Slayer 0 Report post Posted July 12, 2004 No they don't. That's their only song, and it sucks. Therefore, they suck. End of discussion. Fell on Black Days. That should make up for it. "Outshined". "Rusty Cage" and "Spoon Man" also got decent MTV rotation Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Giuseppe Zangara 0 Report post Posted July 12, 2004 Suggesting that two bands that sold millions of records "could have been bigger" is mildly retarded, incidentally. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red Baron 0 Report post Posted July 12, 2004 The Beatles would have been bigger than jesus, if marketed properly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stahl 0 Report post Posted July 12, 2004 Suggesting that two bands that sold millions of records "could have been bigger" is mildly retarded, incidentally. Hardly, when a band that breaks on the scene and has the potential to be the biggest selling band in history, and biggest band of all time, and 6 years later they are finished.... that pretty much fits this topic very well. The point is, they could of been much bigger then they actually were. Hair band with attitude. What else is Guns N Roses. More popular then most hair bands combined at their pinnacle. Guns N Roses weren't really a hair band anyways. Bands like Ratt and Cinderella were. Guns N Roses played some pretty straight sounding hard rock for the most part. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red Baron 0 Report post Posted July 12, 2004 Hair band with attitude. What else is Guns N Roses. More popular then most hair bands combined at their pinnacle. Guns N Roses weren't really a hair band anyways. Bands like Ratt and Cinderella were. Guns N Roses played some pretty straight sounding hard rock for the most part. So was Motley Crue, Twisted Sister, Winger, Poison. Appetite Was Released just the right time. At a time that hair-bands was at their peak. If released a year earlier, a year later, the band would never been huge. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Mindless_Aggression Report post Posted July 12, 2004 Mike Patton... And he wasn't completely out of his mind You've got to be kidding. Nah, the insanity that Axl Rose has is quite a bit different from Patton's. Musically, yeah, Patton's out of his head, but he's a fairly normal guy outside of that realm, makes his show dates and tends to get out an album or 2 every year. So yeah, I don't qualify him as insane. But kudos for quoting Bungle below the Avatar, we should all do that, it'd improve our lives 10 times over. I wouldn't call GnR a hairband but I don't think they were particularly special either. One good album and then a bunch of other stuff that was either really good or absolutely awful, ya know, like most bands with a decent amount of talent, they just hit at the right time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Choken One Report post Posted July 12, 2004 Audioslave. While a decent radio hit here and there, they didn't really catch on like many assumed a collaboration of names like this would. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Agent of Oblivion Report post Posted July 12, 2004 That's probably the band I'm most glad flopped. What a generic trainwreck that was. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snuffbox 0 Report post Posted July 12, 2004 Relative Ash New Radicals Toad the Wet Sprocket One Minute Silence Liquid Gang Rearview Mirror Jeff Buckley (the Wolf River sucks) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red Baron 0 Report post Posted July 12, 2004 Genesis was never big until the late 70's early 80's. There best stuff was with Peter Gabriel. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
godthedog 0 Report post Posted July 12, 2004 i demand that the cliched line "could have been as big as/bigger than the beatles" be put to rest. i'm surprised nobody mentioned the velvet underground yet. they're the archetypal example of most important/least popular band. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest FrigidSoul Report post Posted July 12, 2004 Hair band with attitude. What else is Guns N Roses. More popular then most hair bands combined at their pinnacle. Guns N Roses weren't really a hair band anyways. Bands like Ratt and Cinderella were. Guns N Roses played some pretty straight sounding hard rock for the most part. So was Motley Crue, Twisted Sister, Winger, Poison. Appetite Was Released just the right time. At a time that hair-bands was at their peak. If released a year earlier, a year later, the band would never been huge. Twisted Sister mixxed Glam with Metal. I was young when they first came out and thought that Dee Snider was suppose to be the real life answer to that old hag puppet in Imagination Land on Mr. Rogers. Man...to this day if I flip through the channels and see that puppet on TV I just want it to turn towards the TV screen and say "I WANNA ROCK!" and pump its little puppet fist in the air. To me Winger is alot like the Nelson twins. Lets never speak of either again. Poison was another Glam Metal band more than they were just Hair metal. My first exposure to them came when a friend of mine gave me "Look What the Cat Dragged In" for my birthday(I think I was turning 9). I played that cassette until it no longer worked. I can admit to liking them, as Slayer said in a different thread "I'm confident enough about my metalhood". Motley Crue was the shit. I don't really need to say anything about them. However I don't see them as Hair metal but just plain Metal. I was in kindergarten singing "Girls, Girls, Girls" and I got in trouble during 2nd grade for singing "Dr. Feelgood". As far as Guns'N'Roses go they weren't just a hair band with attitude. They're actually pretty close to Motley Crue in my opinion on the type of music. a regular old hair band doesn't have Slash in it kicking your ass with guitar riffs like the one from Welcome to the Jungle, Civil War, and November Rain for example. I've come to the conclusion that the real Hair Bands of the 80s were a bunch of people put together by a label that looked pretty attractive for their time. From there they'd play generic sounding music but would attract millions of screaming girls ages 9-17. Basically they're yesteryear's N'Sync. So be careful when calling something a hairband. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snuffbox 0 Report post Posted July 12, 2004 B-b-b-but they had long hair in the 1980s Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheBigSwigg 0 Report post Posted July 12, 2004 I've come to the conclusion that the real Hair Bands of the 80s were a bunch of people put together by a label that looked pretty attractive for their time. From there they'd play generic sounding music but would attract millions of screaming girls ages 9-17. Basically they're yesteryear's N'Sync. So be careful when calling something a hairband. Couldn't you say the same about the "emo" bands that have been out the past year or two? (All American Rejects, etc...) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crimson G 0 Report post Posted July 12, 2004 Genesis was never big until the late 70's early 80's. There best stuff was with Peter Gabriel. Dammit! Why didn't I say that! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Man in Blak 0 Report post Posted July 12, 2004 Wow...two pages in and no mention of Sublime? Color me surprised. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snuffbox 0 Report post Posted July 12, 2004 Wow...two pages in and no mention of Sublime? Color me surprised. The Needle and the Damage Done. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest PlatinumBoy Report post Posted July 12, 2004 Two quickies that obviously are huge, but could have been bigger--Pearl Jam and REM. Also, if not for the constant break ups, Jane's Addiction could have been much bigger, but for my main choice........... The Man in Black, Johnny Cash. Not that he's not HUGE already, but if Johnny Cash had stayed more "mainstream" like he did in 69, he would have been HUGE. That year he outsold the Beatles, sold out MSG, put out two of the greatest live Country albums ever that sold INSANELY well, etc. etc. Even after that, he did well with singles, but his albums were more what he wanted to do and weren't as popular as his earlier stuff, and the 80's weren't his greatest decade. But in the late 60's after marrying June and losing the drugs, he came back huge and if he had stayed that way, he'd be that much bigger--not that he already isn't the biggest country star ever, and I think easily the best, but my point still lies that he could have been even bigger. Also, there is NO reason why Butch Walker isn't huge right now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Choken One Report post Posted July 12, 2004 Calling him the biggest Country singer ever is sadly a wrong thing to say because Garth Brooks, Vince Gill and George Strait have likely passed him (I know Garth has for sure, and Garth is the all time sales leader Period) I'm not exactly sure how Cash could have been bigger then he was in 1969. I consider that his peak year...I think he went as far as he could have gone, Maybe since he didn't touch that Elvis level of Immortality i guess you could say he wasn't as big as he could have been. I don't know much about the history of Sublime but how popular were they before the lead singer died? And with that same vein...what about Blind Melon? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest FrigidSoul Report post Posted July 12, 2004 I've come to the conclusion that the real Hair Bands of the 80s were a bunch of people put together by a label that looked pretty attractive for their time. From there they'd play generic sounding music but would attract millions of screaming girls ages 9-17. Basically they're yesteryear's N'Sync. So be careful when calling something a hairband. Couldn't you say the same about the "emo" bands that have been out the past year or two? (All American Rejects, etc...) From the little Emo I've listened to it appears to be people depressed over not being hugged enough as kids singing to young impressionable teens that are depressed for getting a C on their mid-term. The prime example of an Emo fan would be this girl I know who's actually obsessed over me. I cut ties with her but she still tried to have people check on me and she speaks about me to no end in her LJ. ANYWAYS she gets depressed when she stubs her toe and shit then listens to Evanascence or whatever it is...I call them Evanskanks. I blame Billy Corgan for this genre and have come to call it "Bleeding Vagina music". Basically only real large pussies listen to it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Last Free Voice Report post Posted July 12, 2004 What the fuck is Emo? I mean, it's just like Pop/rock right? So bands like Yellow card and other shitty acts like that are "emo"? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest FrigidSoul Report post Posted July 12, 2004 I think its short for Emotional which would make sense because the crying babies that listen to it can't keep their emotions in check. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest PlatinumBoy Report post Posted July 12, 2004 Calling him the biggest Country singer ever is sadly a wrong thing to say because Garth Brooks, Vince Gill and George Strait have likely passed him (I know Garth has for sure, and Garth is the all time sales leader Period) True, Garth and them have passed in sales--I don't know about the others, but Garth has (Elvis has retaken number 1 though), but in sales they are bigger, but find some 60 year old guys shooting the breeze on their porchstep or go to a country fair and ask who is better, Cash or Garth, and who is the best ever, and most will say Cash or Hank, with some Waylon, Willie, etc. mixed in. In sales Cash is lower--but I still feel in terms of image he's the "godfather" of country. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Last Free Voice Report post Posted July 12, 2004 I think its short for Emotional which would make sense because the crying babies that listen to it can't keep their emotions in check. Okay, thanks for the help. I am now slightly less musically inept. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Choken One Report post Posted July 12, 2004 I certaintly didn't disagree with you, I was just merely pointing out that Garth is the "biggest" name and you ask any modern american, they'll point at Garth. Just like you ask a 50 year old today, they will say Beatles were the Best...ask a 30 year old today, They Will say Pre-Sell Out Metallica (never just metallica, they will always say Pre-Sell out before) and ask a 16 year old today, they will say Linkin Park. It's all a subjective thing because of age differences and generational gaps. I'm sure Garth will easily re-pass Elvis when he finally does the inevitable Best of Garth Series and churns out a couple more live albums for good measure because he will end this "retirement" thing sooner or later. That shit will sell like hotcakes....However, I do stand that he will never make another studio album for long time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheBigSwigg 0 Report post Posted July 12, 2004 What the fuck is Emo? I mean, it's just like Pop/rock right? So bands like Yellow card and other shitty acts like that are "emo"? Now, yes. It used to be more quality music and less shitty "pop/rock." But ever since Dashboard Confessional and the other shitty "Pop Punk" bands showed up, they've been labeled emo. That's why there's quotations around the emo. It's become just a bunch of pretty boys whining about how they can't get laid. Calling him the biggest Country singer ever is sadly a wrong thing to say because Garth Brooks, Vince Gill and George Strait have likely passed him (I know Garth has for sure, and Garth is the all time sales leader Period) Consider, though, the amount of records sold in 1969 in proportion to the amount of records sold in the 1990's. Back then selling 100,000 records was HUGE. I would consider it equivalent to selling a million now. The Man in Black, Johnny Cash. Not that he's not HUGE already, but if Johnny Cash had stayed more "mainstream" like he did in 69, he would have been HUGE... Even after that, he did well with singles, but his albums were more what he wanted to do and weren't as popular as his earlier stuff, and the 80's weren't his greatest decade. But in the late 60's after marrying June and losing the drugs, he came back huge and if he had stayed that way, he'd be that much bigger The fact that Johnny Cash did things his way was what made him so good. The reason his sales dropped in the 80's is because he listened to the record labels and did what they wanted instead of what he wanted. His last four albums and the box set released post-mortem show that when he made music "his way" he could still make phenomenal music. Johnny Cash is a legend, and you don't get much bigger than that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLAGIARISM! 0 Report post Posted July 12, 2004 Yellow Magic Orchestra. They only had one truly great album, but for all it did for techno music, they should be mentioned in the same breath as Kraftwerk. Killing Joke. Again, the consistency isn't quite there, but the concepts they introduced are hugely significant, and the eponymous LP from last year is the only decent hardcore album in years. Sparks. They're fucking Sparks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mw679 0 Report post Posted July 13, 2004 KING'S X I second this. Awesome band, super tight sound, great harmonies but they'll never catch on to a mainstream audience. Too bad, too, a lot of people are missing out on good music. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest krazykat72 Report post Posted July 14, 2004 I blame Billy Corgan for this genre and have come to call it "Bleeding Vagina music". Basically only real large pussies listen to it. seriously, this is one of the more retarded things posted here. Smashing Pumpkins were angst ridden at times, but his passion made his music great. They were also way too diverse to be labelled like this. -Paul Jacobi- Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Giuseppe Zangara 0 Report post Posted July 14, 2004 Wow...two pages in and no mention of Sublime? Color me surprised. Somone explain the canonization of Bradley Nowell. The guy has become just as revered as Kurt Cobain in my generation, but at least I can understand the icon status attained by the latter. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites