Another point that is missing here is geography. Someone mention Oasis earlier. In my part of the world, Oasis was a known entity, but was not nearly as popular as Dave Matthews Band, or even Hootie and the Blowfish. Metallica was far more popular than Nirvana, in fact, both Pearl Jam and Alice in Chains were more popular than Nirvana. So, I think that where you are and what media outlets were/are available plays a role, too.
Album and concert sales are a more concrete way to determine popularity than a subjective measure like cultural relevance.
See my Nickelback/Foo Fighters example - sales are just half the story. You're essentially saying that because you can't quantify cultural relevance that it isn't so important.
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?)
I gotta say I think it's pretty funny that that is your idea of cultural relvance! Was Beavis a fair representation of a Metallica fan?
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."
Like I said, Metallica's popularity was hardly meteoric, I've no doubt they played a part in ending the reign of hair metal, but it was Nirvana's short sharp kick to the guts that finished it off - and that which set off a massive change in the landscape of alternative rock music, that is still very much evident today.
Another point that is missing here is geography. Someone mention Oasis earlier. In my part of the world, Oasis was a known entity, but was not nearly as popular as Dave Matthews Band, or even Hootie and the Blowfish. Metallica was far more popular than Nirvana, in fact, both Pearl Jam and Alice in Chains were more popular than Nirvana. So, I think that where you are and what media outlets were/are available plays a role, too.
That's a damn good point......perhaps the best I've read other than my own.
Yeah, cause this shit is just THAT fucking important, isn't it?
Fucking hell.
It's a discussion board. if you don't like discussion, cry me a river.
"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"
You're essentially saying that because you can't quantify cultural relevance that it isn't so important.
I'm saying that it's hard to determine that Nirvana (not the whole grunge movement, which included other popular bands, but Nirvana alone) were more culturally relevant than Metallica.
I gotta say I think it's pretty funny that that is your idea of cultural relvance!
It's about as fair as claiming that Nirvana were more culturally relevant because they appeared on a magazine cover for one week. The Arcade Fire also appeared on the cover of Time Magazine. Does that make them the world's most popular band? The most "culturally relevant"? Beavis represented teenagers everywhere who sported Metallica t-shirts in the first half of the 1990s.
Like I said, Metallica's popularity was hardly meteoric, I've no doubt they played a part in ending the reign of hair metal, but it was Nirvana's short sharp kick to the guts that finished it off - and that which set off a massive change in the landscape of alternative rock music, that is still very much evident today.
I will say that Nirvana has had a slightly greater INFLUENCE on mainstream rock music, for better or worse. But that is all in the aftermath. It doesn't make them the most popular band in the early-1990s because they weren't. They were arguably the most popular band of the "grunge" wave. Metallica was the most popular band overall.
I'm saying that it's hard to determine that Nirvana (not the whole grunge movement, which included other popular bands, but Nirvana alone) were more culturally relevant than Metallica.
They were more culturally relevant because they were NEW. Metallica had been around a while by then, they weren't so much exciting, as they were just bringing out more commercial music that sold a shit load, in the same way that Nickelback sells a shit load now. Nirvana were a revelation to the mainstream at that time - they were something different to what most people had heard and that got people talking, fans and critics alike.
It's about as fair as claiming that Nirvana were more culturally relevant because they appeared on a magazine cover for one week. The Arcade Fire also appeared on the cover of Time Magazine. Does that make them the world's most popular band? The most "culturally relevant"? Beavis represented teenagers everywhere who sported Metallica t-shirts in the first half of the 1990s.
Beavis was a deliberate stereotype of a teenage knuckle-head metal fan - that's not cultural relevance; a cartoon of a stereotypical goth fan would probably depict them all in black wearing a Marilyn Manson t-shirt. Cultural relevance extends far beyond a magazine cover.
I will say that Nirvana has had a slightly greater INFLUENCE on mainstream rock music, for better or worse. But that is all in the aftermath. It doesn't make them the most popular band in the early-1990s because they weren't. They were arguably the most popular band of the "grunge" wave. Metallica was the most popular band overall.
Well perhaps then this does go down to geography, because when the 'grunge' wave hit the UK music scene, it was certainly the most talked about music in magazines, Metallica were obviously a huge presence, but 'grunge', and Nirvana in particular were a far bigger deal.
Ooooh, look who's acting like an immature 12 year-old NOW.
Take your ball and go home, Jeremy.
some people have more important things to think about than getting pissy over which band was more famous cause we liked one better than the other. your inability to accept that you are not the absolute authority on everything is what sets you apart as one of the more objectionable users of this message board. If that's immaturity, sign me up to a fucking creche.
"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"
Arguably, Nickelback could be seen as one of the biggest bands in the world
Really? If so, bring the asteroid collision on!
Nirvana had the hugest cross-over appeal of any band amongst my generation. If PearlJam had their own little recess in the wall, then Nirvana occupied the floor space, the bubblegummers had the stairs because we're talking first floor. On the ground floor however.....
I know, it's shocking! But the fact that any rock album these days can sell 7 million copies is pretty mad, let alone a Nickelback album, and pretty much proves that cross-over appeal is the key to huge success.
They were more culturally relevant because they were NEW. Metallica had been around a while by then, they weren't so much exciting, as they were just bringing out more commercial music that sold a shit load, in the same way that Nickelback sells a shit load now. Nirvana were a revelation to the mainstream at that time - they were something different to what most people had heard and that got people talking, fans and critics alike.
Metallica, while not exactly "new on the scene" when they released the single "One" and then the Black album, had redefined (or, in my opinion, "watered-down") their sound and were consequently growing in popularity. All of a sudden, teenagers all over were claiming Metallica as their favourite band. Geography may have played a role in this, as wcsmith mentioned earlier, but where I lived Metallica had more followers. That's not to say that Nirvana didn't have any. Metallica just appeared to have more, and sales statistics indicate that this was the case not just in my region, but all over.
Well perhaps then this does go down to geography, because when the 'grunge' wave hit the UK music scene, it was certainly the most talked about music in magazines, Metallica were obviously a huge presence, but 'grunge', and Nirvana in particular were a far bigger deal.
There were other "grunge" bands, like PJ whom I'd contend were equally as important, and therefore Nirvana can't take complete credit for the publicity which "grunge" received. The bottom line is, Nirvana was not the "it" band of the early 1990s. They were only ONE of the "it" bands, and thus do not belong in the same class as The Beatles or Elvis. And Metallica, Pearl Jam, etc. aren't in the same class either, for the very same reason.
some people have more important things to think about than getting pissy over which band was more famous cause we liked one better than the other.
That is why there are several people engaged in this discussion, eh?
your inability to accept that you are not the absolute authority on everything is what sets you apart as one of the more objectionable users of this message board.
No, my ability to think for myself instead of letting the critics and other fans dictate who were the better or more popular bands is what sets me apart from most users on this forum.
That is why there are several people engaged in this discussion, eh?
No, my ability to think for myself instead of letting the media and other fans tell me who were the better or more popular bands is what sets me apart from most users on this forum.
I never said discussion was bad, I said getting worked up and becoming insulting, as you have in this thread, because someone disagrees with you is ludicrous. And who in the hell in the media is telling you that metallica aren't or were not popular? Get over yourself. You aren't a tenth as profound or unusual as you would like to think with your opinions and your tastes in music, whether they encompass some good hip-hop or not, do not give you carte blanche to be a dick to everyone who disagrees with you. Excuse me if I don't take the word of a Sevendust fan as gospel. Perhaps I'll use a little initiative and my own experiences here before I accept your cutting-edge judgments on modern music.
"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"
There were other "grunge" bands, like PJ whom I'd contend were equally as important, and therefore Nirvana can't take complete credit for the publicity which "grunge" received. The bottom line is, Nirvana was not the "it" band of the early 1990s. They were only ONE of the "it" bands, and thus do not belong in the same class as The Beatles or Elvis. And Metallica, Pearl Jam, etc. aren't in the same class either, for the very same reason.
Dude they were the band that kick started that particular revolution. Were they the best band? No. Were they the first band to cross-over to the mainstream? Yes. The Beatles and Elvis comparison is null and void, the musical landscape was completely different back then - there was far less choice in music. Comparatively, Nirvana made the biggest impact at the time.
No, my ability to think for myself instead of letting the critics and other fans dictate who were the better or more popular bands is what sets me apart from most users on this forum.
No what sets you apart is your quite obvious boner for Metallica I'm by no means the biggest Nirvana fan, but having lived through that scene, I know who was deemed 'the biggest band' at the time - at least on these shores anyway........
I never said discussion was bad, I said getting worked up and becoming insulting, as you have in this thread, because someone disagrees with you is ludicrous.
You were getting your panties all in a bunch because you refused to substantiate your claims, noting that you "didn't have the time" to do some research. Well, apparently you do have the time to discuss in length my credibility, so what's your NEW excuse for not being able to bring anything to the table other than anecdotal evidence, ad hominem attacks, and pointless bullshit?
And who in the hell in the media is telling you that metallica aren't or were not popular?
Straw man. The media, including MTV which I remember had "Smells Like Teen Spirit" as the #1 song of all-time, are responsible for Nirvana's overinflated popularity after Cobain's death. Even Michael Jackson, a person for whom I have little respect, had better, more popular, and even more revolutionary videos, as did Madonna.
Get over yourself. You aren't a tenth as profound or unusual as you would like to think with your opinions and your tastes in music, whether they encompass some good hip-hop or not, do not give you carte blanche to be a dick to everyone who disagrees with you. Excuse me if I don't take the word of a Sevendust fan as gospel. Perhaps I'll use a little initiative and my own experiences here before I accept your cutting-edge judgments on modern music.
And do you think I give a shit about YOUR opinions? Go fuck yourself. Your refined tastes and $3.50 will be able to buy you a gallon of gas in the United States. Furthermore, this topic is about popularity, not about which band is better. So that last ad hominem attack is fucking pointless, along with everything else you've written on this thread.
Guns N'Roses were more popular than Metallica in the early 90's whatever one feels about them, as far as rock music popularity for the period goes they're the only contenders with Nirvana. Metallica fans always seemed to have their own clique, you could mostly spot them, whereas you'll find G n'R and Nevermind amongst the record collections of people with more varied tastes, people who wouldn't necessarily mix together socially.
As has been said, geographically the stakes change, though when you consider the impact of Nirvana is based on one record it does seem to eclipse Metallica and suggest worldwide they had the biggest impact.
Like the perseverance of Odin, you just love Metallica, but I've agreed with what Jeremy has posted................what does my opinion matter anyway? just gauged on my experience of the time......amusing thread though!
Dude they were the band that kick started that particular revolution.
Were they the first band to cross-over to the mainstream? Yes.
Actually, Ten (which was released before Nevermind) was just as important, and became successful comercially around the same time as Nevermind (in the first half of 1992).
The Beatles and Elvis comparison is null and void, the musical landscape was completely different back then - there was far less choice in music. Comparatively, Nirvana made the biggest impact at the time.
If you want to take that point further, than today's most popular band (whoever that may be) also deserves as much recognition as The Beatles and Elvis because there's a HELL of a lot more competition today than there were in the 1990s, before the days of myspace, online radio, and the downfall of major labels.
No what sets you apart is your quite obvious boner for Metallica I'm by no means the biggest Nirvana fan, but having lived through that scene, I know who was deemed 'the biggest band' at the time - at least on these shores anyway........
Though I am a big fan of Metallica's, I have tried not to let that impair my objectivity in this debate.
You were getting your panties all in a bunch because you refused to substantiate your claims, noting that you "didn't have the time" to do some research. Well, apparently you do have the time to discuss in length my credibility, so what's your NEW excuse for not being able to bring anything to the table other than anecdotal evidence, ad hominem attacks, and pointless bullshit?
Straw man. The media, including MTV which I remember had "Smells Like Teen Spirit" as the #1 song of all-time, are responsible for Nirvana's overinflated popularity after Cobain's death. Even Michael Jackson, a person for whom I have little respect, had better, more popular, and even more revolutionary videos, as did Madonna.
And do you think I give a shit about YOUR opinions? Go fuck yourself. Your refined tastes and $3.50 will be able to buy you a gallon of gas in the United States. Furthermore, this topic is about popularity, not about which band is better. So that last ad hominem attack is fucking pointless, along with everything else you've written on this thread.
Wow, you sure know your little latin phrase there. Having been subjected to "ad hominem" twice now, I can barely contain how impressed I am. My personal attack seems so silly having directed it at a guy who has studied critical thinking long and hard :rolleyes: And we're talking attacks here? I seem to remember you telling Get Right "you know where you can shove your lousy opinion. Right up your fucking ass."
A really balanced and intelligent argument you presented there Odin, I am one step closer to giving a shit about your opinions. As for my refined tastes, you're damn fucking right I listen to better music than you do but this thread isn't about that, it's about the bigger band and I, and every other sentient being who has posted in this thread realises that record sales and how many t-shirts sold has nothing to do with how big a band was. Pearl Jam sold more records than Nirvana. Nirvana were still THE band of the time. I have yet to see one relevant argument to the contrary from you that didn't involve "at least, they sure were the biggest in Maryland when I was a nuthin' but a little 'un"
How the fuck did my tastes even come into this? I don't like Metallica OR Nirvana. Any moron with enough brain cells to string together a though process can tell you that Nirvana were the band of the 90s.
"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"
Guns N'Roses were more popular than Metallica in the early 90's whatever one feels about them, as far as rock music popularity for the period goes they're the only contenders with Nirvana. Metallica fans always seemed to have their own clique, you could mostly spot them, whereas you'll find G n'R and Nevermind amongst the record collections of people with more varied tastes, people who wouldn't necessarily mix together socially.
I can almost guarantee you that more casual rock listeners have the Black album, Master of Puppets and And Justice For All than any GnR album and can name more of Metallica's songs. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of casual rock listeners could only name one song from Nirvana and GnR: Smells Like Teen Spirit and Welcome to the Jungle.
I can almost guarantee you that more casual rock listeners have the Black album, Master of Puppets and And Justice For All than any GnR album and can name more of Metallica's songs. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of casual rock listeners could only name one song from Nirvana and GnR: Smells Like Teen Spirit and Welcome to the Jungle.
I think more people have Appetite or Nevermind than MOP. Black Album, I MAY be able to give you that one.
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
SLC 11/2/95, Park City 6/21/98, Boise 11/3/00, Seattle 12/9/02, Vancouver 5/30/03, Gorge 9/1/05, Vancouver 9/2/05, Gorge 7/22/06, Gorge 7/23/06, Camden I 6/19/08, MSG I 6/24/08, MSG II 6/25/08, Hartford 6/27/08, Mansfield II 6/30/08; Eddie Albany 6/8/09, 6/9/09; Philly 10/30/09, 10/31/09; Boston 5/17/10
I thought the world...Turns out the world thought me
Actually, Ten (which was released before Nevermind) was just as important, and became successful comercially around the same time as Nevermind (in the first half of 1992).
Actually there was a fair few months seperating their success. Nirvana's success was far more rapid, and it's not a pissing contest anyway - it's a simple case that Nirvana's huge populairty opened up the gates for Pearl Jam and the others.
If you want to take that point further, than today's most popular band (whoever that may be) also deserves as much recognition as The Beatles and Elvis because there's a HELL of a lot more competition today than there were in the 1990s, before the days of myspace, online radio, and the downfall of major labels.
Not if they aren't culturally relevant, as in the case of Nickelback who just sell bland vanilla rock.
Wow, you sure know your little latin phrase there. Having been subjected to "ad hominem" twice now, I can barely contain how impressed I am. My personal attack seems so silly having directed it at a guy who has studied critical thinking long and hard :rolleyes: And we're talking attacks here? I seem to remember you telling Get Right "you know where you can shove your lousy opinion. Right up your fucking ass."
ad hominem = attack against the individual and his credibility, not the argument itself.
E.g.: Jeremy1012 takes Odin's opinion regarding the popularity of bands in the 1990s with a grain of salt because he doesn't like the same bands as Odin.
As for my refined tastes, you're damn fucking right I listen to better music than you do
<bows down to the self-proclaimed expert on all things music>
BLOW IT OUT YOUR ASS, MOTHERFUCKER!!!!!!!!!!!
but this thread isn't about that, it's about the bigger band
...then there shouldn't be any need for cheap ad hominem jabs. Your opinion should be able to stand on its own two feet. But wait. You're too busy to conduct some God damn research to defend your position (or so you claim), so instead you instead resort to boasting about your relatively "superior" musical tastes.
and I, and every other sentient being who has posted in this thread realises that record sales and how many t-shirts sold has nothing to do with how big a band was.
Really? Then what does constitute popularity in your mind? How many elitists like yourself form circle jerks around the band's albums? It's a little known fact that before the age of downloads, everyone bought records... then tapes... and then CDs. That to me carries more weight than the number of people wore "grungy" flannel shirts in the early-1990s.
Pearl Jam sold more records than Nirvana.
Of course they have. They've had a longer career.
Nirvana were still THE band of the time. I have yet to see one relevant argument to the contrary from you
I can almost guarantee you that more casual rock listeners have the Black album, Master of Puppets and And Justice For All than any GnR album and can name more of Metallica's songs. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of casual rock listeners could only name one song from Nirvana and GnR: Smells Like Teen Spirit and Welcome to the Jungle.
If it's a rock audience then maybe so, but within the popular mainstream Metallica have only the two ot three hit singles from the Black album that would be suitable for daytime standard radio and that's pushing it, maybe only Nothing Else Matters would occasionally get a spin. Talking UKradio.
Actually there was a fair few months seperating their success.
...which, on the rock music timeline, amounts to a split-second.
Nirvana's success was far more rapid
Obviously, Nirvana's success was more rapid than Metallica's because Metallica was already popular......and then they grew even larger to became rock icons all around the world.
it's a simple case that Nirvana's huge populairty opened up the gates for Pearl Jam and the others.
Pearl Jam's rise was concurrent with Nirvana's, and that is why they, not Nirvana, were considered "the most popular rock & roll band of the 1990s" (source: Wikipedia's Pearl Jam article).
Hmmm, that looks like Eddie Vedder, not Kurt Cobain on the cover of Time Magazine. If Nirvana were truly THE sole face of grunge, you would think that it would be a photo of them (or one of their members) on the cover, no?
Not if they aren't culturally relevant, as in the case of Nickelback who just sell bland vanilla rock.
But Metallica WAS culturally relevant back then. Metal's popularity post-Sabbath peaked with Metallica.
If it's a rock audience then maybe so, but within the popular mainstream Metallica have only the two ot three hit singles from the Black album that would be suitable for daytime standard radio and that's pushing it, maybe only Nothing Else Matters would occasionally get a spin. Talking UKradio.
And what about Nirvana and GnR? The only Nirvana and GnR songs that I ever hear on standard radio are the ones I mentioned in my earlier response.
Pearl Jam sold more records than Nirvana WHILE Nirvana were still around.
FACT.
And yet, Nirvana were a bigger band. They were the band that held the social consciousness. They were the band that managed to create such an impact that they are still the band that people talk about today when mentioning the 90s. Like I said, record sales don't mean anything.
What the fuck does it have to do with my elitist views? How exactly are my views elitist anyway you ignorant, unintelligent prick? I prefer Metallica to Nirvana. I stated that several pages ago. I severely dislike Nirvana, I'm just not moronic enough to assume that because I prefer Metallica, they were the bigger band.
I am also well aware what an ad hominem is. I would think, however, that the attacks I have made against you have a level of digression which is entirely appropriate and proportional to how much you need to be taken down a peg or two. Your posts here are indicative of a complete lack of reasoning skills, not to mention logic and, most important of all, intelligence. I have resorted to insults and bad language in order to communicate with you in the language that you understand best. "Blow that out your ass"? How old are you? Seriously.
Consider my contributions here to be at an end. Not because I have nothing more to say but because I fear that, if I say it, I will be risking an unnecessary banning and further waste of my time. See you in the next thread you fill with your banal, meandering arguments and asinine insults.
"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"
And yet, Nirvana were a bigger band. They were the band that held the social consciousness. They were the band that managed to create such an impact that they are still the band that people talk about today when mentioning the 90s.
From Wikipedia: "Pearl Jam has outlasted many of its contemporaries from the alternative rock breakthrough of the early 1990s, and is considered one of the most influential bands of the decade, and the most popular American rock & roll band of the '90s".
I am also well aware what an ad hominem is. I would think, however, that the attacks I have made against you have a level of digression which is entirely appropriate and proportional to how much you need to be taken down a peg or two.
Actually, it's totally irrelevant to the discussion and therefore lowers YOUR credibility.
Your posts here are indicative of a complete lack of reason skills, not to mention logic and, most important of all, intelligence.
It is YOUR opinion, which you have failed to back up, that is lacking in these areas. Either support your claim with substance or shut the fuck up. Calling me a "ignorant, unintelligent prick" in lieu of well-researched arguments is a waste of my precious fucking time.
Comments
See my Nickelback/Foo Fighters example - sales are just half the story. You're essentially saying that because you can't quantify cultural relevance that it isn't so important.
I gotta say I think it's pretty funny that that is your idea of cultural relvance! Was Beavis a fair representation of a Metallica fan?
Like I said, Metallica's popularity was hardly meteoric, I've no doubt they played a part in ending the reign of hair metal, but it was Nirvana's short sharp kick to the guts that finished it off - and that which set off a massive change in the landscape of alternative rock music, that is still very much evident today.
That's a damn good point......perhaps the best I've read other than my own.
Fucking hell.
It's a discussion board. if you don't like discussion, cry me a river.
I'm saying that it's hard to determine that Nirvana (not the whole grunge movement, which included other popular bands, but Nirvana alone) were more culturally relevant than Metallica.
It's about as fair as claiming that Nirvana were more culturally relevant because they appeared on a magazine cover for one week. The Arcade Fire also appeared on the cover of Time Magazine. Does that make them the world's most popular band? The most "culturally relevant"? Beavis represented teenagers everywhere who sported Metallica t-shirts in the first half of the 1990s.
I will say that Nirvana has had a slightly greater INFLUENCE on mainstream rock music, for better or worse. But that is all in the aftermath. It doesn't make them the most popular band in the early-1990s because they weren't. They were arguably the most popular band of the "grunge" wave. Metallica was the most popular band overall.
Ooooh, look who's acting like an immature 12 year-old NOW.
Take your ball and go home, Jeremy.
They were more culturally relevant because they were NEW. Metallica had been around a while by then, they weren't so much exciting, as they were just bringing out more commercial music that sold a shit load, in the same way that Nickelback sells a shit load now. Nirvana were a revelation to the mainstream at that time - they were something different to what most people had heard and that got people talking, fans and critics alike.
Beavis was a deliberate stereotype of a teenage knuckle-head metal fan - that's not cultural relevance; a cartoon of a stereotypical goth fan would probably depict them all in black wearing a Marilyn Manson t-shirt. Cultural relevance extends far beyond a magazine cover.
Well perhaps then this does go down to geography, because when the 'grunge' wave hit the UK music scene, it was certainly the most talked about music in magazines, Metallica were obviously a huge presence, but 'grunge', and Nirvana in particular were a far bigger deal.
Nirvana had the hugest cross-over appeal of any band amongst my generation. If PearlJam had their own little recess in the wall, then Nirvana occupied the floor space, the bubblegummers had the stairs because we're talking first floor. On the ground floor however.....
I know, it's shocking! But the fact that any rock album these days can sell 7 million copies is pretty mad, let alone a Nickelback album, and pretty much proves that cross-over appeal is the key to huge success.
Metallica, while not exactly "new on the scene" when they released the single "One" and then the Black album, had redefined (or, in my opinion, "watered-down") their sound and were consequently growing in popularity. All of a sudden, teenagers all over were claiming Metallica as their favourite band. Geography may have played a role in this, as wcsmith mentioned earlier, but where I lived Metallica had more followers. That's not to say that Nirvana didn't have any. Metallica just appeared to have more, and sales statistics indicate that this was the case not just in my region, but all over.
There were other "grunge" bands, like PJ whom I'd contend were equally as important, and therefore Nirvana can't take complete credit for the publicity which "grunge" received. The bottom line is, Nirvana was not the "it" band of the early 1990s. They were only ONE of the "it" bands, and thus do not belong in the same class as The Beatles or Elvis. And Metallica, Pearl Jam, etc. aren't in the same class either, for the very same reason.
That is why there are several people engaged in this discussion, eh?
No, my ability to think for myself instead of letting the critics and other fans dictate who were the better or more popular bands is what sets me apart from most users on this forum.
Dude they were the band that kick started that particular revolution. Were they the best band? No. Were they the first band to cross-over to the mainstream? Yes. The Beatles and Elvis comparison is null and void, the musical landscape was completely different back then - there was far less choice in music. Comparatively, Nirvana made the biggest impact at the time.
No what sets you apart is your quite obvious boner for Metallica
You were getting your panties all in a bunch because you refused to substantiate your claims, noting that you "didn't have the time" to do some research. Well, apparently you do have the time to discuss in length my credibility, so what's your NEW excuse for not being able to bring anything to the table other than anecdotal evidence, ad hominem attacks, and pointless bullshit?
Straw man. The media, including MTV which I remember had "Smells Like Teen Spirit" as the #1 song of all-time, are responsible for Nirvana's overinflated popularity after Cobain's death. Even Michael Jackson, a person for whom I have little respect, had better, more popular, and even more revolutionary videos, as did Madonna.
And do you think I give a shit about YOUR opinions? Go fuck yourself. Your refined tastes and $3.50 will be able to buy you a gallon of gas in the United States. Furthermore, this topic is about popularity, not about which band is better. So that last ad hominem attack is fucking pointless, along with everything else you've written on this thread.
As has been said, geographically the stakes change, though when you consider the impact of Nirvana is based on one record it does seem to eclipse Metallica and suggest worldwide they had the biggest impact.
Like the perseverance of Odin, you just love Metallica, but I've agreed with what Jeremy has posted................what does my opinion matter anyway? just gauged on my experience of the time......amusing thread though!
Actually, Ten (which was released before Nevermind) was just as important, and became successful comercially around the same time as Nevermind (in the first half of 1992).
If you want to take that point further, than today's most popular band (whoever that may be) also deserves as much recognition as The Beatles and Elvis because there's a HELL of a lot more competition today than there were in the 1990s, before the days of myspace, online radio, and the downfall of major labels.
Though I am a big fan of Metallica's, I have tried not to let that impair my objectivity in this debate.
A really balanced and intelligent argument you presented there Odin, I am one step closer to giving a shit about your opinions. As for my refined tastes, you're damn fucking right I listen to better music than you do but this thread isn't about that, it's about the bigger band and I, and every other sentient being who has posted in this thread realises that record sales and how many t-shirts sold has nothing to do with how big a band was. Pearl Jam sold more records than Nirvana. Nirvana were still THE band of the time. I have yet to see one relevant argument to the contrary from you that didn't involve "at least, they sure were the biggest in Maryland when I was a nuthin' but a little 'un"
How the fuck did my tastes even come into this? I don't like Metallica OR Nirvana. Any moron with enough brain cells to string together a though process can tell you that Nirvana were the band of the 90s.
I can almost guarantee you that more casual rock listeners have the Black album, Master of Puppets and And Justice For All than any GnR album and can name more of Metallica's songs. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of casual rock listeners could only name one song from Nirvana and GnR: Smells Like Teen Spirit and Welcome to the Jungle.
I thought the world...Turns out the world thought me
Actually there was a fair few months seperating their success. Nirvana's success was far more rapid, and it's not a pissing contest anyway - it's a simple case that Nirvana's huge populairty opened up the gates for Pearl Jam and the others.
Not if they aren't culturally relevant, as in the case of Nickelback who just sell bland vanilla rock.
Try harder
ad hominem = attack against the individual and his credibility, not the argument itself.
E.g.: Jeremy1012 takes Odin's opinion regarding the popularity of bands in the 1990s with a grain of salt because he doesn't like the same bands as Odin.
<bows down to the self-proclaimed expert on all things music>
BLOW IT OUT YOUR ASS, MOTHERFUCKER!!!!!!!!!!!
...then there shouldn't be any need for cheap ad hominem jabs. Your opinion should be able to stand on its own two feet. But wait. You're too busy to conduct some God damn research to defend your position (or so you claim), so instead you instead resort to boasting about your relatively "superior" musical tastes.
Really? Then what does constitute popularity in your mind? How many elitists like yourself form circle jerks around the band's albums? It's a little known fact that before the age of downloads, everyone bought records... then tapes... and then CDs. That to me carries more weight than the number of people wore "grungy" flannel shirts in the early-1990s.
Of course they have. They've had a longer career.
http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_sold_albums.html
...along with the chart position links from Wikipedia.
What arguments have YOU offered other than your own worthless opinions and "evidence"?
...which, on the rock music timeline, amounts to a split-second.
Obviously, Nirvana's success was more rapid than Metallica's because Metallica was already popular......and then they grew even larger to became rock icons all around the world.
Pearl Jam's rise was concurrent with Nirvana's, and that is why they, not Nirvana, were considered "the most popular rock & roll band of the 1990s" (source: Wikipedia's Pearl Jam article).
I also found THIS on Wikipedia:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/43/1101931025_400.jpg/150px-1101931025_400.jpg
Hmmm, that looks like Eddie Vedder, not Kurt Cobain on the cover of Time Magazine. If Nirvana were truly THE sole face of grunge, you would think that it would be a photo of them (or one of their members) on the cover, no?
But Metallica WAS culturally relevant back then. Metal's popularity post-Sabbath peaked with Metallica.
And what about Nirvana and GnR? The only Nirvana and GnR songs that I ever hear on standard radio are the ones I mentioned in my earlier response.
Well that's not very nice.
FACT.
And yet, Nirvana were a bigger band. They were the band that held the social consciousness. They were the band that managed to create such an impact that they are still the band that people talk about today when mentioning the 90s. Like I said, record sales don't mean anything.
What the fuck does it have to do with my elitist views? How exactly are my views elitist anyway you ignorant, unintelligent prick? I prefer Metallica to Nirvana. I stated that several pages ago. I severely dislike Nirvana, I'm just not moronic enough to assume that because I prefer Metallica, they were the bigger band.
I am also well aware what an ad hominem is. I would think, however, that the attacks I have made against you have a level of digression which is entirely appropriate and proportional to how much you need to be taken down a peg or two. Your posts here are indicative of a complete lack of reasoning skills, not to mention logic and, most important of all, intelligence. I have resorted to insults and bad language in order to communicate with you in the language that you understand best. "Blow that out your ass"? How old are you? Seriously.
Consider my contributions here to be at an end. Not because I have nothing more to say but because I fear that, if I say it, I will be risking an unnecessary banning and further waste of my time. See you in the next thread you fill with your banal, meandering arguments and asinine insults.
From Wikipedia: "Pearl Jam has outlasted many of its contemporaries from the alternative rock breakthrough of the early 1990s, and is considered one of the most influential bands of the decade, and the most popular American rock & roll band of the '90s".
Actually, it's totally irrelevant to the discussion and therefore lowers YOUR credibility.
It is YOUR opinion, which you have failed to back up, that is lacking in these areas. Either support your claim with substance or shut the fuck up. Calling me a "ignorant, unintelligent prick" in lieu of well-researched arguments is a waste of my precious fucking time.