METFIELD said:
u2 sold 120 million records include 15 albums.this is nothin for metallica.u2 is older than metallica.they will retire soon
and metallica dont have best of records like u2.metallica will never release best of records because they sold millions of albums of thier legandary back catalog albums
There are four major errors in your writing that now question the validity of everything you've written.
First, selling 120 million albums worldwide is not "nothing". It is monstrous. For you to dismiss it so readily is fool-hardy and shows how little you know about music sales.
Second, Metallica has yet to sell this amount. Therefore, it is SOMETHING to them. You may contend that Metallica will eventually sell 120M copies worldwide, but it's not as if U2 will stop selling - they too will continue to sell. HTDAAB is already selling a ton and that will give a boost to all the other U2 albums. But even if Metallica one day surpass U2, it's not as if U2 are some "one-hit wonders".
Third, your statement that "U2 is older than Metallica and will retire soon" is about as bogus as anything you've written. There are 4 members of Metallica, just like U2. Bono and Adam were born in 1960, The Edge and Larry in 1961. Kirk, from Metallica was born in 1962. James and Lars were born in 1963. Robert was born in 1964. So this "older" you speak of, while technically true, is virtually negligent. After all, I'd hardly call a few years difference in age (in some cases, less than a year) significant. Furthermore, who is more likely to retire - a rock band like U2 or a heavy metal act? Artists like Dylan, McCarthy, the Stones, Springsteen, etc., have proven that popular rock stars can go one well past 40 and into their 60's. In contrast, how many heavy metal artists are around in their 50's or 60's? In other words, Metallica is far closer to retiring. And the fact that you considered U2 so much "older" suggests you know either very little about U2, Metallica or both.
Lastly, while Metallica haven't released "Best Of" albums, per se, they have released double live albums with no real new material - and those have added significantly to their total album sales.
In other words, all your arguments have been proven false. Statistically, we have shown again and again that U2 is stronger than Metallica in overall sales. We have shown that U2's tours are stronger.
None of us have stated that Metallica is a poor seller - we readily acknowledge Metallica for the power-house they are. I've stated several times how strong their catalog sales are. In other words, we have complimented Metallica's sales - but we are merely pointing out that U2 are as strong if not stronger. In contrast, you have done all you can to dismiss - WITHOUT MERIT - any U2 claims. When we point out facts, you make up numbers for Metallica, even though websites don't support your statements. You are unwilling to discuss U2's success at all - rather, you just insult them while praising Metallica. You act as if U2 have had one big album. In contrast they've had at least 5 ("War", JT, R&H, AB and ATYLCB) and are now working on a 6th. Even U2's "poor" selling albums have sold over 7M copies worldwide! If you must praise Metallica, at least give U2 their proper credit.
However, based on your lack of knowledge of U2 and Metallica, I doubt you care. It seems you are here just to cause problems.
