does anyone else think if the band released an album in the early 2000's rock would be more relevant today

[kjejuju]

Guns and Roses were huge back then and the impact they had in the 80's could have been repeated in 2000's. I know its stupid to think of what could have been, but i cant help but get pissed off that when this generation thinks of rock they think of the foo fighters.

[sonofnazareth]

Guns and Roses were huge back then and the impact they had in the 80's could have been repeated in 2000's. I know its stupid to think of what could have been, but i cant help but get pissed off that when this generation thinks of rock they think of the foo fighters.

GNR were not huge in 2000, but if they released an album of Appetite quality in 2000, then they could have regained their premier status. The Foo Fighters aren't bad..'Wasting Light' was a good album..there are worse rock bands out there.

[Billsfan]

No. Society is attention deficit. They're always striving to change. If anything, society would have moved on sooner.

Fetty wap is in. Guns n roses putting out an album like velvet revolver did sounding like that, wouldn't have changed that. Rock had its mainstream era, and that was that.

Edited January 22, 2016 by Billsfan

[cooker]

Guns and Roses were huge back then and the impact they had in the 80's could have been repeated in 2000's. I know its stupid to think of what could have been, but i cant help but get pissed off that when this generation thinks of rock they think of the foo fighters.

And your parents get pissed when you think Rock is GN'R. GN'R could have released a masterpiece in 2000 and they wouldn't have been as popular as they were during the early 90's. Popular for sure, but not with the kids at the time.

[Bono]

NO! GnR did not have the power to save rock n roll.

[ZoSoRose]

NO! GnR did not have the power to save rock n roll.

You going to Vegas, Bono?

[Bono]

Guns and Roses were huge back then and the impact they had in the 80's could have been repeated in 2000's. I know its stupid to think of what could have been, but i cant help but get pissed off that when this generation thinks of rock they think of the foo fighters.

Haha Go to a Foo Fighters concert and tell me that's not rock n roll. Some of you just spout shit and have no idea what you're actually talking about.

NO! GnR did not have the power to save rock n roll.

You going to Vegas, Bono?

Nope. Thought about it but then thought fuck that. I'll be in Dallas for Wrestlemania that same week and didn't wanna extend my trip for another 5 days. Canadian dollar is too low and though I could afford it it would be silly I think. I think the price of tickets is offensive to fans to be honest. I thought about it though but it's not worth it to me.

[cooker]

Guns and Roses were huge back then and the impact they had in the 80's could have been repeated in 2000's. I know its stupid to think of what could have been, but i cant help but get pissed off that when this generation thinks of rock they think of the foo fighters.

Haha Go to a Foo Fighters concert and tell me that's not rock n roll. Some of you just spout shit and have no idea what you're actually talking about.

Some people get to involved in the genre of music they really like, they forget that good music can exist in any kind of genre.

[SurfsUp]

no

[axlslash]

No more than Motley Crue could have saved glam with their 90s work.

[jekylhyde]

My answer to OP's question is no. But it would have been cool if they had released an album in the early 2000's. We would have two New Guns albums

(I don't understand why rock should be relevant or mainstream forever. I mean, it's always relevant to us who like it. And I think that's cool. Rock doesn't have to be trendy.)

Edited January 22, 2016 by jekylhyde

[D-GenerationX]

No.

They were just one band. I don't see why they would have that big an impact.

There is also still rock today. Just perhaps not stuff any of us really listen to. Because we got old.

[MEXzilla]

I see two possibilities here.

1. GnR legend(or Axl's if it's the CD lineup) grows larger than what it is today since most acts like Madonna, RHCP, U2, etc. made comeback albums and their iconic status was cemented from then on.

2. They would go the road of Audioslave a good band which compared to most of the music then(early 00s) was fucking amazing. The band was a supergroup and it was hyped as hell but nowadays it's not that big of a deal. Audioslave has its following but nothing earth shattering.

Both result in rock's status being the same though.

Edited January 22, 2016 by MEXzilla

[Nosaj Thing]

No, and that's considering real Guns N' Roses never broke up in the first place.

[SlashElvisTCB]

They needed to hibernate to have an even bigger impact for when the world really needed them...NOW.

[Ak1nney]

I refuse to think GNR had an influence on the 80's besides help ending that era of shit hair metal. They perfectly bridged the gap between hair metal and what would be grunge/alt rock. That being said, I hate 90's era rock.

[Free Bird]

Maybe if they had recorded a very successful follow up to TSI in the mid '90s and then never broke up and continue releasing music.

But most likely no.

[sonofnazareth]

Maybe if they had recorded a very successful follow up to TSI in the mid '90s and then never broke up and continue releasing music.

But most likely no.

if only Axl gave Gilby's songwriting a chance within a GNR context.

[Modano09]

"The album to save rock n'roll" was a popular marketing buzz word in the 90's. I remember NIN's The Fragile being hyped as the album that would save rock in 1999 but basically any new album from anyone that was big in thee late 80's/early 90's was going to save rock. It didn't matter how good any of them were, or how good a GNR album would have, there was way too many people enjoying crap music back then.

[EvanG]

Is rock dead? I don't listen to the top 40 or radio much so I'm not even aware. I know that there are still good bands out there.

I think there will always be times when a music genre is less popular, but then certain bands or a new style will come and it will get more popular again. That is how it always goes. Whether it's Rock, Hip Hop or any other music genre.

Edited January 23, 2016 by EvanG

[ludurigan]

i couldnt care less about "rock beig relevant"

i also couldnt care less about the poor kids that think foo fighters is rock n roll

there are people in much worse situation. some people listen to coldplay. cayou imagine that? they listen to creepy coldplay, they buy their songs online, and they recommend it to their friends. I also heard that some people like U2. some people actually love u2 and go to U2 concerts and sing u2 songs with bono.

now THAT is serious shit. these people need help asap. i still dont understand how everyone neglects this situation.

now back to GNR

as far as I am concerne, I wish GNR was never that much succesfull and I wish they had stayed together until now trying really hard to have a hit record or a hit single in the same way that ramones did for 20-some years

i am actually pissed off that GNR got so succesfull that everyone in the band got crazy and the whole thing imploded.

these guys in GNR are so out of their minds that they apparently are reuniting without izzy. now only a complete fool and lunatic would do that. so i raelly hope they are actually writing and recordin stuff with izzy secretly

because if they are not then they are completely insane and we should definetely try and help them.

reuniting without izzy is kinda worse than listening to coldplay and u2, if you know what I mean

[wasted]

I just think they supernovaed on UYI. So it was more about saving the band than saving rock n roll which was actually doing okay in the late 90s.

I think now its dying a little because the dinosaurs are dying and the 90s bands don't have that much razzmatazz about them. Old GNR were the new Stones or VH. U2 are this generations Stones I guess.

[ClaudeF]

Rock radio was begging for a new GNR album in the late 1990s, and many in the industry figured the band could save rock and roll.

However, considering the way "Oh My God" was pretty much ignored, I don't know if that would have happened. The disconnect, if you want to call it that, was that rock radio was looking for more of the old GNR sound, but Axl had moved on. He'd grown. With the exception of I believe Madison Square Garden, the 2002 tour did not sell out. The instability of the lineup that followed pretty much hobbled the band from that point forward.

I think and hope Chinese Democracy will be looked back on by history as an incredibly visionary record. There's a lot about the production of the songs in their final form (as opposed to the rawer demos) that I dislike, but as a lyricist and songwriter, Axl pretty much proved that he's without peer. Hopefully he is more satisfied with the advances he's made as an artist than he is disappointed that the rock world, as a whole, is not giving his as much attention as it once did.

In a funny way, I wonder if another round of leaks -- of the DJ songs, "Silkworms," and the other tracks known to be "out there" -- would spark conversation online and in the press about what could have been, and what could yet be in the future.

[Ant]

I think VR did as much as any new GNR record would have done. They won a grammy, had two hit singles (one crossover), did the promo circuit, had a really successful tour.

Plus bands like the Strokes and the White Stripes were big around that time.

Rock's problems are and were beyond any late era GNR record.

Edited January 23, 2016 by Ant

[jmapelian]

Depends on what lineup