It's Only Tuesday

I woke up this morning pretty sure it was Wednesday. I was kind of pumped because that meant that Big Brother would be on and the week would be half over. But no, it's only Tuesday.

See, my back pain just isn't letting up. It hurts to drive, to walk, to breathe. I am numb on my left side. Typing sucks. I spent all of last night, flat on my back watching the Big Brother live feeds (this is different from the network show). On Saturday night, I opened my creaky wallet and bought a new chair for my bedroom. This will allow me to be better propped up while typing, reading and listening to music. I can also sleep in it if necessary. I also broke down and made an appointment for a chiropractor, something that absolutely terrifies me. I droop on one side now, so I decided I didn't have much choice. We'll see how that turns out.

Some interesting comments yesterday regarding my notion that Def Leppard is the biggest band of the 80s next to Guns n' Roses. Sorry folks, they just are - in album sales, money earned from endorsement and touring and current relevance. I didn't think this would be a controversial opinion but in a world where everything sets everyone off now, I'm not surprised. Wake me when another glam band becomes a multi-diamond selling artist. Sorry, Bon Jovi only has one of these (Slippery When Wet). Def Leppard has two (Pyromania and Hysteria). There are only 22 artists with more than one diamond selling album. Van Halen has two but I don't count them as a glam band. Never have, really. I do love them all the same. I still argue Def Leppard was - and is - bigger than Van Halen but that might be a better post for #ShotsFiredSunday.

Fun random fact: Garth Brooks has seven diamond selling albums, which is more than the Beatles. Insanity.

Van Halen - The Best Of Both Worlds

Comments

[Bkallday]

Saying the same thing over and over doesn't make it so. Also, I don't know that anyone got "set off" by your opinion, I think there was just some strong disagreement, over said opinion.

[texjay]

Hope you get to feel better! Did you screw up your back headbanging? lol. Years of glam will do it.... :')

[Jimbo/Spyke]

Hope you're better soon,,,One question. Def Lep glam? I wouldn't call them glam,,they never did the big hair,makeup thing like Poison. They are a solid hard rock band, Just like Van Halen.

[fletch]

"I still argue Def Leppard was - and is - bigger than Van Halen but that might be a better post for #ShotsFiredSunday. "


Bigger band? perhaps

But, Better band? Never.

[fletch]

if you want to take it further, Al...Van Hagar v. Def Leppard. Which band was...as you write..."Bigger".

[Him]

First and foremost, I hope you find some relief from your pain, Allyson. That sucks.
-------------------------------------
But I agree with Bkallday. I didn't sense that anyone was set off by your proposition, Allyson. And I think you did clarify in this post what metric(s) you were using to make your claim. That still leaves a massive tangle of different strands to pull or push together. So I think my basic response to your previous post still is relevant. And I think some of the posts here add to what was said originally. A bit of debate is a good thing, no? So let me add:

Do I think Leppard were glam? No, I agree with Jimbo. Were they (or some of them) fans of glam? Yes, that is a matter of public record. Does the Sparkle Lounge sound like a place where people who like glam might hang out? Yup. It also sounds like a place where other co-cultural groups might quaff away the stresses of the day!

Do I think chart positions or, as you framed it Allyson, sales, are always/only the best metric for judging a band? No. I think that standard would lead back to the issues I had with the Big Four; to wit, a tour of bands with massive sales . . . relative to other bands--and amongst the Big Four-- that were much more 'thrash' but had nowhere near the same successes as the bands that toured.

Do I think Leppard were bigger than Van Halen? That is a bit messier. When? By the sales metric or any of the other ones I suggested? If we do go with sales, and we grant that neither bands were glam, then it is a tie by your primary standard. But a tie in regards to just sales? And a diamond standard leaves out when exactly those sales occurred, no less the trend towards less sales regardless of popularity in recent decades. I think you could actually use the sales metric to claim that both bands were more popular than each other. Thing is, it would be at different points if not determined cumulatively. Which is how the RIAA diamond standard for certification works, correct?

You also added to the sales metric the following: ". . . money earned from endorsement and touring and current relevance." Those are three additional, and very different, standards. Currently, I think GnR is more relevant than Leppard and certainly more relevant than VH. Not sure about endorsements, previously or currently, and/or how you would distinguish between band or individual band member endorsements. Touring? Right now? If so, then GnR wins again, followed by Leppard. VH isn't; so they can't really factor into a current discussion . . . even if they could factor into a discussion of previous tours during previous eras of the bands. But, even then, we would have to factor in issues such as packages, festivals, headlining, etc. Like I said, a bit of a tangle.

Back to the bands mentioned today: Leppard started out as a member of the NWOBHM. VH were a SoCal rock band. Both morphed into versions that were far different than they started out being . . . even if they both achieved, on some levels, more acclaim as they pushed closer to AOR/Pop Rock. A similar sort of thing happened with Metallica. A similar sort of thing didn't happen with Megadeth (even if Mustaine tried). But I digress.

I guess I am left where I started. Even by the relatively factual standard of sales, the concept of who is bigger is beset with problems: bands from different eras, bands with different core lineups at different points in time, bands from different (sub-)genres, changing standards of how sales are calculated. If you say "band X sold more than band Y in this year" you reduce the issue down to the most factual issue of all . . . units sold. But that doesn't really get at the overall point of staking a claim to which band is bigger, does it? If it does, then I fear that I am simply going to claim that sales don't matter as much as some people think they do (and your random fact points to this issue, Allyson). At least not to me. The rest is a Cobb Salad of different tastes and opinions. Like I said, I am willing to play. I do so recognizing that it is really just a statement of preferences.

I really enjoyed this. I like thinking about these sorts of things. And I like sharing with other people who also care about topics like this. So I apologize if my digression here, or my post previously, suggested any ire or controversy. I simply like to talk metal/rock/glam music with interested others.
-------------------------------------
And, again, I hope you find some relief, Allyson. I think we all want our beloved host to feel healthy and happy.

[JCD]

Sorry you're not feeling well. The chiropractor appt. is the best thing you could do for someone that needs immediate relief from pain. Don't expect a miracle with just one visit, go a few times over the course of two or three weeks and you'll likely be back to your former self. You'll without doubt feel better with that first appt.

[Metalboy!]

The moment Garth Brooks surpassed The Beatles in album sales, the Mediocritization of America was complete and set the stage for everything since including the current sad state of affairs of our political system.

Fortunately, Rock & Roll is still keeping things interesting (Greta Van Fleet, The Struts, Tempt, Station, etc.) despite being outsold by the Mediocre Musical Juggernauts of Rap and Country.

p.s. I hope your back is getting better, Al!!! ...