What Was The Big Attraction to Guns 'N' Roses.

[WhazUp]

For me the thing that intrigued me when I was very young was just the way they sounded.  I remember first catching the second half of Paradise City in 6th grade and thinking "what is this and why does it sound so awesome!?"  Axl's voice, the energy, Slash's guitar tone, etc.

Back then I my parents had AOL dial up and youtube was still new so I remember waiting a half an hour just to see a tiny bit of the Ritz Nightrain performance, there was definitely a mysterious and seductive vibe that the band had that made me want to listen to them all day, every day.  They way they present themselves it totally unique - even the way Slash plays a set of notes that any other guitar player can play easily, he just has a way of playing it that is unique to only him.  That is the draw of GNR to me

[Original]

The songs kicked ass.  Jungle, SC, PC etc....just dominant.  Then MTV news and The Ritz show and they just took off.   And they were real, raw and genuine.   Nothing was fake about em.  

[Silverburst80]

10 hours ago, Apollo said:

It's a generational thing, really. 

When we were teens and early 20s we thought all that extra stuff was cool and badass. But as an adult, is it really cool to get in fist fights, overdose on drugs or start riots? At 18 we support that - at 38 you see how ridiculous it is. 

There are plenty of fighting and riots and drug use out there by bands. When Kayne starts a riot or mouths off - we say he is an arrogant prick with no talent. When Chris Brown beats up his GF or has the helicopters raising his home because he might have hostages - we say he is a thug who needs to go to jail. When Wess Scanlon (his band name escapes me) has a couple public drug related incidences  - we say he is a loser junkie who needs to retire and go away. 

What do you say if you catch your neighbor selling heroin to your local high school kids? Do you say he is cool AF like we say Izzy was? 

We condemn musicians today that are doing the same things we praise GnR for doing. 

If Kayne west or the guy from limp bisquit played four songs, then went on a ten minute rant bashing other musicians, then complained about his guitar player being too high to play, then he jumped in the audience and punched a fan.....then he walked off the stage, causing a huge riot to break out that caused millions of dollars of damage. Would anybody on this forum be on here saying what a BADASS Kayne or Fred were? Axl does it and he's our hero. Kayne West does it and we hate him. 

But it's not about us is it, the kids will never get another ROCK band like GNR. Groupies, violence ,drugs are still all done by artists to this day but since when are Chris Brown and Kanye West considered a fucking rock band, I have no idea who Wess Scanlon is and i personally don't really care how any of those musicians behave because i don't care about their music. Kids will always be drawn to the crazy shit and be intrigued by it, but it seems to me it's all well and good to behave like an excessive rock star these days unless you are in an actual rock band.

Edited January 15, 2017 by Silverburst80

[Zurimor]

1 hour ago, Silverburst80 said:

But it's not about us is it, the kids will never get another ROCK band like GNR. Groupies, violence ,drugs are still all done by artists to this day but since when are Chris Brown and Kanye West considered a fucking rock band, I have no idea who Wess Scanlon is and i personally don't really care how any of those musicians behave because i don't care about their music. Kids will always be drawn to the crazy shit and be intrigued by it, but it seems to me it's all well and good to behave like an excessive rock star these days unless you are in an actual rock band.

No worries, they will. What's  Gn'R for you was Chuck Berry and Elvis in the 50s, bands like The Who, The Doors and other in the 60s, Sex Pistols in the 70s...

Edited January 15, 2017 by Zurimor

[Silverburst80]

15 minutes ago, Zurimor said:

No worries, they will. What's  Gn'R for you was Chuck Berry and Elvis in the 50s, bands like The Who, The Doors and other in the 60s, Sex Pistols in the 70s...

Well if any rock bands of that caliber come along we'll have nothing to worry about...i'm kinda doubtful though.

[sonofnazareth]

Axl Rose.

[estranged_85]

Their story telling lyrics that actually means something and the killer riffs/solos accompanied by the best most energetic rock voice in history. No band sounds like GN'R.

And not to forget, their songs don't all sound the same.

[BlueJean Baby]

GNR will always be what keeps me going. When things get rough, it puts the fight back into me to keep surviving. It's like the swift kick in the ass telling me to get back in there and fight for what I want in life. I just don't see that from any bands these days...

[dontdamnmeuyi2015]

the songs and their attitude was awesome! No one like them in the 80's. even Motley Crue didn't have their attitude.

[Apollo]

14 hours ago, Zurimor said:

No worries, they will. What's  Gn'R for you was Chuck Berry and Elvis in the 50s, bands like The Who, The Doors and other in the 60s, Sex Pistols in the 70s...

I was going to respond but you nailed it. 

People sometimes forget that their personal preference is just that. My teen son loves his bands just as much as I love GnR and my parents loved the Stones and Beatles. There are lots of people that think Axl sounds like a screeching cat in heat. Just like I can't stand Bob Dylan's voice. 

Axl isn't the "last true rock star" and rock isn't dead. People just get old and the next generation takes over. 

[janrichmond]

2 minutes ago, Apollo said:

I was going to respond but you nailed it. 

People sometimes forget that their personal preference is just that. My teen son loves his bands just as much as I love GnR and my parents loved the Stones and Beatles. There are lots of people that think Axl sounds like a screeching cat in heat. Just like I can't stand Bob Dylan's voice. 

Axl isn't the "last true rock star" and rock isn't dead. People just get old and the next generation takes over. 

Well said @Apollo i agree. We are not meant to like our kid's music, it's their music (personally speaking i don't like much modern stuff but I'm pretty sure if i was a young 'un i'd love it)

[Apollo]

27 minutes ago, dontdamnmeuyi2015 said:

the songs and their attitude was awesome! No one like them in the 80's. even Motley Crue didn't have their attitude.

Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by "attitude." You've obviously quantified it as you say that MC didn't have it. 

Because if you are talking about drinking, drugs, partying, banging groupies and basically not giving a f*ck about authority - MC did more of that then GnR did back in the day. There is a story about - I think Vince - trying to bang the president of the record label's wife at a corporate event. He was so disgusted that he didn't want anything to do with the band and let them buy their back catalog for basically nothing. And let's not forget Vince publically challenging Axl to meet for a fist fight....and Axl, of course, chickening out. 

Motley Crue absolutely had more "attitude" back in the day than GnR. 

But what they didn't have was the strength and depth and talent that GnR members had. GnR was 100 times more talented than MC. MC was a party band.

I would go so far as to say that of all the bands from that era, they are the least talented band compared to how successful they were.   Their success far out shown their skills and Talent level. 

Scarlett Johanson is a mediocre actress. There are a thousand actresses who are better. But her looks, arritude, movies she was picked for her, etc - and somehow she is a fan favorite who gets paid tens of millions of dollars a year. That's Motley Crue. Mediocre in all aspects - but at the exact right time  had the right look and sound that captured the enthusiasm of fhe youth of the rock world. 

[Rovim]

1 hour ago, Apollo said:

I was going to respond but you nailed it. 

People sometimes forget that their personal preference is just that. My teen son loves his bands just as much as I love GnR and my parents loved the Stones and Beatles. There are lots of people that think Axl sounds like a screeching cat in heat. Just like I can't stand Bob Dylan's voice. 

Axl isn't the "last true rock star" and rock isn't dead. People just get old and the next generation takes over. 

Of course music is subjective but do you actually believe there are any bands now that are as good as The Beatles, The Stones, and Jimi for example? I like some of the current stuff. A lot of it actually. But I don't believe it's as good as what came in the 50's, 60's, 70's, classical music, old jazz. No way it's as good.

A lot of what I look at as like main dishes, the bands that came, saw, and conquered already said much of what musicians derive from now. Classical music covered a lot of ground for example.

Doesn't mean you can't say something fresh with your twist on it though. A band could come and be great again, but maybe not the type of revolutions that came with Elvis, Blues, The Beatles, Jimi, etc. More like melting pots.

Edited January 15, 2017 by Rovim

[Jane M.]

1 hour ago, Apollo said:

I was going to respond but you nailed it. 

People sometimes forget that their personal preference is just that. My teen son loves his bands just as much as I love GnR and my parents loved the Stones and Beatles. There are lots of people that think Axl sounds like a screeching cat in heat. Just like I can't stand Bob Dylan's voice. 

Axl isn't the "last true rock star" and rock isn't dead. People just get old and the next generation takes over. 

Well said. 

[Rovim]

27 minutes ago, Jane M. said:

Well said. 

The fella in your avatar is a good example. It's not like Izzy said something completely new with Guns or on his own. He was heavily influenced by Chuck Berry, The Stones, New York Dolls etc. But his music captures his personality, it's got enough character to make me listen to his albums and not just go straight to his influences when I want to listen to a good rock n' roll album.

[Silverburst80]

2 hours ago, Rovim said:

Of course music is subjective but do you actually believe there are any bands now that are as good as The Beatles, The Stones, and Jimi for example? I like some of the current stuff. A lot of it actually. But I don't believe it's as good as what came in the 50's, 60's, 70's, classical music, old jazz. No way it's as good.

A lot of what I look at as like main dishes, the bands that came, saw, and conquered already said much of what musicians derive from now. Classical music covered a lot of ground for example.

Doesn't mean you can't say something fresh with your twist on it though. A band could come and be great again, but maybe not the type of revolutions that came with Elvis, Blues, The Beatles, Jimi, etc. More like melting pots.

I agree,I like plenty of new acts as well and and pay attention to what's going on, i'm 36 years old for fucks sake not some ancient dinosaur haha! Reality is even though maybe kids have their own GNR, Beatles and Rolling Stones now are people seriously saying there's any band of the last 10-15 years that are on that level?, who are these giants you speak of?. GNR can pull a crowd on their own that would match most current rock festivals full of the hottest current rock/metal acts. There's NO band currently who will looked be back on that had the same musical and cultural impact on a generation that the Stones and Beatles had, nor will there be a band who such an impact that they will be filling football stadiums in 30 years like GNR it's that simple. Now is Kanye West this generations equivalent to the big names of past?, i don't know but as i've said several times he's not a rock act anyway which is what i was specifically talking about.

Edited January 15, 2017 by Silverburst80

[Apollo]

1 hour ago, Silverburst80 said:

I agree,I like plenty of new acts as well and and pay attention to what's going on, i'm 36 years old for fucks sake not some ancient dinosaur haha! Reality is even though maybe kids have their own GNR, Beatles and Rolling Stones now are people seriously saying there's any band of the last 10-15 years that are on that level?, who are these giants you speak of?. GNR can pull a crowd on their own that would match most current rock festivals full of the hottest current rock/metal acts. There's NO band currently who will looked be back on that had the same musical and cultural impact on a generation that the Stones and Beatles had, nor will there be a band who such an impact that they will be filling football stadiums in 30 years like GNR it's that simple. Now is Kanye West this generations equivalent to the big names of past?, i don't know but as i've said several times he's not a rock act anyway which is what i was specifically talking about.

I can't see into the future, so I can't say who is the next big rock band. 

And although GnR is my favorite band, I sure wouldn't think that no future bands will ever have a major impact again. That would just be silly. 

What bands do you look back on now and connect them to GnR? Like you can look at Axl and see a Queen/Aerosmith/Stones influence. What bands do you see were inspired by GnR?

Hard rock and hair metal dropped from the forefront in the early 90s - Illusions came out in 1991. So at the peak of their success, GnR didn't really inspire a "rock" revolution either. 

Sometimes I wonder if we, as diehard fans, sometimes over estimate the level of importance of GnR. 

[Silverburst80]

10 hours ago, Apollo said:

I can't see into the future, so I can't say who is the next big rock band. 

And although GnR is my favorite band, I sure wouldn't think that no future bands will ever have a major impact again. That would just be silly. 

What bands do you look back on now and connect them to GnR? Like you can look at Axl and see a Queen/Aerosmith/Stones influence. What bands do you see were inspired by GnR?

Hard rock and hair metal dropped from the forefront in the early 90s - Illusions came out in 1991. So at the peak of their success, GnR didn't really inspire a "rock" revolution either. 

Sometimes I wonder if we, as diehard fans, sometimes over estimate the level of importance of GnR. 

I don't have a crystal ball either, but let's face it the odds are stacked massively against rock bands to have that kind of impact again. It becomes less and less likely as time rolls on and reasons for that are many, the state of the music ''business'' and how music is digested is a big a factor as any. As for the other stuff you've written you're just changing the subject really. So what GNR didn't create a slew of little GNR's, what's has that got to do with their impact and why anyone want to hear a watered down version of them anyway?(btw you might wanna read up on how much Seattle pioneers Alice n Chains and Mother Love Bone were inspired by Guns). The discussion here is what was the attraction to GNR and i'm saying there's not a band around today who causes the amount of hysteria that GNR created in their heyday, and i'm not exaggerating when i say hysteria. I mean you just have to look at that news footage posted recently of when they were in Australia in 92 or whatever, that was commonplace wherever they went it was a massive newsworthy event, bands just don't have that clout anymore.

Edited January 16, 2017 by Silverburst80

[wasted]

In a way GNR were like a supergroup of all the classic rock and cool punk bands. If GNR didn't exist it would have to be invented. But how many singers are there like Axl. How many frontmen like Axl. It's a once in a generation type thing. What was strange is as the grunge industrial era came to end there was still only GNR out there to round up that couple of decades into one record. Just like AFD sort of topped of the 70s and 80s. CD summarized the 90s-00s. 

[DieselDaisy]

4 minutes ago, wasted said:

In a way GNR were like a supergroup of all the classic rock and cool punk bands. If GNR didn't exist it would have to be invented. But how many singers are there like Axl. How many frontmen like Axl. It's a once in a generation type thing. What was strange is as the grunge industrial era came to end there was still only GNR out there to round up that couple of decades into one record. Just like AFD sort of topped of the 70s and 80s. CD summarized the 90s-00s. 

You need to listen to some more music. Seriously.

[Silverburst80]

8 minutes ago, wasted said:

In a way GNR were like a supergroup of all the classic rock and cool punk bands. If GNR didn't exist it would have to be invented. But how many singers are there like Axl. How many frontmen like Axl. It's a once in a generation type thing. What was strange is as the grunge industrial era came to end there was still only GNR out there to round up that couple of decades into one record. Just like AFD sort of topped of the 70s and 80s. CD summarized the 90s-00s. 

I think Guns..well Axl, might have been better off leaving the grunge and industrial stuff to the bands who did that very well.

[wasted]

I don't listen to CD that much any more. I listen to the Rush OST and Drive soundtrack mostly at the moment. I also like The Cult best of and Thin Lizzy. I have stopped finding new bands. Fall Out Boy and My Chemical Romance are good though. 

But CD did cover Nirvana, Manson, Korn, Zombie, FNM, Muse, Prodigy, AIC, Massive attack, NIN, Radiohead. But sort of done in a Queen way. 

[wasted]

6 minutes ago, Silverburst80 said:

I think Guns..well Axl, might have been better off leaving the grunge and industrial stuff to the bands who did that very well.

Could have said that about AFD? 

Axl did have Finck of NIN and then Bucket. It was unavoidable in a way. Better with Slash sounds more like a faster/harder version of SCOM. 

Edited January 16, 2017 by wasted

[DR DOOM]

Besides the kick ass music, they swore, drank, smoke, shot heroin, dressed in leather and beat up women.

Hey, I was like 10.

[DieselDaisy]

When I got into Guns N' Roses which was 1992 and I was ten years old, they had just released a massive double album which would keep one occupied for ages, and had an album and a shortish EP thing to snap up from c. the four years I'd missed. The following year came an, admittedly incredibly dodgy, covers album. There were interviews to read, music videos and Pay-Per-Views to watch and two live VHS to buy. My point? This was an active and thoroughly functioning band which released new music. It has little comparison to the band today, or for that matter the nugnr garbage.

 

4 hours ago, wasted said:

I don't listen to CD that much any more.

You could have fooled me!

Edited January 16, 2017 by DieselDaisy