2nd biggest band ever?

[Danish Moo Cow]

Alex, the Black Album was pretty much the perfect example of a band changing course and evolving past their usual past. People hated that they were on radio. No-one understood how the band who sang 'Nothing Else Matters' had two years earlier created 'Dyer's Eve'. Load is a shitload more like the Black Album than the Black album is to Justice.

The Loads were simply Metallica evolving further, when not many were too interested in hearing an even bigger change. They'd spent too much time on the road while other bands had stolen their lime-light commercially.

Nope, Metallica's ground-base fans deserted them way before Load. They still had the stage presence, but the mystic was gone. When Guns and Roses self-destructed, Metallica new they had to reinvent themselves, so they tried a new image. It lost more fans, but gained just as many others.

I'd also challenge the claim that Reload was all rejects. The original pln was for a 'Use Your Illusion' type double release, but the time got out of hand and they had to tour the stuff they had completed. 'Devil's Dance' was first performed in '95 with other Load stuff. Hell, St Anger had anywhere up to 20 songs rejected. They leave the shit stuff out.

I'm a fan of Radiohead's style, but their longetivity will test them. I've been a bit disappointed in their stuff lately to be honest. It's like they're trying to revolutionise. I'm just not into it.

 

[Ari Gold]

metallica are not replica of any bands before them. Have you had a listen to Master of Puppets? i dont think so...

And how did metallica screw up after changing their sound? they still sold a hell a lot of copies and they are still one of the bigger bands going round today. I agree with the fact that they didnt sound as good as before but saying they screwed up completely is unjustified.

hahahahaha how can you say that radiohead is more credible than metallica in terms of music? The hetfield/hammet guitar pairing is probably the most talented in music history. Ulrich kicks butt on drums, take a listen to one and .....and justice for all and check out his drumwork.
and let me asure that if Burton was alive today he'd be in the top 5 bass players of all time.

Mate - I like Metallica as much as the next guy. But whilst they are good musicians and made some great music early on in their career - they haven't been able to evolve past the same old stuff they have always done. When they tried - they screwed it up royally, so much that most true Metallica fans admit thats when they sold out.

Sales mean nothing - seriously. This is where this topic has gone WAY off track. You want to talk about sales? Sales would mean bands like Nickleback, Creed and Marroon 5 are better bands than Metallica. Do you believe that?

No...neither do i...

As for Radiohead - they have evolved in every sense of the word. They have not stuck to the well worn track, dared to experiment and while some of it doesn't work (like much of Amnesiac which was essentially Kid A's rejects), some of it is brilliant.

Can you say the same for Load and Reload (Reload is Load's rejects granted)?

And I know of Metallica's brilliance - Master of Puppets, Kill 'em All, The Black Album - all fantastic albums. Radiohead have made 2 albums that are widely regarded as 2 of the best albums ever - The Bends and OK Computer.

Like I said...they are 2 very different bands in 2 very different genres - very hard to compare. Both are incredibly revolutionary. My opinion is that Radiohead is in front of Metallica - but it is just that - my opinion...

yeah sorry i shouldnt have brought sales into it, sales makes ashlee simpson look talented .

i'd have to admit that at experimenting with new music, radiohead is way better. But just a question, how long would you consider that Radiohead were in their prime though? id consider metallica's prime was from 1985-1990.

I actually believe Reload was better than Load, it actually had some good songs on it : Unforgiven II, Fuel, Memory Remains. Load had jack shit, i think thats their worst album.

I am probably being a bit biased, but i still stand by my choice as metallica as the 2nd biggest band ever, on the grounds of that if u asked any of the young rock bands in the last 10-15 years, more than likely they'll say that they are influenced by Metallica. All the crap bands influence nobody: simple plan, creed....etc. Whereas The beatles were highly influential, they changed music forever....i reckon influence and popularity is a great way to judge how big a group is.

but of course, we're never gonna get a real answer on this topic are we? ;-) ;-)

 

[Kurt Angle]

Man, I like Metallica, but to label them one of the biggest bands of all time is ridiculous. Metallica is considered great in their genre, but doesn't appeal to many outside it.

Sure they have a vocal, loyal and passionate fan group, but they are a silent voice outside that.

The Beatles inspired so many different genres. That's one thing for example that put's the doors up there despite small-ish record sales and a small catalogue of 'great' songs. I'd say the same with Hendrix.

For 2nd Biggest band of all time, Stones or Queen.

U2 haven't finished their career yet, (I do considered the stones finished in a creative sense of the term, and I view them not much more than a touring jukebox) and could easily surpass those 2 though.

 

[Dread]

Load crap? Load is my second favourite Metallica album. :shock:

 

[curry]

you know faith no more actually influenced alot of bands too
you would be shocked, they spawned a new genre even


however i agree that metallica have been VERY influential, the new wave of british metal influenced them, but only in the same way that gasnier influenced minichiello.

the reasont here fans say they didnt evolve is because of bad eggs, they just felt betrayed they took a commercial turn from heavy metal into black album rock/metal [the influential album] then from that into the load era [and if u consider S&m something new altogether]. Load had some great songs, metallica have sold over 90mil in the us alone, which surely oputs them up in top 5 territory.

They also generated the 7th most profitable earnings from any form of entertainment group in 2004, which would probably put them number 1 in band concert sales.

they are truly a golden, artistic band, just on lyrics alone if nothing else

 

[nöyd]

Does anybody else think the thread's title of "2nd biggest band ever?" is perhaps being a little one dimensional?

If the title was "2nd biggest music artist/s ever?" then I'm sure fans of Elvis would weigh in with their argument. ;-)

 

[bomberman]

Considering that the Beatles were a helluva lot more popular than the Beach Boys, they are obviously first.

Considereing that in 1966, in England the Beach Boys were voted the number one band AHEAD of the Beatles, that's debatable.

Considering that's the dumbest thing i've ever heard...

Not when you consider that many in the music world, including the Beatles themselves, actually consider Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys at the top in many areas.

 

[Ari Gold]

Considering that the Beatles were a helluva lot more popular than the Beach Boys, they are obviously first.

Considereing that in 1966, in England the Beach Boys were voted the number one band AHEAD of the Beatles, that's debatable.

Considering that's the dumbest thing i've ever heard...

Not when you consider that many in the music world, including the Beatles themselves, actually consider Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys at the top in many areas.

That was only in England, everywhere else in the world the Beatles were huge.....

 

[Alex28]

i'd have to admit that at experimenting with new music, radiohead is way better. But just a question, how long would you consider that Radiohead were in their prime though? id consider metallica's prime was from 1985-1990.

I actually believe Reload was better than Load, it actually had some good songs on it : Unforgiven II, Fuel, Memory Remains. Load had jack sh*t, i think thats their worst album.

I am probably being a bit biased, but i still stand by my choice as metallica as the 2nd biggest band ever, on the grounds of that if u asked any of the young rock bands in the last 10-15 years, more than likely they'll say that they are influenced by Metallica. All the crap bands influence nobody: simple plan, creed....etc. Whereas The beatles were highly influential, they changed music forever....i reckon influence and popularity is a great way to judge how big a group is.

but of course, we're never gonna get a real answer on this topic are we? ;-) ;-)

Radiohead's prime - It could be argued that they were in their prime from Pablo Honey through to Kid A...personally I would say from 1994 (release of The Bends) through to 2000 (release of Kid A). Personally I think they are still in the top couple of bands today - Hail To The Thief was the most listenable album they have made since The Bends, had a great mix of OKC stuff and Kid A/Amnesiac stuff. Some see the Kid A/Amnesiac experiment as a bad thing - but if you saw how they pulled it off live you would change your opinion...seriously the best live band on the planet.

I dont doubt Metallica were influencial - they open the way for heavy rock and metal to be socially acceptable.

For the record Reload was just as bad as Load - and Unforgiven II was an awful sellout...

 

[curry]

shutup

 

[elyod138]

:|

 

[Alex28]

shutup

yeah...good point. you clearly understand the concept of a discussion forum. what a visionary...

 

[carcharias]

I love Kid A.

 

[Ari Gold]

shutup

thanks for your contribution to this discussion..... :roll: :roll:

 

[Balmain_Boy]

Considering that the Beatles were a helluva lot more popular than the Beach Boys, they are obviously first.

Considereing that in 1966, in England the Beach Boys were voted the number one band AHEAD of the Beatles, that's debatable.

Considering that's the dumbest thing i've ever heard...

Not when you consider that many in the music world, including the Beatles themselves, actually consider Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys at the top in many areas.

Many MORE in the music world believe the Beatles are at the top.

I'm unaware of the BBs being voted number one - i'd like to know the source, what the vote was etc. Although considering it was in 66 and the White Album, Abbey Road, Let it Be, Magical Mystery Tour, Sgt Peppers were all yet to be released and Revolver had just come out, it means little imo.

 

[Balmain_Boy]

Oh as for your assertion that the Beatles THEMSELVES think Brian Wilson + BBs are at the top, source please? I can't see Lennon or McCartney saying that given the egos of both men.

 

[Balmain_Boy]

BTW, Brian Wilson may have been ahead of Paul, John and George individully (although I think John and Paul at the very least are both ahead of him). However the beauty of the Beatles was they had 3 brilliant song writers (...and Ringo... :| ). The versatility of the Beatles was something BBs didn't even go close to matching. Take a song like Rocky Racoon and Back in the USSR for example. Both are parodies, but are brilliant songs in their own right. I think the strength of the beatles lies not JUST in their hit songs, but in the songs that DIDN'T make it to number one.

 

[ledzep]

Just re-reading this thread...
I'm shocked at the lack of Led Zeppelin in it.
They are/were far bigger than the Stones, from what I can gather.
I would go so far as to say that The Rolling Stones = major myth.
In the USA, Zeppelin are third on the best sellers list, with 107.5 million units sold (behind only The Beatles and Elvis).
The Rolling Stones are twelth on the list with (only) 64.5 million albums sold. That's despite having a much longer career and having made more albums.
Zeppelin have the most requested song on US radio ever, with Stairway To Heaven.
They broke box-office records across the world formerly held by the Beatles.
After the release of Physical Graffiti, their 6 album catalogue was simultaneously on the top 200 charts in America.
All their studio albums have sold 5 million copies in the US alone, bare minimum.
It's got to be Zeppelin.

 

[Slappy]

even if the beatles did make some throwaway statement about brian wilson, it doesn't mean a thing. That was their opinion (although i doubt the authenticity of this claim).
The Beatles were the biggest by far, but that doesn't mean the bands they look up to are better or bigger!

The Stones would have to be the 2nd biggest band of all time. I can understand people suggesting Led Zeppelin, but no one else deserves a mention except maybe Elvis as someone pointed out, but he's technically not a band.

Beatles, Stones, daylight then the rest. Anyone suggesting Queen should be blown up! They were a joke that went on for far too long!

 

[ledzep]

Why the Stones?