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

rgambs

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.

RKCNDY

rgambs said:

my2hands said:

rgambs said:

bootlegger10 said:

Guns n Roses is one of the great all time bands. They helped usher out the shitty 80's music. I am not so excited to see this GNR band but would have paid a ton to see them early 90's.

They have so many great songs. Can go from Welcome to the Jungle to Patience.

No, no, no, that's ridiculous. Radiohead, Nirvana, PJ, REM,

halv said:

rgambs said:

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

Without knowing the age of people replying I really think someones love/like of GN'R comes down to how old you were when Appetite For Destruction came out. I was 15 and it's hard to overstate how hard this album knocked everyone on their ass when it came out. in 1987 Madonna, Whitney Houston, George Michael, Michael Jackson....those kinds of artists ruled the charts and radio. A lot of really good rock albums came out as well (U2, REM, The Pixies, Midnight Oil) but no album or band seemed as dangerous as Guns N' Roses. They made the glam "metal" bands like Poison/Motley Crue look ridiculous. Yup, Axl's megalomania got out of control (hence bands like Nirvana making fun of them), but in '87 and '88 Guns ruled. It's a total nostalgia trip but I'm excited to see them again. I'll be in the nosebleeds but that's alright.

I was 2 when Appetite for Destruction came out. I don't have rose colored lenses through which to see them, and I don't see much difference between them and the bands they supposedly supplanted. What is the substantive difference? Glammy outfits, falsetto rock ballads with soaring (badass) guitar licks and superficial lyrics...sounds pretty hair bandish to me.
Nirvana, AIC, Blind Melon, RHCP, Radiohead, REM, Took, PJ, etc, those are the bands that brought a new sound and style to kill the hair bands.

I'm not saying GNR sucks, just that they are vastly overrated musically and culturally.

You couldn't be more wrong

Would you care to illuminate me in what was different about their music?
The bands I listed sound absolutely nothing like Def Leopard, Poison, Motley Cute, Bon Jovi etc.
An honest listener can not seriously make the same distinction with GNR.
Sure, they were more raw and explosive, but that is a minor difference, and something that could be done to Poison's music as well.

You cant make the bands I listed sound like hair bands, the songs are fundamentally different in structure and tone, and GNR songs are fundamentally similar.

Radiohead didn't even release their first single until '92, so hair bands were already out by then.

Oh look, an article to explain it all to you: http://www.metalsucks.net/2010/07/23/the-top-ten-bands-most-often-miscategorized-as-hair-metal-2-guns-n-roses/

RKCNDY

https://m.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2i929i/eli5_what_makes_guns_and_roses_not_glam_metalhair/

rgambs

RKCNDY said:

rgambs said:

my2hands said:

rgambs said:

bootlegger10 said:

Guns n Roses is one of the great all time bands. They helped usher out the shitty 80's music. I am not so excited to see this GNR band but would have paid a ton to see them early 90's.

They have so many great songs. Can go from Welcome to the Jungle to Patience.

No, no, no, that's ridiculous. Radiohead, Nirvana, PJ, REM,

halv said:

rgambs said:

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

Without knowing the age of people replying I really think someones love/like of GN'R comes down to how old you were when Appetite For Destruction came out. I was 15 and it's hard to overstate how hard this album knocked everyone on their ass when it came out. in 1987 Madonna, Whitney Houston, George Michael, Michael Jackson....those kinds of artists ruled the charts and radio. A lot of really good rock albums came out as well (U2, REM, The Pixies, Midnight Oil) but no album or band seemed as dangerous as Guns N' Roses. They made the glam "metal" bands like Poison/Motley Crue look ridiculous. Yup, Axl's megalomania got out of control (hence bands like Nirvana making fun of them), but in '87 and '88 Guns ruled. It's a total nostalgia trip but I'm excited to see them again. I'll be in the nosebleeds but that's alright.

I was 2 when Appetite for Destruction came out. I don't have rose colored lenses through which to see them, and I don't see much difference between them and the bands they supposedly supplanted. What is the substantive difference? Glammy outfits, falsetto rock ballads with soaring (badass) guitar licks and superficial lyrics...sounds pretty hair bandish to me.
Nirvana, AIC, Blind Melon, RHCP, Radiohead, REM, Took, PJ, etc, those are the bands that brought a new sound and style to kill the hair bands.

I'm not saying GNR sucks, just that they are vastly overrated musically and culturally.

You couldn't be more wrong

Would you care to illuminate me in what was different about their music?
The bands I listed sound absolutely nothing like Def Leopard, Poison, Motley Cute, Bon Jovi etc.
An honest listener can not seriously make the same distinction with GNR.
Sure, they were more raw and explosive, but that is a minor difference, and something that could be done to Poison's music as well.

You cant make the bands I listed sound like hair bands, the songs are fundamentally different in structure and tone, and GNR songs are fundamentally similar.

Radiohead didn't even release their first single until '92, so hair bands were already out by then.

Oh look, an article to explain it all to you: http://www.metalsucks.net/2010/07/23/the-top-ten-bands-most-often-miscategorized-as-hair-metal-2-guns-n-roses/

Hahahahaha also on their list of "not hair bands" Queensryche, Def Leopard, Bon Jovi, Quiet Riot, etc.
I think this article does more for my argument than yours!

rgambs

RKCNDY said:

https://m.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2i929i/eli5_what_makes_guns_and_roses_not_glam_metalhair/

The only actual musical difference that is listed there is "cruder and ruder" and "heavier guitar chords, and they played faster".
Faster maybe on some, but heavier chords? That's sort of a real thing, but barely, and not applicable to GNR over their peers.

RKCNDY

You obviously didn't read the first article.

Lyrically GNR was rawer than glam metal (or hair metal as you like to say), I listened to all that stuff, warrant, Cinerella, Poison, etc. I had friends that would listen to the glam but refused to listen to GNR because of the harder riffs and because of the lyrics.

I get it, you don't want to listen to the non-radio friendly songs and just claim everything sounds the same. I will tell you that about radiohead.

rgambs

RKCNDY said:

You obviously didn't read the first article.

Lyrically GNR was rawer than glam metal (or hair metal as you like to say), I listened to all that stuff, warrant, Cinerella, Poison, etc. I had friends that would listen to the glam but refused to listen to GNR because of the harder riffs and because of the lyrics.

I get it, you don't want to listen to the non-radio friendly songs and just claim everything sounds the same. I will tell you that about radiohead.

I did read the article, it was the same argument that everyone has, they were more raw.
Ok, so they were the baddest, heaviest, most raw hair band, that is obvious, but a hair band still they were.

My big brother was a huge GNR guy, I used to love them too, I have heard Appetite and Use Your Illusion literally hundreds of times each, so it is not a lack of listening.
I am just being objective.

wall232

I hated hair bands when I was growing up, I was into Metallica, Slayer, Testament, Anthrax. When I first heard GnR I was blown away, and in no way ever thought they were a hair band, looks can be deceiving.

dankind

"They taught us how to love!"

https://youtu.be/pNCiXKpO94g

DewieCox

A pretty good description of GnR.

Funny, people want to rag on GnR, when you could basically offer identical descriptions of them and PJ...polarizing lead singers? Check....great unique rhythm guitarist setting the foundation for their lead counterpart with a bluesy/shreddy background? Check


I can understand people slapping the hair band label if they've never really heard them, but they have much more in common with "grunge" than glam metal. If they were from Seattle instead of Sunset Strip, it wouldn't even be a debate.

rgambs

DewieCox said:

A pretty good description of GnR.

Funny, people want to rag on GnR, when you could basically offer identical descriptions of them and PJ...polarizing lead singers? Check....great unique rhythm guitarist setting the foundation for their lead counterpart with a bluesy/shreddy background? Check


I can understand people slapping the hair band label if they've never really heard them, but they have much more in common with "grunge" than glam metal. If they were from Seattle instead of Sunset Strip, it wouldn't even be a debate.




Polarizing lead singer and great unique rhythm guitar are not the characteristics being discussed.

Falsetto lead singer, less than noteworthy bass and drums, shredding guitar work, superficial songs about rock n roll, partying, and fucking, and power ballads are the characteristics that I mentioned that tie them closely to their hair band heritage.

Put any Nirvana song on Monster Ballads and it will fit like a 400lb person in an airline seat.
Put any GNR song on Monster Ballads and it will fit like a glove, and probably be the best tune on the record.

RKCNDY

Here's my pick for a monster ballad:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EDT6FT3xWuo

DewieCox

rgambs said:

DewieCox said:

A pretty good description of GnR.

Funny, people want to rag on GnR, when you could basically offer identical descriptions of them and PJ...polarizing lead singers? Check....great unique rhythm guitarist setting the foundation for their lead counterpart with a bluesy/shreddy background? Check


I can understand people slapping the hair band label if they've never really heard them, but they have much more in common with "grunge" than glam metal. If they were from Seattle instead of Sunset Strip, it wouldn't even be a debate.

Polarizing lead singer and great unique rhythm guitar are not the characteristics being discussed.

Falsetto lead singer, less than noteworthy bass and drums, shredding guitar work, superficial songs about rock n roll, partying, and fucking, and power ballads are the characteristics that I mentioned that tie them closely to their hair band heritage.

Put any Nirvana song on Monster Ballads and it will fit like a 400lb person in an airline seat.
Put any GNR song on Monster Ballads and it will fit like a glove, and probably be the best tune on the record.


Garbled mumbly lead singer, less than noteworthy bass and drums, shredding guitar work, superficial songs under the guise of "oh so tortured"

I can't really think of any more GnR songs that would fit on Monster Ballads compared to PJ. Maybe a song or 2 apiece.

rgambs

RKCNDY said:

Here's my pick for a monster ballad:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EDT6FT3xWuo

Hahaha how can you not hear that for what it is?
It certainly isn't some new sound that makes anything obsolete.
Motley Crue or Poison probably could have sued for plagiarism on this one lol

cp3iverson

guilt by association maybe? Musically they dont have the happy party anthems that hairbands had. They always had a very dark undercurrent going on in everything. They were always interesting because they could have some really brutal lyrics and then have really socially conscious songs.

Theyre pure rock n roll to me. The IDGAF attitude at its purest. The danger is always there and most bands dont have that. To be playing NFL stadiums again 23 years later like nothing happened blows my mind.

rgambs

cp3iverson said:

guilt by association maybe? Musically they dont have the happy party anthems that hairbands had. They always had a very dark undercurrent going on in everything. They were always interesting because they could have some really brutal lyrics and then have really socially conscious songs.

Theyre pure rock n roll to me. The IDGAF attitude at its purest. The danger is always there and most bands dont have that. To be playing NFL stadiums again 23 years later like nothing happened blows my mind.

"I used to do a little but a little wouldn't do it so a little got mo and mo

DewieCox said:

rgambs said:

DewieCox said:

A pretty good description of GnR.

Funny, people want to rag on GnR, when you could basically offer identical descriptions of them and PJ...polarizing lead singers? Check....great unique rhythm guitarist setting the foundation for their lead counterpart with a bluesy/shreddy background? Check


I can understand people slapping the hair band label if they've never really heard them, but they have much more in common with "grunge" than glam metal. If they were from Seattle instead of Sunset Strip, it wouldn't even be a debate.

Polarizing lead singer and great unique rhythm guitar are not the characteristics being discussed.

Falsetto lead singer, less than noteworthy bass and drums, shredding guitar work, superficial songs about rock n roll, partying, and fucking, and power ballads are the characteristics that I mentioned that tie them closely to their hair band heritage.

Put any Nirvana song on Monster Ballads and it will fit like a 400lb person in an airline seat.
Put any GNR song on Monster Ballads and it will fit like a glove, and probably be the best tune on the record.

Garbled mumbly lead singer, less than noteworthy bass and drums, shredding guitar work, superficial songs under the guise of "oh so tortured"

I can't really think of any more GnR songs that would fit on Monster Ballads compared to PJ. Maybe a song or 2 apiece.





That is absolute bias. You are not listening with a single ounce of objectivity of you really feel that way.

And am I reading it right that you think Black is a superficial song written under guise???

Amongst the Ani

If Poison put out Used to love her they would not be a band shortly after that. It would not have gone over well. GNR doing it was fitting for that era and is exactly why they are not a hair band.

rgambs

Amongst the Ani said:

If Poison put out Used to love her they would not be a band shortly after that. It would not have gone over well. GNR doing it was fitting for that era and is exactly why they are not a hair band.

Is it so different from songs like Girls Girls Girls, Cherry Pie, and Shout at the Devil?
A little more direct, I'll give them that.

DewieCox

rgambs said:

That is absolute bias. You are not listening with a single ounce of objectivity of you really feel that way.

And am I reading it right that you think Black is a superficial song written under guise???

Bias? I'm on a PJ message board? Wouldn't my bias be the other direction?

I love both bands and if I had to pick between the 2, it would be PJ.

I don't think that about Black, but I could see how somebody that wasn't a fan would. I just think you're on a slippery slope when you start tossing out those accusations about a band as legit as GnR.

After wading through 5 pages, I think it's pretty clear who is listening with objectivity.

Poncier

Can't see Bret, CC, Bobby and Rikki coming up with something like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CnSTSixzcg