Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Really, when you think about it. They sold 70million albums in the span of about 5-6years.and with only really 3 albums of new material..1 ep. It took the stones, ac/dc etc. who all have sales like that almost decade and several cds etc. to do those kind of sales.

not to mention on the illusion tour they were playing stadiums..

your opinion? I think they if anything probably are the band who had the fastest rise to popularity

Me, I'd change the "Were" in the title to "Are."  The GnR story is far from over...

i think they are. (maybe cause' i'm a hardcorefan.)
Of course people have opinions. Some would say that gn'r is the worst band ever.

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.

U2 popularity? you must be joking  ;D

I always refer to them as the "greatest hard rock band ever." 

When I say this, I'm referring specifically to the quality of their musicianship on the material they've released.  What I don't include, but I'm sure others would, is some sense of band longevity.  If this is part of the calculation, I'm sure Aerosmith or AC/DC would be a better choice.  Those bands have been around a LONG time, but have also released some less than spectacular albums.  There's no questioning that they're great, but I truly believe GNR's music is better.

At the time of the late 80s, early 90s, they certainly were. You couldn't take a dump without hearing or seeing something about GNR at that time. They were everywhere. I remember that time so well, it was a great time to love this band that was so badass and had such a fuck you attitude. They certainly have been eclipsed by U2 especially, but even Nirvana didn't quite reach the frenzy that GNR did at the time. So, yes, for a time they were. They can be again too, if Axl plays his cards right. So far, he hasn't done such a good job at that.

They definately were the biggest band on the planet in the early 90s, I dont know if there popularity would have lasted had they stayed togethor and released an album every 2 years or so, who knows really, The publics appetite for a new GnR record is probably as strong now as it was in 1996.
They just sort of dissapeared at the top of their game. Kinda sad in a way.

Nirvana really wasnt all THAT popular at all. I thought they really started becoming the cats meow when GNR kinda took there "break" and especially after Kurt died.

Led Zeppelin is the biggest rock n' roll band ever!

(i put the beatles in a totally different category)

People seem to forget that too. These guys have kept their stature, yet only have three full studio albums to there name, and were gone for 9+3 years. Yet interest in them still remains high.

for "were" read "are".  i believe that with the tour and the rumours of the album release this year the interest in gn'r has been very very high.  all this with no new album in so long.  any other band that had promised and not delivered a new album in so long would not get the coverage that gn'r have had.  they ARE the biggest rock band ever.

They might be be the best rock band, but they arn't the biggest anymore - just look at their ticket sales compared to the Rolling Stones!

Yes they were, and they will be again.

3/6/07.

I didnt say the werent or wont be in the future, but they are not at this moment in time.

I was responding to the question asked by the thread, not your post specifically...I agree with you - just saying that I expect things to come around again for Axl & Co. once the album is out.? ? ? ?:peace:

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

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.

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.

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...

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.

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?

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

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

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? :P), 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.  ::)

led zepellin is one of the biggest bands ever

but van halen bigger than gunnroses,no way

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:

were GNR the biggest rock band ever??


ABSOLUTELY!

Huh? Ever hear of the Rolling Stones? These guys are 60+ and still making tens of millions more than GNR, plus they have have like 30 albums, while GNR has 4.5 (not counting Live Era). I love GNR, but there is no way they are the biggest  band ever. Not even close.

Others  that probably were  bigger in terms of number  of albums, gross receipts from concerts, and songs on the  charts:
The Who
U2
Pink Floyd
Beatles
Aerosmith
Metallica


(I have not done any research  on the above  so I could be wrong--it is all just impressionistic.

The Beatles are obviously the biggest rock band of all time.

Guns N' Roses is probably the biggest Hard Rock band ever.
The Beatles were not a rock band (they might have started as one, but they were mostly a pop band).
U2 is probably the biggest band ever (although I fail to see why they are so damn popular).
The Rolling Stones are probably the biggest rock band ever.

All in my humble opinion of course...

The Beatles were rock for their time man. At the time, parents shivered when their kids listened to that music. It was indeed the devil's music for it's time. Parents were scared of anything that wasn't Glenn Miller or Lawrence Welk.

Oh, and then there is this guy you may have heard of, Bruce Springsteen.
I will start a thread at some point about the brilliance of his lyrics. or someone  can steal the idea and do it for me.
But the Boss  was bigger than GNR and put out way more albums, and continues to be more productive. The Pete  Seeger tunes album is excellent, and I really liked The Rising. The  Boss continues to rule.

uh, no


THE BEATLES

Yeah, you might be right. Depends on the definition of "rock" I guess. In the end, I've always found The Beatles to be "ideal son's in law", compared to the Stones, who've always had that kind-of nasty thing about them. And music-wise, I find the beatles' rocking tunes to be far and between (Sgt. Peppers' is an example of one, Let It Be, Yesterday, I am The Walrus, Lady Madonna, Hey Jude, ... are not), whilest the Stones always produced more rock sounding music, to my tastes (Sympathy for the Devil, Paint It Black, Satisfaction, Start Me Up, It's Only Rock N' Roll, ... all sound "rock" to me). I can't really put a definition on it though, so...

At GnR's peak there was none bigger than they were at that time

in 91-93 they were the hugest act...by far

Metallica has sold more albums, more concert tickets, produced more music and done more than GNR.  Kiss was bigger than GNR.  Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, the beatles and several other bands have been bigger than GNR.  Thats not saying GNR wasnt huge and at their time they were the biggest rock band in the world, but their time lasted for about 5 years, where as bands like the stones have outsold the competition for decades. Its not really even arguable because the numbers are out there and you can just look at how they are viewed by the public.

If they kept the original line up together they would be this generations Rolling Stones...in a way they were close to that...but the line up change defiantely turned off alot of people....and the new line up is great.......I will say this however...NO band has come out after them that is even close to being as big as they were....