Yes, we knew that. No one had used it in 70 years. Hence the shock of it's local revival followed by a totally coincidental national campaign. We all know you're pretty sure of that. Even you won't believe me, but my friend in fourth grade came up with "coinky-dink". The first time I heard it aside from him was on Married...with Children a couple of years later. Perhaps I overestimated his greatness. Surely he wasn't that good.
Dude, I was being facetious on heatseeker. Bands, music, et. al. is all subjective. For example U2 is a great band, and I think they suck. AC/DC RULES! More YOUTUBES! <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ULml9Zw5tug&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ULml9Zw5tug&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
I've always found this song humorous. (Listen to the words. Pretty funny.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df53LWQuezQ
sorry, missed the facetiousness. It all rings true now. Bon Scott, now you're talkin. yeah, it halloween time, people s'pose get loopy.
the old GnR, were amazing!, some are the songs are classics, slash, is an excellent guitarist, my opinion is that Guns 'n Roses are better than the Red Hot Chilli Peppers, I mean I like a lot of songs from the RHCP, but I prefer Guns 'n Roses.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5fmZCve025Q&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5fmZCve025Q&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Way to go Lloyd Dobler on the thread... b****es, man. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Je7MqES4Wfk&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Je7MqES4Wfk&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
All-time great rock and roll band. I think there's very little debate that Appetite for Destruction is one of the best debut albums ever- whether critically or commercially. I also think it's a given that Sweet Child of Mine, Welcome to the Jungle, and Paradise City will always be ranked among the top rock songs of all time (no matter how much they're played out on the radio). So I think the question comes down to their other recordings and how they compare to other bands that are considered all-time greats. Obviously, there are more than this, but regardless of personal preference, I think most would agree these groups/artists fall into the all-time great category: The Beatles The Rolling Stones The Who Led Zeppelin Pink Floyd The Doors U2 AC-DC The Eagles Jimi Hendrix A rough list. Many more belong on it. Does G&R? Don't think so- although not just because of the limited number of CDs they've released. Case in point: Jimi Hendrix. He released 3 studio recordings in his lifetime: Are You Experienced, Axis: Bold as Love, and Electric Ladyland. Add Band of Gypsys and the First Rays of the Rising Sun (the one with Angel and Freedom on it), and you still have a very small number. However, all 3 of those Hendrix recordings are considered all-time classics, and I'm not sure if you can say that about the Use Your Illusions, much as I like them. I guess, indirectly, I feel it's a shame that the original creative forces in that band couldn't and don't get along- I honestly think that several more CDs from that band would've absolutely cemented their rep as one of the all-time great rock and roll bands.
I agree with most of that, excluding maybe that those songs will be considered as highly as you say... still you make a good point and examine it without bias it seems. While it sounds still like you think more of them than I do, your points are sound and credit where it's due for putting thought into the question and answer.
Yeah, tough to say. This is really separate from personal likes, more of how they might be perceived. Case in point: I can acknowledge the popularity of The Grateful Dead, but they're definitely not one of my personal favorites, no matter how many albums they've put out. Some groups' reputations improve and some don't. I know for a fact that Black Sabbath never, ever received the type of critical acclaim that they do now- they were ripped apart by critics back in the 70s and early 80s. They definitely enjoyed a reversal of opinion. Whereas the Doors have kinda suffered a bit- they had a big revival where they were ranked up there with the Who, Zep, etc.- and I don't think they're seen as the same nowadays. It's just interesting to me to see the perception of music from both a commercial and critical aspect. You have a CD like Thriller, which is by far the biggest selling album of all time and it's extremely well-received by critics. Then, you have the #3 best-seller Bat Out of Hell from Meatloaf, which the critics generally hate. Then, you have Velvet Underground banana album, which is beloved by critics but has barely sold 500,000 copies after all these years. Why are some CDs considered classic and others garbage? It's always intrigued me. Radiohead gets all kind of critical acclaim, and Rush gets very little, yet I would rank them almost dead-even for various reasons. Strange.
Well, nothing's wrong with it, but I'm sure after the 18 songs I picked out I left out some filler that some dude just absolutely loves. Where's my "Bad Apples" or "Dead Horse?" Point is, there was enough material to justify putting out 2 great albums. Sure there's some filler, but what's filler to me or you may not be to someone else, and if you just put out one album we don't ever get those songs.
Guns had the potential to be one of the all-time greats. Unfortunately, they weren't together long enough for that potential to be realized And they were a great, solid hard rock band. They were most certainly NOT a metal band. Same with AC/DC on the second point.
Disagree. And I'll even say that Motley Crue was the same, beforehand. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iczXuaqc4OA&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iczXuaqc4OA&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> Regardless, Appetite for Destruction will always be a classic.
Maybe Motley Crue can be given just a little more rock cred than just their glam metal image. But Guns N Roses was certainly better than Crue. GnR I'd label as sleaze rock. Some of the same charateristics of glam metal, but not as poppy. A little rougher and heavier.
There's not a musical genre that can be argued more one way or another than rock & roll and all of its sub-genres. And I would agree. Motley Crue is what metal sounded like and looked like back then as metal progressed from Sabbath to Motorhead to Judas Priest to Iron Maiden to Quiet Riot, Motley Crue, and the rest of the LA metal scene, not to mention the effects bands like KISS and Alice Cooper had on the genre. While bands like Metallica were around in the early 80's, they were considered the fringe. Then speed metal became what was generally considered to be regular old heavy metal as this progression continued. Personally I have a hard time with some of what is out today because I still prefer singers who, you know, sing. Still love a lot of it, though. And I'm not dissing GnR or AC/DC. They're easily two of my favorite bands. But they're not metal bands. GnR didn't do enough for me to put them in with the likes of Zeppelin, Sabbath, Floyd, The Who, etc. for "all-time great" status. Not a little more. A lot more. They got wrapped up with glam, pop, and "hair bands" (christ I hate that term) unfairly, and people who put them in with the likes of Poison and Warrant really have no idea what they're talking about.
