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???
Pearl Jam and Nirvana were about even, and one could make a solid argument for either band....until Cobain's death, when Nirvana officially became immortalized. Nevermind was selling hundreds of thousands of albums per week and In Utero also debuted at #1. Don't have initial sales numbers in front of me and I'm not going to waste my time looking them up.
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.
I won't dispute this point. But were they indisputably the biggest band in the world at that time like The Beatles or Elvis were? I'm sure Metallica would have something to say about that.
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
Yeah to be fair, I think you are right about the 90's mainstream punk bands, and I would imagine they would be the first to admit it too. I was just kind of preempting the usual argument I see.
Ps. I nearly pissed myself when I saw your signature line there!
Pearl Jam and Nirvana were about even, and one could make a solid argument for either band....until Cobain's death, when Nirvana officially became immortalized. Nevermind was selling hundreds of thousands of albums per week and In Utero also debuted at #1. Don't have initial sales numbers in front of me and I'm not going to waste my time looking them up.
I don't doubt In Utero or Incestide making #1 but I was saying did Nirvana break sales records like PJ did.
...and yeah you're right Cobain's death did immortalized Nirvana to the point that most people now see them as even inferior to Foo Fighters.
It's a simple example of their enduring popularity - I have NEVER seen a kid that young wearing an AiC or Soundgarden t shirt.
But that doesn't prove your point that, during the early-1990s, when these 12 year-old kids were not even a glimmer in their fathers' eyes, they were more than slightly more popular than their Seattle contemporaries.
I agree that Metallica were obviously hugely popular, but they didn't have the cross-over appeal that Nirvana had with non-rock fans.
I disagree. Songs like "Nothing Else Matters" and "Wherever I May Roam" had great cross-over appeal and were popular on both contemporary rock and pop stations, as well as on MTV. If you were to make that argument about Metallica's earlier albums, I would be inclined to agree, but the band made their self-titled album more "pop friendly" with great success.
I won't dispute this point. But were they indisputably the biggest band in the world at that time like The Beatles or Elvis were? I'm sure Metallica would have something to say about that.
It depends how you define 'biggest band' - biggest sellers? In that case Nickelback are one of the biggest bands right now, probably bigger than Radiohead, yet Radiohead have made a far bigger cultural impact than Nickelback ever will.
Pearl Jam and Nirvana were about even, and one could make a solid argument for either band....until Cobain's death, when Nirvana officially became immortalized. Nevermind was selling hundreds of thousands of albums per week and In Utero also debuted at #1. Don't have initial sales numbers in front of me and I'm not going to waste my time looking them up.
face it, Nirvana are more culturally significant, and this has nothing to do with tastes. I prefer Metallica. They have one album that I enjoy listening to which is certainly more than Nirvana. Fact is though, pretending Metallica were bigger or more important is just foolishness. Metallica were the favourites of a fringe section of music listeners. A large one admittedly but still a fringe. Nirvana appealed to everyone, misfit kids, jocks, the lot.
Claiming that Metallica were bigger based on record sales is just being sore. Sales don't mean shit. Cultural significance is key.
"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"
face it, Nirvana are more culturally significant, and this has nothing to do with tastes. I prefer Metallica. They have one album that I enjoy listening to which is certainly more than Nirvana. Fact is though, pretending Metallica were bigger or more important is just foolishness. Metallica were the favourites of a fringe section of music listeners. A large one admittedly but still a fringe. Nirvana appealed to everyone, misfit kids, jocks, the lot.
Claiming that Metallica were bigger based on record sales is just being sore. Sales don't mean shit. Cultural significance is key.
Apparently, Pearl Jam had taken over that role was the biggest band in the American sports community. Almost every article you read in ESPN, there's a reference of PJ in it
I think Nirvana's music gets lost with people after they turn 23 or 24. Just isn't as appealing anymore as it was when you're 16.
It depends how you define 'biggest band' - biggest sellers? In that case Nickelback are one of the biggest bands right now, probably bigger than Radiohead, yet Radiohead have made a far bigger cultural impact than Nickelback ever will.
Determinining the "world's biggest band" couldn't be quantified with absolute certainty unless we were to survey every music fan around the world.......so the best we can do is to look at album/single sales (at the time the band is said to be "the world's most popular"), concert sales, and other measures such as merchandise sales and their position on fan-voted countdowns.
not that I like them all that much, but Green Day seemed to be as big as they were in the 90's a couple years ago with American Idiot.
Supposidly, at the time, they were the biggest band in the world.
Toledo, Ohio (September 22, 1996), East Troy, Wisconsin (June 26, 1998), Noblesville, Indiana (August 17, 1998), Noblesville, Indiana (August 18, 2000), Cincinnati, Ohio (August 20, 2000), Columbus, Ohio (August 21, 2000), Nashville, Tennessee (April 18, 2003), Champaign, Illinois (April 23, 2003), Noblesville, Indiana (June 22, 2003), Chicago, Illinois (May 16, 2006), Chicago, Illinois (August 05, 2007), West Palm Beach, Florida (June 11, 2008), Tampa, Florida (June 12, 2008), Columbus, OH (May 06, 2010), Noblesville, Indiana (May 07, 2010), Wrigley Field (July 19, 2013), US Bank Arena (October 01, 2014), Lexington (April 26, 2016), Chicago Night 2 (August 20, 2018), Boston Night 1 (September 02, 2018), Nashville (September 16, 2022), St. Louis (September 18, 2022)
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?!?!?!?
Who cares? Probably the week after Cobain's death, too....
Yeah, and Metallica was some obscure band, right?
A hell of a lot better than Cobain's terrible, angsty voice.
I am only talking about the period following the release of Nevermind and up to the relase of in utero.
1. who was talking-the guys in your junior high? Nirvana became big AFTER the record so that metallica had more buzz BEFORE that time is moot.
2. So lets see the numbers. No way ANY metallica song was played on the radio more than teen spirit.
3. Yes MTV showed equal love, but Id bet Nirvana has more "plays" A LOT MORE.
4. I cant find a stat for just 1992-billboard charges for it and I aint paying.
5. No not after his death. Perhaps you are not a reader of popular news magazines and thats why it escaped you, but they were everywhere before the second record was released. Everywhere. Didnt see Dan Rather talking about how scores of kids across the nation were emulating Metallica did you?
6. I never said Metallica wasnt a huge band-but you cant deny that they were over shadowed by Nirvana during that time. How can you deny the explosion on the scene that was Nirvana? They knocked Michael Jackson off the charts. I dont know what world you live in.
7. Kurt's voice could really suck live. But on the records its not bad at all.
Determinining the "world's biggest band" couldn't be quantified with absolute certainty unless we were to survey every music fan around the world.......so the best we can do is to look at album/single sales (at the time the band is said to be "the world's most popular"), concert sales, and other measures such as merchandise sales and their position on fan-voted countdowns.
So then Nickelback are the biggest band around at the moment? Their last album has sold 7 million copies in America at the moment according to billboard, they get heavy rotation on the radio, they sell out arenas.
Cultural relevance is definitely the most important factor in my book. Nickelback are currently huge over here in the UK, mostly off the back of that hideous Rockstar song, I hear their songs far more often than a band like, say the Foo Fighters, so presumably Nickelback are a bigger band, right? Not so, Foo Fighters have sold out 2 nights at Wembley stadium this summer, shows that sold out in a matter of hours, that's 180,000 tickets sold. Nickelback wouldn't be able to pull that off here if they tried.
Why are you talking in the present tense when we are discussing who was the most popular band in 1991-92?
Fact is though, pretending Metallica were bigger or more important is just foolishness.
I'm not pretending. I'm looking at hard, statistical evidence (e.g. album sales from that period and concert attendance numbers per show, while you have provided nothing but anecdotal evidence to back up your argument)
Metallica were the favourites of a fringe section of music listeners.
In the 1980s, maybe.
Nirvana appealed to everyone, misfit kids, jocks, the lot.
The same could be said about Metallica.
Claiming that Metallica were bigger based on record sales is just being sore. Sales don't mean shit. Cultural significance is key.
And claiming that Nirvana was bigger without substantiating said claim with statistics is a baseless opinion not worthy of my time.
I won't dispute this point. But were they indisputably the biggest band in the world at that time like The Beatles or Elvis were? I'm sure Metallica would have something to say about that.
I dont think there are any bands that have had that level of popularity.
At least not in my lifetime.
Maybe Madonna or Michael Jackson. Or Wayne Newton. The cross over aint like it used to be and there are SO many different musical styles these days.
Choices were a bit more limited back in those days.
not that I like them all that much, but Green Day seemed to be as big as they were in the 90's a couple years ago with American Idiot.
Supposidly, at the time, they were the biggest band in the world.
Without a doubt, I believe American Idiot sold more than Dookie too. You have to applaud them, very few bands will have two incidences of massive popularity in their life-span, let alone ten years apart. I really do wonder how their next album will fare.
I dont think there are any bands that have had that level of popularity.
At least not in my lifetime.
Maybe Madonna or Michael Jackson. Or Wayne Newton. The cross over aint like it used to be and there are SO many different musical styles these days.
Choices were a bit more limited back in those days.
Elvis and the Beatles didn't have much competition.
just look at all the genre that came up after 1980.
Without a doubt, I believe American Idiot sold more than Dookie too. You have to applaud them, very few bands will have two incidences of massive popularity in their life-span, let alone ten years apart. I really do wonder how their next album will fare.
you can Green Day was the biggest band in the States after PJ too between, late '94-early '96 then again during their American Idiot success.
91-92
I believe the Grateful Dead were the top drawing act as far as concerts go.
And I think boyZ II men sold the most records (or something like that)
So neither was on the top of the heap in this regard. Both metallica and nirvana were huge. Both sold about the same amount of records during this time (Although I cant find the stats, id bet that nevermind sold more in 92, while metallica sold more in 91). Metallica was a bigger concert draw, but the media hyped up Nirvana and they had a much larger commerical presence.
1. who was talking-the guys in your junior high? Nirvana became big AFTER the record so that metallica had more buzz BEFORE that time is moot.
All anecdotal evidence is moot, including yours.
2. So lets see the numbers. No way ANY metallica song was played on the radio more than teen spirit.
Ever hear of "Enter Sandman"? Also, many contemporary rock radio stations, including the one where I live, devote entire segments to Metallica.....strictly Metallica.
3. Yes MTV showed equal love, but Id bet Nirvana has more "plays" A LOT MORE.
It's hard to say. And take away "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Metallica soared through the early-1990s with hit after hit, starting with "One" and then half of the Black album.
4. I cant find a stat for just 1992-billboard charges for it and I aint paying.
Keep searching.....
5. No not after his death. Perhaps you are not a reader of popular news magazines and thats why it escaped you, but they were everywhere before the second record was released. Everywhere. Didnt see Dan Rather talking about how scores of kids across the nation were emulating Metallica did you?
Actually, it was the whole "grunge" movement (which included other bands like Pearl Jam, Soundgarden and STP) which received more publicity than Nirvana as a sole band........until Kurt shot himself.
6. I never said Metallica wasnt a huge band-but you cant deny that they were over shadowed by Nirvana during that time. How can you deny the explosion on the scene that was Nirvana? They knocked Michael Jackson off the charts. I dont know what world you live in.
For ONE WEEK! Metallica's album was #1 for four consecutive weeks, right around the time that Nirvana supposedly "blew up."
According to rockonthenet.com, Metallica's Black album was declared TRIPLE PLATINUM in October of 1991, just TWO MONTHS after its release. Nirvana's Nevermind was released in September 1991, according to Wikipedia......which means that Metallica's sales were kicking everybody's ass right when Nirvana's highest-selling album came out!!!!!!!!
So then Nickelback are the biggest band around at the moment? Their last album has sold 7 million copies in America at the moment according to billboard, they get heavy rotation on the radio, they sell out arenas.
They were, at one time in this decade, the world's biggest band. Does that mean that they were good? No. Does that mean that I like them? No. But they were, for a small period of time (around when "Photograph" was released), arguably the biggest band, for whatever it's worth.
And claiming that Nirvana was bigger without substantiating said claim with statistics is a baseless opinion not worthy of my time.
I'm not saying that Nirvana were some underground band catering to the needs of cooler kids that didn't like Metallica, I am saying that Nirvana were even MORE commercial than the uber-commercial Metallica because they transcended teen groups.
As for statistics, despite my membership and activity on this board, I do have a life you know. We all know that Nirvana are the more well-known, era-defining band, whether they deserve it or not. People that suggest otherwise are not worth MY time.
And as I say, I am not much of a fan of either.
"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"
As for statistics, despite my membership and activity on this board, I do have a life you know.
Can you say COP-OUT?
We all know that Nirvana are the more well-known, era-defining band, whether they deserve it or not.
Once again, you are speaking in the present tense. My original claim was that Nirvana WAS not the indisputable "biggest band in the world" in the early 1990s......just as no band is currently the indisputable "biggest band in the world" according to the OP.
Ever hear of "Enter Sandman"? Also, many contemporary rock radio stations, including the one where I live, devote entire segments to Metallica.....strictly Metallica.
Unfortunately, I have heard it-once was enough=-see your response re anecdotal evidence-more of the same
It's hard to say. And take away "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Metallica soared through the early-1990s with hit after hit, starting with "One" and then half of the Black album.
ok take away the number one hit that made them famous and, in part, caused all the sitr-you win
Actually, it was the whole "grunge" movement (which included other bands like Pearl Jam, Soundgarden and STP) which received more publicity than Nirvana as a sole band........until Kurt shot himself.
Eventually yes. But in the beginning it was nirvana and only nirvana.
They were, at one time in this decade, the world's biggest band. Does that mean that they were good? No. Does that mean that I like them? No. But they were, for a small period of time (around when "Photograph" was released), arguably the biggest band, for whatever it's worth.
Ok this is getting nowhere, your argument for the term 'biggest band' is predominantly based on sales. Nirvana were far more culturally relevant than Metallica at the time. In 1992, Metallica were well established and gradually picked up a huge following over the years, Nirvana's rise to fame was rapid - partly bolstered by the general surge in popularity of 'alternative' rock, but predominantly by their cross-over appeal.
Ok this is getting nowhere, your argument for the term 'biggest band' is predominantly based on sales.
Album and concert sales are a more concrete way to determine popularity than a subjective measure like cultural relevance. And for the record, metal was culturally relevant at the time (whose t-shirt was Beavis, the representation of teenagers across the country, wearing again?), and Metallica was by far the most popular metal band at the time. They also had more crossover appeal than their contemporaries, as you should know. Not only that, but Metallica played a large role in transforming metal away from "glam metal" that was so popular during the 1980s......while Nirvana unfairly gets all the credit for single-handedly ending "hair metal" with one song. <rolls eyes>
This thing has strayed a bit from the original poster's intent, I think. While a Metallica vs. Nirvana debate does take me back to high school, the original question seems to focus more on the possibility of there being a genre-crossing, even genre-defining, band that was (a) exceedingly popular, (b) critically important, and (c) culturally relevant beyond the realm of music (differs from a in that c is not related necessarily to sales, but rather to the impact beyond record stores and media outlets - The Beatles outpace both Metallica and Nirvana in this category). The criteria listed is an off-the-cuff list, but makes sense to me. There are MANY bands that hit on 1 of those, but missed on one of the other 2. 99% of all bands do not meet 'c'. Bands/artists that have all three apply to, imho:
The Beatles
Bob Dylan
Elvis
Michael Jackson
Bruce Springsteen
Rolling Stones
Grateful Dead
Madonna
Bands that meet the 'b' level, but miss out on 'c', imho:
Radiohead
Wilco
The Clash
A Criteria:
Many, many bands
A + C
Britany Spears
Backstreet Boys/N'Sync
Led Zeppelin (revered now, but in their day, the critics HATED them)
Van Halen
A + B
Nirvana
Pearl Jam
Pink Floyd
The Who
U2
The Police
Metallica
Again this is just my opinion and I haven't put much thought into it...what criteria did miss? Did I get any of the bands wrong in your opinion? Just askin'...
Comments
Pearl Jam and Nirvana were about even, and one could make a solid argument for either band....until Cobain's death, when Nirvana officially became immortalized. Nevermind was selling hundreds of thousands of albums per week and In Utero also debuted at #1. Don't have initial sales numbers in front of me and I'm not going to waste my time looking them up.
I won't dispute this point. But were they indisputably the biggest band in the world at that time like The Beatles or Elvis were? I'm sure Metallica would have something to say about that.
really now? was that a reply to my post?
so Oasis did live up to their moniker as "the biggest in the world since the Beatles" ...only last two years though.
EV- 08/09,10/2008.06/08,09/2009
Yeah to be fair, I think you are right about the 90's mainstream punk bands, and I would imagine they would be the first to admit it too. I was just kind of preempting the usual argument I see.
Ps. I nearly pissed myself when I saw your signature line there!
...and yeah you're right Cobain's death did immortalized Nirvana to the point that most people now see them as even inferior to Foo Fighters.
EV- 08/09,10/2008.06/08,09/2009
But that doesn't prove your point that, during the early-1990s, when these 12 year-old kids were not even a glimmer in their fathers' eyes, they were more than slightly more popular than their Seattle contemporaries.
I disagree. Songs like "Nothing Else Matters" and "Wherever I May Roam" had great cross-over appeal and were popular on both contemporary rock and pop stations, as well as on MTV. If you were to make that argument about Metallica's earlier albums, I would be inclined to agree, but the band made their self-titled album more "pop friendly" with great success.
It depends how you define 'biggest band' - biggest sellers? In that case Nickelback are one of the biggest bands right now, probably bigger than Radiohead, yet Radiohead have made a far bigger cultural impact than Nickelback ever will.
Claiming that Metallica were bigger based on record sales is just being sore. Sales don't mean shit. Cultural significance is key.
I think Nirvana's music gets lost with people after they turn 23 or 24. Just isn't as appealing anymore as it was when you're 16.
EV- 08/09,10/2008.06/08,09/2009
Determinining the "world's biggest band" couldn't be quantified with absolute certainty unless we were to survey every music fan around the world.......so the best we can do is to look at album/single sales (at the time the band is said to be "the world's most popular"), concert sales, and other measures such as merchandise sales and their position on fan-voted countdowns.
Supposidly, at the time, they were the biggest band in the world.
Toledo, Ohio (September 22, 1996), East Troy, Wisconsin (June 26, 1998), Noblesville, Indiana (August 17, 1998), Noblesville, Indiana (August 18, 2000), Cincinnati, Ohio (August 20, 2000), Columbus, Ohio (August 21, 2000), Nashville, Tennessee (April 18, 2003), Champaign, Illinois (April 23, 2003), Noblesville, Indiana (June 22, 2003), Chicago, Illinois (May 16, 2006), Chicago, Illinois (August 05, 2007), West Palm Beach, Florida (June 11, 2008), Tampa, Florida (June 12, 2008), Columbus, OH (May 06, 2010), Noblesville, Indiana (May 07, 2010), Wrigley Field (July 19, 2013), US Bank Arena (October 01, 2014), Lexington (April 26, 2016), Chicago Night 2 (August 20, 2018), Boston Night 1 (September 02, 2018), Nashville (September 16, 2022), St. Louis (September 18, 2022)
I am only talking about the period following the release of Nevermind and up to the relase of in utero.
1. who was talking-the guys in your junior high? Nirvana became big AFTER the record so that metallica had more buzz BEFORE that time is moot.
2. So lets see the numbers. No way ANY metallica song was played on the radio more than teen spirit.
3. Yes MTV showed equal love, but Id bet Nirvana has more "plays" A LOT MORE.
4. I cant find a stat for just 1992-billboard charges for it and I aint paying.
5. No not after his death. Perhaps you are not a reader of popular news magazines and thats why it escaped you, but they were everywhere before the second record was released. Everywhere. Didnt see Dan Rather talking about how scores of kids across the nation were emulating Metallica did you?
6. I never said Metallica wasnt a huge band-but you cant deny that they were over shadowed by Nirvana during that time. How can you deny the explosion on the scene that was Nirvana? They knocked Michael Jackson off the charts. I dont know what world you live in.
7. Kurt's voice could really suck live. But on the records its not bad at all.
8. You conveniently didnt answer my question.
So then Nickelback are the biggest band around at the moment? Their last album has sold 7 million copies in America at the moment according to billboard, they get heavy rotation on the radio, they sell out arenas.
Cultural relevance is definitely the most important factor in my book. Nickelback are currently huge over here in the UK, mostly off the back of that hideous Rockstar song, I hear their songs far more often than a band like, say the Foo Fighters, so presumably Nickelback are a bigger band, right? Not so, Foo Fighters have sold out 2 nights at Wembley stadium this summer, shows that sold out in a matter of hours, that's 180,000 tickets sold. Nickelback wouldn't be able to pull that off here if they tried.
Why are you talking in the present tense when we are discussing who was the most popular band in 1991-92?
I'm not pretending. I'm looking at hard, statistical evidence (e.g. album sales from that period and concert attendance numbers per show, while you have provided nothing but anecdotal evidence to back up your argument)
In the 1980s, maybe.
The same could be said about Metallica.
And claiming that Nirvana was bigger without substantiating said claim with statistics is a baseless opinion not worthy of my time.
I dont think there are any bands that have had that level of popularity.
At least not in my lifetime.
Maybe Madonna or Michael Jackson. Or Wayne Newton. The cross over aint like it used to be and there are SO many different musical styles these days.
Choices were a bit more limited back in those days.
Without a doubt, I believe American Idiot sold more than Dookie too. You have to applaud them, very few bands will have two incidences of massive popularity in their life-span, let alone ten years apart. I really do wonder how their next album will fare.
just look at all the genre that came up after 1980.
EV- 08/09,10/2008.06/08,09/2009
EV- 08/09,10/2008.06/08,09/2009
I believe the Grateful Dead were the top drawing act as far as concerts go.
And I think boyZ II men sold the most records (or something like that)
So neither was on the top of the heap in this regard. Both metallica and nirvana were huge. Both sold about the same amount of records during this time (Although I cant find the stats, id bet that nevermind sold more in 92, while metallica sold more in 91). Metallica was a bigger concert draw, but the media hyped up Nirvana and they had a much larger commerical presence.
No correct answer here, Im afraid.
All anecdotal evidence is moot, including yours.
Ever hear of "Enter Sandman"? Also, many contemporary rock radio stations, including the one where I live, devote entire segments to Metallica.....strictly Metallica.
It's hard to say. And take away "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Metallica soared through the early-1990s with hit after hit, starting with "One" and then half of the Black album.
Keep searching.....
Actually, it was the whole "grunge" movement (which included other bands like Pearl Jam, Soundgarden and STP) which received more publicity than Nirvana as a sole band........until Kurt shot himself.
For ONE WEEK! Metallica's album was #1 for four consecutive weeks, right around the time that Nirvana supposedly "blew up."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number-one_albums_of_1991_%28U.S.%29
According to rockonthenet.com, Metallica's Black album was declared TRIPLE PLATINUM in October of 1991, just TWO MONTHS after its release. Nirvana's Nevermind was released in September 1991, according to Wikipedia......which means that Metallica's sales were kicking everybody's ass right when Nirvana's highest-selling album came out!!!!!!!!
It took Nirvana twice as long to go triple platinum:
http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/bio/index.jsp?pid=5316
Ahhhhh, the wonders of audio engineering.
I just did. Let's hope this BBS doesn't automatically sign me out this time.
They were, at one time in this decade, the world's biggest band. Does that mean that they were good? No. Does that mean that I like them? No. But they were, for a small period of time (around when "Photograph" was released), arguably the biggest band, for whatever it's worth.
As for statistics, despite my membership and activity on this board, I do have a life you know. We all know that Nirvana are the more well-known, era-defining band, whether they deserve it or not. People that suggest otherwise are not worth MY time.
And as I say, I am not much of a fan of either.
Can you say COP-OUT?
Once again, you are speaking in the present tense. My original claim was that Nirvana WAS not the indisputable "biggest band in the world" in the early 1990s......just as no band is currently the indisputable "biggest band in the world" according to the OP.
ok take away the number one hit that made them famous and, in part, caused all the sitr-you win
nah
Eventually yes. But in the beginning it was nirvana and only nirvana.
Redundantly, Nevermind gained steam in 1992. But your right, Metallica was on top of the charts for two weeks longer than Nevermind.
No dispute there.
Ok this is getting nowhere, your argument for the term 'biggest band' is predominantly based on sales. Nirvana were far more culturally relevant than Metallica at the time. In 1992, Metallica were well established and gradually picked up a huge following over the years, Nirvana's rise to fame was rapid - partly bolstered by the general surge in popularity of 'alternative' rock, but predominantly by their cross-over appeal.
Album and concert sales are a more concrete way to determine popularity than a subjective measure like cultural relevance. And for the record, metal was culturally relevant at the time (whose t-shirt was Beavis, the representation of teenagers across the country, wearing again?), and Metallica was by far the most popular metal band at the time. They also had more crossover appeal than their contemporaries, as you should know. Not only that, but Metallica played a large role in transforming metal away from "glam metal" that was so popular during the 1980s......while Nirvana unfairly gets all the credit for single-handedly ending "hair metal" with one song. <rolls eyes>
The Beatles
Bob Dylan
Elvis
Michael Jackson
Bruce Springsteen
Rolling Stones
Grateful Dead
Madonna
Bands that meet the 'b' level, but miss out on 'c', imho:
Radiohead
Wilco
The Clash
A Criteria:
Many, many bands
A + C
Britany Spears
Backstreet Boys/N'Sync
Led Zeppelin (revered now, but in their day, the critics HATED them)
Van Halen
A + B
Nirvana
Pearl Jam
Pink Floyd
The Who
U2
The Police
Metallica
Again this is just my opinion and I haven't put much thought into it...what criteria did miss? Did I get any of the bands wrong in your opinion? Just askin'...