WhiteTim Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 And where is this list at? Well quickiest way is wikipedia highest selling bands
Heather. Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 Well quickiest way is wikipedia highest selling bands If you're talking about this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists then it doesn't do much for me... Green Day isn't even on it, and it's not even "bands" it's artists which includes Britney Spears. I'd be more interested to see a proper list of just bands. You're probably referring to this list which is exclusively US sales... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists_in_the_United_States Interesting to note with that list though is that if you CTRL F "punk" (including pop punk etc.) Green Day is the only one listed in that genre on the best-selling list, and only Pearl Jam and Nirvana are listed as alternative.
WhiteTim Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 If you're talking about this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists then it doesn't do much for me... Green Day isn't even on it, and it's not even "bands" it's artists which includes Britney Spears. I'd be more interested to see a proper list of just bands. You're probably referring to this list which is exclusively US sales... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists_in_the_United_States Interesting to note with that list though is that if you CTRL F "punk" (including pop punk etc.) Green Day is the only one listed in that genre on the best-selling list, and only Pearl Jam and Nirvana are listed as alternative. Yeah second list Well Nirvana wasnt a punk band they'd be alternative same with Pearl Jam
xXRustyJamesXx Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 yeah...the 65 million were after 21st Century Breakdown, but now they're released 3 new albums, so it's really about 75 million The trilogy has only sold about 400,000 copies together..
Eva Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 Nirvana have also sold 75 according to Wiki. And they will be eligible for the Hall of Fame earlier than Green Day, because they released their first album a year or two before 39/Smooth, making them eligible this year/next year. It has nothing to do with sales and I don't think GD is "ahead in the race" for the Hall of Fame. Both bands are likely to get inducted very quickly but Nirvana, just by virtue of having formed slightly earlier, will get in first. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame picks inductees based on the band's musical influence and legacy 25 years after their first release. So, you are absolutely correct. Nirvana could have sold 25 million less than Green Day but they will still probably be inducted earlier because they were around first and had a huge impact. Green Day will still (probably) be inducted, but they came after Nirvana so it won't be as soon. In short: Albums sales don't mean anything to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Yeah second list Well Nirvana wasnt a punk band they'd be alternative same with Pearl Jam Actually, the term "alternative" originated with Nirvana because a newspaper in Seattle referred to them as "the alternative" to the pop music on the radio that was huge when Nirvana began as a group. As the 1990s progressed, the term "alternative" basically went on to become an umbrella term for any band using real instruments. All Time Low, Blink-182, etc., are usually called "alternative" but in my mind, they sound nothing like Nirvana or Pearl Jam, when it comes right down to it. Nirvana's punk/grunge, not "alternative."
WhiteTim Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame picks inductees based on the band's musical influence and legacy 25 years after their first release. So, you are absolutely correct. Nirvana could have sold 25 million less than Green Day but they will still probably be inducted earlier because they were around first and had a huge impact. Green Day will still (probably) be inducted, but they came after Nirvana so it won't be as soon. In short: Albums sales don't mean anything to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Actually, the term "alternative" originated with Nirvana because a newspaper in Seattle referred to them as "the alternative" to the pop music on the radio that was huge when Nirvana began as a group. As the 1990s progressed, the term "alternative" basically went on to become an umbrella term for any band using real instruments. All Time Low, Blink-182, etc., are usually called "alternative" but in my mind, they sound nothing like Nirvana or Pearl Jam, when it comes right down to it. Nirvana's punk/grunge, not "alternative." Nirvana's not punk and the only grunge album Nirvana has ever done was Bleach and that mainly is due to Jack Endino's production than to the actual music. Nirvana being punk or grunge is as true to Green Day being a jazz band...
Eva Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Nirvana's not punk and the only grunge album Nirvana has ever done was Bleach and that mainly is due to Jack Endino's production than to the actual music. Nirvana being punk or grunge is as true to Green Day being a jazz band... Then they're a rock band. They're sure as hell not alternative though. That wasn't even supposed to become a musical genre. It was a statement. "They are the alternative from the pop radio."
Heather. Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Then they're a rock band. They're sure as hell not alternative though. That wasn't even supposed to become a musical genre. It was a statement. "They are the alternative from the pop radio." Right, but it's still helpful to know something is an "alternative" band.... so you know what kind of rock you're *not* dealing with. Although now it's too broad of a term anyway so I don't know if people mean Mumford & Sons or the Offspring.
Eva Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Right, but it's still helpful to know something is an "alternative" band.... so you know what kind of rock you're *not* dealing with. Although now it's too broad of a term anyway so I don't know if people mean Mumford & Sons or the Offspring. Yeah, I think that's what I'm trying to get at. I don't know anymore, really. It's just too broad. I mean, alternative could mean Nirvana or it could mean The Lumineers or something. It's too broad to really define anything as, because it's developed into an umbrella term. Anyway, this is a bit off-topic at this point. (I think.)
TheGrouch33 Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 I'm going to get called a punk elitist after this post but whatever. I would not consider Green Day a punk band after Insomniac (maybe Nimrod, if you stretch it a little bit) so any profits or sales made from Nimrod, Warning, Shenanigans, American Idiot, 21st Century Breakdown, and the Trilogy should not be counted in with their punk total. As for "does it matter", no, it doesn't. Punk is about the music, not about the money. I dont want to get into the typical whats "punk" and what isnt hahahah buuuuut i think you dont really understand what the idea of punk is. A punk band doesnt sign to a major label in any circumstance, because they are against commercial exposure blablablab, so technically Green Day stopped being "punk" when they signed to reprise and therefore when Dookie was released etc etc. Even if Insomniac sounds heavier than other Green Day records it doesnt mean its less commercial than the others or more "punk". On the other hand I dont give a single fuck about whats punk, im pretty sure Green Day makes music because they truly want to, thats what matters to me.
Eva Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 I dont want to get into the typical whats "punk" and what isnt hahahah buuuuut i think you dont really understand what the idea of punk is. A punk band doesnt sign to a major label in any circumstance, because they are against commercial exposure blablablab, so technically Green Day stopped being "punk" when they signed to reprise and therefore when Dookie was released etc etc. Even if Insomniac sounds heavier than other Green Day records it doesnt mean its less commercial than the others or more "punk". On the other hand I dont give a single fuck about whats punk, im pretty sure Green Day makes music because they truly want to, thats what matters to me. Your logic means The Clash weren't punk. Try again.
WhiteTim Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Then they're a rock band. They're sure as hell not alternative though. That wasn't even supposed to become a musical genre. It was a statement. "They are the alternative from the pop radio." I can agree with that
TheGrouch33 Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Your logic means The Clash weren't punk. Try again. its not my logic! hahahah its a punk belief!....there were also people who claimed to be communist and ended up being the complete opposite. Its not always easy to live up to ones ideals in life.
Eva Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 its not my logic! hahahah its a punk belief!....there were also people who claimed to be communist and ended up being the complete opposite. Its not always easy to live up to ones ideals in life. Trust me dude, I know a lot about punk. It's about the sound of the music. Kids pretend it's in the 'tude, but it's not. Insomniac sounds punk. Therefore, Green Day were a punk band when it came out. The Trilogy does not have that dirty gritty punk sound, therefore, they were not a punk band when it came out. It's about the music. I don't give a shit about your leather jackets and spikes and anarcho-communist philosophies. If you listen to the music and have the spirit, you're punk. Yes, usually, the jackets and political philosophies go hand in hand, but from the beginning it's been the music. You can have a punk record and be on a major label. It's not the norm though, because most major labels don't want to sign punk bands.
TheGrouch33 Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Trust me dude, I know a lot about punk. It's about the sound of the music. Kids pretend it's in the 'tude, but it's not. Insomniac sounds punk. Therefore, Green Day were a punk band when it came out. The Trilogy does not have that dirty gritty punk sound, therefore, they were not a punk band when it came out. It's about the music. I don't give a shit about your leather jackets and spikes and anarcho-communist philosophies. If you listen to the music and have the spirit, you're punk. Yes, usually, the jackets and political philosophies go hand in hand, but from the beginning it's been the music. You can have a punk record and be on a major label. It's not the norm though, because most major labels don't want to sign punk bands. I see what you mean and i agree its not about the looks at all, but youve got to understand that for some people its not only the "sound" its more about the pilosophy of the movement and where the music comes from. I dont think its a crazy idea to think that people get pissed when they use the word punk with a mainstream band because it was not born from a commercial point of view whatsoever! you cant deny that, plus i think youre quite young to have experienced a true punk community especially stating that its only about the "sound". Even Billie Joe says its not only about the music but a lifestyle! hahahhaha Ps: if major labels believe they can make profit from a band they will sign them for sure no matter the genre, they are a business, remember the 90`s^^
Eva Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 I see what you mean and i agree its not about the looks at all, but youve got to understand that for some people its not only the "sound" its more about the pilosophy of the movement and where the music comes from. I dont think its a crazy idea to think that people get pissed when they use the word punk with a mainstream band because it was not born from a commercial point of view whatsoever! you cant deny that, plus i think youre quite young to have experienced a true punk community especially stating that its only about the "sound". Even Billie Joe says its not only about the music but a lifestyle! hahahhaha Ps: if major labels believe they can make profit from a band they will sign them for sure no matter the genre, they are a business, remember the 90`s^^ I can't believe you're sitting here telling me what punk is or isn't when you're playing the age card. Wanna know what's punk or what isn't? Playing the age card isn't punk, I'll tell you that. Punk was born from a commercial point of view. The Ramones' main goal was to be famous and make a lot of money. They didn't achieve it, of course, but they wanted mainstream capitalist success. Of course, we can sit here and argue about whether The Ramones or The Sex Pistols were the first punk band, or if it was The Stooges or MC5 but that doesn't get anyone anywhere. Also, Billie Joe ain't the punk rock authority. Punk rock is a lifestyle, but that lifestyle isn't hating mainstream capitalist record labels. It's doing what you want, when you want, 'cause you love the music and you love the scene.
WhiteTim Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 I see what you mean and i agree its not about the looks at all, but youve got to understand that for some people its not only the "sound" its more about the pilosophy of the movement and where the music comes from. I dont think its a crazy idea to think that people get pissed when they use the word punk with a mainstream band because it was not born from a commercial point of view whatsoever! you cant deny that, plus i think youre quite young to have experienced a true punk community especially stating that its only about the "sound". Even Billie Joe says its not only about the music but a lifestyle! hahahhaha Ps: if major labels believe they can make profit from a band they will sign them for sure no matter the genre, they are a business, remember the 90`s^^ You're not THAT much older than drum...
Eva Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 You're not THAT much older than drum... Plus, the age card is highly looked down upon in punk culture. It's not about age. 924 Gilman is one of the most successful stories in western punk history. It wouldn't have been if it hadn't been an all-ages, community run gig. A lot of great Californian punk bands have been teenagers. Also, TheGrouch33, I'd like to add in that you don't know how the scene in my town is going, so you can't accurately judge how much "experience" I've had.
TheGrouch33 Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Plus, the age card is highly looked down upon in punk culture. It's not about age. 924 Gilman is one of the most successful stories in western punk history. It wouldn't have been if it hadn't been an all-ages, community run gig. A lot of great Californian punk bands have been teenagers. Also, TheGrouch33, I'd like to add in that you don't know how the scene in my town is going, so you can't accurately judge how much "experience" I've had. true true, i jumped on that one too fast hahaI can't believe you're sitting here telling me what punk is or isn't when you're playing the age card. Wanna know what's punk or what isn't? Playing the age card isn't punk, I'll tell you that. Punk was born from a commercial point of view. The Ramones' main goal was to be famous and make a lot of money. They didn't achieve it, of course, but they wanted mainstream capitalist success. Of course, we can sit here and argue about whether The Ramones or The Sex Pistols were the first punk band, or if it was The Stooges or MC5 but that doesn't get anyone anywhere. Also, Billie Joe ain't the punk rock authority. Punk rock is a lifestyle, but that lifestyle isn't hating mainstream capitalist record labels. It's doing what you want, when you want, 'cause you love the music and you love the scene. The Ramones arent a punk rock authority either and the discussion here is not who is the first punk band. The good thing in your favour in this argument is that punk is very flexible and everyone has their own personal approach to it, i also think youve misunderstood me, i dont believe that punk has to hate major labels, im just saying that certain people have a different attitude towards mainstream music or have a different understanding of punk and they are just as punk as you.
GreenArmin138 Posted April 10, 2013 Posted April 10, 2013 Only one thing is important - quality of music
! Posted April 10, 2013 Posted April 10, 2013 Although it has nothing to do with the point of the thread, punk is a genre of music and nothing else. You can be all those descriptions that people want to associate with punk, and not be into punk at all. Punk is a style of music, point blank.
Red Lights Flash Posted April 10, 2013 Posted April 10, 2013 "This is punk." "No, that is punk!" - every online Green Day-related discussion ever
HumanPate86 Posted April 10, 2013 Posted April 10, 2013 yeah...the 65 million were after 21st Century Breakdown, but now they're released 3 new albums, so it's really about 75 million Seriously? The trilogy sold MAYBE 3 million
WhiteTim Posted April 10, 2013 Posted April 10, 2013 Seriously? The trilogy sold MAYBE 3 million Trilogy worldwide would barly be over a million
musso_kn Posted April 10, 2013 Posted April 10, 2013 "This is punk." "No, that is punk!" - every online Green Day-related discussion ever Oh, God, yes. It's not even worth talking about anymore.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.