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

[Gorthar]

49 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. 

Man I couldn't agree more on that. Friends of mine have remarked how different his demeanor has been recently and I've noticed and others on this board have commented as well. Honestly I think as he gets older he is realizing that, outside of die-hard fans, his reputation is pretty piss-poor and he is doing what he can to salvage that while there is still time. I was always under the impression that he didn't care, but maybe he does?? The guy has gotten a LOT of bad press over the years and some of it is deserved. I think the MSM/general public tend to see him as an arrogant, bloated caricature of a rock star who would just as soon piss on his fans as perform for them.

He is clearly putting a lot of effort into his shows both with GnR and Axl/DC. He seems enthusiastic and eager to satisfy the fans, but far as saving rock n roll or whatever, lol, no way. Rock music, and the culture around it, is (or was) for young people, by young people. Even a new album is not going to be the big event that Illusion was in '91. Just like in the late eighties the Stones didn't save rock, Guns did. So it is in 2016 some other young band will have to step up, IMO.

[The Archer]

While 2001-2002 belied expectations, when Axl resurfaced in 2006, I had great hopes that he could take the world by storm. He looked and sounded great, and I thought that the leaks we heard were awesome. But, ultimately there were just too many things that were holding him and the band back. Looking back, CD could have been better than any Rock album ever made and it would have still not revitalized Rock, or the GN'R brand, because popular tastes had just shifted and yes, the GN'R/Rock fan-base itself was divided over GN'R. It was unrealistic to expect Axl to singlehandedly move mountains. Ten whole years later, and I never believed it would happen this late, Axl seems to be in a way better position personally, and in terms of redeeming himself in front of his fans and the public's eyes. I don't think that it is realistic to expect a revitalized GN'R with any kind of line-up, or a rehabilitated Axl even if he is the biggest Rock star on the planet, to change music tastes for an entire generation. Even if by some alchemy, GN'R has a chart topping popular single that leaves SCOM in the dust and every teenager is listening to that and not Beiber, the band is too old to create a seismic shift in music. But it doesn't matter. GN'R doesn't have to save the music industry or change the music landscape. Having GN'R back in front of us as the unquestionable kings of hard rock, and doing something that all their fans would be proud of, would be enough for me. The icing on the cake would be to see newer fans accept Guns N' Roses and having more people interested in Rock N' Roll thanks to a new GN'R. It would be great to have GN'R influence new bands to sing/create Rock music and bring new listeners to Rock - I'd be really happy with that. As long as the band is successful and happy and they keep their fans happy, ruling the world doesn't matter.

Edited May 12, 2016 by The Archer

[Babooshka]

1 hour 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. 

Yeah, he can save his own legacy, anything else is delusional. No offensive OP, but as far as the mainstream goes, rock music is finished. All the handwringing in the world isn't going to bring it back. I don't even believe a younger rock band can do anything. Or one with women, which is what some people think.

At best, Axl can repair his image and GNR can become giants in hard rock.

[bucketmaster101]

22 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. 

Just FYI,  Twist and Shout was a cover... 

[patmac54]

On 5/11/2016 at 3:18 PM, Babooshka said:

Yeah, he can save his own legacy, anything else is delusional. No offensive OP, but as far as the mainstream goes, rock music is finished. All the handwringing in the world isn't going to bring it back. I don't even believe a younger rock band can do anything. Or one with women, which is what some people think.

At best, Axl can repair his image and GNR can become giants in hard rock.

I have to disagree with you on the  "rock music is finished" point.  I agree rock as we're accustomed to might be dwindling (at best), but like most things, I think cultural tastes are cyclical.  We may not see it anytime soon (although my fingers are crossed Guns can change that), but rock will come back around again.

 

I think Adam Carolla described it best.  To paraphrase: "Guns(rock) killed Glam because society had reached it's tipping point with traditional 80's hair metal.  Grunge killed mainstream rock because by the early 90s society had had its fill...and so on and so on, X begot X..."  Carolla likens political views to the music industry in this way.  He points out that there is popular support for Trump because society is sick of the traditional politician.

Anyways, I don't want to start a political debate.  the point I'm making is that rock will come back around...just not likely to be tomorrow.  Again, my fingers are crossed Guns will help in the paradigm shift.

[patmac54]

Guys, shameless plug but i'm trying to get a gig as a blogger.

 

If you enjoyed my article about guns (or even if you didn't but thought it was interesting), check out my blog.  It's random takes on a number of topics, not just music.

 

Enjoy, leave comments, even if it's go fuck yourself.

Much appreciated:

http://quitmyjobfortheblog.weebly.com/

[liers]

On 5/11/2016 at 2:25 PM, patmac54 said:

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.

But when VR came out you also had Audioslave around the same time which helped.

[Mr. Dude]

On ‎5‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 2:18 PM, 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.

It does have a "this is it" kind of vibe, but that's with all rock n roll nowadays really. The only bands still doing it and doing it worth a fuck are old bands. That kind of makes it all the more special, because THIS REALLY IS IT. When I go to gigs these days I treat'em like wakes, because I know there ain't nothing else coming down the pike. These guys are amongst the very last of a dying breed. That's the reality and its very rewarding to me to witness and appreciate the last living rockstars doing their thing. They ain't making anymore of those kinds of guys. It won't be possible for those kinds of guys to exist much longer-in the flesh, moreover in our minds.

[Italian girl]

2016. The year axl rose saved my life but not my bank account 

[Len Cnut]

28 minutes ago, Mr. Dude said:

It does have a "this is it" kind of vibe, but that's with all rock n roll nowadays really. The only bands still doing it and doing it worth a fuck are old bands. That kind of makes it all the more special, because THIS REALLY IS IT. When I go to gigs these days I treat'em like wakes, because I know there ain't nothing else coming down the pike. These guys are amongst the very last of a dying breed. That's the reality and its very rewarding to me to witness and appreciate the last living rockstars doing their thing. They ain't making anymore of those kinds of guys. It won't be possible for those kinds of guys to exist much longer-in the flesh, moreover in our minds.

I think you're romanticising it as best you can because thats where the value lies now, in the romanticising of it. The fact is The Beatles died in 1969, The Stones ain't been worth shit since 1978, The Who died a death the minute they lost Moon etc etc etc.  The value in the old timers is to be found in Bob Dylan and Iggy Pop and people like that, iconoclasts that never played the game anyway.  Their shows still have value that isn't nostalgia value.

Edited May 28, 2016 by Len B'stard

[Mr. Dude]

8 hours ago, Len B'stard said:

I think you're romanticising it as best you can because thats where the value lies now, in the romanticising of it. The fact is The Beatles died in 1969, The Stones ain't been worth shit since 1978, The Who died a death the minute they lost Moon etc etc etc.  The value in the old timers is to be found in Bob Dylan and Iggy Pop and people like that, iconoclasts that never played the game anyway.  Their shows still have value that isn't nostalgia value.

No that's not it at all. I love Dylan and Iggy, but I feel the same way at a Dylan or Young show- even though they're still creatively vital I know there aren't artists coming up to take their place. This is it.

[Len Cnut]

11 minutes ago, Mr. Dude said:

No that's not it at all. I love Dylan and Iggy, but I feel the same way at a Dylan or Young show- even though they're still creatively vital I know there aren't artists coming up to take their place. This is it.

You love Iggy?  You're a good lad.

[Estranged Reality]

I kinda hate these "rock n' roll is dead" think pieces because music has probably never been more easily accessible or easily offered than ever before -- if a certain type of rock n' roll is your thing, there's absolutely no doubt there are some awesome people out there making that kind of music right now, and you have the ability to find it, which was totally NOT the case in the old days of the music industry, when a handful of bands would rule the charts and the airwaves and anything underground was really, really hard to seek out. I know some of the fun was in the thrill of the hunt, but generally speaking, we have no reason to complain these days about "music being dead" of any genre. And even in terms of mainstream rock n' roll, the whole "grunge killed rock" thing is so silly and outdated -- not dissimilar to the way people used to look down upon hip-hop when it first started -- because if anything grunge totally opened the door to more and more types of rock music that have, in the years since, become just as cemented in pop culture as GN'R was. I mean we wouldn't have bands like Alice in Chains (who clearly share a similar fanbase with GN'R) without grunge, nor would we have dudes like Chris Cornell, and ultimately applying labels to music and demonizing certain genres or whatever is just reactionary kneejerk bullshit that happens every. single. decade. Your parents were doing it when bands like GN'R first came around.

That being said... it's definitely nice to see Axl Rose on the upswing. As a fan of Axl/NuGN'R, I think *this* is the year we had all been waiting for... during all those years of silence and disappointment and let-downs, this is pretty much exactly what we were hoping for -- if not that Axl Rose would change the face of music (something that never would have happened), that he'd at least be out there again singing, making music, playing with his old band members, making a good name for himself, sharing his talent with the world... rather than turning into the Howard Hughes of rock n' roll.

So I totally get where this guy is coming from in that regard, and as a fan of Axl's I, too, couldn't be happier to see him finally back on top.

[Mr. Dude]

37 minutes ago, Len B'stard said:

You love Iggy?  You're a good lad.

I love Iggy. He's in my top 5 all time for sure.

30 minutes ago, Estranged Reality said:

I kinda hate these "rock n' roll is dead" think pieces because music has probably never been more easily accessible or easily offered than ever before -- if a certain type of rock n' roll is your thing, there's absolutely no doubt there are some awesome people out there making that kind of music right now, and you have the ability to find it, which was totally NOT the case in the old days of the music industry, when a handful of bands would rule the charts and the airwaves and anything underground was really, really hard to seek out. I know some of the fun was in the thrill of the hunt, but generally speaking, we have no reason to complain these days about "music being dead" of any genre. And even in terms of mainstream rock n' roll, the whole "grunge killed rock" thing is so silly and outdated -- not dissimilar to the way people used to look down upon hip-hop when it first started -- because if anything grunge totally opened the door to more and more types of rock music that have, in the years since, become just as cemented in pop culture as GN'R was. I mean we wouldn't have bands like Alice in Chains (who clearly share a similar fanbase with GN'R) without grunge, nor would we have dudes like Chris Cornell, and ultimately applying labels to music and demonizing certain genres or whatever is just reactionary kneejerk bullshit that happens every. single. decade. Your parents were doing it when bands like GN'R first came around.

That being said... it's definitely nice to see Axl Rose on the upswing. As a fan of Axl/NuGN'R, I think *this* is the year we had all been waiting for... during all those years of silence and disappointment and let-downs, this is pretty much exactly what we were hoping for -- if not that Axl Rose would change the face of music (something that never would have happened), that he'd at least be out there again singing, making music, playing with his old band members, making a good name for himself, sharing his talent with the world... rather than turning into the Howard Hughes of rock n' roll.

So I totally get where this guy is coming from in that regard, and as a fan of Axl's I, too, couldn't be happier to see him finally back on top.

 

[Mr. Dude]

That just helps prove the point though. People can basically get it for free and there still ain't much interest in it. There's always gonna be a place for it, but I have a hard time imagining a time when rock stars like Axl Rose or even a Kurt Cobain will ever be able to rule the world again. There's more talented musicians probably than ever before, but there aren't any new rock stars being made.Aafter the remaining few die off they will never be able to exist again, because they will never be able to exist in the collective consciousness. The fact you can get it from so many different places just makes that kind of thing more scarce really.

[Estranged Reality]

5 hours ago, Mr. Dude said:

That just helps prove the point though. People can basically get it for free and there still ain't much interest in it. There's always gonna be a place for it, but I have a hard time imagining a time when rock stars like Axl Rose or even a Kurt Cobain will ever be able to rule the world again. There's more talented musicians probably than ever before, but there aren't any new rock stars being made.Aafter the remaining few die off they will never be able to exist again, because they will never be able to exist in the collective consciousness. The fact you can get it from so many different places just makes that kind of thing more scarce really.

This is true, but it's the notion of the genre needing to be "saved" that bothers me -  as if music in general today is in the gutter, which it isn't. It anything, the fact that people have freedom to listen to what they like is better than we've ever had it. Imagine how jazz fans felt in the 80s when they turned on the radio or the TV and it was the same handful of pop and rock stars dominating every channel.

And my point was that Axl may be now considered an icon of the genre, but in his time, due to his ubiquity and controversy, he had just as many haters as, say,  Justin Bieber does today. Many of the old head rockers didn't like him - they're the ones down voting his ACDC videos on YouTube, so they're still out there. It's just one of those generational things where you always perceive your own generation with rose tinted glasses, no pun intended. We all love Axl and now, at 50-something,  he is no longer the new kid on the block. But he once was, and wasn't exactly universally beloved.

Anyway, as a fan of Axl I'm beyond happy right now. This is what we've been waiting years for. Im stoked and I just can't wait to see him play with gnr in July. 

[RONIN]

He's 20 years too late to save anything. The time to do this would have been 1996-2000 during those awful nu-metal years when the band was still somewhat relevant. There was a slim chance even in 2002, but I think Axl and the Guns brand lost whatever relevance they had by that point. 

Capturing the zeitgeist of an era and reinvigorating a genre is a young band's game and guns more than any other band relied heavily on their youthful swagger. They were transitioning the band during UYI towards a more mature sound but it was all cut short too early. One or two more albums in the 90's would have cemented the Guns brand to the world -- since they flamed out, GNR is frozen in time as the band of AFD and "November Rain". That said, I think whatever he does at this point will slowly start rehabbing his image a bit. I think the world has forgotten that he was once the most important and vital frontman in rock n' roll and he's reminding them of that. If he can keep this up for a few years and release a well received album with GnR and AC/DC, Axl's image will be somewhat revitalized.

Edited May 29, 2016 by RONIN