Be surprised then. One gets Kerrang TV rotation but would never make it on the radio. I have never heard or seen Wherever I May Roam or Sad But True in my life, besides hearing on the album.
I find that surprising.......but this is something that I obviously cannot prove one way or another.
I was going to type something, but I'll hold back so as not to get banned again.
Good call. I'm going to sleep. Nice chatting 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"
More reliable, how? Cos it's from a journalist? Any idiot with an English degree can be a journalist. (At least I hope so... otherwise I'm wasting my college life...)
The All Music Guide is an established publication and far more credible than some kid with too much time on his hands.
And the second was fact, with an interjection of opinion to make it sound like Pearl Jam was bigger than Nirvana at the time, rather than just eventually outselling them.
I interpreted the interjection as the author's way of opining that Pearl Jam was more commercially appealing than Nirvana. Subjective, perhaps.....but it doesn't make the aforementioned fact any less valid.
Yes yes, you are of course correct. With my straight A record in english throughout my school life and having handed in my first year's coursework for my university degree in english literature this very afternoon, I HAVE never come across hyperbole :rolleyes:
Stupid? No. Maybe I'm just taking you to task for every dumbass thing you say because it gives me great amusement to watch you make a fool of yourself.
EDIT: Now that I have learned the definition of 'ad hominem'? Are you presuming that you are teaching me here? Christ almighty...
Good for you. Now look up BLOW IT OUT YOUR ASS, MOTHERFUCKER!!!!!!
The All Music Guide is an established publication and far more credible than some kid with too much time on his hands.
But if you saw him saying the exact same thing on AMG, his opinion suddenly becomes more credible? Every article I've read on that site is openly laced with the author's bias.
I interpreted the interjection as the author's way of opining that Pearl Jam was more commercially appealing than Nirvana. Subjective, perhaps.....but it doesn't make the aforementioned fact any less valid.
No, the fact stands. But the Eagles greatest hits has sold more than any Beatles album you might mention. Does that make them bigger than the Beatles?
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
This was the true sound of 1976, I remember vividly! Who needed punk, with this lot? They were legends ... legends, matey ...
What's even worse is that even as I opened that link, as soon as I saw the song name, I was singing the chorus.:p Their influence is all-pervading...:D
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
But if you saw him saying the exact same thing on AMG, his opinion suddenly becomes more credible? Every article I've read on that site is openly laced with the author's bias.
Jeremy's ramblings wouldn't be accepted at any publication. And neither would mine......which is why I cited a professional publication rather than pull my opinion out of my own ass like Jeremy and others have on this thread.
No, the fact stands. But the Eagles greatest hits has sold more than any Beatles album you might mention. Does that make them bigger than the Beatles?
You're not comparing apples to apples. The Eagles' greatest hits album was released roughly a decade after The Beatles' most successful albums; the demographics had shifted (for instance, the baby boomers had higher disposable incomes in the late-1970s than they had the previous decade). Nirvana and Metallica's albums were released ONE MONTH APART!
Jeremy's ramblings wouldn't be accepted at any publication. And neither would mine......which is why I cited a professional publication rather than pull my opinion out of my own ass like Jeremy and others have on this thread.
You're not comparing apples to apples. The Eagles' greatest hits album was released roughly a decade after The Beatles' most successful albums; the demographics had shifted (for instance, the baby boomers had higher disposable incomes in the late-1970s than they had the previous decade). Nirvana and Metallica's albums were released ONE MONTH APART!
I was actually using the Eagles as an example of why the "Such and such went on to sell more than such and such" argument - in this case, Pearl Jam to Nirvana - proves nothing. The Eagles record went on to outsell most of the biggest acts in the world. But they were never, at any given time, the biggest act in the world.
And the only difference between you or Jeremy pulling an opinion out of your ass, and a journalist doing it, is the journalist gets paid for it.
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
I was actually using the Eagles as an example of why the "Such and such went on to sell more than such and such" argument - in this case, Pearl Jam to Nirvana - proves nothing. The Eagles record went on to outsell most of the biggest acts in the world. But they were never, at any given time, the biggest act in the world.
I wouldn't be able to say either way because I wasn't alive in the 1970s. All I know is that there are many people who liked The Eagles and others who say they liked them at one time but are reluctant to admit it.....the same way that rap music fans don't want to admit that they were ever into the most popular rapper during the early-1990s, MC Hammer.
And the only difference between you or Jeremy pulling an opinion out of your ass, and a journalist doing it, is the journalist gets paid for it.
So what do you suggest we use to determine the more popular band? People have tried to discredit everything I've used, be it hard facts like statistics or opinions from reputable sources. What should we do? Give Jeremy, et al a cookie for providing absolutely NOTHING?
I wouldn't be able to say either way because I wasn't alive in the 1970s. All I know is that there are many people who liked The Eagles and others who say they liked them at one time but are reluctant to admit it.....the same way that rap music fans don't want to admit that they were ever into the most popular rapper during the early-1990s, MC Hammer.
So what do you suggest we use to determine the more popular band? People have tried to discredit everything I've used, be it hard facts like statistics or opinions from reputable sources. What should we do? Give Jeremy, et al a cookie for providing absolutely NOTHING?
I'm just making you work to prove your point without cussing people out.:p
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
Actually, Get_Right, I'll be overseas all summer and unfortunately none of Metallica's European dates coincide with my personal itinerary.
And if that punk-ass bitch Jeremy1012 wants to talk shit, he can do it to my 6'3, 225-lb self next month because I will be in his hometown for a few days. We'll see how insulting he is to me when faced with the threat of being knocked the fuck out and pummeled to the ground!!!!!!!!!!
One last comment before I sign out for the night. If and when Metallica rebounds, everyone will be back on the bandwagon like Nas fans were after he dropped Stillmatic. I guarantee it.
The original question here was something about the biggest band in the world right. As I said before it's all up to our own individual opinions to this question. That being said I can recall what Metallica's rise did for music on radio airplay.
Metallica's rise in popularity and record sales made it a reality that Heavy Metal was ok to play on radio airwaves. This is where their power and influence became apparent to me and the major difference they made to the music industry. They made it the norm for the likes of Korn, NIN, Godsmack, Megadeth and others to be played on a regular basis on radio airways.
Before the Metallica rise in the late 80's early 90's the few times HM was played music fans turned the radio dial. GNR may have been more popular but Metallica had a serious hard core fan base and followed the band with a passion due to the underground vibe they portrayed. In fact they were the first band I traveled to see on the Black album world Tour (Where Ever I May Roam World Tour). They quickly surpassed GNR in popularity as the the mid 90's approached.
Since this question was coined *BB in the World* I also recall that Metallica sold out on that tour in Japan, Australia and Europe and especially the Scandinavian countries not mentioning North and South America. We must remember the world is not just the USA.
On the other hand I don't recall Nirvana having that much of power and influence on the world stage. In America especially the west coast but I seriously don't recall them being that big of an influence on the east coast around the early 90's. Don't get me wrong I do like both bands however I feel Metallica's influence was more worldwide than Nirvana.
In the end it still really doesn't matter in that one band is exists no more and the other is trying to reinvent themselves to a past popularity. The past is the past and we can't change a damn thing that happened back then.
Peace,
Everybody is right in their own minds.
*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)
I was in 9th grade in 91-92. what great times, for music at least.
Metallica and Nirvana were equal in popularity imo. Metallica already had a built-in contingency at my school, so Nirvana equalling them in popularity was an accomplishment. Nirvana was the band that knocked Michael Jackson's cd off the #1, so that's a testament to their popularity.
U2 and Aerosmith were big, but were kind of more "adult oriented". GnR was popular, but they also became somewhat adult oriented, especially with "November Rain" and it's very gay video.
after Metallica and Nirvana, PJ were #3. you can say that PJ sold more albums or whatever, but I'm telling you they weren't as popular at Metallica or Nirvana. Hootie and the Blowfish sold more than all of them, but they weren't as universally "popular". PJ just had staying power that ran through the 90s. they weren't played nearly as much on mtv as Nirvana or Metallica either. after Nirvana, Metallica, and PJ, I'd say Tool was 4th. "Undertow" had a massive grassroots type following. ***EDIT: STP was more popular than Tool. STP would've been the 4th most popular, followed by Tool.***
with Metallica going on a musical hiatus, Nirvana took over the number 1 popularity spot between 93-94 with PJ a close 2nd. the Temple of the Dog
album was popular too, but Soundgarden and AIC really weren't much more than a blimp on the radar.
Nirvana purposely cut off a lot of their fanbase with "In Utero"'s much more raw production. and by that time, Cobain was pretty much a junkie, which was something that was not that out in the open at that time. so both those things led to their downfall in the popularity polls.
summer of 94, Green Day and the Offspring were the 2 hot bands. STP's 2nd album was hugely popular that summer as well.
summer of 95, Live was probably the most popular band on the radio.
late 96 was Oasis and even moreso, Smashing Pumpkins double album. they pretty solidly became the most popular band. sometime in that span (I think around late 95 or early 96), Soundgarden became hugely popular with the Superunknown album. it was around this time that Metallica finally released the followup to the Black Album. though Load was a shitty album, it still brought them back to the forefront. Bush was very popular during this time as well.
AIC also got more popular at that time. they had steadily been getting more popular following Dirt and Jar of Flies, but the eponymous album and Unplugged was probably their highest points as far as mtv and radio play. Rage also became hugely popular around 1996. though PJ were steady throughout, 1995-1996 marked the beginning of their decline in popularity.
by 1997 some time around the release of their 2nd album, Korn became a huge band and the return to shitty rock music began.
but yeah, around 1992....Metallica and Nirvana were equal imo.
after Metallica and Nirvana, PJ were #3. you can say that PJ sold more albums or whatever, but I'm telling you they weren't as popular at Metallica or Nirvana. Hootie and the Blowfish sold more than all of them, but they weren't as universally "popular". PJ just had staying power that ran through the 90s. they weren't played nearly as much on mtv as Nirvana or Metallica either.
Actually, Get_Right, I'll be overseas all summer and unfortunately none of Metallica's European dates coincide with my personal itinerary.
And if that punk-ass bitch Jeremy1012 wants to talk shit, he can do it to my 6'3, 225-lb self next month because I will be in his hometown for a few days. We'll see how insulting he is to me when faced with the threat of being knocked the fuck out and pummeled to the ground!!!!!!!!!!
Pretty much sums you up dude. And you were the one who started throwing the insults around like some pathetic 12 year old in the school yard. Who fucking uses 'fag' as an insult these days anyway? Oh that's right, homophobic morons who run out of wikipedia citations as 'proof'.
For the record, I'm well old enough to have lived through that time, and I can tell you categorically that Nirvana were perceived as a bigger band over here in the UK than both Metallica and Pearl Jam. And yeah the chances of hearing much Metallica on mainstream radio is somewhere near zero, whereas you would quite easily get the odd Nirvana track.
You might think that a few months wouldn't make a difference in Nirvana and Pearl Jam's success, but we are talking the best part of a year, a lot can happen in that time, and Nirvana's success came first - dispute it all you like, but that it FACT. Without that initial success, there were no guarantees that any of the other Seattle bands would have got the attention they received.
You must have been in a metal-induced haze if you didn't see the cultural impact they had at the time. Kurt Cobain was a new breed of rockstar. A depressive, intense and thought-provoking guy who flew in the face of what was expected from rock stars. His lyrics about depression, isolation and disaffection, married to pop melodies was something new that the mainstream had not heard.
Like I said, your argument is based on record sales alone. Ignoring the cultural impact of a band is ridiculous. One last comparison, Amy Winehouse is probably one of the biggest artists in the world right now including in America, and yet her sales would pale in comparison to people like Nickelback or Daughtry or any of the other multi-million sellers. But she is a cultural icon, she inspires fashion, and has remained in the mainstream consciousness becasue of her erratic and destructive behaviour - in much the same way that Kurt did.
Actually, Get_Right, I'll be overseas all summer and unfortunately none of Metallica's European dates coincide with my personal itinerary.
And if that punk-ass bitch Jeremy1012 wants to talk shit, he can do it to my 6'3, 225-lb self next month because I will be in his hometown for a few days. We'll see how insulting he is to me when faced with the threat of being knocked the fuck out and pummeled to the ground!!!!!!!!!!
You're one of the most moronic people I have ever had the displeasure to come across on this board. I mean, the pathetic attitude is one thing but threats of physical violence, far from scaring me, which clearly you are intending Mr-225lb, actually just made me laugh out loud. Maybe piss off, leave the site for a while, do some growing up, come back and re-read this post and if you don't feel the slightest shame, I'll feel very sorry for you.
Also, do you not see the slight hypocrisy in threatening to beat my ass for being "insulting" to you when you call me a punk-ass bitch in the same post? You're clearly not big on logic, or indeed acting like an ordinary human being so I figure that this reply will be lost on you but think it through mate, after all, I know that I'd get pretty riled up by some "punk-ass" 19 year-old patronising me and not being remotely moved by the threats of violence from my 225lb hulking, rock hard self.
"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"
Like I said, your argument is based on record sales alone. Ignoring the cultural impact of a band is ridiculous. One last comparison, Amy Winehouse is probably one of the biggest artists in the world right now including in America, and yet her sales would pale in comparison to people like Nickelback or Daughtry or any of the other multi-million sellers. But she is a cultural icon, she inspires fashion, and has remained in the mainstream consciousness becasue of her erratic and destructive behaviour - in much the same way that Kurt did.
I don't think I have ever been in such perfect agreement 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"
Facepollution, you are absolutely right about Amy Winehouse's extracurricular problems contributing to her being so well-known. But I would contend that Daughtry is more of a cultural icon because he was a contestant on American Idol, a program that has been a staple of contemporary culture thus far in the 21st Century.
Tell me where I ever stated that Nirvana wasn't groundbreaking? But does that make them the best band in the world for a long enough period of time to warrant consideration on this thread? No, not when other bands such as Pearl Jam were experiencing equal (or in some people's minds, GREATER) success shortly thereafter. Some people would contend that without Buddy Holly's success, a little-known band called The Beatles wouldn't have had a chance to become the musical and cultural phenomenon that they became; the same could be said about the commercial success of some of Elvis' immediate predecessors. Does that mean that we should strip their titles of "world's greatest band", which they both held unlike Nirvana who was only ONE of the most popular bands of their time and couldn't be said to be the WGB with absolute certainty?
Thank you g under p and MLC2006 for providing some actual insight, which is more than some people have contributed.
Thank you g under p and MLC2006 for providing some actual insight, which is more than some people have contributed.
Ohhh, you were providing INSIGHT? I thought you were being a macho asshole.
"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 one of the most moronic people I have ever had the displeasure to come across on this board. I mean, the pathetic attitude is one thing but threats of physical violence, far from scaring me, which clearly you are intending Mr-225lb, actually just made me laugh out loud. Maybe piss off, leave the site for a while, do some growing up, come back and re-read this post and if you don't feel the slightest shame, I'll feel very sorry for you.
Also, do you not see the slight hypocrisy in threatening to beat my ass for being "insulting" to you when you call me a punk-ass bitch in the same post? You're clearly not big on logic, or indeed acting like an ordinary human being so I figure that this reply will be lost on you but think it through mate, after all, I know that I'd get pretty riled up by some "punk-ass" 19 year-old patronising me and not being remotely moved by the threats of violence from my 225lb hulking, rock hard self.
Ever hear of the phrase "fighting fire with fire"? That's exactly what I'm doing in response to your worthless contributions to this discussion. You have proven time and again that you have absolutely nothing substantial to contribute. g under p and MLC2006 have, in a single post, provided more insight than you have on ten pages.
Ever hear of the phrase "fighting fire with fire"? That's exactly what I'm doing in response to your worthless contributions to this discussion. You have proven time and again that you have absolutely nothing substantial to contribute. g under p and MLC2006 have, in a single post, provided more insight than you have on ten pages.
I would argue that insight is subjective. I've provided a lot of insight into you and, subsequently, your opinions. Let's be honest, if mine are irrelevant because I'm not 19 and I'm not with the All Music Guide, one could argue that yours are not relevent because a violent misanthrope, prone to coarse outburts when he isn't getting his own way, is probably not a good authority in judging any sort of cultural atmosphere, given that his grip on social understanding is weak at best?
"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"
I would argue that insight is subjective. I've provided a lot of insight into you and, subsequently, your opinions. Let's be honest, if mine are irrelevant because I'm not 19 and I'm not with the All Music Guide, one could argue that yours are not relevent because a violent misanthrope, prone to coarse outburts when he isn't getting his own way, is probably not a good authority in judging any sort of cultural atmosphere, given that his grip on social understanding is weak at best?
And I could similarly try to discredit YOU by posting a history of your going against me at any given chance, which impairs your objectivity. But it wouldn't be worth my time, as you haven't provided any real insight other than your assessment of Nirvana's cultural impact AFTER Kurt Cobain's death (you obviously couldn't be able to gauge Nirvana's popularity at the height of their career because you weren't old enough at the time).
And I could similarly try to discredit YOU by posting a history of your going against me at any given chance, which impairs your objectivity. But it wouldn't be worth my time, as you haven't provided any real insight other than your assessment of Nirvana's cultural impact AFTER Kurt Cobain's death (you obviously couldn't be able to gauge Nirvana's popularity at the height of their career because you weren't old enough at the time).
That is the first intelligent, not unnecessarily offensive thing you have posted in response to me in this thread, for which I thank you and will do the same. I'm only sorry that you don't think my opinions are worth anything. You'll understand if I don't stay out of every thread you are in just because I wasn't born early enough though. There are no such rules on this site and, after all, not being old enough to have experience the music scene at the time, I am unbiased and, I would argue, have provided a valuable insight into the LASTING effects of both Nirvana and Metallica without having any kind of "I was a metallica fan at the time and they were the biggest" bias. All I have said through this thread is that, far from me caring about which was bigger, it is totally obvious to me that Nirvana are the band that have had the biggest impact on the world, regardless of record sales and I am pretty sure that this was the case in 1991, as many posters here who were listening to the bands at the time have agreed. Sorry that you don't think my opinions are up to much but hey, we can't please everyone. As for going at you at any given chance, I wasn't the person who started the aggressive responses in this thread.
But anyway, nevermind. There's no point in arguing any further because it's just stupid.
"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"
Comments
I find that surprising.......but this is something that I obviously cannot prove one way or another.
I was going to type something, but I'll hold back so as not to get banned again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zwwqEm5YhQ
They're not?!!?! :eek:
For Those About To Rock !
Art changes people. People change the world.
The All Music Guide is an established publication and far more credible than some kid with too much time on his hands.
I interpreted the interjection as the author's way of opining that Pearl Jam was more commercially appealing than Nirvana. Subjective, perhaps.....but it doesn't make the aforementioned fact any less valid.
Okay, they are:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btEpF334Rtc&
This was the true sound of 1976, I remember vividly! Who needed punk, with this lot? They were legends ... legends, matey ...
Good for you. Now look up BLOW IT OUT YOUR ASS, MOTHERFUCKER!!!!!!
But if you saw him saying the exact same thing on AMG, his opinion suddenly becomes more credible? Every article I've read on that site is openly laced with the author's bias.
No, the fact stands. But the Eagles greatest hits has sold more than any Beatles album you might mention. Does that make them bigger than the Beatles?
What's even worse is that even as I opened that link, as soon as I saw the song name, I was singing the chorus.:p Their influence is all-pervading...:D
Jeremy's ramblings wouldn't be accepted at any publication. And neither would mine......which is why I cited a professional publication rather than pull my opinion out of my own ass like Jeremy and others have on this thread.
You're not comparing apples to apples. The Eagles' greatest hits album was released roughly a decade after The Beatles' most successful albums; the demographics had shifted (for instance, the baby boomers had higher disposable incomes in the late-1970s than they had the previous decade). Nirvana and Metallica's albums were released ONE MONTH APART!
I was actually using the Eagles as an example of why the "Such and such went on to sell more than such and such" argument - in this case, Pearl Jam to Nirvana - proves nothing. The Eagles record went on to outsell most of the biggest acts in the world. But they were never, at any given time, the biggest act in the world.
And the only difference between you or Jeremy pulling an opinion out of your ass, and a journalist doing it, is the journalist gets paid for it.
I wouldn't be able to say either way because I wasn't alive in the 1970s. All I know is that there are many people who liked The Eagles and others who say they liked them at one time but are reluctant to admit it.....the same way that rap music fans don't want to admit that they were ever into the most popular rapper during the early-1990s, MC Hammer.
So what do you suggest we use to determine the more popular band? People have tried to discredit everything I've used, be it hard facts like statistics or opinions from reputable sources. What should we do? Give Jeremy, et al a cookie for providing absolutely NOTHING?
I'm just making you work to prove your point without cussing people out.:p
even though I may disagree
you are tenacious.
hope you are going to the roo to see Metallica.
me, I will take my four PJ shows up the east coast.
And you dont need to cuss someone out to make your point.
And if that punk-ass bitch Jeremy1012 wants to talk shit, he can do it to my 6'3, 225-lb self next month because I will be in his hometown for a few days. We'll see how insulting he is to me when faced with the threat of being knocked the fuck out and pummeled to the ground!!!!!!!!!!
Metallica's rise in popularity and record sales made it a reality that Heavy Metal was ok to play on radio airwaves. This is where their power and influence became apparent to me and the major difference they made to the music industry. They made it the norm for the likes of Korn, NIN, Godsmack, Megadeth and others to be played on a regular basis on radio airways.
Before the Metallica rise in the late 80's early 90's the few times HM was played music fans turned the radio dial. GNR may have been more popular but Metallica had a serious hard core fan base and followed the band with a passion due to the underground vibe they portrayed. In fact they were the first band I traveled to see on the Black album world Tour (Where Ever I May Roam World Tour). They quickly surpassed GNR in popularity as the the mid 90's approached.
Since this question was coined *BB in the World* I also recall that Metallica sold out on that tour in Japan, Australia and Europe and especially the Scandinavian countries not mentioning North and South America. We must remember the world is not just the USA.
On the other hand I don't recall Nirvana having that much of power and influence on the world stage. In America especially the west coast but I seriously don't recall them being that big of an influence on the east coast around the early 90's. Don't get me wrong I do like both bands however I feel Metallica's influence was more worldwide than Nirvana.
In the end it still really doesn't matter in that one band is exists no more and the other is trying to reinvent themselves to a past popularity. The past is the past and we can't change a damn thing that happened back then.
Peace,
Everybody is right in their own minds.
*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)
Metallica and Nirvana were equal in popularity imo. Metallica already had a built-in contingency at my school, so Nirvana equalling them in popularity was an accomplishment. Nirvana was the band that knocked Michael Jackson's cd off the #1, so that's a testament to their popularity.
U2 and Aerosmith were big, but were kind of more "adult oriented". GnR was popular, but they also became somewhat adult oriented, especially with "November Rain" and it's very gay video.
after Metallica and Nirvana, PJ were #3. you can say that PJ sold more albums or whatever, but I'm telling you they weren't as popular at Metallica or Nirvana. Hootie and the Blowfish sold more than all of them, but they weren't as universally "popular". PJ just had staying power that ran through the 90s. they weren't played nearly as much on mtv as Nirvana or Metallica either. after Nirvana, Metallica, and PJ, I'd say Tool was 4th. "Undertow" had a massive grassroots type following. ***EDIT: STP was more popular than Tool. STP would've been the 4th most popular, followed by Tool.***
with Metallica going on a musical hiatus, Nirvana took over the number 1 popularity spot between 93-94 with PJ a close 2nd. the Temple of the Dog
album was popular too, but Soundgarden and AIC really weren't much more than a blimp on the radar.
Nirvana purposely cut off a lot of their fanbase with "In Utero"'s much more raw production. and by that time, Cobain was pretty much a junkie, which was something that was not that out in the open at that time. so both those things led to their downfall in the popularity polls.
summer of 94, Green Day and the Offspring were the 2 hot bands. STP's 2nd album was hugely popular that summer as well.
summer of 95, Live was probably the most popular band on the radio.
late 96 was Oasis and even moreso, Smashing Pumpkins double album. they pretty solidly became the most popular band. sometime in that span (I think around late 95 or early 96), Soundgarden became hugely popular with the Superunknown album. it was around this time that Metallica finally released the followup to the Black Album. though Load was a shitty album, it still brought them back to the forefront. Bush was very popular during this time as well.
AIC also got more popular at that time. they had steadily been getting more popular following Dirt and Jar of Flies, but the eponymous album and Unplugged was probably their highest points as far as mtv and radio play. Rage also became hugely popular around 1996. though PJ were steady throughout, 1995-1996 marked the beginning of their decline in popularity.
by 1997 some time around the release of their 2nd album, Korn became a huge band and the return to shitty rock music began.
but yeah, around 1992....Metallica and Nirvana were equal imo.
That's because PJ stopped making music videos!
EV- 08/09,10/2008.06/08,09/2009
Pretty much sums you up dude. And you were the one who started throwing the insults around like some pathetic 12 year old in the school yard. Who fucking uses 'fag' as an insult these days anyway? Oh that's right, homophobic morons who run out of wikipedia citations as 'proof'.
For the record, I'm well old enough to have lived through that time, and I can tell you categorically that Nirvana were perceived as a bigger band over here in the UK than both Metallica and Pearl Jam. And yeah the chances of hearing much Metallica on mainstream radio is somewhere near zero, whereas you would quite easily get the odd Nirvana track.
You might think that a few months wouldn't make a difference in Nirvana and Pearl Jam's success, but we are talking the best part of a year, a lot can happen in that time, and Nirvana's success came first - dispute it all you like, but that it FACT. Without that initial success, there were no guarantees that any of the other Seattle bands would have got the attention they received.
You must have been in a metal-induced haze if you didn't see the cultural impact they had at the time. Kurt Cobain was a new breed of rockstar. A depressive, intense and thought-provoking guy who flew in the face of what was expected from rock stars. His lyrics about depression, isolation and disaffection, married to pop melodies was something new that the mainstream had not heard.
Like I said, your argument is based on record sales alone. Ignoring the cultural impact of a band is ridiculous. One last comparison, Amy Winehouse is probably one of the biggest artists in the world right now including in America, and yet her sales would pale in comparison to people like Nickelback or Daughtry or any of the other multi-million sellers. But she is a cultural icon, she inspires fashion, and has remained in the mainstream consciousness becasue of her erratic and destructive behaviour - in much the same way that Kurt did.
Also, do you not see the slight hypocrisy in threatening to beat my ass for being "insulting" to you when you call me a punk-ass bitch in the same post? You're clearly not big on logic, or indeed acting like an ordinary human being so I figure that this reply will be lost on you but think it through mate, after all, I know that I'd get pretty riled up by some "punk-ass" 19 year-old patronising me and not being remotely moved by the threats of violence from my 225lb hulking, rock hard self.
Tell me where I ever stated that Nirvana wasn't groundbreaking? But does that make them the best band in the world for a long enough period of time to warrant consideration on this thread? No, not when other bands such as Pearl Jam were experiencing equal (or in some people's minds, GREATER) success shortly thereafter. Some people would contend that without Buddy Holly's success, a little-known band called The Beatles wouldn't have had a chance to become the musical and cultural phenomenon that they became; the same could be said about the commercial success of some of Elvis' immediate predecessors. Does that mean that we should strip their titles of "world's greatest band", which they both held unlike Nirvana who was only ONE of the most popular bands of their time and couldn't be said to be the WGB with absolute certainty?
Thank you g under p and MLC2006 for providing some actual insight, which is more than some people have contributed.
Ever hear of the phrase "fighting fire with fire"? That's exactly what I'm doing in response to your worthless contributions to this discussion. You have proven time and again that you have absolutely nothing substantial to contribute. g under p and MLC2006 have, in a single post, provided more insight than you have on ten pages.
And I could similarly try to discredit YOU by posting a history of your going against me at any given chance, which impairs your objectivity. But it wouldn't be worth my time, as you haven't provided any real insight other than your assessment of Nirvana's cultural impact AFTER Kurt Cobain's death (you obviously couldn't be able to gauge Nirvana's popularity at the height of their career because you weren't old enough at the time).
But anyway, nevermind. There's no point in arguing any further because it's just stupid.