Home› Other Music

Will there ever be another Biggest Band in the World?

musicismylife78musicismylife78 Posts: 6,116
edited April 2008 in Other Music
In the world of myspace, filesharing and in many ways a leveling of the playing field in that any amateur can post their own songs on myspace, will there ever again be a "biggest band in the world" along the lines of a Nirvana or The Beatles or u2?
Post edited by Unknown User on
«134567

Comments

  • WobbieWobbie Posts: 30,634
    radiohead33 wrote:
    In the world of myspace, filesharing and in many ways a leveling of the playing field in that any amateur can post their own songs on myspace, will there ever again be a "biggest band in the world" along the lines of a Nirvana or The Beatles or u2?
    It doesn't seem like it....

    As you point out, things have changed.
    If I had known then what I know now...

    Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
    VIC 07
    EV LA1 08
    Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
    Columbus 10
    EV LA 11
    Vancouver 11
    Missoula 12
    Portland 13, Spokane 13
    St. Paul 14, Denver 14
    Philly I & II, 16
    Denver 22
  • g under pg under p Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,209
    That all depends on the individual because the *Biggest Band In the World* could be anything from The Cure-to-The Cult-to-RUSH. I never pay much attention to sales or top downloaded songs it's more about what the music does to you in sound and lyrics.

    It's also a positive to see those bands live when possible to reinforce what you've already heard. There's nothing like that LIVE sound along with the visual atmosphere.

    Peace
    *We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti

    *MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
    .....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti

    *The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)


  • Matty BoyMatty Boy Posts: 421
    Nirvana was never the biggest band in the world.
  • IgottagoIgottago Posts: 483
    No, because with the internet, some other geek on some other blog will try to break out another "biggest band in the world"...the infrastructure of music as we used to know it is gone. There is no big league anymore, just a bunch of minor leagues and we have to decide how much of it is really good, or just some internet hype.
  • kdpjamkdpjam Posts: 2,303
    there's good shit and bad shit and all kinds of shit. nuff said.
    lay down all thoughts; surrender to the void
    ~it is shining it is shining~
  • OdinOdin Posts: 599
    Matty Boy wrote:
    Nirvana was never the biggest band in the world.

    Finally someone says it. Metallica, Guns-N-Roses and even Aerosmith were more popular than Nirvana back then, at least from what I can remember. Nirvana was slightly more popular than Soundgarden, Alice in Chains and STP. It was a toss-up between Nirvana and Pearl Jam.
  • OdinOdin Posts: 599
    ...then Kurt Cobain killed himself and Nirvana was hailed as the "greatest band of the 90s," just like 2Pac and Biggie immediately jumped to the top of everyone's rankings after they got murdered.
  • holtzholtz Posts: 509
    Odin wrote:
    Finally someone says it. Metallica, Guns-N-Roses and even Aerosmith were more popular than Nirvana back then, at least from what I can remember. Nirvana was slightly more popular than Soundgarden, Alice in Chains and STP. It was a toss-up between Nirvana and Pearl Jam.

    My first thought was also that Nirvana wasn't the biggest band in the world. People like to rewrite history.
  • AnonAnon Posts: 11,175
    there is one now. they are called radiohead.
  • russmcrussmc Posts: 91
    I can't even think of a band with that sort of popularity in the past thirty years.
    First there was Elvis, then came the Beatles, and nothing else even comes close to either of those two.
    Surreal Art that Entices the Mind
    http://www.russmcintosh.com
  • tybirdtybird Posts: 17,388
    It's like all the alphabet titles that they have in boxing and pro wrestling....someone will always be tagged with the title, whether it means anything beyond the family's family....that is up for debate.

    Yes, Nirvana was the downhill portion of their career when Kurt pulled the trigger...."In Utero", at the time, was tanking as a follow-up album and about 100 people owned a copy of "Bleach."
    All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
  • FinsburyParkCarrotsFinsburyParkCarrots Seattle, WA Posts: 12,223
    I think after The Beatles, Hendrix was the first and perhaps only true arena-rock superstar of significance beyond mere sales. He was by far the highest grossing stadium act across the world, up to 1970, but he had critical acclaim too. After he died, acts such as Zep tried to fill the gap in the market, and while they might have made mega-millions, they didn't have the same sort of cultural impact that Jimi had. Plus, Zep had a lot of detractors in the press, which mattered a hell of a lot more then than now.

    It was all over by 1970, for the World's Biggest Act. That's why Lennon knew there was more to singing "The dream is over" than The Beatles' breakup. Bowie's Ziggy Stardust in 1972, was an ironic take on the life and death of messianic rock celebrity, and Bolan (big in England but not in the States), sang "Whatever happened to the teenage dream?" in 1974.

    There hasn't been a "biggest band in the world" for a very long time.
  • wcsmithwcsmith Posts: 165
    This "biggest band in the world" stuff is just hype, and fleeting hype at that. The early 80's was the worst time for this kind of overblown stuff.

    I read a while back in an article about Live Aid that when U2 came on stage right after a set by The Police that the torch was being passed and that the Police were relinquishing their claim to "the biggest band in the world" to U2. Garbage. I personally love both bands, but they both have just as many detractors as fans.

    And remember when The Clash were called "The Only Band That Matters"? Or how about when everything that Michael Jackson touched turned to gold? For goodness' sake, he wrote a song about, well, I guess a horror movie - I never understand what Thriller was actually about, but it was ALL OVER THE PLACE. And then immediately Bruce Springsteen was the end all. Followed by Madonna. And U2, twice.

    The blame for this "biggest band in the world" hype can be laid at the feet of MTV, Rolling Stone, and Spin magazine (I guess Creem and Melody Maker in the 70's, from what I understand). It seems either to be (a) over-blown pop nonsense, a la Michael Jackson, Madonna, U2, or (b) over-blown pretentious nonsense, a la The Clash and Radiohead (both of whom I love).

    Anyways, that's my ramble for the day. The biggest band in the world changes from person to person. For me, Led Zeppelin and Pearl Jam are still the biggest bands in the world...
    "I'll ride the wave where it takes me"
  • SomethingCreativeSomethingCreative Kazoo, MI Posts: 3,396
    http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=282881
    "Well, I think this band is incapable of sucking."
    -my dad after hearing Not for You for the first time on SNL .
  • hopethatuchokehopethatuchoke Posts: 2,927
    U2 is (are?) probably the biggest band in the world right now. They could announce a show anywhere, any size and it would sell out. They still sell albums as well.
  • Get_RightGet_Right Posts: 13,494
    Odin wrote:
    Finally someone says it. Metallica, Guns-N-Roses and even Aerosmith were more popular than Nirvana back then, at least from what I can remember. Nirvana was slightly more popular than Soundgarden, Alice in Chains and STP. It was a toss-up between Nirvana and Pearl Jam.

    slightly more popular? Nirvana was the biggest band in the world for a short time-yes the hype died quickly, but come on-nirvana snapped this country out of its bad hair metal phase, or was it the pop techno synth phase, whatever. But there was a time when you could not get away from Nirvana and the music was everywhere.
  • facepollutionfacepollution Posts: 6,834
    Get_Right wrote:
    slightly more popular? Nirvana was the biggest band in the world for a short time-yes the hype died quickly, but come on-nirvana snapped this country out of its bad hair metal phase, or was it the pop techno synth phase, whatever. But there was a time when you could not get away from Nirvana and the music was everywhere.

    Yeah I agree, of course they weren't the only big band around at the time, but they were pretty damn huge, and their popularity was worldwide. I don't think there has really been a band since that has been quite so pivotal in changing the face of music as them. I know people will say bands like the Pixies and Husker Du were doing that sound before Nirvana, but there is no doubting Kurt's particular ear for a pop melody helped them break into the mainstream. They were far more accesible to mainstream music fans who weren't that into rock music, more so than AiC, Soundgarden and even Pearl Jam. Obviously this wasn't on the scale of the Beatles or Elvis, but in a day and age where music had become much more diverse, Nirvana still stuck out as a iconic band of the times. Of course this has been magnified by Kurt's death, but I still maintain you wouldn't have 12 year old kids walking around in Nirvana hoodies today, if it wasn't for the accessibility of the music.

    In terms of bands today, I think Radiohead are probably the most well revered band going by both fans and critics. Again, their success is worldwide, and after over 15 years in the business, they seem to be standing the test of time. Arguably, Nickelback could be seen as one of the biggest bands in the world, but I think their cultural impact has been far less than bands like Nirvana and Pearl Jam because their music is so derivative - what they serve up is a sanitised re-hash of a sound that was perfected in the early 90's. Bands like Nirvana, PJ, AiC, Soundgarden, Tool, Radiohead etc acknowledged their influences, but also did something unique and genuinely fresh with them.
  • OdinOdin Posts: 599
    Get_Right wrote:
    slightly more popular? Nirvana was the biggest band in the world for a short time-yes the hype died quickly, but come on-nirvana snapped this country out of its bad hair metal phase, or was it the pop techno synth phase, whatever. But there was a time when you could not get away from Nirvana and the music was everywhere.

    Metallica was bigger at the time. The Black Album sold more copies than Nevermind in the early 1990s (both albums were released the same year, 1991). It's only fair to compare sales pre-Cobain's death because we're talking about the biggest band in the world AT A PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME. And while Nirvana was playing mid-sized venues at the "peak" of their short-lived career, Metallica was selling out STADIUMS. Go to hell. You're probably some fucking punk-ass teenager who never experienced the early-1990s first-hand and are now trying to come off as some sort of expert. So you know where you can shove your lousy opinion. Right up your fucking ass.
  • OdinOdin Posts: 599
    facepollution wrote:
    but I still maintain you wouldn't have 12 year old kids walking around in Nirvana hoodies today, if it wasn't for the accessibility of the music.

    Who gives a fuck about what 12 year-old kids are wearing today? That is not relevant. In the early 1990s, more kids were wearing Metallica t-shirts, at least they were in Maryland where I grew up. I am not denying that Nirvana was a popular band. But the most popular in the world at the time? No fucking way.
  • Jeremy1012Jeremy1012 Posts: 7,170
    facepollution wrote:
    Yeah I agree, of course they weren't the only big band around at the time, but they were pretty damn huge, and their popularity was worldwide. I don't think there has really been a band since that has been quite so pivotal in changing the face of music as them. I know people will say bands like the Pixies and Husker Du were doing that sound before Nirvana, but there is no doubting Kurt's particular ear for a pop melody helped them break into the mainstream. They were far more accesible to mainstream music fans who weren't that into rock music, more so than AiC, Soundgarden and even Pearl Jam. Obviously this wasn't on the scale of the Beatles or Elvis, but in a day and age where music had become much more diverse, Nirvana still stuck out as a iconic band of the times. Of course this has been magnified by Kurt's death, but I still maintain you wouldn't have 12 year old kids walking around in Nirvana hoodies today, if it wasn't for the accessibility of the music.

    In terms of bands today, I think Radiohead are probably the most well revered band going by both fans and critics. Again, their success is worldwide, and after over 15 years in the business, they seem to be standing the test of time. Arguably, Nickelback could be seen as one of the biggest bands in the world, but I think their cultural impact has been far less than bands like Nirvana and Pearl Jam because their music is so derivative - what they serve up is a sanitised re-hash of a sound that was perfected in the early 90's. Bands like Nirvana, PJ, AiC, Soundgarden, Tool, Radiohead etc acknowledged their influences, but also did something unique and genuinely fresh with them.
    Can't say I've ever heard a Husker Du song that sounded ANYTHING like Nirvana and I have every one of their albums.

    But yeah, otherwise, fair points.
    "I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
  • Get_RightGet_Right Posts: 13,494
    Odin wrote:
    Metallica was bigger at the time. The Black Album sold more copies than Nevermind in the early 1990s (both albums were released the same year, 1991). It's only fair to compare sales pre-Cobain's death because we're talking about the biggest band in the world AT A PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME. And while Nirvana was playing mid-sized venues at the "peak" of their short-lived career, Metallica was selling out STADIUMS with Guns-N-Roses. Go to hell. You're probably some fucking punk-ass teenager who never experienced the early-1990s first-hand and are now trying to come off as some sort of expert. So you know where you can shove your lousy opinion. Right up your fucking ass.

    oh the kindness-feel the love-must be one of those metallica fans-very classy and articulate way to state your position.

    1000+ shows dating back to 1981, and still do close to 30 a year, Son, so get a grip. You are the one that sounds like a youngin there. Moron.

    Metallica, may have been selling more concert tickets at the time, but thats like saying the dead was bigger than Michael Jackson-which we all know is not true.

    Metallica had a larger fan base, and played larger shows, but there was NO BAND bigger than Nirvana in late 91-92.

    "Nevermind" was released the same year as "Metallica"
    but which band sold more? Try 10 million MORE units of Nevermind. Put aside your bias for half a second and look at the fatcs.
    which band was on the cover of time magazine? And which band did every person in the US know the name of? Nirvana.

    And James is the worst lead singer EVER. Unlistenable croak.

    EDIT and how old were you when Nevermind was released? I was already out of college.
  • LONGRDLONGRD Posts: 6,036
    Odin wrote:
    Finally someone says it. Metallica, Guns-N-Roses and even Aerosmith were more popular than Nirvana back then, at least from what I can remember. Nirvana was slightly more popular than Soundgarden, Alice in Chains and STP. It was a toss-up between Nirvana and Pearl Jam.
    toss up? Vs. sold 950,000 in the first five days of release and remained at #1 for 5 weeks. Nirvana never did that, or did they?

    Vitalogy sold 850,000 in the first 5 days as well.

    Pearl Jam were the biggest band in the world between early '93-'95. But I can't think of any bigger bands between '96-'98 before the whole boyband came out. Korn, maybe became the biggest band in '98???
    PJ- 04/29/2003.06/24,25,27,28,30/2008.10/27,28,30,31/2009
    EV- 08/09,10/2008.06/08,09/2009
  • Jeremy1012Jeremy1012 Posts: 7,170
    Odin wrote:
    Metallica was bigger at the time. The Black Album sold more copies than Nevermind in the early 1990s (both albums were released the same year, 1991). It's only fair to compare sales pre-Cobain's death because we're talking about the biggest band in the world AT A PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME. And while Nirvana was playing mid-sized venues at the "peak" of their short-lived career, Metallica was selling out STADIUMS. Go to hell. You're probably some fucking punk-ass teenager who never experienced the early-1990s first-hand and are now trying to come off as some sort of expert. So you know where you can shove your lousy opinion. Right up your fucking ass.
    Most of what you say is accurate but christ, what a way to say it. How old are you? Grow the fuck up.
    "I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
  • Get_RightGet_Right Posts: 13,494
    facepollution wrote:
    Yeah I agree, of course they weren't the only big band around at the time, but they were pretty damn huge, and their popularity was worldwide. I don't think there has really been a band since that has been quite so pivotal in changing the face of music as them. I know people will say bands like the Pixies and Husker Du were doing that sound before Nirvana, but there is no doubting Kurt's particular ear for a pop melody helped them break into the mainstream. They were far more accesible to mainstream music fans who weren't that into rock music, more so than AiC, Soundgarden and even Pearl Jam. Obviously this wasn't on the scale of the Beatles or Elvis, but in a day and age where music had become much more diverse, Nirvana still stuck out as a iconic band of the times. Of course this has been magnified by Kurt's death, but I still maintain you wouldn't have 12 year old kids walking around in Nirvana hoodies today, if it wasn't for the accessibility of the music.

    .

    Exactly. I did not say they were as groundbreaking as the media held them out to be, but, there is no doubt that Nirvana took the world by storm and was absolutely huge-for about a year and a half, maybe two.
  • facepollutionfacepollution Posts: 6,834
    Jeremy1012 wrote:
    Can't say I've ever heard a Husker Du song that sounded ANYTHING like Nirvana and I have every one of their albums.

    But yeah, otherwise, fair points.

    It was more the loud/quiet dynamic and their pop-sensibility, it's certainly an accusation I've seen thrown at Nirvana before.
  • Get_RightGet_Right Posts: 13,494
    Jeremy1012 wrote:
    Most of what you say is accurate but christ, what a way to say it. How old are you? Grow the fuck up.
    Exactly, and thanks.
  • OdinOdin Posts: 599
    Get_Right wrote:
    Metallica had a larger fan base, and played larger shows, but there was NO BAND bigger than Nirvana in late 91-92.

    Bullshit. The Black Album was released right before the school year in 1992 and more people were talking about that album, and its singles, than they were about fucking Nevermind. Metallica's songs from that album were (and still are) played on the radio a hell of a lot more. MTV showed both bands equal love from what I can remember......until after Cobain's death when they had a love affair with the band.

    "but which band sold more? Try 10 million MORE units of Nevermind."

    Once again, we are talking about the greatest band AT A PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME. Sales from over the past decade or so don't count.....because what the FUCK does that have to do with who was the most popular band IN 1992?!?!?!?
    which band was on the cover of time magazine?

    Who cares? Probably the week after Cobain's death, too....
    And which band did every person in the US know the name of? Nirvana.

    Yeah, and Metallica was some obscure band, right?
    And James is the worst lead singer EVER. Unlistenable croak.

    A hell of a lot better than Cobain's terrible, angsty voice.
  • fadafada Posts: 1,032
    Oasis were the biggest between 95 to 97
  • Jeremy1012Jeremy1012 Posts: 7,170
    facepollution wrote:
    It was more the loud/quiet dynamic and their pop-sensibility, it's certainly an accusation I've seen thrown at Nirvana before.
    Fair enough but then, by that understanding, EVERY punk influenced mainstream band of the 90s owed their living to Husker Du since they were pretty much the first band to truly marry punk credibility to punk sensibilities. I know most 90s bands owed something, whether directly or not, to Husker Du but, in terms of sheer musicality, Nirvana were a whole different ball game.

    But as I say, beyond that confusion, I agree with you :)
    "I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
  • facepollutionfacepollution Posts: 6,834
    Odin wrote:
    Who gives a fuck about what 12 year-old kids are wearing today? That is not relevant. In the early 1990s, more kids were wearing Metallica t-shirts, at least they were in Maryland where I grew up. I am not denying that Nirvana was a popular band. But the most popular in the world at the time? No fucking way.

    It's a simple example of their enduring popularity - I have NEVER seen a kid that young wearing an AiC or Soundgarden t shirt.

    I agree that Metallica were obviously hugely popular, but they didn't have the cross-over appeal that Nirvana had with non-rock fans. And before you ask, I'm old enough to have lived through those days, so I do have more than a vague idea what I'm talking about.
Sign In or Register to comment.