Discussion in 'Music Discussion' started by Night Prowler, Jan 9, 2012.
Good for you. But what's your and Perun's own provable definition of an artist?
Album sales could be not part very important in that definition.
2016. Metallica has sold more than 200 million albums worldwide, with over 60 million records in the United States alone (54,365,000 albums since 1991 when SoundScan started tracking actual sales figure).
As of January 2016, she has sold an estimated 27 million albums and 146 million singles worldwide. She has also sold around 7.25 million singles in the United Kingdom, and 10.4 million albums in US; in the latter country she is the first and only artist to have two songs pass 7 million downloads ("Poker Face" and "Just Dance"). According to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), Gaga is the fourth-best-selling digital singles artist in the United States, with cumulative single certifications of 59 million digital downloads and on-demand streaming.
I would not be surprised if Metallica sold more albums when they had an eight an a half year long discography (this includes The Black album).
Latest album figures (Metallica's latest album was released one month earlier than Lady Gaga's):
Metallica: Hardwired... to Self-Destruct
Released: November 18, 2016
BVMI: 3× Gold
Lady Gaga: Joanne
Released: October 21, 2016
Lady Gaga a bigger artist? Well, she is a huge (digital) single artist. Album wise, Metallica is out of her league.
Yes, Lady Gaga is a pop artist, but Metallica is so big that they dwarf most pop artists.
As I said, artists of different eras. Lady Gaga's first record came out in the same year as Death Magnetic. Physical copy sales are way down across the board. Metallica also put out 5 more studio albums. Most of Lady Gaga's generation of fans are millennials who are used to digital downloads.
And even still, as you can see, the gap between their latest album sales isn't huge. And that's with Gaga's album not receiving a good reception. The argument is not huge enough to trump the other arguments.
Were Metallica bigger than Lady Gaga in their primes? Absolutely. By quite a margin. But currently? Probably not.
That's a textbook example of moving goalposts. You challenge a claim, somebody else asks you for evidence, and you demand that a completely new claim that you make should be disproved instead. Wonderful.
@Perun: Eh..? No. Read my post again. Perhaps 'judge them by their fruits' is more to your distinguished taste.
Even if Lady Gaga was more popular than Metallica -- which I doubt she is --, it wouldn't make her a 'bigger artist'. Otherwise, you, Perun and Flash, might have been able to answer my counterquestion. Popularity ≠ artistry.
Lady Gaga as 'Metallica's new lead singer' won't result in more than a bit of very temporary commercial value. It isn't ever going to be more than an ad hoc fun thing anyway (and why not?), so there's no point in getting all worked up about it.
To discuss this (even remotely), it would be handy to know what people take into account when measuring greatness (or size).
I find album sales and audience figures (concert attendance) important.
Artistic integrity is also a factor I find very important, but this is (more) difficult to express in numbers.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Can someone direct me to the Metallica thread?
We're not exactly talking about two non-Metallica artists.
The conversation is about which musical artist is commercially bigger. Nothing else. You're moving the goalposts by trying to incorporate artistic validity into it. Got it?
Because they fit your agenda, right? Digital album sales, physical single sales, digital single sales, online streaming, none of that matters, because they favor Gaga in a big way.
Are you suggesting Lady Gaga does not have artistic integrity? If so, that's a conversation ender right there because that's absolutely proposterous.
We're talking about Metallica and Lady Gaga after Lars Ulrich said they'd like to incorporate Gaga into Metallica as a 5th member. Very non-Metallica related, I know.
Before this comparison started, I already found albums more important than singles. Albums focus on bigger works, on wider range of music.
You can't use a greater number of albums against the size of an artist. It's part of it.
We're individuals having and forming opinions on this discussed matter. There is no rule to measure an artist's size. That's why we contribute individually.
So cut the agenda crap man. Cut the insinuations. It doesn't make the discussion better. I really don't know what moves you do change the tone. Maybe it's convenient for you but I wish you would see it's completely unnecessary. And very unpleasant too.
I apologize for my accusational tone.
Would you at least agree that Metallica isn't "way" bigger than Gaga and they're at the very least comparable?
Thanks. Taking everything into account, probably yes.
I think from a musical/artistic perspective history won't view either particularly favourably; but Gaga still has the advantage (over Metallica) of years to develop & keep producing music. I'm not personally making claims to her musical greatness (right now), but I don't see anything to indicate she won't keep developing as an artist. Metallica on the other hand haven't done anything interesting in decades.
That ("way" bigger) was indeed nonsense Foro. As others have said; in their day, maybe. The gap isn't (or at least doesn't feel) that big though.
Beginning of discussion: Lady Gaga > Metallica
"End" of discussion: Lady Gaga < Metallica
The discussion was about who is a 'bigger artist', so it might be allowed to note that commercial success isn't what makes an artist big @The Flash. IMO. If my reply was too spartanic, I apologize as well. Still, no need for 'thought so'.
It's the artist's *work* @Perun, ok? Again, IMO. Feel free to disagree.
Again, no need for personal attacks. After all, we all love Metallica.
The problem seriously was that your contributions were so vague and nondescript that it was not clear what you were trying to tell us or where you were coming from. Your point that a "big artist" is not by defined commercial success was not clearly made in the beginning, but instead taken as something obvious. It may be obvious from an artistic point of view, but this point of view was not advanced. Instead, two definitions of the word "big" were thrown against each other with no clarification, and this way, a misunderstanding occurred with the outcome we observed. Sometimes it's helpful to use precise language when trying to get a point across.
Is it a bad thing that the outcome of a discussion is the polar opposite of the premise it started with?
Separate names with a comma.