Biggest is quite hard to quantify but personally, I'd say Guns are the biggest.

I personally don’t think one of those bands are necessarily “bigger” than the other. They’re all as big as you can get as a band unless you’re the Beatles. Ik Metallica has outsold by Guns a lot, but Metallica has the bigger discography. I feel that the greatest hits album for Guns does help them a lot for their sells at the same time tho. I just wanted to see what other people thought.

My personal thoughts are that the sort of GNR brand is bigger than the other acts. IMO they seemed to and still do crossover to a wider demographic than any of the other three and their bigger songs cross over more into the mainstream/general public.

As said though, bigger is extremely hard to quantify.

I feel like Metallica is the bigger brand honestly with how popular their shirts are. I mean that’s one of the most popular clothing items ever. Guns N’ Roses has bigger singles, but Metallica’s discography is a little more listened too I feel like. Idk considering they’re both some of the biggest musical acts to ever exist, ig it’s subjective.

I'd say people who are not fans of either act are far more aware of who GNR are and their music. Certainly in the UK, there is no competition between the two, GNR and their music are easily more well known.

Metallica to me, seems to mainly appeal to a more metal oriented fan base, whereas as GNR appeal to a wider demographic of society.

Apologies for interrupting your conversation.

Isn't the question of who is 'bigger/more successful/most popular' something the ASR scale is designed to address?

Isn't one of the functions of ASR to measure this?

Just a thought. I could have it completely wrong!?!

No worries. Kind of but I suppose what I was intimating was, that I think GNR are more famous, that more people who are not fans per se, know who they are and could name more of their tracks, not that their catalogue is strictly more successful, more that it's more well known.

A similar analogy in my book would be say Led Zeppelin and Whitney Houston or David Bowie. Zep have clearly sold more but WH and DB are infinitely more recognisable, well known to the man in the street, kind of like their star is bigger than Zeps.

I don’t disagree it’s just an interesting topic to talk about, but I feel what can benefit Metallica in this situation is if we go back to 2008, Guns released Chinese Democracy, and Metallica released Death Magnetic. Chinese debuted at number 2 with about 290k sold first week while Death Magnetic sold over 500k debuting number 1. Also with hardwired back in 2016, they sold a lot, and beat Bruno Mars in the peak of his popularity out for the number one spot. I feel that’s impressive for them being 20+ years out their prime, and doing things like that.

I'm sure you're aware that Chinese Democracy wasn't a proper GNR album.

Anyway, "bigger" doesn't mean anything. GNR are more famous and Metallica had more success, but that's two different things.

Yes, I also enjoy having discussions like this, especially when it centers around metal or hard rock acts.

I don't think you can relate the two scenarios. Personally, I've never felt that Chinese Democracy, was a bone fide Guns N Roses release. Yes it bears the name but it's an Axl Rose solo album, masquerading as Guns N Roses. It would be akin to James Hetfield releasing an album as Metallica, without Hammett, Ulrich or Turjillo or Robert Plant as Led Zeppelin without Page or Jones.

It's also difficult to measure their careers against each other, given that Guns N Roses were only essentially in the public eye and releasing material between 1987-1993 and Metallica have been a contemporary act, ever since their debut in 1983.

Having said that, I would say Guns were the bigger, more successful and more popular act, when both were head to head, in the late 80s and early 90s.

Yes, it is very impressive how Metallica have managed to remain popular and relevant for this long but it is equally impressive that Guns have managed to retain their popularity without actually existing.

Yes I see. You mean artists whose profile is greater than their (or others) actual success.

I'd argue that Bob Dylan is very similar to Bowie in this respect. High public recognition/awareness that possibly exceeds their true sales performance.

I agree GNR was definitely bigger leading up to 1991, but everything changed once Sandman came out, and the black album took over the world. GNR’s downfall happened right after the tour with Metallica. It was a mistake having GNR close it out cause Metallica absolutely blew them off stage. My parents went to one of the shows of that tour, and said the same thing. Many people thought Metallica should have headlined, but Lars said Metallica chose to go first cause you can’t rely on Axl to actually show up on time, or show up at all. It sucks to think Nirvana could have opened for them. That would have been crazy to have prime Nirvana, Metallica, and Guns N Roses to all tour together.

It didn't. Guns were still the bigger act worldwide, in 91, 92 & 93.

There was far more fuss around the Illusion albums, than there was Metallica and on a worldwide basis, they outsold Metallica in nearly every territory. Granted there were two albums compared to one but the consumer had to spend twice as much to own them, than they did Metallica. To date Illusions are at around 37m sales, while Metallica is only at around 31m.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful but I was around then, saw both acts in 1991. Metallica at Monsters of Rock at Donington on 17th August, then two weeks later on the 31st August, Guns N Roses at Wembley Stadium and I can tell you Metallica were just not as big as Guns N Roses on a worldwide scale. They just never crossed over to the same extent that Guns did. Guns were probably the most popular and biggest band on the planet in the very early 90s, folk might say U2 but there just wasn't the furore around U2 or even Metallica for that matter, that there was with Guns.

It think it was logical to have Guns as the headliner, as they were the more in demand and bigger act. The tour was not so much their downfall, as internal power struggles, over and misuse of drugs, over blown egos etc.

Nirvana and Guns N Roses, in reality was never going to happen. I'm sure you've read about all the bad blood, insults, fights etc between Axl and Kurt back in 91/92, so I'll not bother going over it all again. If not have search for it, it's clear they detested each other.

GNR were much bigger than Metallica at the time, both Use Your Illusion albums sold about 15 million while the black album was more like 13 million.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a3w8I8boc_I
Just watch the video, and see what you think. Whenever I look it up, the black album is the highest selling album of the Nielsen soundscan era.