Will there ever be another Biggest Band in the World?

24567…10

Comments

  • Get_Right
    Get_Right Posts: 14,164
    Odin wrote:
    Metallica was bigger at the time. The Black Album sold more copies than Nevermind in the early 1990s (both albums were released the same year, 1991). It's only fair to compare sales pre-Cobain's death because we're talking about the biggest band in the world AT A PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME. And while Nirvana was playing mid-sized venues at the "peak" of their short-lived career, Metallica was selling out STADIUMS with Guns-N-Roses. Go to hell. You're probably some fucking punk-ass teenager who never experienced the early-1990s first-hand and are now trying to come off as some sort of expert. So you know where you can shove your lousy opinion. Right up your fucking ass.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Pearl Jam were the biggest band in the world between early '93-'95. But I can't think of any bigger bands between '96-'98 before the whole boyband came out. Korn, maybe became the biggest band in '98???
    PJ- 04/29/2003.06/24,25,27,28,30/2008.10/27,28,30,31/2009
    EV- 08/09,10/2008.06/08,09/2009
  • Jeremy1012
    Jeremy1012 Posts: 7,170
    Odin wrote:
    Metallica was bigger at the time. The Black Album sold more copies than Nevermind in the early 1990s (both albums were released the same year, 1991). It's only fair to compare sales pre-Cobain's death because we're talking about the biggest band in the world AT A PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME. And while Nirvana was playing mid-sized venues at the "peak" of their short-lived career, Metallica was selling out STADIUMS. Go to hell. You're probably some fucking punk-ass teenager who never experienced the early-1990s first-hand and are now trying to come off as some sort of expert. So you know where you can shove your lousy opinion. Right up your fucking ass.
    Most of what you say is accurate but christ, what a way to say it. How old are you? Grow the fuck up.
    "I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
  • Get_Right
    Get_Right Posts: 14,164
    facepollution wrote:
    Yeah I agree, of course they weren't the only big band around at the time, but they were pretty damn huge, and their popularity was worldwide. I don't think there has really been a band since that has been quite so pivotal in changing the face of music as them. I know people will say bands like the Pixies and Husker Du were doing that sound before Nirvana, but there is no doubting Kurt's particular ear for a pop melody helped them break into the mainstream. They were far more accesible to mainstream music fans who weren't that into rock music, more so than AiC, Soundgarden and even Pearl Jam. Obviously this wasn't on the scale of the Beatles or Elvis, but in a day and age where music had become much more diverse, Nirvana still stuck out as a iconic band of the times. Of course this has been magnified by Kurt's death, but I still maintain you wouldn't have 12 year old kids walking around in Nirvana hoodies today, if it wasn't for the accessibility of the music.

    .

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

    But yeah, otherwise, fair points.

    It was more the loud/quiet dynamic and their pop-sensibility, it's certainly an accusation I've seen thrown at Nirvana before.
  • Get_Right
    Get_Right Posts: 14,164
    Jeremy1012 wrote:
    Most of what you say is accurate but christ, what a way to say it. How old are you? Grow the fuck up.
    Exactly, and thanks.
  • Odin
    Odin Posts: 599
    Get_Right wrote:
    Metallica had a larger fan base, and played larger shows, but there was NO BAND bigger than Nirvana in late 91-92.

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

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

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

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

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

    A hell of a lot better than Cobain's terrible, angsty voice.
  • fada
    fada Posts: 1,032
    Oasis were the biggest between 95 to 97
  • Jeremy1012
    Jeremy1012 Posts: 7,170
    facepollution wrote:
    It was more the loud/quiet dynamic and their pop-sensibility, it's certainly an accusation I've seen thrown at Nirvana before.
    Fair enough but then, by that understanding, EVERY punk influenced mainstream band of the 90s owed their living to Husker Du since they were pretty much the first band to truly marry punk credibility to punk sensibilities. I know most 90s bands owed something, whether directly or not, to Husker Du but, in terms of sheer musicality, Nirvana were a whole different ball game.

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

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

    I agree that Metallica were obviously hugely popular, but they didn't have the cross-over appeal that Nirvana had with non-rock fans. And before you ask, I'm old enough to have lived through those days, so I do have more than a vague idea what I'm talking about.
  • Odin
    Odin Posts: 599
    LongRd. wrote:
    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.
  • Odin
    Odin Posts: 599
    Get_Right wrote:
    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.
  • LONGRD
    LONGRD Posts: 6,036
    fada wrote:
    Oasis were the biggest between 95 to 97
    http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5411520&postcount=23
    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.
    PJ- 04/29/2003.06/24,25,27,28,30/2008.10/27,28,30,31/2009
    EV- 08/09,10/2008.06/08,09/2009
  • facepollution
    facepollution Posts: 6,834
    Jeremy1012 wrote:
    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!
  • LONGRD
    LONGRD Posts: 6,036
    Odin wrote:
    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.
    PJ- 04/29/2003.06/24,25,27,28,30/2008.10/27,28,30,31/2009
    EV- 08/09,10/2008.06/08,09/2009
  • Odin
    Odin Posts: 599
    facepollution wrote:
    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.
  • facepollution
    facepollution Posts: 6,834
    Odin wrote:
    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.
  • Jeremy1012
    Jeremy1012 Posts: 7,170
    Odin wrote:
    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"
  • LONGRD
    LONGRD Posts: 6,036
    Jeremy1012 wrote:
    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.
    PJ- 04/29/2003.06/24,25,27,28,30/2008.10/27,28,30,31/2009
    EV- 08/09,10/2008.06/08,09/2009
  • markymark550
    markymark550 Columbia, SC Posts: 5,224
    LongRd. wrote:
    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.
    reading this made me instantly think of "Teenage angst has paid off well/Now I'm bored and old"

Categories