GNRfan2008 Posted December 11, 2016 Share Posted December 11, 2016 (edited) On May 30, 2016 at 7:36 PM, moreblack said: The 80s were just about over by the time GNR hit. It would be weird to have a show talk about the 80s music scene and pretend they were up there with Jacko, Prince, Madonna and the rest all along. The CNN documentary talked about NWA, which didn't hit until after Guns. It brings up Nirvana, which was 100% underground in the 1980's. They also mention a bunch of one hit wonders while ignoring one of the biggest bands of the decade. Edited December 11, 2016 by GNRfan2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEPTEM Posted December 11, 2016 Share Posted December 11, 2016 Gnr doesnt do interviews, the footages prices are high, and most important: somehow gnr is more related with early 90's than 80's. There is just that perception in most people and media. Pd: illuminati from music industry doesnt like GNR. they dont want the kind of artist that make their own desicions and wont aloud to be bossed around. ( specially ir they are as huge and succesfull as gnr ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonofnazareth Posted December 11, 2016 Share Posted December 11, 2016 That's because GNR were at their peak of success in 1992. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueJean Baby Posted December 11, 2016 Share Posted December 11, 2016 One point to consider is how many of those bands/artists in those documentaries can still sell over one million concert tickets in 24 hours?? Just GNR True fans know who is the best, we don't need some media crap to tell us. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GNRfan2008 Posted December 11, 2016 Share Posted December 11, 2016 1 hour ago, sonofnazareth said: That's because GNR were at their peak of success in 1992. Not really. Appetite and Sweet Child were both #1 on the charts in 1988. The album had already sold 8 million copies in America by July 1989 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonofnazareth Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 On 12/11/2016 at 4:30 PM, GNRfan2008 said: Not really. Appetite and Sweet Child were both #1 on the charts in 1988. The album had already sold 8 million copies in America by July 1989 Were you alive then? GNR had a number 1 album, but they were not 'it' in 1988. They were 'it' in 1992. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tsinindy Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 1 hour ago, sonofnazareth said: Were you alive then? GNR had a number 1 album, but they were not 'it' in 1988. They were 'it' in 1992. I was alive then...and have to agree with you overall. GnR was really "it" in 1992. Maybe Metallica was right there with them, but that was it. Though, AFD was a huge record and GnR were highly popular in 1988....1991-1993 they were just bigger than life at that point. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marlingrl03 Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 3 hours ago, tsinindy said: I was alive then...and have to agree with you overall. GnR was really "it" in 1992. Maybe Metallica was right there with them, but that was it. Though, AFD was a huge record and GnR were highly popular in 1988....1991-1993 they were just bigger than life at that point. Agree! I was 14 when those UYI albums came out and it was a huge ass deal! MTV had Don't Cry, Nov Rain etc playing all the time. Those early 90s....they were top dog and everyone knew who they were. They were freakin everywhere!!! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron MikeyJ Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 (edited) My 2cents Could it be a rights issue with the music? Maybe. Could it be cause Axl doesn't agree to be used? Maybe. But I agree with the OP, GNR DOES get sorta buried when it comes to 80's and 90's documentaries. If it's not one or both of the reasons I mentioned earlier, then here is my opinion on this matter. Guns doesn't fit the story the documentary directors are telling (80s or 90s). What I mean by that is they are not an 80s hair band, so they don't really fit in that catagory, and they are not a 90s grunge band either. They sorta exist on their own, off to the side. I DID see a Vh1 Docu once that paired them up with Metallica as the underground bands that blew up in the late 80s, and that probably where guns fits in best. Obviously musically they are VERY different than Metallica, but guns was very much a LA underground band that blew up. Back to my original point though, if the film maker doesn't want to tie guns with Metallica, then where exactly do they fit? The time that guns were the biggest is sort of a transition period between the 80s and 90s. 87-93 is almost a unique time unto itself. Its not full on 80s or full on 90s. It was an in between era, and as such doesn't really fit either story arch very well. Because you have to remember, even documentary film makers have an agenda, a story they are trying to tell. So saying that by 88 and 89 the typically "80s" cliches were already on the way out doesn't fit the story of the grunge scene killing it. Or saying that the hair bands were still very popular in 92 and 93 doesn't bode well for grunge bands killing them off in 1991. I remember that time, and for me The late 80s and early 90s is a unique time. The 80s were on the way out, including the trends, but the "typically" 90s trends had not taken over yet. It was a time of Married with children, don't tell mom your babysitters dead, Wayne's world, and yes Guns n Roses. Bands like Nirvana and Pearl Jam had come on to the scene, but they were NOT the scene killers that they get the credit for, at least not at this time. Honestly I've always felt that the REAL 90s began when Kurt died. That's when Nirvana really took over. Which that happened in 1994, and let's not forget That's when gnr were essentially breaking up. I've always felt this played a role into what the 90s became as well. My final point is, I do think jealousy Or ignorance DOES go into why guns gets over looked in these films also. Guns was in the vein of zeppelin, the stones, and other all time great bands. They were not a Van Halen clone like the rest of the 80s hair bands. Plus they were vocally and musically superior to the grunge bands that came later (for the most part, not knocking grunge bands but Axl is a superior vocalist than Kurt or Vedder, and Slash can out play any of that era guitarists). So basically what I am saying is that people don't like to give guns the credit They deserve. It could be because they don't like Axl or his antics, or it's because they don't want to admit how great of a band they really were (are). Or they don't think they deserve the credit because of their realitivly small discography. But I will say this though, you don't sell 1 million tickets in a day, or accomplish the things they are right now if you are not an all time great band. If they release another album, and it's good, guns should (and will) finally get recognition they deserve as one of the 5 Or 10 best rock and roll bands of all time. Top 5 hard rock band for sure. Edited December 13, 2016 by Iron MikeyJ 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tsinindy Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 14 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said: My 2cents Could it be a rights issue with the music? Maybe. Could it be cause Axl doesn't agree to be used? Maybe. But I agree with the OP, GNR DOES get sorta buried when it comes to 80's and 90's documentaries. If it's not one or both of the reasons I mentioned earlier, then here is my opinion on this matter. Guns doesn't fit the story the documentary directors are telling (80s or 90s). What I mean by that is they are not an 80s hair band, so they don't really fit in that catagory, and they are not a 90s grunge band either. They sorta exist on their own, off to the side. I DID see a Vh1 Docu once that paired them up with Metallica as the underground bands that blew up in the late 80s, and that probably where guns fits in best. Obviously musically they are VERY different than Metallica, but guns was very much a LA underground band that blew up. Back to my original point though, if the film maker doesn't want to tie guns with Metallica, then where exactly do they fit? The time that guns were the biggest is sort of a transition period between the 80s and 90s. 87-93 is almost a unique time unto itself. Its not full on 80s or full on 90s. It was an in between era, and as such doesn't really fit either story arch very well. Because you have to remember, even documentary film makers have an agenda, a story they are trying to tell. So saying that by 88 and 89 the typically "80s" cliches were already on the way out doesn't fit the story of the grunge scene killing it. Or saying that the hair bands were still very popular in 92 and 93 doesn't bode well for grunge bands killing them off in 1991. I remember that time, and for me The late 80s and early 90s is a unique time. The 80s were on the way out, including the trends, but the "typically" 90s trends had not taken over yet. It was a time of Married with children, don't tell mom your babysitters dead, Wayne's world, and yes Guns n Roses. Bands like Nirvana and Pearl Jam had come on to the scene, but they were NOT the scene killers that they get the credit for, at least not at this time. Honestly I've always felt that the REAL 90s began when Kurt died. That's when Nirvana really took over. Which that happened in 1994, and let's not forget That's when gnr were essentially breaking up. I've always felt this played a role into what the 90s became as well. My final point is, I do think jealousy Or ignorance DOES go into why guns gets over looked in these films also. Guns was in the vein of zeppelin, the stones, and other all time great bands. They were not a Van Halen clone like the rest of the 80s hair bands. Plus they were vocally and musically superior to the grunge bands that came later (for the most part, not knocking grunge bands but Axl is a superior vocalist than Kurt or Vedder, and Slash can out play any of that era guitarists). So basically what I am saying is that people don't like to give guns the credit They deserve. It could be because they don't like Axl or his antics, or it's because they don't want to admit how great of a band they really were (are). Or they don't think they deserve the credit because of their realitivly small discography. But I will say this though, you don't sell 1 million tickets in a day, or accomplish the things they are right now if you are not an all time great band. If they release another album, and it's good, guns should (and will) finally get recognition they deserve as one of the 5 Or 10 best rock and roll bands of all time. Top 5 hard rock band for sure. Well said, all of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackstar Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Iron MikeyJ said: My 2cents Could it be a rights issue with the music? Maybe. Could it be cause Axl doesn't agree to be used? Maybe. But I agree with the OP, GNR DOES get sorta buried when it comes to 80's and 90's documentaries. If it's not one or both of the reasons I mentioned earlier, then here is my opinion on this matter. Guns doesn't fit the story the documentary directors are telling (80s or 90s). What I mean by that is they are not an 80s hair band, so they don't really fit in that catagory, and they are not a 90s grunge band either. They sorta exist on their own, off to the side. I DID see a Vh1 Docu once that paired them up with Metallica as the underground bands that blew up in the late 80s, and that probably where guns fits in best. Obviously musically they are VERY different than Metallica, but guns was very much a LA underground band that blew up. Back to my original point though, if the film maker doesn't want to tie guns with Metallica, then where exactly do they fit? The time that guns were the biggest is sort of a transition period between the 80s and 90s. 87-93 is almost a unique time unto itself. Its not full on 80s or full on 90s. It was an in between era, and as such doesn't really fit either story arch very well. Because you have to remember, even documentary film makers have an agenda, a story they are trying to tell. So saying that by 88 and 89 the typically "80s" cliches were already on the way out doesn't fit the story of the grunge scene killing it. Or saying that the hair bands were still very popular in 92 and 93 doesn't bode well for grunge bands killing them off in 1991. I generally agree. I don't know if GnR belongs more to the 90s than to the 80s or even if it fits anywhere. 1992 was their peak in terms of filling stadiums and big arenas all over the world, but their defining album was in 1987 and in 1988 they were the new and exciting big thing (that's how I would define "it", and by this definition in 1992 "it" was Nirvana). I agree that GnR marked the transition between the two decades, which also were different eras in music. Metallica is another story. It's a band with a long life span, which started as part of a scene in the 80s (being the definitive band of that scene) and became huge in the 90s, so it can fit in both the 80s and the 90s narratives. The same goes for bands like U2 and REM. Usually acts on the cusp between decades/eras are considered part of the story of the second decade; for example, post-punk/new wave acts that were active from the late 70s to the mid 80s are categorized as 80s music. The difference with GnR is that they weren't part of a movement or pioneers of a new movement and their sound didn't define either decade. They were a sole case of a band that stood on its own, but it was also, musically and culturally, the bridge between 80s and 90s mainstream rock, and for this reason they don't fit in the narrative of either decade. Edited December 13, 2016 by Blackstar 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron MikeyJ Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 (edited) I agree. That's why Van Halen tends to get lumped in with the 80s bands. They broke on the scene with two great albums in the late 70s (first being a classic), but they tend to be considered an 80s band. Honestly the Van Halen and Guns stories are very similiar. The one biggest advantage VH has is a far superior 2nd act with Sammy Hagar. Even though I genuinly LOVE CD, Van Hagar was better than NUgnr. But thats a matter of opinion of course. ? Its the first act that Guns wins for me. I love DLR VH to death, I really do. Plus as a guitarist I'll take EVH over Slash. I love them both of course, again JMO. Appetite era through spaghetti was better than VH at there best, it really was, for me at least. So basically what I'm saying is that If Guns release another album, and if it's considered "good". Guns would have to be considered superior to VH historically. And EVH is like a HERO to me. But Guns n Roses were the American Led Zeppelin. Edited December 13, 2016 by Iron MikeyJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IncitingChaos Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 Might not be the best explanation but for people now who hear about gnr I think they often get categorized with classic rock...and classic rock doesn't have a place in hair metal so there's so confusion with their sound and how it really didn't coincide with the period of music they came into. When documentaries talk about the 80's or early 90's it's trying to put those decades under a broader scope and gnr were the rarity of that time period in the sense that they didn't fit in and again you have songs like Welcome To the Jungle that if your a kid now or an adult in their 50's it seems you have heard this song at every sporting event or movie trailer or whatever...I think part of not fitting into a period of time is having music that is timeless and gnr definitely has that, their music could fit into nearly any decade and be relevant. Id like to think they get overlooked due to how good they were and unique they were that we often forget they emerged from a time period that didn't offer anything similar to what they brought 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AxlsFavoriteRose Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 On 5/29/2016 at 9:46 PM, RONIN said: . As it stands now, they seem more like a band with great potential that just imploded in their prime -- that's where much of the "they were overhyped", "grunge killed them", "nothing more than a hair metal band with a few good songs" criticism comes from. They needed one more well received album to legitimize their brand and unfortunately -- they couldn't stay together long enough to make that happen. yes yes yes yes and yes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackstar Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 (edited) 37 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said: I agree. That's why Van Halen tends to get lumped in with the 80s bands. They broke on the scene with two great albums in the late 70s (first being a classic), but they tend to be considered an 80s band. Honestly the Van Halen and Guns stories are very similiar. The one biggest advantage VH has is a far superior 2nd act with Sammy Hagar. Even though I genuinly LOVE CD, Van Hagar was better than NUgnr. But thats a matter of opinion of course. ? Its the first act that Guns wins for me. I love DLR VH to death, I really do. Plus as a guitarist I'll take EVH over Slash. I love them both of course, again JMO. Appetite era through spaghetti was better than VH at there best, it really was, for me at least. I think their difference is that VH (especially EVH's playing style) influenced many 80s bands, while GnR didn't really influence other bands. GnR's legacy and importance is that, besides making great music (part of which is considered classic) and being a cultural phenomenon on their own in the late 80s with their recordings and live performances, the edgy sound of AFD in a way laid the carpet for the grunge bands to walk through mainstream even though they came from a different place. Edited December 13, 2016 by Blackstar 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 On 5/29/2016 at 1:12 PM, Loseyourillusions98 said: Kinda watched this cnn eighties documentary on the impact of music and all. And towards the end of the decade conversation the discussion seemed to go from bon jovi and def leopard straight to the rise of nirvana with ZERO mention of gnr even with the success of afd. They even mentioned rick astley and REM. Ive also noticed this on other online documentaries. I wasnt alive back then, but I was just wondering if gnr got popular with retrospect as opposed to its initial success? No, they definitely became popular in their own time. They had already made a name for themselves in LA based on the strength of their performances and word of mouth. When MTV played the "Welcome to the Jungle" video one weekend their switchboard literally melted from all of the incoming calls demanding to see it again. That video broke the band on a national level. The rest is history. I feel that many media documentaries ignore them because as they became the biggest band in the world they were very particular about who they would or would not talk to. They went to increasingly greater lengths to control their image, and this undoubtedly ruffled the feathers of the industry and especially the critics. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GNRfan2008 Posted December 14, 2016 Share Posted December 14, 2016 14 hours ago, Iron MikeyJ said: My 2cents Could it be a rights issue with the music? Maybe. Could it be cause Axl doesn't agree to be used? Maybe. But I agree with the OP, GNR DOES get sorta buried when it comes to 80's and 90's documentaries. If it's not one or both of the reasons I mentioned earlier, then here is my opinion on this matter. Guns doesn't fit the story the documentary directors are telling (80s or 90s). What I mean by that is they are not an 80s hair band, so they don't really fit in that catagory, and they are not a 90s grunge band either. They sorta exist on their own, off to the side. I DID see a Vh1 Docu once that paired them up with Metallica as the underground bands that blew up in the late 80s, and that probably where guns fits in best. Obviously musically they are VERY different than Metallica, but guns was very much a LA underground band that blew up. Back to my original point though, if the film maker doesn't want to tie guns with Metallica, then where exactly do they fit? The time that guns were the biggest is sort of a transition period between the 80s and 90s. 87-93 is almost a unique time unto itself. Its not full on 80s or full on 90s. It was an in between era, and as such doesn't really fit either story arch very well. Because you have to remember, even documentary film makers have an agenda, a story they are trying to tell. So saying that by 88 and 89 the typically "80s" cliches were already on the way out doesn't fit the story of the grunge scene killing it. Or saying that the hair bands were still very popular in 92 and 93 doesn't bode well for grunge bands killing them off in 1991. I remember that time, and for me The late 80s and early 90s is a unique time. The 80s were on the way out, including the trends, but the "typically" 90s trends had not taken over yet. It was a time of Married with children, don't tell mom your babysitters dead, Wayne's world, and yes Guns n Roses. Bands like Nirvana and Pearl Jam had come on to the scene, but they were NOT the scene killers that they get the credit for, at least not at this time. Honestly I've always felt that the REAL 90s began when Kurt died. That's when Nirvana really took over. Which that happened in 1994, and let's not forget That's when gnr were essentially breaking up. I've always felt this played a role into what the 90s became as well. My final point is, I do think jealousy Or ignorance DOES go into why guns gets over looked in these films also. Guns was in the vein of zeppelin, the stones, and other all time great bands. They were not a Van Halen clone like the rest of the 80s hair bands. Plus they were vocally and musically superior to the grunge bands that came later (for the most part, not knocking grunge bands but Axl is a superior vocalist than Kurt or Vedder, and Slash can out play any of that era guitarists). So basically what I am saying is that people don't like to give guns the credit They deserve. It could be because they don't like Axl or his antics, or it's because they don't want to admit how great of a band they really were (are). Or they don't think they deserve the credit because of their realitivly small discography. But I will say this though, you don't sell 1 million tickets in a day, or accomplish the things they are right now if you are not an all time great band. If they release another album, and it's good, guns should (and will) finally get recognition they deserve as one of the 5 Or 10 best rock and roll bands of all time. Top 5 hard rock band for sure. Valid points. GN'R was definitely a revivalist band of 70's hard rock with some Sex Pistols punk thrown in for good measure. They had their own unique traits that set them apart from any other band out there and you can't pigeonhole them like you can with many other bands of the time period. You are definitely right that GNR's transcendent talent and credibility does not fit the narrative of these documentary filmmakers who want to pretend that all of a sudden out of nowhere the grunge guys took out the bubble gum hair bands. In reality, GN'R and Metallica kicked down that door in the late 80's before the grunge guys. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubicon Posted December 14, 2016 Share Posted December 14, 2016 On 12.12.2016 at 0:05 AM, tsinindy said: I was alive then...and have to agree with you overall. GnR was really "it" in 1992. Maybe Metallica was right there with them, but that was it. Though, AFD was a huge record and GnR were highly popular in 1988....1991-1993 they were just bigger than life at that point. I can only speak for Europe / Germany but it's true that GNR is often not mentioned in 80s documentaries. We should not forget that we didn't have internet back then. News took a long time to get over here. I remember going to the Netherlands by bike just to get AFD because it wasn't available in Germany. That must be around 88/89. So it's right: They didn't hit big here before 91 or so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOSSY78 Posted December 14, 2016 Share Posted December 14, 2016 On 5/29/2016 at 6:03 PM, dalsh327 said: http://www.cnn.com/shows/eighties-music-spotify Music videos defined the 80s, I don't think GNR would have made it just on music alone. They would make the 90s on videos I think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron MikeyJ Posted December 14, 2016 Share Posted December 14, 2016 19 hours ago, Blackstar said: I think their difference is that VH (especially EVH's playing style) influenced many 80s bands, while GnR didn't really influence other bands. GnR's legacy and importance is that, besides making great music (part of which is considered classic) and being a cultural phenomenon on their own in the late 80s with their recordings and live performances, the edgy sound of AFD in a way laid the carpet for the grunge bands to walk through mainstream even though they came from a different place. I didn't mean "sound" or anything relating to the actual music. I just mean the overall story is very similiar. Both bands came from LA and completely changed rock music. Both bands became the biggest band in the world right before the break up. Both bands have a similar size discography (in actual minutes, not albums). I've done the math, and Appetite through Spaghetti is very similiar in overall minutes of music that VH1- 1984 is. Also both bands have a similiar amount of cover songs. Van Halen tends to get lumped in as an 80s band, even though they started in the 70s. Guns sometimes gets labeled as an 80s band, even though they were at their peak in the 90s. Very similiar story naritive if you think about it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmapelian Posted December 14, 2016 Share Posted December 14, 2016 On 5/29/2016 at 0:12 AM, Loseyourillusions98 said: Kinda watched this cnn eighties documentary on the impact of music and all. And towards the end of the decade conversation the discussion seemed to go from bon jovi and def leopard straight to the rise of nirvana with ZERO mention of gnr even with the success of afd. They even mentioned rick astley and REM. Ive also noticed this on other online documentaries. I wasnt alive back then, but I was just wondering if gnr got popular with retrospect as opposed to its initial success? Never watch anything from CNN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
passenger57 Posted December 14, 2016 Share Posted December 14, 2016 To me Guns transcends their era, 80s and that whole scene. The music is timeless. Like The Doors. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatashame Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 OP, to answer the question real fast it's bikoz they played "early 90s" in "late 80s" and thus are associated with "early 90s" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted December 24, 2016 Share Posted December 24, 2016 I was looking up Rock classic cds on Amazon for xmas and noticed GNR are never on them. I wondered if they have to agree to be on them and just don't? and that's why Alien Ant Farm's cover of Head like a Hole is on a lot of them. They are desperate to fill out disc 3 cos GNR and others won't donate a track. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts