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

PJ_Soul

Merkin Baller said:

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.

Oh my god, you're being facetious, yes? I believe and hope so!

lolobugg

I wondered what happened to all those old GNR fans.... looks like most turned into PJ fans.
GNR changed everything. you couldn't go to a seedy joint anywhere between 1987 and 1995 and not find Appetite on the jukebox. NWA used it for a title of one of their songs. Ice T wanted to record with Axl and they def influenced some of the original grunge bands in some ways. These are facts.

rgambs

PJ_Soul said:

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.

But what can you point to besides an intangible feeling, that separates them?

What kind of impression they made at the time doesn't seem relevant to me, impressions are often wrong.

rustneversleeps

rgambs said:

PJ_Soul said:

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.

But what can you point to besides an intangible feeling, that separates them?

What kind of impression they made at the time doesn't seem relevant to me, impressions are often wrong.

did you watch the show?

HughFreakingDillon

saw them on the UYI tour for about $30. that's all I need.

Poncier

Hobbes said:

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

So she tells you.

rgambs

rustneversleeps said:

rgambs said:

PJ_Soul said:

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.

But what can you point to besides an intangible feeling, that separates them?

What kind of impression they made at the time doesn't seem relevant to me, impressions are often wrong.

did you watch the show?

What show?

Zod

HughFreakingDillon said:

saw them on the UYI tour for about $30. that's all I need.

If I had a time machine I'd go back in time and check out every awesome band in their hey dey. Imagine going back to the early 70s and seeing Zeppelin Unfortunately for me I never got to see GNR in their prime. Given how long it's been since they broke up, there's a lot of people in the same situation. That's whats going to feed ticket sales.

HughFreakingDillon

Zod said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

saw them on the UYI tour for about $30. that's all I need.

If I had a time machine I'd go back in time and check out every awesome band in their hey dey. Imagine going back to the early 70s and seeing Zeppelin Unfortunately for me I never got to see GNR in their prime. Given how long it's been since they broke up, there's a lot of people in the same situation. That's whats going to feed ticket sales.

oh absolutely. if I hadn't seen them back then, I'd be kicking myself with these ticket prices. and plus they won't come anywhere near me anyway.

I didn't even exist when Zep played Winnipeg. LOL

rustneversleeps

rustneversleeps said:

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

DewieCox

rgambs said:

PJ_Soul said:

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.

But what can you point to besides an intangible feeling, that separates them?

What kind of impression they made at the time doesn't seem relevant to me, impressions are often wrong.

Their sound, substance and style. They don't sound like a hair band, they don't write songs the same way as a hair band and they don't look anymore like a hair band than your typical rocker of the day.

If we're gonna dismiss the impression they made at the time, then nothing means anything at all. It's really a ludicrous argument. Not only that, plenty of people who are much older and younger are taking the same stance as people that were 15-24 in 1987.

Suziemay

Zod said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

saw them on the UYI tour for about $30. that's all I need.

If I had a time machine I'd go back in time and check out every awesome band in their hey dey. Imagine going back to the early 70s and seeing Zeppelin Unfortunately for me I never got to see GNR in their prime. Given how long it's been since they broke up, there's a lot of people in the same situation. That's whats going to feed ticket sales.

Me neither. I have since seen Slash and Duff in other bands and love their stage presence. Could never bring myself to see Axl but now that the band's back together (more or less), I have to go.

PJINFLA

Can't wait until the Orlando show, saw them at the same venue in 92 or 93 with Metallica.
Plus a few other times in the good old days. For this show I was able to get pit tix for $250+, pricey but you have to pay to play for these big reunion shows.

Shakescky

caught them in 2006 in south florida. boy was it kind of cool/weird seeing robin finck two years later with nine inch nails given the appearance overhaul.

HughFreakingDillon

DewieCox said:

rgambs said:

PJ_Soul said:

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.

But what can you point to besides an intangible feeling, that separates them?

What kind of impression they made at the time doesn't seem relevant to me, impressions are often wrong.

Their sound, substance and style. They don't sound like a hair band, they don't write songs the same way as a hair band and they don't look anymore like a hair band than your typical rocker of the day.

If we're gonna dismiss the impression they made at the time, then nothing means anything at all. It's really a ludicrous argument. Not only that, plenty of people who are much older and younger are taking the same stance as people that were 15-24 in 1987.

exactly. GNR never wrote an "Every Rose Has Its Thorn", and conversely, none of the hair bands ever wrote anything close to as heavy as Paradise City. Listen to Garden of Eden and tell me that's hair metal.

They may have had big hair for a brief period, but make no mistake, I'm guessing that was the label trying to cash in on the craze of hair metal at the time, not what the band was actually all about. kinda like when pearl jam used to make videos. same stuff.

november rain was one drop in the bucket of Axl's extreme self indulgence at the time. not only the song itself, but have you seen the video? jumping off an aircraft carrier into an ocean of dolphins? HAHA.

But jesus, I listened to Coma on repeat for an entire day. fucking brilliant piece of music.

Merkin Baller

So the impressions that people got of GNR at the time are irrelevant, but the impression someone has 20 years after the fact IS somehow relevant?

That's some pretty awesome logic right there.

PJ_Soul said:

Merkin Baller said:

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.

Oh my god, you're being facetious, yes? I believe and hope so!

Of course I'm being facetious, we all know Spin Doctors had more influence on '90s alt rock than GNR and Blind Melon combined.

: )

Shakescky

HughFreakingDillon said:

november rain was one drop in the bucket of Axl's extreme self indulgence at the time. not only the song itself, but have you seen the video? jumping off an aircraft carrier into an ocean of dolphins? HAHA.

the music video for "estranged" involved the dolphins. i for one have no problem with the dolphins.

lolobugg

Shakescky said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

november rain was one drop in the bucket of Axl's extreme self indulgence at the time. not only the song itself, but have you seen the video? jumping off an aircraft carrier into an ocean of dolphins? HAHA.

the music video for "estranged" involved the dolphins. i for one have no problem with the dolphins.

Charlie don't surf???

Suziemay

Merkin Baller said:

So the impressions that people got of GNR at the time are irrelevant, but the impression someone has 20 years after the fact IS somehow relevant?

He's right, you're wrong. Don't you get it?!?

myoung321

rgambs said:

Sounds like a just punishment for going to see one of the lamest bands ever. Is Bret Michaels opening for them??

NO kidding... I don't think you could pay me $200 to sit through a G&R show.. now or then....