Biggest Bands ever at the height of their career.

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Hallucination said:

Who's better? New Kids on the Block or Motley Crue. Hilarious. At least that was the scene in grade 8:laugh:

Now that we have the benefit of hindsight, the answer is clear:

New Kids on the Block



As far as GNR vs. U2 in '91-'93, I did not know 1 person (including myself) at my high school that liked U2 or bought Achtung Baby.
On the other hand, virtually every white kid in the school had GNR albums, T-shirts, etc.
 
Last edited:
How about Springsteen in the 80's. Talk about a tough ticket. Of coarse it's impossible, in today's diverse world, for anyone to reach the heights of Elvis in the 50's or the Beatles in the 60's.
 
TheQuiet1 said:
I remember once reading a magazine article on the top 50 biggest bands ever (it was based on biggest gig ever, album sales, weeks in chart etc). They came up with Pink Floyd as the top band.

If you're alluding to an article that appeared in Q magazine last year (coincidentally the one with U2 on the cover promoting HTDAAB), then both Guns 'n Roses nor Oasis were near the top, as they were #15 and #13 respectively. The top 5 of that list was:
1. Pink Floyd
2. Led Zeppelin
3. Rolling Stones
4. U2
5. Queen

And based on their criteria (US + UK sales of the band's biggest selling album, biggest concert audience for a single concert, # of weeks on British album charts) U2 might even be jointly 3rd now. :)
 
Angela Harlem said:
GnR weren't ever at the same level U2 have been. And U2 certainly haven't been the world's biggest band. They might be America's golden child, in an adopted sort of way, but that doesn't make them the world's biggest.

It does all come back to era and where you are as to who is the biggest in your neck of woods.

On the contrary, U2 have been the worlds biggest band in terms of Concert attendance/GROSS/demand and album sales since 1987. U2 have had the best average of both.
 
2Hearts said:


Now that we have the benefit of hindsight, the answer is clear:

New Kids on the Block



As far as GNR vs. U2 in '91-'93, I did not know 1 person (including myself) at my high school that liked U2 or bought Achtung Baby.
On the other hand, virtually every white kid in the school had GNR albums, T-shirts, etc.

If you went to high school in South Carolina, that would explain it.
 
Guns N Roses popularity from 1988 through 1993 was very impressive. The band started out playing theaters at the begining of 1988 and then spent most of the year opening up for other bands. Towards the end of the year that did headline a few Arena shows themselves, but not stadiums at that point. Appetite For Destruction was a huge selling album, but the Use Your Illusion double album did not do nearly as well. Despite that, by 1991, almost 3 years away from the road, Guns N Roses launched its first true and what became their only headlining arena/stadium tour. It was spread out over 2 and half years and played mainly arena's as opposed to stadiums.

The ZOO TV tour was primarily a stadium tour and the band soldout multiple stadium shows in many cities on their own. U2 did not tour as long as Guns N Roses did, but if one looks at the average attendance and ticket price per show, U2 clearly was ahead of Guns Roses at that time. In addition, Achtung Baby sold more than Use Your Illusion did.

Guns N Roses did not have any stadium shows in North America where they attracted 40,000 plus people to a show without a strong support band like Metallica. In fact, there were many people in 1992 that would argue that Metallica had become bigger than Guns N Roses.
 
MsMofoGone said:
The Police in 1983 :bow: :applaud:

The Police were definitely the biggest band in the world in 1983 with Synchronicity selling over 11 million copies worldwide(a huge number even by today's standards) and the Synchronicty Tour selling out Stadiums and Arena's around the world, with several shows setting Attendance, Gross, and rate of sellout records back then. The Synchronicity tour stop in Miami, at the Orange Bowl, was the highest attended concert in the history of Florida at that time.
 
STING2 said:
Guns N Roses popularity from 1988 through 1993 was very impressive. The band started out playing theaters at the begining of 1988 and then spent most of the year opening up for other bands. Towards the end of the year that did headline a few Arena shows themselves, but not stadiums at that point. Appetite For Destruction was a huge selling album, but the Use Your Illusion double album did not do nearly as well. Despite that, by 1991, almost 3 years away from the road, Guns N Roses launched its first true and what became their only headlining arena/stadium tour. It was spread out over 2 and half years and played mainly arena's as opposed to stadiums.

The ZOO TV tour was primarily a stadium tour and the band soldout multiple stadium shows in many cities on their own. U2 did not tour as long as Guns N Roses did, but if one looks at the average attendance and ticket price per show, U2 clearly was ahead of Guns Roses at that time. In addition, Achtung Baby sold more than Use Your Illusion did.

Guns N Roses did not have any stadium shows in North America where they attracted 40,000 plus people to a show without a strong support band like Metallica. In fact, there were many people in 1992 that would argue that Metallica had become bigger than Guns N Roses.

You can't compare album sales because it's obvious that Achtung Baby would be able to sustain albums sales far longer than UYI 1 & 2. Plus U2 is still putting out new albums gaining new fans who in turn are checking out U2's older material. Guns N' Roses don't have the benifit of that. A more acurate album comparison might be Zooropa and AB albums sales combined, compared to the combined sales of UYI 1 & 2, and how many units they sold in the first two years of release. I might be wrong but isn't Appetite for Destruction(Gn'R's top selling album) a bigger seller than Joshua Tree(U2's top seller)? Either way I think that's also an irrelevant stat as it doesn't really say anythig about the peak of a bands "biggness" as album sales are always ongoing. Also you can't use ticket prices as a comparison because U2's stage show was so damn expensive they must of had to compensate for it with higher prices. Gn'R were only charging $30.00 per but I think it's safe to say that had they charged $60.00 they still would've sold just as much, doubling their gross. All I know is that U2 weren't even close to as big as Guns N' Roses durring that time(1991-1993). At least not where I live(Alberta, Canada), and everyone I've asked(in real life) since I posted this has agreed. I'm starting to think that maybe it's the U2 fans here who are letting their own perception distort things. U2 is my favorite band so I have no agenda in wanting or thinking Gn'R were bigger, they just were. At least for my age group which at the time was 15-20 year olds. NO doubt U2 is far and away the bigger of the two bands but I just don't by the arguement that at thier highest point they were bigger than Gn'R at thier highest point. We shoud try this; put your personal opinions aside and put statistics aside and try asking around. Ask random people who have no interest either way who was the bigger band in 1991-1993, Guns N' Roses or U2. I would be willing to bet that the results woud surprise alot of te fans here on this board.
 
Hallucination said:


You can't compare album sales because it's obvious that Achtung Baby would be able to sustain albums sales far longer than UYI 1 & 2. Plus U2 is still putting out new albums gaining new fans who in turn are checking out U2's older material. Guns N' Roses don't have the benifit of that. A more acurate album comparison might be Zooropa and AB albums sales combined, compared to the combined sales of UYI 1 & 2, and how many units they sold in the first two years of release. I might be wrong but isn't Appetite for Destruction(Gn'R's top selling album) a bigger seller than Joshua Tree(U2's top seller)? Either way I think that's also an irrelevant stat as it doesn't really say anythig about the peak of a bands "biggness" as album sales are always ongoing. Also you can't use ticket prices as a comparison because U2's stage show was so damn expensive they must of had to compensate for it with higher prices. Gn'R were only charging $30.00 per but I think it's safe to say that had they charged $60.00 they still would've sold just as much, doubling their gross. All I know is that U2 weren't even close to as big as Guns N' Roses durring that time(1991-1993). At least not where I live(Alberta, Canada), and everyone I've asked(in real life) since I posted this has agreed. I'm starting to think that maybe it's the U2 fans here who are letting their own perception distort things. U2 is my favorite band so I have no agenda in wanting or thinking Gn'R were bigger, they just were. At least for my age group which at the time was 15-20 year olds. NO doubt U2 is far and away the bigger of the two bands but I just don't by the arguement that at thier highest point they were bigger than Gn'R at thier highest point. We shoud try this; put your personal opinions aside and put statistics aside and try asking around. Ask random people who have no interest either way who was the bigger band in 1991-1993, Guns N' Roses or U2. I would be willing to bet that the results woud surprise alot of te fans here on this board.

Its not accurate to simply ask people's perceptions around you about events that were nearly 15 years ago or to simply go by what one remembers friends and people around them enjoying or liking at the time.

For example, more than half of my entire Highschool Class saw the ZOO TV show. But I was the only person who saw Guns N Roses in concert. I saw them in Washington DC when Metallica was opening or co-headlining with them. But I can't take this and extrapolate this in to being an accurate comparison between the popularity of the two bands at the time.

The only accurate way to compare the two bands at that time is the concert statistics and album sales for the two artist during the time period. I'm taking their current tour and current album sales during the period.

The Use Your Illusion tour vs. ZOO TV tour. Achtung Baby vs. the Use Your Illusion double album. Both albums were released in late 1991 and I agree that one should measure the first two years of release for both albums.

Regardless of the cost of any tour, the ticket price that fans pay is based on the level of demand for the tour. The higher the demand to see one in concert, the greater the ticket price. Its straight forward economics. Your market value determines the price you can charge and sellout a given venue.

The range of ticket prices back then was much closer than it is today. U2 charged an average of $30 dollars for all of its Stadium and Arena shows on ZOO TV. Guns N Roses prices ranged from as low as $16 dollars for their Stadium show at Joe Robbie Stadium in Miami on New Years Eve, to as high as $26 dollars for many of their Arena shows.

Guns N Roses played mainly arena shows and would often not utilize the seats behind the stage for the show, which is usually a sign of smaller demand. U2 on the other hand played primarily Stadium shows on ZOO TV and for the Arena shows used all the seats behind the stage.

Take the city of Philadelphia. U2 played two Stadium shows and one Arena show there on ZOO TV. Guns N Roses played 3 arena shows that did not utilize the full capacity of the arena for the shows in Philly. The GNR/Metallica tour skipped Philadelphia, most likely because the promoter did not feel the demand strong enough to even pay for the cost of a show there.

Achtung Baby was released in November of 1991 and made it to 4 times platinum in the USA faster than the Use Your Illusion album did, despite the fact that Use Your Illusion was released two months prior to Achtung Baby. Outside the United States, Achtung Baby's lead back then widened even more. Take the United Kingdom for example, Achtung Baby hit the 900,000 mark there in under two years while Use Your Illusion only hit the 300,000 mark. Thats a ratio of 3 to 1 in the 1991 to 1993 period in favor of Achtung Baby in the United Kingdom.
 
at the hight of their career...although they may not have been a band...the spice girls

1) i know there not a band....but at the time every 7ish girl liked them, and you all had your favourite!
2) i know they are crap...but you didn't say what GOOD band was ....
 
STING2 said:
Its not accurate to simply ask people's perceptions around you about events that were nearly 15 years ago or to simply go by what one remembers friends and people around them enjoying or liking at the time.
For example, more than half of my entire Highschool Class saw the ZOO TV show. But I was the only person who saw Guns N Roses in concert. I saw them in Washington DC when Metallica was opening or co-headlining with them. But I can't take this and extrapolate this in to being an accurate comparison between the popularity of the two bands at the time.
The only accurate way to compare the two bands at that time is the concert statistics and album sales for the two artist during the time period. I'm taking their current tour and current album sales during the period.
The Use Your Illusion tour vs. ZOO TV tour. Achtung Baby vs. the Use Your Illusion double album. Both albums were released in late 1991 and I agree that one should measure the first two years of release for both albums.
Regardless of the cost of any tour, the ticket price that fans pay is based on the level of demand for the tour. The higher the demand to see one in concert, the greater the ticket price. Its straight forward economics. Your market value determines the price you can charge and sellout a given venue.
The range of ticket prices back then was much closer than it is today. U2 charged an average of $30 dollars for all of its Stadium and Arena shows on ZOO TV. Guns N Roses prices ranged from as low as $16 dollars for their Stadium show at Joe Robbie Stadium in Miami on New Years Eve, to as high as $26 dollars for many of their Arena shows.
Guns N Roses played mainly arena shows and would often not utilize the seats behind the stage for the show, which is usually a sign of smaller demand. U2 on the other hand played primarily Stadium shows on ZOO TV and for the Arena shows used all the seats behind the stage.
Take the city of Philadelphia. U2 played two Stadium shows and one Arena show there on ZOO TV. Guns N Roses played 3 arena shows that did not utilize the full capacity of the arena for the shows in Philly. The GNR/Metallica tour skipped Philadelphia, most likely because the promoter did not feel the demand strong enough to even pay for the cost of a show there.
Achtung Baby was released in November of 1991 and made it to 4 times platinum in the USA faster than the Use Your Illusion album did, despite the fact that Use Your Illusion was released two months prior to Achtung Baby. Outside the United States, Achtung Baby's lead back then widened even more. Take the United Kingdom for example, Achtung Baby hit the 900,000 mark there in under two years while Use Your Illusion only hit the 300,000 mark. Thats a ratio of 3 to 1 in the 1991 to 1993 period in favor of Achtung Baby in the United Kingdom.

See those are interesting stats/takes on the issue. I believe that if the perception of the average person is that Guns N' Roses were bigger at that time than doesn't that have some merit to it? I did a random poll over the last few days and asked people who they remember as being bigger. The exact question was between the years 1991 -1994 who was the more popular band of the two, Guns N' Roses or U2? I asked 23 people. 14 guys, 9 girls. Unfortunately I work in the field or I could've asked alot more people. The age of the people ranged from 23 -41 and included people who lived in Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Alberta durirng the time period in question(1991-1994). The results were a lopsided 21-2 in favour of Guns N' Roses being the more popular of the two durring that time. The two to vote for U2 were my boss(27 year old male) and my buddy's girlfriend(23 years old). Most of the people I asked were not freinds of mine 14 years ago, in fact only 7 of them were. It would also be interesting to go onto a Gn'R site and see what stats and facts those fans could dig up becasue I'm pretty certain that they'd find stuff to counter the stats which have been given here favouring U2. Basically I don't think it's as simple as it seems for either side of the arguement. I mean if it was all about the stats than how do we explain a 21-2 vote in favour of Guns N' Roses with people from all over Canada represented and an age range of 18 years?
 
Zootlesque said:


:lmao:


Guns n Roses were hands down more well known in the early 90s than U2.

I didn't say they were better. :wink:

No I know. This thread never was intended to be about who ws better. Anways I thought you said not to ever say Guns N' Roses and The Beatles in the same sentence ever again. that's why i responded with the Boo Hoo:laugh:
 
Hallucination said:


Anways I thought you said not to ever say Guns N' Roses and The Beatles in the same sentence ever again. that's why i responded with the Boo Hoo:laugh:

That wasn't me, buddy. :wink:


LMAO at shaun vox's late response!
 
First off, I think if you are just talking mass popularity then just pull out a fucking record sales chart and concert box scores and the discussion is over. That will tell you precisely what you need to know.

If you want to go deeper, then I will.

Who has influenced more bands, big selling artists and revolutionized the rock genre since 1993?

I am talking relevance.
Pearl Jam-hard rock
Nirvana-just about all rock
Green Day-punk pop
U2-alt rock
Nine Inch Nails-industrial metal
RHCP/Faith No More-rap-rock
Metallica-heavy metal
Sepultura/Pantera-thrash and speed metal

I could keep going and list a ton of bands and artists before I ever got to Guns and Roses. They are basically irrelevant and have been for a decade. Part of it is entirely because they have been defunct, but can you same the same about Nirvana? They have been done since 1994 one year later than GnR and yet still leave an imprint much deeper and more obvious than GnR ever did.

Now this doesn't diminsh their popularity from 1991-1993 or whatever arbitrary years you want to choose, but in the grand scheme of biggest bands, their lasting imprint on the musical community speaks 10,000 times more loudly than a spike in record and ticket sales which puts them in a league of comparison with New Kids, Spice Girls, The Bee Gees, Abba and any other flavor of the week which sold an insane amount of copies over a short period of time.

The heighth of their popularity you still have U2, Metallica and others to deal with. In fact you have to make the argument FOR them. NOt a single person has to make an argument for The Beatles popularity or Led Zeppelin, because it has endured.
Frivalous pop masses can make anyone huge at any time, to endure and leave a huge imprint on the rock and roll communtiy truly speaks to how massive the influence was and how it revolutionized the sound of rock and roll.

the biggest bands of the early 90's were those who influenced the rock and roll you hear today. That's how it works. The Monkees were insanely popular in the 60's, why aren't they on the lists of biggest bands? Nobody gives a shit.

If we talk sales, I'll quote you Billy Ray Cyrus and MC Hammer from that time period and show you how frivalous album sales are to determining the size of a musicians stylistic appeal and the size of their enduring appeal. To put it another way, the 10 million people buying NIrvana's Nevermind (whatever the number is) and the 10 million buying anything else are not equatable to influence. The influence speaks to the overall massive appeal. It endures.

I'm not saying GnR doesn't still have appeal and that they didn't make records that still aren't good. I am saying if we use sales figures to determine the weight of the massive appeal of GNR in 1991, 1992 then you must take into consideration all others because you have ceased talking in terms of rock and roll and are talking a commercial appeal which is not an endorsement of anything other than how trendy it was at the time.

I still hear Nirvana on the radio, U2 on the radio, Green Day others, several others vicariously thru the bands that were so moved by their music a decade ago they picked up guitars and started writing. Where is GnR? Besides the latest incarnation of Velvet Revolver, they are irrelevant. Maybe a resurge of hard rock with high pitched squealing vocals and guitar will see a rebirth, until then it is what it is.
 
Last edited:
and I must mention I saw GnR and Metallica in 1992, I was 17.
In my corner of the world, Metallica was the SHIT and GnR was second fiddle.

In 1987 I was in junior high in Middle America.
Guns and Roses were bigger than U2 here.
Could I make the argument because of my corner of the world, that GnR was bigger? I could but it would be rather geographically biased. Doesn't really mean anything.
They still play more GnR than U2 on the radio here. again, it doesn't speak to anything but what the people around here want to hear.


There were numerous, numerous recording artists outselling Jimi and Janis JOplin, The Doors< pink Floyd etc in the late 60's. They were "bigger" in terms of what was popular at the time. I think the infleunce is a much more important part of the eqaution, from my persepctive.
 
Last edited:
Popmartijn said:


If you're alluding to an article that appeared in Q magazine last year (coincidentally the one with U2 on the cover promoting HTDAAB),

The world's just full of coincidences isn't it? :shifty: :wink:
 
USA
-----
Led Zeppelin 1972
Beatles 1965
GnR 1991

UK
----
Oasis 1995
Pink Floyd 1974
Beatles 1965
 
I loath to bring them up, but may we consider the period of 1998 to 2001.

Exhibit A)

Backstreet Boys.

Over 90 million album sales worldwide, 34 million of those in the US - from just 3 albums. Starting with their first US release (Backstreet Boys) to the 1999 megasmash (Millennium) thru to the 2001 hit (Black And Blue) they dominated the albums and singles charts. Two back to back million plus debut weeks, sold out stadium tours in Europe and Asia, huge runs at arenas in the USA... madness.

Exhibit B)

N'Sync

60 million+ global sales - including 'No Strings Attached' which debited with 2.3 million sales in a week. Now no band has been hotter than N'Sync when all the pieces fall into place...

So if you want to talk about bands who were just plain jawdroppingly globally dominant (for good or bad), how d'ya like those apples?
 
Back
Top Bottom