beavis69

I don't know, a case can be made that metal artist sold more then, but I think those sales were only spread across a few bands, namely Metallica. This list kinda supports my view of the Hair Metal/Nu-Metal popularity.

http://metaldescent.com/the-best-sel...s-of-all-time/

story

Seems to be torn opinion regarding Dave Grohl. I'll toss this one in here, too:

While I am sad it comes at the expense of someone's life and the loved ones it directly impacts, if I had the choice between Nirvana continuing or Foo Fighters ever existing, I'll take Foo Fighters.

CRM114

Most of the new electronic music is nonsense only accessible to those on heavy doses of opioids but given importance by hipsters that read Pitchfork.

CRM114

That's bold. I'd take a single Nirvana song over Foo Fighers ever existing. And I find Nirvana not that groundbreaking or interesting.

covenant

That's the list I looked at as well. Half the albums listed are traditional metal albums, so, no it's doesn't support your view that traditional metal was never popular.

And just because a band is labeled Hair or Nu doesn't mean it's not good metal. Motley Crue and Guns and Roses are hair bands through and through but they have the musical chops to back it up. There's a world of difference between them and say, Winger.

covenant

Bold Statement:

Garth Brooks new tour will be hugely successful.

His new album will not be.

CRM114

Before Metallica (and the other slew of post-hardcore metal hybrids), all there was was "hair metal" and before that 70's metal. (I am speaking in generalities.)

covenant

Good point, all the big names in pre-hair metal started in the 70's.

cdollaz

Considering half the shirts I saw everyday in jr. high and high school between about 1980 - 1986 had Iron Maiden, Priest, Ozzy, Sabbath, Dio, and similar on them, I'd say metal was pretty damn popular. Pretty much every guy, and half the girls my age liked metal. Hair metal (as I define it) didn't really come around until the latter half of the 80's with Poison, Warrant and that stuff.

bunkaroo

Yeah outside of the classic Metallica records (1983-1988) on this list there is nothing approaching non-commercial metal. I mean Pretty Hate Machine is on the list! I love that record to death, but it is NOT metal.

I would argue "real" metal is defined precisely by it not being commercially popular. There is a sensibility about metal that is not palatable for the average popular music listener. That's why a producer like Bob Rock was able to make Metallica as huge as they were - by knowing how to soften them up enough to be palatable to the masses.

Alan Smithee

I'll agree with that. But I'll also say that music sales wouldn't be so dismal these days if radio stations took more chances and PLAYED some of this good new music, and if MTV still showed music videos instead of the crap they do now. (And yes, I know you shouldn't be required to make a video to support your song, but there were many of those that were good, and even the worst music video would still be preferable to "16 and Pregnant" or whatever the hell it is.)

covenant

obviously not "real" metal since they were commercially popular.

bunkaroo

Feel free to refute something I posted, unless you're happy with just posting passive-aggressive smilies. Don't be afraid to quote my post either.

covenant

we already did. posts 103, 108, and 112.

Do you wish to double down on your no-true-scotsman?

Mr. Flix

Thank you for that. Anyone who dismisses them as bubblegum pop (or worse, a disco band) doesn't know what they're talking about. Their music may not be to everyone's taste, but their output was far more complex, original and oftentimes dark than what they're usually ever given credit for.

Mr. Flix

My bold statement:

No denying that the Beatles were great and influential. But dang if their nasal voices were oftentimes too grating to listen to.

Ky-Fi

For the most part, ABBA:

* wrote all their own songs
* played all their own instruments
* had a totally unique sound
* sounded great live
* wrote MONSTER hooks
* I believe were very heavily involved in the production, as well

That's the whole package, IMO.

-edit- actually, with this it's the whole package:

bunkaroo

Please.

Provide the RIAA platinum lists to which you refer.

As far as the link beavis69 provided, that's a best selling list of all time. A lot of those sales likely happened years and years after the record's release.

Are you suggesting Black Sabbath was commercially popular at the time of its release?

And I don't doubt collaz's anecdote about how many people wore Maiden, Priest and Ozzy t-shirts. That still doesn't mean they were commercially popular. I'm not saying bands like Ozzy, Priest and Maiden aren't metal - I'm saying they weren't as commercially popular as people think.

covenant

This will be easy. One band at a time.

Ozzy Osbourne: Blizzard of Oz - Platinum in 1982, 4x Platinum by '98 (what's your cut off for Metal popularity?) #21 Billboard, #7 UK

Judas Priest: Screaming for Vengeance - Platinum in 1982, #17 Billboard #11 UK

Iron Maiden: The Number of the Beast - Platinum in 1986, #33 Billboard #1 UK. And I love this quote on Wikipedia: "The Number of the Beast met with considerable critical and commercial success and was a landmark release for the band", but that's impossible, a Metal album can't be commercially successful at the time of it's release.

Please.

Hokeyboy

Wasn't she voted the greatest ass in the world in some European contest in the 70s?

Hokeyboy

Iron Maiden has sold 85 million records worldwide, according to the New York Times. Clearly not popular at all.

Ky-Fi

Yeah, something like that, and she had a great line when she was asked about that in an interview:

"How can I say? I've never seen it."

-edit- Here it is, at about the 1:00 mark:

<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="//www.youtube.com/v/ruTe8GCSfqc?hl=en_US&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="//www.youtube.com/v/ruTe8GCSfqc?hl=en_US&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

covenant

That doesn't count. Remember, according to bunkaroo, those sales have to happen right when each album is released, not years and years after. Because reasons...

As a conciliatory gesture I'll readily admit Metal sales completely pale in comparison to pop sales. Case in point: Thriller, 20x Platinum in '84!

bunkaroo

I won't dispute those even though using Wikipedia for a quote is kind of . I would say what the album did in its first 12-18 months tops is indicative of how popular it was at the time with those who consume popular music.

So what we have here is three examples over a span of several years. Maybe we just have a disconnect on what "popular" means. I would take that as meaning metal was one of the dominant music genres on the charts at any given time. I don't think that it was. Do you?

bunkaroo

This is a large part of what I am saying. If by popular you mean they sold a lot, well sure. But was it one of the most popular genres at any time? I don't think it was.

Check my previous post - sales within 12-18 months is IMO a fair indicator of how much a record caught on with people. After that it's largely just catalog sales for existing artists.