Metallica

[Perun]

@Perun: Eh..? No. Read my post again. Perhaps 'judge them by their fruits' is more to your distinguished taste.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[CriedWhenBrucieLeft]

Can someone direct me to the Metallica thread?

 

[Forostar]

We're not exactly talking about two non-Metallica artists.

 

[The Flash]

@Perun: Eh..? No. Read my post again. Perhaps 'judge them by their fruits' is more to your distinguished taste.

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?

I find album sales and audience figures (concert attendance) important.

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.

Artistic integrity is also a factor I find very important, but this is (more) difficult to express in numbers.

Are you suggesting Lady Gaga does not have artistic integrity? If so, that's a conversation ender right there because that's absolutely proposterous.

Can someone direct me to the Metallica thread?

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.

 

[Forostar]

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.

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.

 

[The Flash]

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?

 

[Forostar]

Thanks. Taking everything into account, probably yes.

 

[CriedWhenBrucieLeft]

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.

Would you at least agree that Metallica isn't "way" bigger than Gaga and they're at the very least comparable?

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.

 

[Forostar]

Beginning of discussion: Lady Gaga > Metallica
"End" of discussion: Lady Gaga < Metallica

 

[Perun]

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.

 

[Perun]

Beginning of discussion: Lady Gaga > Metallica
End of discussion: Lady Gaga < Metallica

Is it a bad thing that the outcome of a discussion is the polar opposite of the premise it started with?

 

[Forostar]

I am not dissatisfied with this particular change. On the contrary. This served as a reminder to people who may have forgotten how this started. (hi @CriedWhenBrucieLeft )

 

[The Flash]

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.

I think the confusion comes from the definition of the word "big", not "artist". Being "big" is almost exclusively used to mean popularity in musical context. "The big scene", "Making it big", "The big time" etc. I agree that popularity doesn't make an artist "better". But it does make an artist "bigger", because that's what that means.

Hope I could get my point across.

Beginning of discussion: Lady Gaga > Metallica
"End" of discussion: Lady Gaga < Metallica

Umm, no. I simply reached a compromise with you, I still hold the belief that Lady Gaga is more popular than Metallica right now.

 

[CriedWhenBrucieLeft]

After all, we all love Metallica.

Nope.

 

[Perun]

Yes @The Flash, I can understand you very well, I don't necessarily agree though. Glad you and Perun can understand my point as well.

I would even go so far as to say that I agree with your point if we're talking about whether artistic merit or commercial success if more important in evaluating an artist. It's just that I didn't have the feeling that was the topic of the discussion.

 

[Mosh]

Not sure what the argument here, but I would say album sales today are not a good way to measure an artist's popularity.

 

[Forostar]

What's a better way? If people wish to buy an album they are really going for it. It sure shows appreciation.

 

[Mosh]

Concert attendance, spotify streams (I believe the RIAA factors this in now), TV appearances, etc. Depends on the artist too. I suspect Metallica fans are more likely to buy an album than Lady Gaga fans, but that's a sweeping generalization.

Also, Joanne was not a success for her. I've seen really poor reception to it from her fans and none of the singles seemed to catch on. Total opposite outcome with Hardwired. Yet Lady Gaga still had one of the most watched Superbowl performances and both artists have had some high profile TV show appearances lately.

Album sales are definitely impressive, but they don't really reflect today's mainstream music consumption.

 

[Forostar]

Yet Lady Gaga still had one of the most watched Superbowl performances and both artists have had some high profile TV show appearances lately.

I realize it's tempting to see big media events as indicators for popularity but I really think that the listeners and not the broadcasters decide what is popular. And that can only be measured by their actions. And the action to buy something artist related, that tells more than the action of zapping to a TV channel or surfing to a YouTube video (without paying money).

Album sales are definitely impressive, but they don't really reflect today's mainstream music consumption.

But they do reflect popularity of an artist. At least, I maintain of the opinion that both albums and concert tickets are some of the biggest factors. They give the deepest (and best) connection with the music, and therefore with the artist. And again: since these two are the most expensive factors, they show very well how many people really wish to invest in something they love. The bigger the love for an artist's music, the bigger the wish becomes to get an album or concert ticket. The bigger the wish to get an album or concert ticket, the bigger album sales and concert attendance become.

 

[Black Wizard]

James Hetfield is happy that Metallica's music was used to torture prisoners at Guantanamo Bay: http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/ja...was-used-by-us-military-to-help-us-stay-safe/ He said he was "honoured". Something of a dubious honour if you ask me.