Greenday to induct GNR

[HOLDEN CAULFIELD]

DONT LIKE GREEN DAY OR U2 BUT WHOEVER SAID THAT THEY BOTH RAN OUTTA IDEAS IS A FANNY,,,,,,,I DNT EVEN POST ANYMORE BUT JEEEEZ

[Eu4ic]

If you think anything U2 has done in 20-25 years is anywhere near Chi Dem quality, bring your best arguments and I'll eviscerate you thankfully just on the internet and not in public, you self-congratulatory smartass.

Achtung Baby.

Fucking brilliant album.

I didnt care for much for that; however you're right in a way because I shouldve said limited my figure to 20 years because Rattle and Hum came out in '88 and it was quite good. I was mainly referring to the fact the Joshua Tree and everything before was really special. Then around Achtung Baby things changed. The mid-90s stuff wasnt good. The 00s stuff was an abomination.

[Guest gunns5]

[no1gooner]

If GNR had a preference for a particular person or band to induct them, then they should have contacted the organisers.

[Ktex]

If GNR had a preference for a particular person or band to induct them, then they should have contacted the organisers.

I like Greenday. /shrug

[The_Universal_Sigh]

Wow. Green day are the antithesis of Gnr in some ways. GD merely ran out of ideas meaning teenage punk themes (Warning album) and then opted for the easy route of copying Marilyn Manson's wardrobe and logo and writing lame liberal rhetoric songs, shitting on religion, shitting on the president (American Idiot) then having absolutely NOTHING today say when Obama's sketchiness makes Bush and Clinton look like child's play. They're a good cover band and a were great up through Nimrod, but have sucked like U2 suck since then.

Gnr chose to disappear when it seemed fit and came back with a whole original thing. GD did the opposite. They pulled a U2.

Wow. You made absolutely no sense. Did you compare Green Day to U2 in a lesser sense? Lol. U2 is the superior band out of the 3 and are the most relevant of all of them.

Well! I suppose its a matter of taste. But I'm not gonna let you off that easy. U2 sucks since their first...5 albums, and GD sucks since Warning (not coincidentally, their fifth album!), and dont talk to me like I'm incompetent. If you think anything U2 has done in 20-25 years is anywhere near Chi Dem quality, bring your best arguments and I'll eviscerate you thankfully just on the internet and not in public, you self-congratulatory smartass.

And why YES I grouped GD and U2 together because they BOTH started arguably good, then had an identity crisis (ran out of ideas) just so rather than challenge themselves they sold out whatever artist merit they had and jumped on the bandwagon, became mainstream puppets and govt functionaries with the same message except wearing different masks (one pop punk, one shit pop). I'd also say BOTH of them have been doing that for about 10 years years, wouldnt ya say? Havent they even performed TOGETHER and made tracks together? Why yes they have! Sounds like they have a lot in common!

U2 relevant? In the sense they regurgitate the same lamestream rhetoric they way any government functionary would and get played on crappy stations? Oh Boy! If relevant means kissing the asses of the powers-that-be, yes U2 WINS. And, by all means, sir, You Win this conversation!

You don't exactly know what you're talking about. U2 sucked after their first five albums? Well their sixth official album is a little known album called Achtung Baby that many consider their best. They then went in experimental directions in the 90s resulting in a mixed bag of good and bad. True, after that they got old and decided to be the rolling stones but whatever. U2 had better singles than what was on Chi Dem, that's a fact. Dude, if you were to try and "eviscerate" him by putting Chi Dem up against the Joshua Tree, Achtung Baby, and various songs from the 90s you would be the one getting owned. The Joshua Tree is classic. Almost everyone with taste would take songs like One, With Or Without You, or numerous others over This I Love (for slow emotional love songs), on the rock side of things you have The Fly, Discotheque, Bullet The Blue Sky, Where The Streets Have No Name against what? Chi Dem, Rhiad and Scraped?!? Come on haha. It's not an argument worth having, other than knobs who just completely dismiss U2 everyone who knows music knows the band has SOME great stuff.

Why is a band changing directions to you mean they're "selling out" or "out of ideas"? Is Chi Dem selling out or an example of running out of ideas? U2 were at the height of their fame when they changed directions to a LESS POPULAR sound. You don't know what you're talking about. Green Day probably did it in the way you mean though... but even still, how is releasing an album with a deep story, a 9 minute track as a single and track 2 (jesus of suburbia) selling out or a demonstration of running out of ideas?

Became "government functionaries"? Lol wut? Green Day was clearly against the government (even though they appeared to only have the smallest grasp on the issues) and U2 are more worldly than any one government. Just because you comment on the government more than most doesn't connect the bands AT ALL. Bono tries to positively pressure governments to aid people around the world, Green Day just rags on how the government in the US treats the citizens. The difference is almost 180 degrees if you can't grasp that from what I just said.

The point is clear though, U2 is the most relevant, Green Day beneath them, GNR somewhere down in the dark I'll need my glasses to see.

Edited April 4, 2012 by The_Universal_Sigh

[Roy79]

Saw Greenday live in 2005 at Rock WErchter, and they blew me away with 1 of the best spontaneous epic live shows ever. HOWEVER, I cannot listen to their records/songs. Also, after seeing them again live at Pinkpop in 2010 it turned out that the spontaneous epic live performance of 2005 was a script which they run each show and were still milking in 2010.

[highvoltage]

[Death Star]

I like Green Day........ well old Green Day before they did that whole 21st Century Breakdown shit. And I do find this very odd that they would have a pop-punk/pun rock band introduce Guns, but I don't know...... Duff probably wouldn't care since he is big in to the punk stuff.

[The_Universal_Sigh]

Wow. Green day are the antithesis of Gnr in some ways. GD merely ran out of ideas meaning teenage punk themes (Warning album) and then opted for the easy route of copying Marilyn Manson's wardrobe and logo and writing lame liberal rhetoric songs, shitting on religion, shitting on the president (American Idiot) then having absolutely NOTHING today say when Obama's sketchiness makes Bush and Clinton look like child's play. They're a good cover band and a were great up through Nimrod, but have sucked like U2 suck since then.

Gnr chose to disappear when it seemed fit and came back with a whole original thing. GD did the opposite. They pulled a U2.

Wow. You made absolutely no sense. Did you compare Green Day to U2 in a lesser sense? Lol. U2 is the superior band out of the 3 and are the most relevant of all of them.

Well! I suppose its a matter of taste. But I'm not gonna let you off that easy. U2 sucks since their first...5 albums, and GD sucks since Warning (not coincidentally, their fifth album!), and dont talk to me like I'm incompetent. If you think anything U2 has done in 20-25 years is anywhere near Chi Dem quality, bring your best arguments and I'll eviscerate you thankfully just on the internet and not in public, you self-congratulatory smartass.

And why YES I grouped GD and U2 together because they BOTH started arguably good, then had an identity crisis (ran out of ideas) just so rather than challenge themselves they sold out whatever artist merit they had and jumped on the bandwagon, became mainstream puppets and govt functionaries with the same message except wearing different masks (one pop punk, one shit pop). I'd also say BOTH of them have been doing that for about 10 years years, wouldnt ya say? Havent they even performed TOGETHER and made tracks together? Why yes they have! Sounds like they have a lot in common!

U2 relevant? In the sense they regurgitate the same lamestream rhetoric they way any government functionary would and get played on crappy stations? Oh Boy! If relevant means kissing the asses of the powers-that-be, yes U2 WINS. And, by all means, sir, You Win this conversation!

You don't exactly know what you're talking about. U2 sucked after their first five albums? Well their sixth official album is a little known album called Achtung Baby that many consider their best. They then went in experimental directions in the 90s resulting in a mixed bag of good and bad. True, after that they got old and decided to be the rolling stones but whatever. U2 had better singles than what was on Chi Dem, that's a fact. Dude, if you were to try and "eviscerate" him by putting Chi Dem up against the Joshua Tree, Achtung Baby, and various songs from the 90s you would be the one getting owned. The Joshua Tree is classic. Almost everyone with taste would take songs like One, With Or Without You, or numerous others over This I Love (for slow emotional love songs), on the rock side of things you have The Fly, Discotheque, Bullet The Blue Sky, Where The Streets Have No Name against what? Chi Dem, Rhiad and Scraped?!? Come on haha. It's not an argument worth having, other than knobs who just completely dismiss U2 everyone who knows music knows the band has SOME great stuff.

Why is a band changing directions to you mean they're "selling out" or "out of ideas"? Is Chi Dem selling out or an example of running out of ideas? U2 were at the height of their fame when they changed directions to a LESS POPULAR sound. You don't know what you're talking about. Green Day probably did it in the way you mean though... but even still, how is releasing an album with a deep story, a 9 minute track as a single and track 2 (jesus of suburbia) selling out or a demonstration of running out of ideas?

Became "government functionaries"? Lol wut? Green Day was clearly against the government (even though they appeared to only have the smallest grasp on the issues) and U2 are more worldly than any one government. Just because you comment on the government more than most doesn't connect the bands AT ALL. Bono tries to positively pressure governments to aid people around the world, Green Day just rags on how the government in the US treats the citizens. The difference is almost 180 degrees if you can't grasp that from what I just said.

The point is clear though, U2 is the most relevant, Green Day beneath them, GNR somewhere down in the dark I'll need my glasses to see.

Just re-read this. Work is so god damn slow lately, lol. I don't even really like U2.

[Strange Broue]

...Oh, god. NOW I've completely lost any interest in the RHOF thing.

Same here

No Izzy?

Then i don't give a fuck about the rnrhof thing...

[HowlinWolf]

Green Day? oh my god.. This becomes more of a fucking joke every day..

[Nosaj Thing]

No God, why? What a piece of shit band inducting the best band of all time.

[fred_carston]

yawn

[maynard]

U2' Zooropa and Pop are better than anything on CD. No Line on the Horizon had some good songs too. Won't even talk about the 80's. U2 is far superior to GnR, musically and artistically. They sell out stadiums in the US as well, I don't care about popularity, but... yeah.

Edited April 4, 2012 by maynard

[vaida]

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/exclusive-green-day-to-induct-guns-n-roses-into-rock-and-roll-hall-of-fame-20120403

There's now one less mystery surrounding Guns N' Roses' entrance into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame: Green Day will deliver their induction speech. While Slash, Duff McKagan, Steven Adler and Matt Sorum have all indicated they'll be present at the April 14th ceremony in Cleveland, members Axl Rose, Izzy Stradlin and Dizzy Reed have yet to publicly confirm their attendance. If Rose doesn't show, it's unlikely that the group will perform – and it's unclear whether or not Green Day will play in their place.

Dizzy was always a hired hand. I don't see why Izzy won't be there. I doubt Axl has the balls to attend.

Good to hear Green Day will induct Guns N'Roses.

Not a Green Day fan but at least its not Nickleback

Nickelback are way better than Green day

Green Day > Nickelback by a long long way..

[Cosmo]

No God, why? What a piece of shit band inducting the best band of all time.

Exactly. I can't begin to express how I despise Greenday. It's utter shit...

[Georgy Zhukov]

Who cares?

[lornz]

Dizzy was always a hired hand. I don't see why Izzy won't be there. I doubt Axl has the balls to attend.

Good to hear Green Day will induct Guns N'Roses.

Are you serious?

This is turning into a complete farce. It's an insult to have the poseurs that are Green Day induct GNR. If the RNRHOF had actually gotten someone respectable to do the job, maybe even Axl would show up...

Mind you, I find the whole concept of a RNRHOF ludicrous to begin with. However, adding Green Day on top of that just makes it so much worse!

[Flayer]

No God, why? What a piece of shit band inducting the best band of all time.

Exactly. I can't begin to express how I despise Greenday. It's utter shit...

Utter dookie.

POST - RnRHoF ...

Yyyyyyesss!

[bumblecool]

U2' Zooropa and Pop are better than anything on CD. No Line on the Horizon had some good songs too. Won't even talk about the 80's. U2 is far superior to GnR, musically and artistically. They sell out stadiums in the US as well, I don't care about popularity, but... yeah.

[yes i love you]

Should have been Liam.

[Eu4ic]

Wow. Green day are the antithesis of Gnr in some ways. GD merely ran out of ideas meaning teenage punk themes (Warning album) and then opted for the easy route of copying Marilyn Manson's wardrobe and logo and writing lame liberal rhetoric songs, shitting on religion, shitting on the president (American Idiot) then having absolutely NOTHING today say when Obama's sketchiness makes Bush and Clinton look like child's play. They're a good cover band and a were great up through Nimrod, but have sucked like U2 suck since then.

Gnr chose to disappear when it seemed fit and came back with a whole original thing. GD did the opposite. They pulled a U2.

Wow. You made absolutely no sense. Did you compare Green Day to U2 in a lesser sense? Lol. U2 is the superior band out of the 3 and are the most relevant of all of them.

Well! I suppose its a matter of taste. But I'm not gonna let you off that easy. U2 sucks since their first...5 albums, and GD sucks since Warning (not coincidentally, their fifth album!), and dont talk to me like I'm incompetent. If you think anything U2 has done in 20-25 years is anywhere near Chi Dem quality, bring your best arguments and I'll eviscerate you thankfully just on the internet and not in public, you self-congratulatory smartass.

And why YES I grouped GD and U2 together because they BOTH started arguably good, then had an identity crisis (ran out of ideas) just so rather than challenge themselves they sold out whatever artist merit they had and jumped on the bandwagon, became mainstream puppets and govt functionaries with the same message except wearing different masks (one pop punk, one shit pop). I'd also say BOTH of them have been doing that for about 10 years years, wouldnt ya say? Havent they even performed TOGETHER and made tracks together? Why yes they have! Sounds like they have a lot in common!

U2 relevant? In the sense they regurgitate the same lamestream rhetoric they way any government functionary would and get played on crappy stations? Oh Boy! If relevant means kissing the asses of the powers-that-be, yes U2 WINS. And, by all means, sir, You Win this conversation!

You don't exactly know what you're talking about. U2 sucked after their first five albums? Well their sixth official album is a little known album called Achtung Baby that many consider their best. They then went in experimental directions in the 90s resulting in a mixed bag of good and bad. True, after that they got old and decided to be the rolling stones but whatever. U2 had better singles than what was on Chi Dem, that's a fact. Dude, if you were to try and "eviscerate" him by putting Chi Dem up against the Joshua Tree, Achtung Baby, and various songs from the 90s you would be the one getting owned. The Joshua Tree is classic. Almost everyone with taste would take songs like One, With Or Without You, or numerous others over This I Love (for slow emotional love songs), on the rock side of things you have The Fly, Discotheque, Bullet The Blue Sky, Where The Streets Have No Name against what? Chi Dem, Rhiad and Scraped?!? Come on haha. It's not an argument worth having, other than knobs who just completely dismiss U2 everyone who knows music knows the band has SOME great stuff.

Why is a band changing directions to you mean they're "selling out" or "out of ideas"? Is Chi Dem selling out or an example of running out of ideas? U2 were at the height of their fame when they changed directions to a LESS POPULAR sound. You don't know what you're talking about. Green Day probably did it in the way you mean though... but even still, how is releasing an album with a deep story, a 9 minute track as a single and track 2 (jesus of suburbia) selling out or a demonstration of running out of ideas?

Became "government functionaries"? Lol wut? Green Day was clearly against the government (even though they appeared to only have the smallest grasp on the issues) and U2 are more worldly than any one government. Just because you comment on the government more than most doesn't connect the bands AT ALL. Bono tries to positively pressure governments to aid people around the world, Green Day just rags on how the government in the US treats the citizens. The difference is almost 180 degrees if you can't grasp that from what I just said.

The point is clear though, U2 is the most relevant, Green Day beneath them, GNR somewhere down in the dark I'll need my glasses to see.

Just re-read this. Work is so god damn slow lately, lol. I don't even really like U2.

First, I was a complete ass in my first comment and I'm sorry - I dont usually do it, I dont like it when others act shitty towards others, and it doesnt matter if you're right or wrong when you're an ass nobody likes you anyways. (Saved by the Bell/Full House audience "Awww"). I was having a bad, bad day, and I hope yours is better.

I dont really wanna cont. w/ this much further b/c it doesnt belong on this thread really, but quickly:

1- I dont think the number of singles on a CD makes a crap in the grand scheme of things. See Exile on Main St. Because Exile had no singles, it actually helped emphasize that a Great Album is something beyond the sum of its parts.

2- My taste as to what constitutes a good 'rock' song and good 'slow, emotional' song is probably different that yours, not that its any better.

3- A band changing directions does not signify anything bad, per se. I disagree with you that U2 became more experimental at the height of their fame. U2 in the early-late 90s was like Madonna - it was kind of a formality that their music got played but they didnt look fresh and looked kinda old.

4- Government functionaries in my context meant 1) they were united in hating Bush b/c of govt intervention, and yet 2) just a few years later they love our current prez who in fact expands the govt worse than Bush and intervenes every all over the place, bringing military presence into Libya and Egypt, etc without even declaring war. Both of them (Bono, probably Billie), yes, are above the idea of any one country- because what they want is a globalized world!

5- And again, if 'relevance' to you means popular to the masses, I think you're mistaken, but I think I know what you mean. Peace.

[tomfriend]

Dizzy was always a hired hand. I don't see why Izzy won't be there. I doubt Axl has the balls to attend.

What part of hanging around a bunch of your ex-friends and pretending it's 1987 again so you can get applauded by a bunch of sycophantic old farts requires 'balls'?

[kok]

GNR should be inducted by Led Zeppelin