Another bad comparison. GnR faded fast and so did the Pistols, but that's were the comparison ends. GnR represented a hard rock glam scene that was in decline. The Pistols,although probably not the first punks, definitely set the tone for a movement that didn't die with them and set the stage for a whole new movement and generation of musicians who didn't have to be the Beatles or the Stones or conform to the industry standard. The shift in the music industry after the Pistols,while not dramatic or immediatley noticeable, did have major consequences for later groups. The sad thing is that music industry is in worse shape than ever. And definetly needs to have it's ass kicked,like it was in 1977. Who on earth has GnR influenced and what on earth is going to change them from being the bad joke that they are now. They burned out quick and didn't know how to handle fame or each other. Wow I'm impressed. They could have been a great band, but we're not going to find out are we. Two decent albums and alot of hype doesn't equal the likes of Led Zeppelin,CCR,Sex Pistols (with their one album that did have a bass player in Glen Matlock) or even Nirvana. Hey, if you like them alot good for you. But there is NO way in Heaven or Hell that they can be compared to any of the bands mentioned above in any musical sense whatsoever. As Mr. Rotten would say "good riddance to bad rubbish".
See, I have to disagree with you on that. I've always thought that GnR represented the beginning of the end for the hair bands. They weren't glam at all, have you seen them???? I wouldn't go so far as to compare them to legenary bands like Zep, or the Stones etc, but had they stayed together, I have no doubt they would have eventually risen to that status. They were the bridge between the hair bands and the grunge bands IMO. They were the first band in a long time to not have a gimmick. They were just a great rock band.
ok, take a deep breath there buck-o. i was just responding to the idea that g n' r wouldnt get into the hall of fame because they didnt put out alot of albums. i never tried to compare them to anyone else or claim that they were a major influence over anyone. they were just a kick ass hard rock band, nothing more nothing less. i like them. if others dont, i dont care. hope you didnt type all that just for lil' old me. and your going to rag on guns for burning out out quick and not knowing how to handle each other whilst championing the sex pistols, who did just that, but only much much quicker?
good for me indeed. see, the great thing about music is that its all subjective. and did you just say that the sex pistols are musically better than guns n' roses? oh no you didnt!
Agreed. As much as I enjoyed Motley Crue and Poison, GNR just kicked their asses. They were on top until Pearl Jam and Nirvana types arrived. Good times.
Wrong. They weren't part of any 'scene'. If you think Guns-n-Roses and Poison, etc. were in the same 'scene', you have no idea what you're talking about. Besides that, the glam scene wasn't in decline in '87, it was reaching its peak. So wrong again.
The Sex Pistols, granted Sid Vicious couldn't play a lick if his life depended on it, were pioneers that helped create a new genre of music. GnR were mediocre musicians that helped dumb down the American music fan, and the best thing about their live show was Axl's posing. Without that, they were nothing but a corporate music flameout waiting to happen. My opinions may differ from yours, of course....but I was there, I saw GnR play in clubs while I lived in LA, and I am simply reflecting on what I saw. I am not trying to anger any GnR lovers. You have your tastes and I have mine. I simply was not impressed with GnR, and like I said, I was there. To me. the only thing GnR definitely was, was loud. Carry on.
Speak for yourself. GnR, Poison, Motley Crue....they were all part of the same scene. They all played the same clubs on the Strip, dressed similar, hung out at the same places, and appeared in the same magazines. If that isn't being part of the "same scene", please tell me what is.
Mindreader, eh? You sound more like a b*ll**** artist to me! In front of which bedroom mirror was your last gig, Mr. Freak?
Now that's interesting. I'm wondering if you really think that (about Slash in particular) or if you just don't like their kind of music, because I've always thought Slash was a good player even if the music wasn't my cup of tea. Now the drummer, Steven Adler, was not very good at all. Their time was all over the place live. Once they axed him and got Matt Sorum, that changed because he is an excellent drummer. Being a musician myself, there are plenty of musicians I respect even though I don't care for the type of music they play. It's because they are good at what they do and that's really what matters most. You don't feel that way about Slash?
I never thought Slash was anything special as a guitar player. He was loud, and that's about it. I agree with you on Steven Adler. An absolutely awful drummer, meter-wise. Trouble is, by the time they got rid of Adler and hired Matt Sorum, they were at the 14 minute mark of their 15 minutes of fame.
The guitar solo in _Sweet Child_ is one of the best guitar solos ever. Matter of fact, it is the best Brian May guitar solo that Brian May never played. Too bad the rest of his work did not hang as well.
Same scene, but far from the same band. And not all of the bands were glam bands. Even some that started that way like Motley Crue dropped the makeup as soon they made it. I don't consider GnR glam at all. And for better or worse they played the music on their CDs, unlike Poison or Warrant.
eh, all they did was try to rip-off the ramones. they were pioneers of the punk-rock style/fashion, but that doesnt have alot to do with music. the sex pistols werent even the best brit punk band of their era - give me the clash any day. random music trivia - did yall know sid was the original drummer for siouxsie and the banshees? hopefully he wasnt as bad a drummer as he was a bassist. alright, let me guess. slash sold you some bad smack back in the day and thats why you hate them? would you like them better if they sounded like a bunch of stevie ray vaughnabee's?
No, but I like the thought that went into your post! No, but if they sounded like more like Howlin' Wolf.......
...they wouldnt have sold any records and axl would have been turning tricks on hollywood and vine to support his habit.
