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

[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.

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.

See...this is why I hate the decade based brackets.  GNR were half late 80s, half early 90s (based on studio albums, before anyone gets their panties in a bunch).  Bands should've been seeded, just like the NCAAs.  I'd have put Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Sabbath, and The Beatles (were they on there even?) at #1 seeds, and GNR probably in the #3 seed range.  I wouldn't have split up Van Halen or AC/DC.

[jarmo]

I voted 'Tallica

Of course you did.


The whole idea behind this thread was to support GN'R in these polls.

You failed...... Not exactly surprising.




/jarmo

[sandman]

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.

GnR's sound was totally mainstream. everybody loves their songs. SCOM is about as mainstream as it gets - mass appeal to just about every demographic.

metallica was not mainstream at all in the 80's. but somewhat mainstream in the 90's.

[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.

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." 

No, you're being ridiculous with that statement. Obviously no one goes into the studio and says "lets make a shitty album". I do think by the time 03 rolled around and they had all those troubles delaying them from work they said "oh shit we better do SOMETHING" and released St. Anger which is the biggest piece of shit album I've ever listened to in it's entirety. And I do like some songs from Load and Reload, however they used to make great albums not just great songs. For instance Reload: Devil's Dance, memory Remains, are good songs. Almost everything else on the album ranges from "it's ok but I could go the rest of my existence without ever hearing it again" to "oh my god, this song named after that book they read to us in preschool is the smelliest turd in their entire catalogue".

[Feel_The_Burn]

I voted 'Tallica

Of course you did.


The whole idea behind this thread was to support GN'R in these polls.

You failed...... Not exactly surprising.




/jarmo

Are you fucking serious? Wow Jarmo just because I post on this forum doesn't mean I have to vote GN'R on every god damn thing i see. The POINT of this thread was GN'R was in some radio station contest. They came about against the other one of my favorite bands and I voted 'Tallica. I failed? I love how you completely ignore my reasoning on why I voted "Tallica. Guys some people can just be an ass in any situation.

[jarmo]

Are you fucking serious? Wow Jarmo just because I post on this forum doesn't mean I have to vote GN'R on every god damn thing i see. The POINT of this thread was GN'R was in some radio station contest. They came about against the other one of my favorite bands and I voted 'Tallica. I failed? I love how you completely ignore my reasoning on why I voted "Tallica. Guys some people can just be an ass in any situation.

Am I serious? Are you?

You come to a GN'R site to tell us all on how you prefer Metallica in a thread that's meant to get (GN'R) fans here to vote for GN'R.

You don't see what's a bit weird in that?



You never seemed like a person who supports the band in the first place.

 



/jarmo

[Wooody]

if I read 'talllica instead of metallica one more time I may throw up.

Fuckin kiddies.

[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." 

No, you're being ridiculous with that statement. Obviously no one goes into the studio and says "lets make a shitty album". I do think by the time 03 rolled around and they had all those troubles delaying them from work they said "oh shit we better do SOMETHING" and released St. Anger which is the biggest piece of shit album I've ever listened to in it's entirety. And I do like some songs from Load and Reload, however they used to make great albums not just great songs. For instance Reload: Devil's Dance, memory Remains, are good songs. Almost everything else on the album ranges from "it's ok but I could go the rest of my existence without ever hearing it again" to "oh my god, this song named after that book they read to us in preschool is the smelliest turd in their entire catalogue".

metallica's albums in the 80's were more "rushed" than anything they released post-1990's. 3 albums released in less than 3 years (1983, 1984, and 1986). St. Anger, even with all their mental issues, was not rushed at any point.

you did not answer my question...what do you mean by "substandard?"your point about what axl set out to do vs. what metallica did does not make any sense. because it's based on your opinions.

i think both bands have set out to make albums THEY are happy with and are comfortable with. i know metallica has succeeded in doing that. and i'm sure axl feels good about "oh my god" and he will feel good about CD when it is released.

but i'll answer your questions again...
1) i would rather have my favorite bands release albums than go 17 years with no original release.
2) No, what metallica did is NOT what "axl has set out not to do." they released albums filled with music they were proud of. they put into song what they were feeling at that time.

i think metallica has done exactly what axl has been trying to do.

as far as the vote, it'll be interesting to see something like this after CD is released. i have a feeling the results would be different.

[Feel_The_Burn]

Are you fucking serious? Wow Jarmo just because I post on this forum doesn't mean I have to vote GN'R on every god damn thing i see. The POINT of this thread was GN'R was in some radio station contest. They came about against the other one of my favorite bands and I voted 'Tallica. I failed? I love how you completely ignore my reasoning on why I voted "Tallica. Guys some people can just be an ass in any situation.

Am I serious? Are you?

You come to a GN'R site to tell us all on how you prefer Metallica in a thread that's meant to get (GN'R) fans here to vote for GN'R.

You don't see what's a bit weird in that?



You never seemed like a person who supports the band in the first place.

 



/jarmo

You are taking this over the top. You make it seem like I'm on here constantly preaching about them. The contest is OVER and I just said I voted 'Tallica because of the fact that those 80's albums had way more amazing songs then AFD and Lies IMHO. I find it funny how you quoted just one part of my message as well. Anyways you are very touchy its kind of funny. Am I supposed to prove my "loyalty" to to you now? Since I seem like I don't support them. 

as far as the vote, it'll be interesting to see something like this after CD is released. i have a feeling the results would be different.

Don't forget get Metallica is set to release a record soon as well...

[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.

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." 

No, you're being ridiculous with that statement. Obviously no one goes into the studio and says "lets make a shitty album". I do think by the time 03 rolled around and they had all those troubles delaying them from work they said "oh shit we better do SOMETHING" and released St. Anger which is the biggest piece of shit album I've ever listened to in it's entirety. And I do like some songs from Load and Reload, however they used to make great albums not just great songs. For instance Reload: Devil's Dance, memory Remains, are good songs. Almost everything else on the album ranges from "it's ok but I could go the rest of my existence without ever hearing it again" to "oh my god, this song named after that book they read to us in preschool is the smelliest turd in their entire catalogue".

metallica's albums in the 80's were more "rushed" than anything they released post-1990's. 3 albums released in less than 3 years (1983, 1984, and 1986). St. Anger, even with all their mental issues, was not rushed at any point.

you did not answer my question...what do you mean by "substandard?"your point about what axl set out to do vs. what metallica did does not make any sense. because it's based on your opinions.

i think both bands have set out to make albums THEY are happy with and are comfortable with. i know metallica has succeeded in doing that. and i'm sure axl feels good about "oh my god" and he will feel good about CD when it is released.

but i'll answer your questions again...
1) i would rather have my favorite bands release albums than go 17 years with no original release.
2) No, what metallica did is NOT what "axl has set out not to do." they released albums filled with music they were proud of. they put into song what they were feeling at that time.

i think metallica has done exactly what axl has been trying to do.

as far as the vote, it'll be interesting to see something like this after CD is released. i have a feeling the results would be different.

I did answer your question and I even cited examples. They released a lot of songs that I think they knew were not that good. Plain and simple. I don't think it's what they set out to do, but they probably did get somewhat comfortable in the fact they knew whatever they released would go quadruple platinum regardless of it's quality. And obviously anyone would rather have their favorite artist release something as opposed to nothing. My original question was more into how the band is perceived. By not releasing albums as outright terrible as st. anger or songs as downright shitty as where the wild things are or the cure Axl has been able to sustain more of a respectability in my opinion and in others than Metallica has. And I still think that makes it an interesting comparison between the two. From the artists perspective then whats better? To disappear for a period of time and re-emerge and hopefully release something great or to stay around and spend half your career releasing material that is nowhere near up to your potential. And yes, that is my opinion of their post black album work-nowhere near their potential. And I don't think it's being an egomaniac using that as a basis because it's an opinion shared by almost all music fans whether or not they like certain songs or parts of things Metallica has done during this time as I have already said I do. Only the Metallica heads who think they can do no wrong which you're starting to come off as seem to have a problem admitting that they've released some crap over the past 12 years.

[jarmo]

You are taking this over the top. You make it seem like I'm on here constantly preaching about them. The contest is OVER and I just said I voted 'Tallica because of the fact that those 80's albums had way more amazing songs then AFD and Lies IMHO. I find it funny how you quoted just one part of my message as well. Anyways you are very touchy its kind of funny. Am I supposed to prove my "loyalty" to to you now? Since I seem like I don't support them. 

I'm taking this over the top?

Look at the facts: We have a thread aimed to support GN'R in this poll and you (somebody who's been previously banned) come here to tell us all how you voted for another band instead of GN'R.

Not only is that against what the thread was initially about, it's almost like you're only posting that here to get attention. Like a troll would.

Why couldn't you just post it in the other section where the general thread for this poll is? It was created it after people were told him to stop talking about other bands in this thread.


I wonder if you had posted that if GN'R had won....





/jarmo

[Feel_The_Burn]

You are taking this over the top. You make it seem like I'm on here constantly preaching about them. The contest is OVER and I just said I voted 'Tallica because of the fact that those 80's albums had way more amazing songs then AFD and Lies IMHO. I find it funny how you quoted just one part of my message as well. Anyways you are very touchy its kind of funny. Am I supposed to prove my "loyalty" to to you now? Since I seem like I don't support them. 

I'm taking this over the top?

Look at the facts: We have a thread aimed to support GN'R in this poll and you (somebody who's been previously banned) come here to tell us all how you voted for another band instead of GN'R.

Not only is that against what the thread was initially about, it's almost like you're only posting that here to get attention. Like a troll would.

Why couldn't you just post it in the other section where the general thread for this poll is? It was created it after people were told him to stop talking about other bands in this thread.


I wonder if you had posted that if GN'R had won....





/jarmo

Yeah I would've said something along the lines that it was cool that GN'R one but I voted "tallica due to certain reasons. Where is the other thread I didn't see it.

[COMAMOTIVE]

If you ran this contest when they were at their peaks, when they were touring together, or even right around the time of Slash & Duff's last days, the results may have been different. Both bands have dedicated fan bases and the fact that Guns did as well as they did is frankly scary, in terms of the effect they had on people with only 4 original albums .

Run this contest again, about a year after Chinese D is released and look out

[ppbebe]

I think if general music fans voted GNR, with or without cd, would noway lost for 'tallica.