Here Today... Gone To Hell! | Message Board


Guns N Roses
of all the message boards on the internet, this is one...

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
June 15, 2024, 08:39:33 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
1228057 Posts in 43258 Topics by 9264 Members
Latest Member: EllaGNR
* Home Help Calendar Go to HTGTH Login Register
+  Here Today... Gone To Hell!
|-+  Guns N' Roses
| |-+  Dead Horse
| | |-+  were GNR the biggest rock band ever??
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All Go Down Print
Author Topic: were GNR the biggest rock band ever??  (Read 10810 times)
CheapJon
spam egg spam spam bacon and spam, spam sausage spam spam bacon spam tomato and spam
Legend
*****

Karma: -3
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 11087


lstn mfx 2 diz song dat shud b hurd


« Reply #20 on: December 29, 2006, 08:01:18 PM »

They definately were...but arent anymore...The biggest band in the world doesnt play to half empty arenas here in the states....u2 sold out something like 7 nights in a row at MSG not long ago...and Bruce Springsteen sold out 10 thats right I said 10 straight dates at Giants Stadium which holds almost 80,000 people....THe concert attendance for the last GNR tour was respectable, especially because they have NO new material....I will say this however..the were the last great rock n roll band...nobody has come out after them that can even challenge them as far as how big they were..Nirvana is way behind in album sales and concert attendance...

Not necessarily the best comparison, as Nirvana won't exactly have a chance to catch up or compete at this point.? I agree, though...GnR have gotten a respectable turnout at shows, but again, that will all chance if and when the album hits.

Nirvana's success post-Cobain can be attributed to one thing... media hype.

Yes.? Hype and adoration.? Some of it well-deserved, I suppose...

nirvana was good but not nearly as great as the media say they were, one of the most overrated bands ever, and because they are that overrated has makin' me like them less or something for some wierd reason
Logged
Bodhi
Legend
*****

Karma: 1
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2885


« Reply #21 on: December 29, 2006, 08:33:18 PM »

I agree, Nirvana is overhyped...but they were the closest to being this huge rock band that GNR was...they fell way short...but they are second none the less....I am speaking of bands that came out the same time as GNR or after of course...
Logged
bazgnr
Legend
*****

Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2215


« Reply #22 on: December 29, 2006, 08:37:29 PM »

I agree, Nirvana is overhyped...but they were the closest to being this huge rock band that GNR was...they fell way short...but they are second none the less....I am speaking of bands that came out the same time as GNR or after of course...

I think what they have in common is that they both issued a wake up call to the world in terms of having something to say, and saying it like no other band did before them.  In their prime, Nirvana was far bigger than Guns were at the time, but Nirvana was unable to prevent themselves from imploding.  The Guns 'n Roses story is far from over, and for that, I'm pretty damn happy.
Logged
The Legend
Killer
VIP
****

Karma: -3
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1368


DX sez "Suck It!"


« Reply #23 on: December 30, 2006, 03:29:29 AM »

They definately were...but arent anymore...The biggest band in the world doesnt play to half empty arenas here in the states....u2 sold out something like 7 nights in a row at MSG not long ago...and Bruce Springsteen sold out 10 thats right I said 10 straight dates at Giants Stadium which holds almost 80,000 people....THe concert attendance for the last GNR tour was respectable, especially because they have NO new material....I will say this however..the were the last great rock n roll band...nobody has come out after them that can even challenge them as far as how big they were..Nirvana is way behind in album sales and concert attendance...

Not necessarily the best comparison, as Nirvana won't exactly have a chance to catch up or compete at this point.? I agree, though...GnR have gotten a respectable turnout at shows, but again, that will all chance if and when the album hits.

Nirvana's success post-Cobain can be attributed to one thing... media hype.

Yes.? Hype and adoration.? Some of it well-deserved, I suppose...

nirvana was good but not nearly as great as the media say they were, one of the most overrated bands ever, and because they are that overrated has makin' me like them less or something for some wierd reason

That's what i'm saying. I like Nirvana. I really do. But they were a 'good' rock band imo. Not 'great', nor were they 'legends'.

Nirvana was simply a band of times. There's was the early-90's. They aren't timeless.

Most of their post-Cobain success has been due to overexposure/oversaturation.
Logged

"Anybody who is sitting here - in the year 2007 - and arguing that this band isn't guns n roses has to be half retarded." - Jim Bob, HTGTH poster, 2007.

GNR shows:
10/25/06
10/27/06
Amanda.
Rocker
***

Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 201


Damn, I'm a legend.


« Reply #24 on: December 31, 2006, 08:38:41 AM »

GN'Rs immense success is kind of unique in musical history. I think only the Beatles can compare really.

If they had carried on with the same lineup, one could might exclude Popcorn, and released Chinese Democracy in the late 90s we could have been looking at U2 popularity and Led Zeppelin greatness today.

Beatles plays more like poprock or something.


what about queen? i think you can compare queen and guns. and i dunno about U2-popularity-thing...
Logged

Guns N?Roses @ Hartwall Arena 6.7.06

I'M SO NEXT CENTURY.
tomass74
Legend
*****

Karma: -2
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1999



« Reply #25 on: January 02, 2007, 07:46:20 AM »

They could have been the greatest rock band ever but due to lack of material they will not.. They just didn't release enough music..
Logged

The Legend
Killer
VIP
****

Karma: -3
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1368


DX sez "Suck It!"


« Reply #26 on: January 02, 2007, 03:56:53 PM »

They could have been the greatest rock band ever but due to lack of material they will not.. They just didn't release enough music..

Yeah, but that's the point. To release three full studio albums, and all three be considered masterpieces of their time (even though it took critics a little longer to appreciate the Illusions), and is still ranked as one of the greatest rock bands in history, is astonishing.

To make that kind of impact with only three studio albums, has to say something about longevity. Plus, unlike Nirvana, GN'R in their 'down time' from 1995-2000, 2003-2005, GN'R was not overexposed in the media. The GN'R name dropped out of sight basically until the 2002 VMA's, and the 2006 tour.
Logged

"Anybody who is sitting here - in the year 2007 - and arguing that this band isn't guns n roses has to be half retarded." - Jim Bob, HTGTH poster, 2007.

GNR shows:
10/25/06
10/27/06
tomass74
Legend
*****

Karma: -2
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1999



« Reply #27 on: January 03, 2007, 08:25:10 AM »

I still consider LIES an album.. To me it was 4 highly successful albums.. I mean LIES kicked ass!!
Logged

The Legend
Killer
VIP
****

Karma: -3
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1368


DX sez "Suck It!"


« Reply #28 on: January 03, 2007, 12:46:09 PM »

I still consider LIES an album.. To me it was 4 highly successful albums.. I mean LIES kicked ass!!

LIES was an 8-track EP, that contained 3 covers. I don't consider it a full original album, like TSI.
Logged

"Anybody who is sitting here - in the year 2007 - and arguing that this band isn't guns n roses has to be half retarded." - Jim Bob, HTGTH poster, 2007.

GNR shows:
10/25/06
10/27/06
tomass74
Legend
*****

Karma: -2
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1999



« Reply #29 on: January 07, 2007, 07:40:09 AM »

I still consider LIES an album.. To me it was 4 highly successful albums.. I mean LIES kicked ass!!

LIES was an 8-track EP, that contained 3 covers. I don't consider it a full original album, like TSI.

Was there another cover besides Nice Boys and Mama Kin?
Logged

gandra
Banned
VIP
****

Karma: -5
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1210


fire walk with me


« Reply #30 on: January 07, 2007, 08:53:29 AM »

well,gnr were the biggest band in early 90's,and for me the best band ever...

but it's very hard to compare gnr success one one side and bon jovi or u2 success on second side...

why?

because gnr made a big success with none comercial and none easy music.
as kurt cobain said "i don't believe that one underground band are the biggest now"

on other side we have u2 and bon jovi music which is music for every "ear"

and this fact give gunsnroses special dimension
Logged

I have never seen so many tree
The Legend
Killer
VIP
****

Karma: -3
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1368


DX sez "Suck It!"


« Reply #31 on: January 07, 2007, 06:00:15 PM »

I still consider LIES an album.. To me it was 4 highly successful albums.. I mean LIES kicked ass!!

LIES was an 8-track EP, that contained 3 covers. I don't consider it a full original album, like TSI.

Was there another cover besides Nice Boys and Mama Kin?

Apparently not. I recently learned I had been misinformed for years, and that Reckless Life was a GN'R original.
Logged

"Anybody who is sitting here - in the year 2007 - and arguing that this band isn't guns n roses has to be half retarded." - Jim Bob, HTGTH poster, 2007.

GNR shows:
10/25/06
10/27/06
mrlee
I'm Your Sun King, Baby
Legend
*****

Karma: -1
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6677



« Reply #32 on: January 07, 2007, 06:15:02 PM »

i always thought led zeppelin and van halen were probably the biggest.
Logged

html sucks
polluxlm
Mennesker Er Dumme
Legend
*****

Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3215



« Reply #33 on: January 07, 2007, 06:27:19 PM »

i always thought led zeppelin and van halen were probably the biggest.

They might have been bigger in terms of superior popularity, Zeppelin that is (Van Halen? Tongue), but GN'R lived in the days of MTV and CNN. A whole nother world in terms of exposure. Zeppelin were the biggest band of the 70s, but GN'R were everywhere in their heyday.
Logged

Ah, mere infantry. Poor beggars.

GN'R Tour Overview 1984-2007
The Legend
Killer
VIP
****

Karma: -3
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1368


DX sez "Suck It!"


« Reply #34 on: January 08, 2007, 03:42:47 AM »

i always thought led zeppelin and van halen were probably the biggest.

They might have been bigger in terms of superior popularity, Zeppelin that is (Van Halen? Tongue), but GN'R lived in the days of MTV and CNN. A whole nother world in terms of exposure. Zeppelin were the biggest band of the 70s, but GN'R were everywhere in their heyday.

Van Halen... uhhh, yeah.  Roll Eyes
Logged

"Anybody who is sitting here - in the year 2007 - and arguing that this band isn't guns n roses has to be half retarded." - Jim Bob, HTGTH poster, 2007.

GNR shows:
10/25/06
10/27/06
gandra
Banned
VIP
****

Karma: -5
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1210


fire walk with me


« Reply #35 on: January 08, 2007, 02:10:04 PM »

led zepellin is one of the biggest bands ever

but van halen bigger than gunnroses,no way
Logged

I have never seen so many tree
mrlee
I'm Your Sun King, Baby
Legend
*****

Karma: -1
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6677



« Reply #36 on: January 08, 2007, 02:41:21 PM »

you guys are telling me, that van halen, a band with one of the most influential guitarist of all time, wernt very popular?
Logged

html sucks
polluxlm
Mennesker Er Dumme
Legend
*****

Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3215



« Reply #37 on: January 08, 2007, 03:04:51 PM »

you guys are telling me, that van halen, a band with one of the most influential guitarist of all time, wernt very popular?

No
Logged

Ah, mere infantry. Poor beggars.

GN'R Tour Overview 1984-2007
mrlee
I'm Your Sun King, Baby
Legend
*****

Karma: -1
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6677



« Reply #38 on: January 08, 2007, 03:05:37 PM »

you guys are telling me, that van halen, a band with one of the most influential guitarist of all time, wernt very popular?

No

good lol. i was almost ready to think gnr forum goers had lost there minds.
Logged

html sucks
polluxlm
Mennesker Er Dumme
Legend
*****

Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3215



« Reply #39 on: January 08, 2007, 03:14:02 PM »

you guys are telling me, that van halen, a band with one of the most influential guitarist of all time, wernt very popular?

No

good lol. i was almost ready to think gnr forum goers had lost there minds.

One has got nothing to do with the other hihi
Logged

Ah, mere infantry. Poor beggars.

GN'R Tour Overview 1984-2007
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.9 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.04 seconds with 17 queries.