GN'R vs Metallica on 92.3 K-Rock's March Bracket Brawl MAR 28th at 4pm EDT

[GypsySoul]

The DJ just said that Metallica is winning at the moment

[w.axl.rose]

when does this end?

[w.axl.rose]

must be over. i dont get the voting page anymore.

[ppbebe]

voted about 10 times now. will vote more when i get home

I was too scared to do that thinking it might fall into a category of "voting irregularities" to disqualify GNR from the next round.

[Bodhi]

Metallica won...56 to 43 roughly.....blows....

[14 Yrs Of Silence]

Overall GN'R had a solid showing.  Think what they could have done if CD was released last year!  Will be interesting to see if they do this again next year

[Bodhi]

True....not bad for a band who hasnt put out any original material since 1991....with the exception of "oh my god"

[Continental Drift]

"Finalists" for the 80's is not a bad showing at all... especially considering GN'R's prolonged "hiatus" and line-up changes, as well as, the fact that Metallica has: (1) a rabid and loyal fanbase; and (2) had greater longevity and consistency than GN'R.

That being said... anyone who thinks Metallica was "bigger" than GN'R at any point during the 1980's is absolutely kidding themselves. Metallica in the 1980's was the workman-like blue collar band quietly (i.e. not calling much attention to themselves... not sound wise. ) getting it done.... while GN'R was a MONSTER band all over the public's TV's, news media, radios, etc. that thrilled and flamed out in spectacular fashion.

[Wheres Izzy]

"Finalists" for the 80's is not a bad showing at all... especially considering GN'R's prolonged "hiatus" and line-up changes, as well as, the fact that Metallica has: (1) a rabid and loyal fanbase; and (2) had greater longevity and consistency than GN'R.

That being said... anyone who thinks Metallica was "bigger" than GN'R at any point during the 1980's is absolutely kidding themselves. Metallica in the 1980's was the workman-like blue collar band quietly (i.e. not calling much attention to themselves... not sound wise. ) getting it done.... while GN'R was a MONSTER band all over the public's TV's, news media, radios, etc. that thrilled and flamed out in spectacular fashion.

It does raise an interesting comparison between the two tho. I for one LOVE the first four Metallica albums, think the black album is just OK, and fnd everything they've done since to range between mediocre to bad. If you take 1991 as a starting point which is better? To have a great band release music you're mostly indifferent to or not release anything? And isn't what Metallica has done what Axl has really set out not to do? I believe he said something at one point about the first snakepit album and how he didn't feel it was good enough and wasn't about to do it just to do it. But which do people actually prefer?

[sandman]

"Finalists" for the 80's is not a bad showing at all... especially considering GN'R's prolonged "hiatus" and line-up changes, as well as, the fact that Metallica has: (1) a rabid and loyal fanbase; and (2) had greater longevity and consistency than GN'R.

That being said... anyone who thinks Metallica was "bigger" than GN'R at any point during the 1980's is absolutely kidding themselves. Metallica in the 1980's was the workman-like blue collar band quietly (i.e. not calling much attention to themselves... not sound wise. ) getting it done.... while GN'R was a MONSTER band all over the public's TV's, news media, radios, etc. that thrilled and flamed out in spectacular fashion.

It does raise an interesting comparison between the two tho. I for one LOVE the first four Metallica albums, think the black album is just OK, and fnd everything they've done since to range between mediocre to bad. If you take 1991 as a starting point which is better? To have a great band release music you're mostly indifferent to or not release anything? And isn't what Metallica has done what Axl has really set out not to do? I believe he said something at one point about the first snakepit album and how he didn't feel it was good enough and wasn't about to do it just to do it. But which do people actually prefer?

i think your answer is in the results of the poll. sure, gnr hasn't released an album in over 15 years. but they are played on rock stations more than metallica. you could also argue (as some on here have) that metallica's albums have hurt their popularity. 

But despite metallica's sub-par efforts, there are still several songs i REALLY enjoy that they released post-80's. several songs that i crank on the radio, listen to frequently, and ALWAYS want to hear live.

also, tours come along with album releases. so metallica fans have had the opportunity to see them several times over the years.

and good or bad, the album experience is still fun - hearing a new single on the radio, the anticipation, actually buying it, discussing it with your friends, having your favorite band be in the limelight, and being able to share all these experiences with your friends.

for me it's a no-brainer.

also, i didn't think this long delay is what axl set out to do. i don't think the delays have been due to Axl trying to improve the music or make it perfect.

[cyllan]

That being said... anyone who thinks Metallica was "bigger" than GN'R at any point during the 1980's is absolutely kidding themselves. Metallica in the 1980's was the workman-like blue collar band quietly (i.e. not calling much attention to themselves... not sound wise. ) getting it done.... while GN'R was a MONSTER band all over the public's TV's, news media, radios, etc. that thrilled and flamed out in spectacular fashion.

I'm only speaking from a British-based perspective and my own memory of the late 1980's, but I think that a good part of the reason why GNR got more mainstream exposure was because their music had a crossover appeal between the heavy metal crowd and those who were more inclined towards hard rock.  Metallica, as far as I can recall, solely inhabited the male-dominated heavy metal world and therefore got a stiff ignoring from many radio and telly programmes.  Oh, and of course, GNR having a rock god as frontman, and a fair bit of other male totty in the band, were streets ahead of what Metallica could offer the discerning female fan.   

[Continental Drift]

That being said... anyone who thinks Metallica was "bigger" than GN'R at any point during the 1980's is absolutely kidding themselves. Metallica in the 1980's was the workman-like blue collar band quietly (i.e. not calling much attention to themselves... not sound wise. ) getting it done.... while GN'R was a MONSTER band all over the public's TV's, news media, radios, etc. that thrilled and flamed out in spectacular fashion.

I'm only speaking from a British-based perspective and my own memory of the late 1980's, but I think that a good part of the reason why GNR got more mainstream exposure was because their music had a crossover appeal between the heavy metal crowd and those who were more inclined towards hard rock.  Metallica, as far as I can recall, solely inhabited the male-dominated heavy metal world and therefore got a stiff ignoring from many radio and telly programmes.  Oh, and of course, GNR having a rock god as frontman, and a fair bit of other male totty in the band, were streets ahead of what Metallica could offer the discerning female fan.   

Can't speak about the "female" perspective...

But I think you make some real good points in differentiating the two bands and their respective sounds. In addition to the cross-over appeal of their music... Guns had so much personality and variety in their appearance (bandanna and baseball cap, top hat, Duff's punk look, Izzy's hat and sunglasses, Popcorn's hair etc.). Metallica was 4 guys in black t-shirts or whatever. Another major difference was that by all accounts the guys in Guns were living out their dreams being major rock stars and thirsted for the fame and notoriety that their heroes in Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones, Queen, etc. had had. They WANTED all that and got it. Metallica preferred relative anonymity... until they started hanging out with GN'R full-time during the '92 tour.

[Wheres Izzy]

"Finalists" for the 80's is not a bad showing at all... especially considering GN'R's prolonged "hiatus" and line-up changes, as well as, the fact that Metallica has: (1) a rabid and loyal fanbase; and (2) had greater longevity and consistency than GN'R.

That being said... anyone who thinks Metallica was "bigger" than GN'R at any point during the 1980's is absolutely kidding themselves. Metallica in the 1980's was the workman-like blue collar band quietly (i.e. not calling much attention to themselves... not sound wise. ) getting it done.... while GN'R was a MONSTER band all over the public's TV's, news media, radios, etc. that thrilled and flamed out in spectacular fashion.

It does raise an interesting comparison between the two tho. I for one LOVE the first four Metallica albums, think the black album is just OK, and fnd everything they've done since to range between mediocre to bad. If you take 1991 as a starting point which is better? To have a great band release music you're mostly indifferent to or not release anything? And isn't what Metallica has done what Axl has really set out not to do? I believe he said something at one point about the first snakepit album and how he didn't feel it was good enough and wasn't about to do it just to do it. But which do people actually prefer?

i think your answer is in the results of the poll. sure, gnr hasn't released an album in over 15 years. but they are played on rock stations more than metallica. you could also argue (as some on here have) that metallica's albums have hurt their popularity. 

But despite metallica's sub-par efforts, there are still several songs i REALLY enjoy that they released post-80's. several songs that i crank on the radio, listen to frequently, and ALWAYS want to hear live.

also, tours come along with album releases. so metallica fans have had the opportunity to see them several times over the years.

and good or bad, the album experience is still fun - hearing a new single on the radio, the anticipation, actually buying it, discussing it with your friends, having your favorite band be in the limelight, and being able to share all these experiences with your friends.

for me it's a no-brainer.

also, i didn't think this long delay is what axl set out to do. i don't think the delays have been due to Axl trying to improve the music or make it perfect.

I agree 100% that hearing a new single from a band you love and knowing a release date and all that are a lot of fun, but I wasn't saying Axl set out to not release an album in 17 years. I was saying he set out to not release anything sub-standard which I think most people would have a hard time arguing Metallica have not done.

[ppbebe]

I'm only speaking from a British-based perspective and my own memory of the late 1980's, but I think that a good part of the reason why GNR got more mainstream exposure was because their music had a crossover appeal between the heavy metal crowd and those who were more inclined towards hard rock.

I gather GNR appealed to pop/general music fans as well. scom was a no1 hit.

the band that hadn't gone public until recently made the 80s final, a close game against a band that has constantly promoted itself. Not bad. 

[sandman]

"Finalists" for the 80's is not a bad showing at all... especially considering GN'R's prolonged "hiatus" and line-up changes, as well as, the fact that Metallica has: (1) a rabid and loyal fanbase; and (2) had greater longevity and consistency than GN'R.

That being said... anyone who thinks Metallica was "bigger" than GN'R at any point during the 1980's is absolutely kidding themselves. Metallica in the 1980's was the workman-like blue collar band quietly (i.e. not calling much attention to themselves... not sound wise. ) getting it done.... while GN'R was a MONSTER band all over the public's TV's, news media, radios, etc. that thrilled and flamed out in spectacular fashion.

It does raise an interesting comparison between the two tho. I for one LOVE the first four Metallica albums, think the black album is just OK, and fnd everything they've done since to range between mediocre to bad. If you take 1991 as a starting point which is better? To have a great band release music you're mostly indifferent to or not release anything? And isn't what Metallica has done what Axl has really set out not to do? I believe he said something at one point about the first snakepit album and how he didn't feel it was good enough and wasn't about to do it just to do it. But which do people actually prefer?

i think your answer is in the results of the poll. sure, gnr hasn't released an album in over 15 years. but they are played on rock stations more than metallica. you could also argue (as some on here have) that metallica's albums have hurt their popularity. 

But despite metallica's sub-par efforts, there are still several songs i REALLY enjoy that they released post-80's. several songs that i crank on the radio, listen to frequently, and ALWAYS want to hear live.

also, tours come along with album releases. so metallica fans have had the opportunity to see them several times over the years.

and good or bad, the album experience is still fun - hearing a new single on the radio, the anticipation, actually buying it, discussing it with your friends, having your favorite band be in the limelight, and being able to share all these experiences with your friends.

for me it's a no-brainer.

also, i didn't think this long delay is what axl set out to do. i don't think the delays have been due to Axl trying to improve the music or make it perfect.

I agree 100% that hearing a new single from a band you love and knowing a release date and all that are a lot of fun, but I wasn't saying Axl set out to not release an album in 17 years. I was saying he set out to not release anything sub-standard which I think most people would have a hard time arguing Metallica have not done.

what do you mean by "substandard?"

many people love metallica's post-1980's albums. many metallica songs from the 90's are played on the radio all the time.

do you think metallica has ever entered the studio and said "if we make a 'substandard' album, so be it." 

[Shoco]

That being said... anyone who thinks Metallica was "bigger" than GN'R at any point during the 1980's is absolutely kidding themselves. Metallica in the 1980's was the workman-like blue collar band quietly (i.e. not calling much attention to themselves... not sound wise. ) getting it done.... while GN'R was a MONSTER band all over the public's TV's, news media, radios, etc. that thrilled and flamed out in spectacular fashion.

but GNR were a lot more mainstream than metallica

[Killingmachine]

due to GN'R was very more commercial than Metallica, besides, the sound of GNR always has been more melodic/soft than a Metal riff of Metallica.

[Continental Drift]

but GNR were a lot more mainstream than metallica

Absolutely. That's my main point. I suppose the bracket is getting at "best" band of the 1980's and not "biggest". When you talk about "best"... then GN'R v. Metallica is a debatable argument (though I'm sure I know where most of us come down on that one. ). When you talk about "biggest"... it's not even close... especially if you spread out the years a little bit to take in the early 90's... and it's GN'R in a landslide.

[freedom78]

I don't think either GNR or Metallica were really mainstream, in their sound.  They both grabbed mainstream and said "FUCKING LISTEN TO THIS!" and people did, but it's not because they had that catchy, easy to listen to, mass appeal.  They were just musically better than about everyone else around at the time.

[Feel_The_Burn]

I don't think either GNR or Metallica were really mainstream, in their sound.  They both grabbed mainstream and said "FUCKING LISTEN TO THIS!" and people did, but it's not because they had that catchy, easy to listen to, mass appeal.  They were just musically better than about everyone else around at the time.

Totally agree 

I voted 'Tallica simply because while I may love AFD and Lies this was based on 80's and come on

 Kill 'Em All
 Ride the Lightning
Master of Puppets
..And Justice for All

Had SO many amazing tracks its not funny 80's where very nice to Metallca but Zeppelin is about to stomp all over them.