bands have a huge following amongst teen girls to the degree that 'kpopstan' is a meme all of it's own.

It's not quite the same as it was in the late 20th Century when huge rock acts could transcend generations to a degree, as @jamillossaid technology has changed the world so much and we have so many forms of entertainment at our disposal. I do think that younger generations though still have their own music fads to some extent.

[Guest]

On 5/27/2021 at 12:20 PM, downzy said:

I think it's all age dependent. 

If you're over 25-30, you probably think most newer acts can't compete.  But the truth is there are "newer" music acts that can draw huge crowds and could be considered big by relative standards.  As big as GNR in the early 90s?  Tough to say.  

Taylor Swift, BTS, Ed Sheeran, Arianna Grande, Pink, Post Malone, Bruno Mars, Billie Eilish...  All acts that could (or are on their way to beocming) massive tour draws and who have huge streaming counts.

You'll notice that none of these acts are considered rock.  But rock acts haven't been part of the mainstream since maybe Coldplay had their day back in the 2000s.  

I think those acts you listed are popular because people like them but also through non stop radio airplay and press exposure. Also they're pop acts so they're designed to elicit a devoted response. The female acts in particular have stans and people that go nuts for them. It's fascinating with Guns and some other heavy bands back in the day. They weren't trying to get people to swoon over them. Sure Guns (Axl especially) had some good looking dudes, but they did their thing without compromising and got reactions like they were Elvis or Michael Jackson.

Edited May 29, 2021 by mystery

[Chester 524]

On 5/27/2021 at 4:17 AM, jamillos said:

It is not comparable at all. Back then, we had to rely on magazines; there was no internet, no Twitter, social media. There wasn’t much music on TV (of this sort), people’s imagination ran at full speed. We only had a few videos, if any. The musicians were… more rare to us. Imagine if The Beatles formed today – there’s no way they’d be surrounded by such hysteria like back then. If you wanted to see the show in the 90s, you had to physically go. No YouTube, no Periscopes, or Facebook. When a musician made an interview to address some media bullshit, it was a big deal. There weren’t shitloads of new bands spamming your channels every day with tons of diverse weird music, and us swiping them away, bored. Compare it to dating 30 years ago and Tinder today. 
I think the chick with the binoculars in Rio (was it 91 or 01?) sums it all up nicely. Can you imagine this today? Folks will watch close-ups on YouTube instead. We are spoiled, there’s too much of everything, and our attention and minds are shattered by thousands of dull tidbits from celebrities as well as by other information spam from the internet. 
Basically, there is more stuff, spreading with incredible speed these days, and so the times before the internet cannot be truly compared with today, regardless of what the particular theme is. 

this is spot on.  couldn't agree more.  

 

the traditional music outlets that we had in the 90s were MTV (yes, they actually played music and made bands careers) and terrestrial radio. that's it.  in Philadelphia there is really only 1 rock station and they play 95 percent stuff from the 90s.   so it's rare to hear about new artists these days unless you go digging for them.  

 

with the internet being here now, we all tend to belong to smaller tribes who tend to influence eachother rather than one big mass market that a few select record companies get to decide what is going to be popular, so having a new rock back like GNR back in 91 is unlikely to happen these days.

if I were managing GNR I would have had them start their own record label with a few other top bands with the sole intent of taking them on tour in am ozzfest sort of way and helping pay forward a new generation of rockers.  probably wouldn't make a ton of money, but wouldn't have to lose money either. 

I miss being excited by a new band or an album release.  I remember the first time I heard Nirvana on MTV.  my life changed right there and then.  same thing when I heard appetite. can't say that a band or album has done that to me in 25 years and I think how music is introduced and distributed is mostly to blame in addition to our instant gratification culture

 

[Ixtlan]

14 hours ago, DTV88 said:

Coldplay is rock? Listen, I know you were just making a point but Coldplay? I mean, Coldplay?!?!  *shivers*
 

Coldplay are one of the biggest bands on Earth. And, the band plays Guitar, Bass, and Drums so it’s rock.

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

Coldplay are rock like U2 are rock. GnR is hard rock, so that's why some of you guys are scoffing at the comparison. Different sub genres.

[Guest]

I think it can't be overstated also the rise in ticket prices driving away people of a certain type who live for these artists and the respective scenes. Someone who was a teen or young adult that could scrape enough money to see a Guns n Roses.

For the past 20 years you have a more casual fanbase who might be somewhat into who they're seeing but are probably living through their phones or might only know the hits. These fans are also the ones to buy expensive merch and deluxe ticket packages.

I can't imagine the crowd at Rio 91 being willing to spend  $100 minimum to see Guns or Megadeth or the other bands on the ticket. Also props to them because those Brazilian fans were rabid.

[DK6]

1 hour ago, Ixtlan said:

Coldplay are one of the biggest bands on Earth. And, the band plays Guitar, Bass, and Drums so it’s rock.

None of these things you have mentioned are in any way exclusive to rock.

[Ixtlan]

17 minutes ago, DK6 said:

None of these things you have mentioned are in any way exclusive to rock.

Ok. Name me some artists. 

[RussTCB]

1 hour ago, DK6 said:

None of these things you have mentioned are in any way exclusive to rock.

Of course they're not. Obvious troll is obvious. Nearly every genre outside of rock music uses bass, drums and guitar. 

[Ixtlan]

1 hour ago, RussTCB said:

Of course they're not. Obvious troll is obvious. Nearly every genre outside of rock music uses bass, drums and guitar. 

You’re lazy with your use of the word troll. 

[YOUCOULDBEMINE.]

On 5/28/2021 at 1:43 PM, DTV88 said:

Coldplay is rock? Listen, I know you were just making a point but Coldplay? I mean, Coldplay?!?!  *shivers*
 

Sad thing is that Coldplay probably is the most popular “band” of the 2000’s.

But fuck do I hate that bland uncreative crap.

 

 

 

 

Fuck you Chris Martin 

[EvanG]

14 hours ago, mystery said:

 It's fascinating with Guns and some other heavy bands back in the day. They weren't trying to get people to swoon over them. Sure Guns (Axl especially) had some good looking dudes, but they did their thing without compromising and got reactions like they were Elvis or Michael Jackson.

Well, I'm sure they knew that the bandana and hat, and the way they dressed, helped with their popularity. I think image and appearance were definitely part of the total package. GnR were very charismatic as a band. A lot of kids were drawn to them because of the way they looked before getting into the music.

But that applies to a lot of rock bands. Even the so-called alternative bands who didn't dress up or had much of an image. Buzz from the Melvins once talked about how they weren't as popular as Nirvana because they weren't as skinny as the Nirvana guys. Probably not totally true, but even for a band like Nirvana the way they looked probably helped with their popularity. If Kurt had been some ugly, overweight guy, instead of this youthful looking guy with blonde locks and big blue eyes, he would have been less enchanting for sure.

[Guest]

56 minutes ago, EvanG said:

Well, I'm sure they knew that the bandana and hat, and the way they dressed, helped with their popularity. I think image and appearance were definitely part of the total package. GnR were very charismatic as a band. A lot of kids were drawn to them because of the way they looked before getting into the music.

But that applies to a lot of rock bands. Even the so-called alternative bands who didn't dress up or had much of an image. Buzz from the Melvins once talked about how they weren't as popular as Nirvana because they weren't as skinny as the Nirvana guys. Probably not totally true, but even for a band like Nirvana the way they looked probably helped with their popularity. If Kurt had been some ugly, overweight guy, instead of this youthful looking guy with blonde locks and big blue eyes, he would have been less enchanting for sure.

You certainly did have to have some image and appeal. Pretty much any artist who wants to make it has to play the game in terms of popularity and mainstream success. I'm just comparing to today where it seems like these artists are working under teams and everything is maximized for popularity. The thing with Guns more than any other band I can think of is that at many points they did things that for most bands would hurt their success but somehow added to their reputation and helped them. 

And yeah, even Kurt was trying to do things to be successful even if he said he hated the fame. I do think he hated the level of fame they hit. I respect a band like Pearl Jam who said fuck it by 93 and stopped making videos, challenged Ticketmaster , were playing smaller venues, and changed their sound to something that wasn't so radio friendly. And that last sentence I'm pretty sure describes Tad.

[t-p-d-a]

Yes, Måneskin
 

 

Edited May 29, 2021 by t-p-d-a

[EvanG]

I only watch the Eurovision at the end when the countries are giving each other points because I like the drama, so I didn't hear this song until they won, but I'm glad that a rock song managed to win again. And why are female bassplayers always so hot?

[metallex78]

On 5/29/2021 at 12:34 AM, downzy said:

Sounds more rock to me than This I Love...

But in all seriousness, they land closer on the rock side of the spectrum than any other band/act that might claim biggest music act out there in the last 15-20 years. 

Coldplay is everything wrong with what people consider a “rock” band these days.

How did the casual music listener go from listening to the likes of GN’R and Metallica as mainstream rock, to the elevator music that Coldplay is, to be called rock?

And yes, I’m an angry old man, get off my lawn you damn kids....! 

[downzy]

34 minutes ago, metallex78 said:

Coldplay is everything wrong with what people consider a “rock” band these days.

How did the casual music listener go from listening to the likes of GN’R and Metallica as mainstream rock, to the elevator music that Coldplay is, to be called rock?

And yes, I’m an angry old man, get off my lawn you damn kids....! 

I don’t think I would consider Metallica “mainstream.”  They’ve had just one single reach the top ten in the US mainstream chart (Until It Sleeps).  They’ve done well in the rock charts, but I don’t consider an act to be considered mainstream unless they can cross over to audiences who listen to nothing but rock.

Most of GNR’s mainstream success came largely from their more lighter or pop-oriented songs. Sweet Child O’ Mine, Patience, November Rain drove a lot of their popularity, especially among the band’s female fanbase. There’s a lot more cross-over appeal to some of GNR’s catalogue that just isn’t present with Metallica’s.

I’ve got no problem with Coldplay, especially their first three or four albums. They’re first two albums are fantastic from a songwriting perspective. But you’re also talking to someone who loves Billy Joel and Neil Diamond.   

Coldplay isn’t a departure from some of the popular rock acts that came before them. Their sound is lighter, sure, but there are a ton of prior rock acts that achieved a lot of success with a softer sound (Supertramp, Air Supply, The Hollies, Elton John, Chicago, Tears For Fears). Many of whom came to be big influences on Axl and helped formed his musical style.  If you disagree then perhaps you can explain why GNR covered Wichita  Lineman for a year or two prior to things getting shut down.