Jump to content

2016: The Year Axl Rose (Guns N' Roses) Saves Music


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, MrSoftie said:

Amends is one word, but otherwise that was an excellent post :P Totally agree with your sentiment too, Axl is deservedly taking over the world once again.

Appreciate the reply!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

It is still essentially revivalist legacy rock though. Axl might be singing better than he has in twenty-five years for Acca Dacca, and Slash and Duff may be back in Guns, but there is nothing particularly novel nor artistic about what is emanating from these two groups. The people buying the tickets are doing so for the same old fart rock, Appetite, Back in Black, etc.  Time may have stood still.

This would of course change if an album came out.

"This would of course change if an album came out."

 

We can only hope!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They could give a last breath to the thing it if they deliver a killer rock n' roll album that will top charts and appeal to younger generations. Black Sabbath couldnt do it, maybe Guns N' Roses will be luckier... Thing is if they appeal to a modern sound like Velvet Revolver, they'll probably lose the rest of their oldschool fanbase and there are 50% chance they're not getting the attention of young people that listens to the attrocite they call "rock" these days. Too risky. 

Edited by default_
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without new music, Axl isn't saving anything. 

AC/DC would have still sold out all their shows if Brian Johnson was there. They always do great numbers and I think their last album sold close to 5 million copies. Without Axl  

And Slash and Duff coming back to GnR is what's elevated GnR's concert audience numbers  

If GnR, with bumble and DJ were touring right now, how would the numbers look? Would they be headlong Coachella and getting 3 million per show? Nope. 

Better, original and authentic music? Where? Axl hasn't released an album in almost a decade. So that comment has zero basis in reality  

And your rant on the state of pop music (and other genres) isn't really accurate either. Pop music has ALWAYS been cheesy pop dance music for preteens and teens. The Taylor swifts and Justin biebers were there a decade ago. And 20 years ago. And 30 years ago. And 40 years ago. Go back to any decade and you will see the top 40 dominated by candy covered pop bands. Same thing with hip hop and country and any other genre you mentioned. LL Cool J and Whoudini were popular rap/hip hop groups when I was young. Their lyrics were horrible. Paula Abduhl and Cindy Lauper were popular. 

You think Bieber sucks. But the kid sells out tours and releases number one albums and songs. Sounds like he is filling a music need. Just not the need that YOU want. Like it or not, more people want a new Bieber or Swift album than want a GnR album.

Go back and look at The Beatles lyrics. Twist and Shout, come on baby, work it all out. That's brilliant just brilliant  

So your entire blog is basically wrong in terms of factual information. But your dedication to Axl is impressive. 

Could Axl give rock a kick in the ass? Sure. But a new album is a MUST and would have to be killer. Then throw in an Axl/acdc album. BUT for hard rock to move to the forefront you would need 7-8 more kickass albums from big name rock  bands.  What bands with those be - Metallica, Van Halen, Aerosmith, Bon Jovi? Def Leppard just put an album out that sucked. Jovi is pop country. Tyler is going country. Van Halens last album flopped.

So what other 7-8 major bands could help GnR and acdc put hard rock music back to the front of the pack?

I'm guessing any rock band that appeals to teenagers will get ripped apart by you. Nickleback is essentially the Bon Jovi/Van Halen for the teens now - and most "adults" hate them. Im guessing you will say they suck. But teens love them.

So got some names that will eppeal to the teens (who spend their money on albums and iTunes) as well as earning the respect of older fans?

I get your point. It just isn't realistic. I love hair metal music and wish it would dominate the music landscape again. I grew up in an era where bands released an album EVERY year or every two years. GnR released four albums in five years. 

Sadly - we will never see that again. 

Edited by Apollo
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here in Venezuela a news paper also posted an entire page to "axl rose al rescate de una industria en "coma"  ( axl rose to the rescue of an music industry currently on coma) 

Im gonna traslate that thing as fearly as i can and will post it tomorrow here.

 

Is umbelieveble ( but yet, believeble. I mean, is w. Axl Rose) what the redhead is doing.. Aaand what he's about to do

Now, im sorry for the few haters, axl is being recogniced as the KING.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

It is still essentially revivalist legacy rock though. Axl might be singing better than he has in twenty-five years for Acca Dacca, and Slash and Duff may be back in Guns, but there is nothing particularly novel nor artistic about what is emanating from these two groups. The people buying the tickets are doing so for the same old fart rock, Appetite, Back in Black, etc.  Time may have stood still.

This would of course change if an album came out.

That last sentence nailed it. Right now, GNR are just a great older band doing a big reunion tour. This happens every couple of years within rock. New music is what changes or "saves" things. A new GNR album could do that.

Edited by J Dog
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think rock does need it's big stars doing stuff. Maybe ACDC, Stones and Aerosmith are close to the end there's very few stars from the 90s. A lot of grunge bands like to stay in their niche and never really crossed over into pop consciouness the way Axl and Slash did. 

It's a bit sad that Guns supported Stones and Aerosmith but there's no up and coming band in the mold of GNR coming through to support GNR. Maybe the GNR reunion will inspire someone. But honestly I think the entertainment technology industry is pretty under control. A band like GNR would get passed on. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Touring with GnR doesn't save anything. Touring with AC/DC doesn't save anything. Touring doesn't save shit. He needs to put out an album end of story.  Period. The only way any of this has any lasting impact is with an album. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what's going to be really interesting going forward is whether this AC/DC voice comes back with Axl to GNR, or if it's something about the AC/DC material that allows him to unleash like that. 

If it does come along back to GNR and an album follows it will be historic for sure!

Edited by Ant
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Apollo said:

Without new music, Axl isn't saving anything. 

AC/DC would have still sold out all their shows if Brian Johnson was there. They always do great numbers and I think their last album sold close to 5 million copies. Without Axl  

And Slash and Duff coming back to GnR is what's elevated GnR's concert audience numbers  

If GnR, with bumble and DJ were touring right now, how would the numbers look? Would they be headlong Coachella and getting 3 million per show? Nope. 

Better, original and authentic music? Where? Axl hasn't released an album in almost a decade. So that comment has zero basis in reality  

And your rant on the state of pop music (and other genres) isn't really accurate either. Pop music has ALWAYS been cheesy pop dance music for preteens and teens. The Taylor swifts and Justin biebers were there a decade ago. And 20 years ago. And 30 years ago. And 40 years ago. Go back to any decade and you will see the top 40 dominated by candy covered pop bands. Same thing with hip hop and country and any other genre you mentioned. LL Cool J and Whoudini were popular rap/hip hop groups when I was young. Their lyrics were horrible. Paula Abduhl and Cindy Lauper were popular. 

You think Bieber sucks. But the kid sells out tours and releases number one albums and songs. Sounds like he is filling a music need. Just not the need that YOU want. Like it or not, more people want a new Bieber or Swift album than want a GnR album.

Go back and look at The Beatles lyrics. Twist and Shout, come on baby, work it all out. That's brilliant just brilliant  

So your entire blog is basically wrong in terms of factual information. But your dedication to Axl is impressive. 

Could Axl give rock a kick in the ass? Sure. But a new album is a MUST and would have to be killer. Then throw in an Axl/acdc album. BUT for hard rock to move to the forefront you would need 7-8 more kickass albums from big name rock  bands.  What bands with those be - Metallica, Van Halen, Aerosmith, Bon Jovi? Def Leppard just put an album out that sucked. Jovi is pop country. Tyler is going country. Van Halens last album flopped.

So what other 7-8 major bands could help GnR and acdc put hard rock music back to the front of the pack?

I'm guessing any rock band that appeals to teenagers will get ripped apart by you. Nickleback is essentially the Bon Jovi/Van Halen for the teens now - and most "adults" hate them. Im guessing you will say they suck. But teens love them.

So got some names that will eppeal to the teens (who spend their money on albums and iTunes) as well as earning the respect of older fans?

I get your point. It just isn't realistic. I love hair metal music and wish it would dominate the music landscape again. I grew up in an era where bands released an album EVERY year or every two years. GnR released four albums in five years. 

Sadly - we will never see that again. 

Hey,

Appreciate you took the time and effort to read/critique my blog.  While we disagree, I appreciate that it was well thought out and you made valid points.  We need more dialogue like this!

Cheers bud.

ps - Yes, Nickleback does suck...sucks a big hard one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, patmac54 said:

Hey,

Appreciate you took the time and effort to read/critique my blog.  While we disagree, I appreciate that it was well thought out and you made valid points.  We need more dialogue like this!

Cheers bud.

ps - Yes, Nickleback does suck...sucks a big hard one.

Debates are good and healthy. It's when people start insulting others is where they are bad. Unfortunately that's what most people do. 

To you, Nickleback might suck. But millions of younger people enjoy their music. Their tours are successful. Their albums chart and produce rock hits. 

That was part of my main point. Just because you personally think something sucks doesn't mean it actually sucks. Or that you have better music taste than other people. It just means that you are in the minority in regards to liking a band. Which is perfectly fine. We like what we like. 

You prob also think that Bieber sucks. But in all reality, he is more important to the music industry today than Axl Rose is. 

But what are your thoughts on:

You talked about Axl saving hard rock music. I pointed out that Acdc would have sold out these shows without him. And, GnR without Slash and Duff, would be selling 10,000 tickets a show instead of selling out arenas. 

So while Axl sounds amazing - what he he really saving?

Do you think a hard rock revolution is possible with a new killer GnR album? 

And what 7-8 other hard rock bands have to release huge albums and have huge tours this year for a hard rock revolution to happen. 

Finally, you hate pop/hip hop and all that. You do (or don't) realize that nothing had changed. Pop music has always been corporate produced cheesy fluffy music designed for teens and young adults. There is nothing different with today's pop artists than there were 10-20-30-40-50 years ago. And that's perfectly OK. It fills a huge demand. So not really something to be mad about. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To say Axl is saving music is ludicrous and totally absurd, he's not saving anything. I'm ecstatic with GNR partially reuniting, I'm delighted he's singing his ass off with 'DC, but nobody that's not a fan of either band or a rock follower doesn't give a flying fuck about what he's doing, which is the majority of people nowadays, unfortunately. Even if they released a new album, it wouldn't make any sort of cultural impact, as GNR are now firmly in the dad rock category. What the world needs now is a 21st century Rolling Stones, but with the way the biz is nowadays, we ain't gonna get it.

Edited by Philipm787
Spelling error
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Axl is saving his legacy" is a far more accurate statement. 

As others have said, it would take not only new material but it would have to be massively successful for him to "save rock" 

That said, it isn't his job to do so and anyone putting that on him whether they mean it in a good way or bad way, is wrong. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Bono said:

Touring with GnR doesn't save anything. Touring with AC/DC doesn't save anything. Touring doesn't save shit. He needs to put out an album end of story.  Period. The only way any of this has any lasting impact is with an album. 

Appreciate your thoughts!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

"Axl is saving his legacy" is a far more accurate statement. 

As others have said, it would take not only new material but it would have to be massively successful for him to "save rock" 

That said, it isn't his job to do so and anyone putting that on him whether they mean it in a good way or bad way, is wrong. 

My own exact thoughts, as described above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Apollo said:

Debates are good and healthy. It's when people start insulting others is where they are bad. Unfortunately that's what most people do. 

To you, Nickleback might suck. But millions of younger people enjoy their music. Their tours are successful. Their albums chart and produce rock hits. 

That was part of my main point. Just because you personally think something sucks doesn't mean it actually sucks. Or that you have better music taste than other people. It just means that you are in the minority in regards to liking a band. Which is perfectly fine. We like what we like. 

You prob also think that Bieber sucks. But in all reality, he is more important to the music industry today than Axl Rose is. 

But what are your thoughts on:

You talked about Axl saving hard rock music. I pointed out that Acdc would have sold out these shows without him. And, GnR without Slash and Duff, would be selling 10,000 tickets a show instead of selling out arenas. 

So while Axl sounds amazing - what he he really saving?

Do you think a hard rock revolution is possible with a new killer GnR album? 

And what 7-8 other hard rock bands have to release huge albums and have huge tours this year for a hard rock revolution to happen. 

Finally, you hate pop/hip hop and all that. You do (or don't) realize that nothing had changed. Pop music has always been corporate produced cheesy fluffy music designed for teens and young adults. There is nothing different with today's pop artists than there were 10-20-30-40-50 years ago. And that's perfectly OK. It fills a huge demand. So not really something to be mad about. 

Thanks for responding again.  I made the Nickleback remark in jest (text is a shitty way to display sarcasm, I'll do better next time!  But also, I am not a fan of Nickelback).

I guess I'm an old romantic.  I REALLY want want Guns to be back in the forefront of the music industry...and this was how I projected that on paper.

I DO think a killer GnR album could bring about a cultural shift in music trends.  Someone mentioned earlier that VR's contribution to music at least got industry people to recognize rock again (albeit briefly).  I think everyone here would agree that if Contraband had been with Axl (and I loved VR w/ Scott, not knocking it at all), it would have an even bigger, farther reaching impact.

Will we get Appetite again, no.  Will we get something like a hybrid UYI/VR/ChiDem...more likely (that is to say if we get an album at all).

As far as pop goes.  I'm not saying I hate it, and I agree it fills a demand.  This will come off as me being a hardo, but I've honestly never a Beiber song outside of the one that goes "baby baby baby oooh." (I'm a podcast guy, never listen to the radio unless the wife is driving).  I'm sure he does exactly what he's been engineered to do...again, which is fine.  

Country - i don't have the patience for.  And "new-school" rap is just lost on me...I guess I just prefer my rappers to have gone through actual struggle when they sit down to put pen to paper.

Anywho, I feel l'm dragging on.  

Thanks for the reply.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...