One Guns n' Roses ticket cost me almost the same amt as all four PJ Fenway and Wrigley Shows

rgambs

rustneversleeps said:

you aren't having a discussion. you are matter-of-factly talking about something you know nothing about.

It would be a discussion if people would counter my points rather than just dismissing my analysis.
So if I am so wrong, articulate for me exactly how I am wrong. I know nothing, you know everything, but somehow I am the one who is actually analysing the music and you are just being dismissive.

rgambs

DewieCox said:

You've mentioned the things they have in common with hair metal and those comparisons have been rejected across the board. Bottom line, when most of us listen to the music we don't hear the musical comparisons you're making. About every band is subject to the times when it comes to their image.

The lyrical content and their offstage behavior isn't all that different from bands like AIC or Nirvana or PJ. If you think those 90s guys weren't partying their asses off, then your naivety is alarming. Axl was writing about the negatives of the junkie lifestyle and had a lot of political lyrics and much darker themes than the bands you're trying to compare to, He wasn't writing Girls,Girls, Girls...he was writing My Michelle.

Nobody is getting butthurt, but it can be annoying when you lay out facts and they're dismissed by someone that claims to want an open discussion.

So they don't fall into the hair band tropes of high falsetto singing, screeching powerful guitar solos, unremarkable (comparatively) rhythm section and a party image/ frequent song theme???

rustneversleeps

rgambs said:

rustneversleeps said:

you aren't having a discussion. you are matter-of-factly talking about something you know nothing about.

It would be a discussion if people would counter my points rather than just dismissing my analysis.
So if I am so wrong, articulate for me exactly how I am wrong. I know nothing, you know everything, but somehow I am the one who is actually analysing the music and you are just being dismissive.

i know nothing... and plenty have countered your points in this thread. have you read it? i wont discuss guns with someone that thinks they know everything about them, even though you were a 2 year old when they broke out. enjoy your pearl jam shows.

pearlgirl52

So this thread has turned into a debate about if GNFNR is a hair band or not? Oh boy. To each his/her own I guess. If you want to spend a ton of money to see them, good for you. I'll probably see them, won't be spending thousands of dollars though. Hopefully they make it and all the diehards will finally get their chance. Slash has still got it, Duff's still got it. Everyone will find out if Axl still has it. I think Myles Kennedy does a much better job today than Axl does though if you aren't set on the original lineup. Guy's got serious pipes. Who cares what I think though.

DewieCox

rgambs said:

DewieCox said:

You've mentioned the things they have in common with hair metal and those comparisons have been rejected across the board. Bottom line, when most of us listen to the music we don't hear the musical comparisons you're making. About every band is subject to the times when it comes to their image.

The lyrical content and their offstage behavior isn't all that different from bands like AIC or Nirvana or PJ. If you think those 90s guys weren't partying their asses off, then your naivety is alarming. Axl was writing about the negatives of the junkie lifestyle and had a lot of political lyrics and much darker themes than the bands you're trying to compare to, He wasn't writing Girls,Girls, Girls...he was writing My Michelle.

Nobody is getting butthurt, but it can be annoying when you lay out facts and they're dismissed by someone that claims to want an open discussion.

So they don't fall into the hair band tropes of high falsetto singing, screeching powerful guitar solos, unremarkable (comparatively) rhythm section and a party image/ frequent song theme???

No....Do Soundgarden and Jane's Addiction?

I don't hear a rhythm section any less remarkable than say, Ament/Abbeuzzese, Grohl/Novoselic, or the AIC guys....there aren't many rhythm sections as identifiable as Adler and Duff. To call them unremarkable is an insult basically every rock rhythm section short of moon/Entwistlw and JPJ/Bonham. They aren't as technically proficient as a lot of guys, but they stay out of the way while adding some personality to the music. They're an all time well respected rhythm section.

Again, I already made my point with my last post, but I can't think of a GnR song that celebrates the party rock and roll lifestyle. No question, they partied their asses off and some songs were written from that, but seldom/never was it from a positive viewpoint.

jerparker20

rgambs said:

DewieCox said:

You've mentioned the things they have in common with hair metal and those comparisons have been rejected across the board. Bottom line, when most of us listen to the music we don't hear the musical comparisons you're making. About every band is subject to the times when it comes to their image.

The lyrical content and their offstage behavior isn't all that different from bands like AIC or Nirvana or PJ. If you think those 90s guys weren't partying their asses off, then your naivety is alarming. Axl was writing about the negatives of the junkie lifestyle and had a lot of political lyrics and much darker themes than the bands you're trying to compare to, He wasn't writing Girls,Girls, Girls...he was writing My Michelle.

Nobody is getting butthurt, but it can be annoying when you lay out facts and they're dismissed by someone that claims to want an open discussion.

So they don't fall into the hair band tropes of high falsetto singing, screeching powerful guitar solos, unremarkable (comparatively) rhythm section and a party image/ frequent song theme???

Dude. Why are you so hell bent on trying to classify music into silos? Who cares if GNR is a "hair band" hard rock, or whatever. They made some kick ass music during their run and lots of people loved it and still do. So does it matter if they where this type of band or that type of band? If you want to use your logic, PJ, Radiohead, and Tool could be classifield as "arena rock" since they only play arenas and large festivals thus placing them in the same category of music as Journey, Def Leppard and KISS. And at the end of the day; who cares what it's called. Just like all others forms of art there's stuff you like and stuff you don't.

As for the impact of Appetite and GNR, for me it opened up a whole new world of music. I was 11 when it came out. An aunt who was maybe 20-21 at the time found my stashed dubbed copy of Appetite while visiting. (I grew up in a very religious household in a small rural town so GNR was clearly the work of the devil and thus banished from the home so I had to stash my copy I got from a friend's older brother inside of the box spring of my bed.) She then introduced me to Zepplin, Sabbath, and Metallica. I then discovered the Misfits and punk. That album opened up a lot of musically doors for me.

rustneversleeps

pearlgirl52 said:

So this thread has turned into a debate about if GNFNR is a hair band or not? Oh boy. To each his/her own I guess. If you want to spend a ton of money to see them, good for you. I'll probably see them, won't be spending thousands of dollars though. Hopefully they make it and all the diehards will finally get their chance. Slash has still got it, Duff's still got it. Everyone will find out if Axl still has it. I think Myles Kennedy does a much better job today than Axl does though if you aren't set on the original lineup. Guy's got serious pipes. Who cares what I think though.

i care...

coco butter

God I love this thread. It makes me want to light up a Marb Red and start drinking some Jack Daniels Whisky straight out of a bottle at a Firestone dealership with Paradise City cranked in the background!

rustneversleeps

coco butter said:

God I love this thread. It makes me want to light up a Marb Red and start drinking some Jack Daniels Whisky straight out of bottle at a Firestone dealership with Paradise City cranked in the background!

smoke em if ya got em!

coco butter

rustneversleeps said:

coco butter said:

God I love this thread. It makes me want to light up a Marb Red and start drinking some Jack Daniels Whisky straight out of bottle at a Firestone dealership with Paradise City cranked in the background!

smoke em if ya got em!

I do need an oil change!

Zod

GM151575 said:

It works even with not using a citi card?

Yah it does. It won't let you check out directly with a non-citi card, but theres an option a bit lower down to use "visa checkout". Visa Checkout is basically another version of paypal or google wallet. You can link whatever credit card you want it to.. doesn't have to be a VISA. So you check out of CITI presales if you use the visa checkout. I guess they can't tell what kind of credit card you use when you do that

pearlgirl52

rustneversleeps said:

pearlgirl52 said:

So this thread has turned into a debate about if GNFNR is a hair band or not? Oh boy. To each his/her own I guess. If you want to spend a ton of money to see them, good for you. I'll probably see them, won't be spending thousands of dollars though. Hopefully they make it and all the diehards will finally get their chance. Slash has still got it, Duff's still got it. Everyone will find out if Axl still has it. I think Myles Kennedy does a much better job today than Axl does though if you aren't set on the original lineup. Guy's got serious pipes. Who cares what I think though.

i care...

Thanks Whitey!

coco butter said:

God I love this thread. It makes me want to light up a Marb Red and start drinking some Jack Daniels Whisky straight out of a bottle at a Firestone dealership with Paradise City cranked in the background!

Right? I still can't sing that fast though.

rgambs

DewieCox said:

rgambs said:

DewieCox said:

You've mentioned the things they have in common with hair metal and those comparisons have been rejected across the board. Bottom line, when most of us listen to the music we don't hear the musical comparisons you're making. About every band is subject to the times when it comes to their image.

The lyrical content and their offstage behavior isn't all that different from bands like AIC or Nirvana or PJ. If you think those 90s guys weren't partying their asses off, then your naivety is alarming. Axl was writing about the negatives of the junkie lifestyle and had a lot of political lyrics and much darker themes than the bands you're trying to compare to, He wasn't writing Girls,Girls, Girls...he was writing My Michelle.

Nobody is getting butthurt, but it can be annoying when you lay out facts and they're dismissed by someone that claims to want an open discussion.

So they don't fall into the hair band tropes of high falsetto singing, screeching powerful guitar solos, unremarkable (comparatively) rhythm section and a party image/ frequent song theme???

No....Do Soundgarden and Jane's Addiction?

I don't hear a rhythm section any less remarkable than say, Ament/Abbeuzzese, Grohl/Novoselic, or the AIC guys....there aren't many rhythm sections as identifiable as Adler and Duff. To call them unremarkable is an insult basically every rock rhythm section short of moon/Entwistlw and JPJ/Bonham. They aren't as technically proficient as a lot of guys, but they stay out of the way while adding some personality to the music. They're an all time well respected rhythm section.

Again, I already made my point with my last post, but I can't think of a GnR song that celebrates the party rock and roll lifestyle. No question, they partied their asses off and some songs were written from that, but seldom/never was it from a positive viewpoint.

That's as close to factually incorrect as possible on such a subjective topic.

I am not dissing their rhythm section, I am just noting that the rhythm section doesn't take center stage in the same way as bands like Nirvana and RHCP. There is no question that grunge was more rhythm oriented and hair metal was more melody oriented, and I would argue that GNR was more melody oriented, but we can disagree on that.

The fact that their party songs were not celebratory is a good one, that is a qualitative difference.
I disagree with you on the rhythm deal, but thank you for attempting to actually discuss the characteristics of the music they made in a deeper way than repeating for the 10012th time that they were rawer.

rgambs

jerparker20 said:

rgambs said:

DewieCox said:

You've mentioned the things they have in common with hair metal and those comparisons have been rejected across the board. Bottom line, when most of us listen to the music we don't hear the musical comparisons you're making. About every band is subject to the times when it comes to their image.

The lyrical content and their offstage behavior isn't all that different from bands like AIC or Nirvana or PJ. If you think those 90s guys weren't partying their asses off, then your naivety is alarming. Axl was writing about the negatives of the junkie lifestyle and had a lot of political lyrics and much darker themes than the bands you're trying to compare to, He wasn't writing Girls,Girls, Girls...he was writing My Michelle.

Nobody is getting butthurt, but it can be annoying when you lay out facts and they're dismissed by someone that claims to want an open discussion.

So they don't fall into the hair band tropes of high falsetto singing, screeching powerful guitar solos, unremarkable (comparatively) rhythm section and a party image/ frequent song theme???

Dude. Why are you so hell bent on trying to classify music into silos? Who cares if GNR is a "hair band" hard rock, or whatever. They made some kick ass music during their run and lots of people loved it and still do. So does it matter if they where this type of band or that type of band? If you want to use your logic, PJ, Radiohead, and Tool could be classifield as "arena rock" since they only play arenas and large festivals thus placing them in the same category of music as Journey, Def Leppard and KISS. And at the end of the day; who cares what it's called. Just like all others forms of art there's stuff you like and stuff you don't.

As for the impact of Appetite and GNR, for me it opened up a whole new world of music. I was 11 when it came out. An aunt who was maybe 20-21 at the time found my stashed dubbed copy of Appetite while visiting. (I grew up in a very religious household in a small rural town so GNR was clearly the work of the devil and thus banished from the home so I had to stash my copy I got from a friend's older brother inside of the box spring of my bed.) She then introduced me to Zepplin, Sabbath, and Metallica. I then discovered the Misfits and punk. That album opened up a lot of musically doors for me.

For the same reason people are so hell bent on classifying them out of a particular solo...I have an opinion and I think it's right

Seriously though, labels can be uncomfortable for those put into them, but I disagree with the general desire nowadays to avoid classifying anything. Putting things in certain classes allows for comparison and dissection of the patterns and characteristics that define them.

Merkin Baller

rgambs said:

jerparker20 said:

rgambs said:

DewieCox said:

You've mentioned the things they have in common with hair metal and those comparisons have been rejected across the board. Bottom line, when most of us listen to the music we don't hear the musical comparisons you're making. About every band is subject to the times when it comes to their image.

The lyrical content and their offstage behavior isn't all that different from bands like AIC or Nirvana or PJ. If you think those 90s guys weren't partying their asses off, then your naivety is alarming. Axl was writing about the negatives of the junkie lifestyle and had a lot of political lyrics and much darker themes than the bands you're trying to compare to, He wasn't writing Girls,Girls, Girls...he was writing My Michelle.

Nobody is getting butthurt, but it can be annoying when you lay out facts and they're dismissed by someone that claims to want an open discussion.

So they don't fall into the hair band tropes of high falsetto singing, screeching powerful guitar solos, unremarkable (comparatively) rhythm section and a party image/ frequent song theme???

Dude. Why are you so hell bent on trying to classify music into silos? Who cares if GNR is a "hair band" hard rock, or whatever. They made some kick ass music during their run and lots of people loved it and still do. So does it matter if they where this type of band or that type of band? If you want to use your logic, PJ, Radiohead, and Tool could be classifield as "arena rock" since they only play arenas and large festivals thus placing them in the same category of music as Journey, Def Leppard and KISS. And at the end of the day; who cares what it's called. Just like all others forms of art there's stuff you like and stuff you don't.

As for the impact of Appetite and GNR, for me it opened up a whole new world of music. I was 11 when it came out. An aunt who was maybe 20-21 at the time found my stashed dubbed copy of Appetite while visiting. (I grew up in a very religious household in a small rural town so GNR was clearly the work of the devil and thus banished from the home so I had to stash my copy I got from a friend's older brother inside of the box spring of my bed.) She then introduced me to Zepplin, Sabbath, and Metallica. I then discovered the Misfits and punk. That album opened up a lot of musically doors for me.

For the same reason people are so hell bent on classifying them out of a particular solo...I have an opinion and I think it's right

Seriously though, labels can be uncomfortable for those put into them, but I disagree with the general desire nowadays to avoid classifying anything. Putting things in certain classes allows for comparison and dissection of the patterns and characteristics that define them.

Blind Melon was just another '90s wannabe hippie band no different from the Spin Doctors. Both had awesome bass players, both had members w/ long hair. Both wrote catchy radio friendly tunes. There you go.

rustneversleeps

Guns n Roses Live at The Ritz 1988-- Full show on youtube. Do yourself a favor and watch the show.

DewieCox

rgambs said:

DewieCox said:

rgambs said:

DewieCox said:

You've mentioned the things they have in common with hair metal and those comparisons have been rejected across the board. Bottom line, when most of us listen to the music we don't hear the musical comparisons you're making. About every band is subject to the times when it comes to their image.

The lyrical content and their offstage behavior isn't all that different from bands like AIC or Nirvana or PJ. If you think those 90s guys weren't partying their asses off, then your naivety is alarming. Axl was writing about the negatives of the junkie lifestyle and had a lot of political lyrics and much darker themes than the bands you're trying to compare to, He wasn't writing Girls,Girls, Girls...he was writing My Michelle.

Nobody is getting butthurt, but it can be annoying when you lay out facts and they're dismissed by someone that claims to want an open discussion.

So they don't fall into the hair band tropes of high falsetto singing, screeching powerful guitar solos, unremarkable (comparatively) rhythm section and a party image/ frequent song theme???

No....Do Soundgarden and Jane's Addiction?

I don't hear a rhythm section any less remarkable than say, Ament/Abbeuzzese, Grohl/Novoselic, or the AIC guys....there aren't many rhythm sections as identifiable as Adler and Duff. To call them unremarkable is an insult basically every rock rhythm section short of moon/Entwistlw and JPJ/Bonham. They aren't as technically proficient as a lot of guys, but they stay out of the way while adding some personality to the music. They're an all time well respected rhythm section.

Again, I already made my point with my last post, but I can't think of a GnR song that celebrates the party rock and roll lifestyle. No question, they partied their asses off and some songs were written from that, but seldom/never was it from a positive viewpoint.

That's as close to factually incorrect as possible on such a subjective topic.

I am not dissing their rhythm section, I am just noting that the rhythm section doesn't take center stage in the same way as bands like Nirvana and RHCP. There is no question that grunge was more rhythm oriented and hair metal was more melody oriented, and I would argue that GNR was more melody oriented, but we can disagree on that.

The fact that their party songs were not celebratory is a good one, that is a qualitative difference.
I disagree with you on the rhythm deal, but thank you for attempting to actually discuss the characteristics of the music they made in a deeper way than repeating for the 10012th time that they were rawer.

No it's not. That's your last leg to stand on and I gave you two examples of bands that have those features that aren't identified as a hair band. Hell, those bands even started their rise around the same time as GnR

Your second point is an example of something that is factually incorrect. For their technical proficiency, Adler and Duff are held in insanely high regard. If you don't think they supply a sonic signature then it's plain to see you're speaking from a place of ignorance or bullheadedness. Just listen to their material played by their different lineups.

rgambs

DewieCox said:

rgambs said:

DewieCox said:

rgambs said:

DewieCox said:

You've mentioned the things they have in common with hair metal and those comparisons have been rejected across the board. Bottom line, when most of us listen to the music we don't hear the musical comparisons you're making. About every band is subject to the times when it comes to their image.

The lyrical content and their offstage behavior isn't all that different from bands like AIC or Nirvana or PJ. If you think those 90s guys weren't partying their asses off, then your naivety is alarming. Axl was writing about the negatives of the junkie lifestyle and had a lot of political lyrics and much darker themes than the bands you're trying to compare to, He wasn't writing Girls,Girls, Girls...he was writing My Michelle.

Nobody is getting butthurt, but it can be annoying when you lay out facts and they're dismissed by someone that claims to want an open discussion.

So they don't fall into the hair band tropes of high falsetto singing, screeching powerful guitar solos, unremarkable (comparatively) rhythm section and a party image/ frequent song theme???

No....Do Soundgarden and Jane's Addiction?

I don't hear a rhythm section any less remarkable than say, Ament/Abbeuzzese, Grohl/Novoselic, or the AIC guys....there aren't many rhythm sections as identifiable as Adler and Duff. To call them unremarkable is an insult basically every rock rhythm section short of moon/Entwistlw and JPJ/Bonham. They aren't as technically proficient as a lot of guys, but they stay out of the way while adding some personality to the music. They're an all time well respected rhythm section.

Again, I already made my point with my last post, but I can't think of a GnR song that celebrates the party rock and roll lifestyle. No question, they partied their asses off and some songs were written from that, but seldom/never was it from a positive viewpoint.

That's as close to factually incorrect as possible on such a subjective topic.

I am not dissing their rhythm section, I am just noting that the rhythm section doesn't take center stage in the same way as bands like Nirvana and RHCP. There is no question that grunge was more rhythm oriented and hair metal was more melody oriented, and I would argue that GNR was more melody oriented, but we can disagree on that.

The fact that their party songs were not celebratory is a good one, that is a qualitative difference.
I disagree with you on the rhythm deal, but thank you for attempting to actually discuss the characteristics of the music they made in a deeper way than repeating for the 10012th time that they were rawer.

No it's not. That's your last leg to stand on and I gave you two examples of bands that have those features that aren't identified as a hair band. Hell, those bands even started their rise around the same time as GnR

Your second point is an example of something that is factually incorrect. For their technical proficiency, Adler and Duff are held in insanely high regard. If you don't think they supply a sonic signature then it's plain to see you're speaking from a place of ignorance or bullheadedness. Just listen to their material played by their different lineups.

I would say you are right that Soundgarden shares many of those characteristics that hair bands had, but they had just as many differences.

Regarding the rhythm, I didn't mention technical proficiency at all, you did. I was speaking plainly about the rhythm section's PROMINENCE, which you had already mentioned yourself as being "out of the way".


"They aren't as technically proficient as a lot of guys, but they stay out of the way while adding some personality to the music." your words

PJ_Soul

rgambs said:

DewieCox said:

rgambs said:

Merkin Baller said:

rgambs said:

If November Rain isn't a classic power ballad, then there is no such thing!

Again, I am not saying GNR sucks, they can be very entertaining and some Slash licks are immortally good...
But let's take the rose-tinted glasses off and be real about who and what they were, and how they fit into the musical landscape of their time.

Honest question: if you weren't there for it, as it was happening, how would you have any sort of perspective for how they fit into the musical landscape of their time? How can you 'be real about who and what they were' if you weren't around to see how they compared to everything else on the radio in 1986?

You're entitled to your opinion, as I'm entitled to mine, and if you think a band like Blind Melon had more influence on '90s alternative music than GNR, I feel like you're the one wearing the rose colored glasses. (Bear in mind, I'm a fan of Blind Melon too)

(Fun fact: did you know Shannon Hoon was a backup singer for GNR before Blind Melon got their break? Maybe GNR were more influential on your music than you realize.)

It's called objectivity. Hindsight is very nice for seeing things as they WERE without the bias that is inherited from experiencing how they were PERCEIVED at the time.
They were definitely a step in the right direction, and a huge influence on the music scene that was coming, but they weren't that scene, they were the last glorious blast of the old scene.

No, it's really not and youve shown an insane amount of bias to even try to to declare that.

I was 5-10 years old during GnR's heyday so I don't really have that nostalgic connection from that time period. I have listened to their music and grown to appreciate it in my own time and I just don't hear the comparisons you're trying to make. They're just not there. From the music, to the lyrical content, to their image....it's much closer to 90s bands than the hair/glam metal guys. Sure, it had some 80s flair to it, but so did a lot of the other guys that are now early 90s alt rock heroes.

I have articulated many things which are more similar to "hair" than "grunge", but the only argument that has been posed to articulate the difference between GNR and the hair bands is that they were more raw.
That is a quantitative argument, not qualitative.
What quality does GNR have that is different from the hair bands?
As an example, Radiohead abandoned the hard rock power guitar cliche for haunting melodies and a stripped down style. Nirvana abandoned the excessive party ethos for a more ascetic rock ethic, and they stripped the formula down to a 3 man distortion machine.
Those are qualitative differences, saying GNR was rawer and more explosive is a quantitative difference. They shared the dangerous, party hard, rock n roll mentality, with the classic hair band components (screeching vocals and guitar leads).
To say they were heavier, drawer, more dangerous, etc only makes them the best hair band, it doesn't set them apart.

I don't hate GNR, I don't see why we can't have a discussion about their music without people getting so butthurt.

I have to agree that you're just off on this. I know it's your opinion, but it's wrong. GnR wasn't simply like the hair bands but more raw. They were something completely different altogether, and one of the things that made them that was that they were more raw. But that was far from the only thing. Lol, no worries, not butt hurt. But I'm just getting the impression that you're not quite clear on what they were like or what kind of impression they made at the time. I guess it's all collectively been said in this thread, so no need to go over it again... just sayin', really. They simply were not a hair band. They DEFINITELY were not the last hurrah of the hair bands as you suggest. They were the beginning of something different, not the end of something old.

Hobbes

My better half says GnR are NOT glam/hair metal and she's always right.