Jump to content

Paradox of GN'R popularity


Recommended Posts

Hello.

 I don't start a topic everyday but as a longtime fan I would like an opinion of a thesis I have regarding our band's popularity.

 

As some of older fans(btw I was 8 when AFD came out) might remember, GN'R was always something in between alternative and mainstream band ( talking about past SCOM single era, so 1988). Before they were PR'ed as a new, dangerous band (remember those early articles in UK's tabloids ).

Well let me get to the topic.

When GN'R really became the no.1 band( not just r'n'r band, but the BAND) in 1992, alternative bands were really out to get them (intended, yes).

But there was always something about them that kept them away of losing the integrity of a band that just didn't give a flying f...(again intended:)).

 

Eventough I considered nugnr as an Axl's solo project  and NEVER as an actual GN'R thing, I think that everyone involved in nugnr always knew that it was just a matter of time before the old lineup (or at least a part) would get back together. Don't get me wrong, I think CD is great, but in my mind, it's Axl' brilliant solo effort.

My point is. If you read Slash's interviews from 1996 when he acknowledged that GN'R in all its craziness is what it is and recent interviews from Stinson when he was surprised but not that surprised, and Bach's comments abot Axl telling him: never say never " I have come to conclusion that this band is one of the only bands who really, I mean really gave an all time "this is what you get " attitude to their fans and media in general.

My opinion is that Slash was always a part of GN'R in Axl's mind, but it's just needed time to resolve an issue or two. If it takes 20 years, well it takes 20 years. 

To get to my first point.GN'R could have sold out millions of times, but never did. Paradoxically most of the bands that made fun of them in early 90's sold out so badly and without even feeling  any shame of doing so.

The way Chris Cornell nowadays acknowledges Axl's attitude and support towards the bands that were trying to (or supposedly didn't try to) get in the spotlight says a lot.

 

Remember the movie Ben Affleck and Steven Tyler's daughter played in? Late 90's? Don't wanna miss a thing? Well GN'R would never do this kind of sh.t.

So my point is, we have waited and have only a few albums of our favorite band, but hell we like the band who at least artistically never sold out.

Axl band playing private parties and Las Vegas gigs doesn't count as a GN'R gig, in my point of view. It was a part of a process called GN'R.

 I don't expect new music, I hope they will tour for 2 years tops and that's it.

Please share your thoughts.

 

Edited by ksks12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely agree that GnR has maintained a "this is what you get" attitude.  That was Dizzy's main talking point for the entire nu GNR era, but I know we're not really focusing on that era here.

Izzy wouldn't sell out to Axl, Axl would sell out to no one.

Of course the big threes only release as a unit this year was vinyl figurines of themselves.  Vinyl of all things!  They can't think of any better use for vinyl?!  And an Axl Rose watch ....:facepalm: .... what kinda sick joke is that one??!

(im happy for all you collectors, but hope you take my point for what it is!)

Edit:  Came back to check on this thread and am let down with myself for the tone of my post.  The OP asked a very thoughtful and thorough question.  My response is crass and in that way disrespects the OP and those reading.  Not the kinda presence I wanna be.  Ill leave post as is though.  But I'll do better next time 

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

Well right from the start they wrote the music they wanted to write without comprimise. I mean every other fucking band on the strip would have given their left nut to have Paul Stanley heavily involved in their debut when Guns told him to fuck off as soon as he mentioned tinkering with their songs. Dont Cry and November Rain were waiting in the wings for the girls to swoon over and they said fuck that, SCOM is enough for now we're hitting them hard with this one. They certainly didn't take the easy road visually either, you had the drama of their original AFD cover and MTV not wanting anything to do with their WTTJ clip, Axl said he wanted to be huge but really they were going about it in all the wrong ways for the time and probably shouldn't have made it. Another AFD would have gone down a tea in the "alternative" era but they went in another direction with Illusions, again taking the hard route potentially alienating their fanbase and deterring new fans.  The tunes at the end of the day were too good to ignore i suppose. As for Chinese i'm not a fan, but again it's hardly a project that was designed to appeal to the masses either.

Edited by Silverburst80
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Axl created the attitude of GNR and without Axl you lose the element of "real ness" that many find so great about GNR. Sure the million dollar music videos were insane, but no record executive said "this is a good idea...let's throw seven figures at a 5 minute video" no that came from Axl...the unpredictability came from Axl, nobody else was walking off stage Bc they didn't feel good or just not showing up at all Bc they weren't in the right frame of mind.

You can hate Axl all you want, you can think he's the reason GNR didn't become Led Zeppelin, but he's the reason why the band appealed to so many. He's the gravity that brings you into the world of GNR and their popularity has been carried by his antics and his talents. 

I could see an argument that their differing attitudes as a band kept the band from turning into something much worse...like Slash not wanting to do this or that kept Axl from running GNR into something fake...they basically butted heads enough to keep the band cool. And maybe the breakup cemented a legacy of rock that will last for decades to come. They may not have been The Rolling Stones, but for a short period of time the world witnessed a band who truly lived on the edge and was capable a artistic perfection....sometimes not being dragged out is a better ending. (Assuming we are discounting nugnr) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the other guys were just as real. In some ways more relateable than Axl. But they all seemed pretty open and un-pc about their lifestyles too. Axl had that ultra real thing where even when it was advisable to avoid the confrontation he didn't, maybe on principle. They let it all hang out, and that transfers into the music too, the melting pot of personalties creates something new. If you say 'oh we can't do that because that's not the right sound these days', you get more airbrushed music. Like Faith no more make no sense really. But somehow it works. There were 5 distinct personalties who just said and played whatever they were into. You might not relate to each guy but they seemed real. Weirdos but real. And that makes the music more interesting. But a lot of bands are just like images put together by formula. It's hard to seperate the clones. Even Nu Guns weren't clones, they brought their own style to fucking up solos. That was probably why Dj got so much stick, he was too much of a fan or nerdily influenced by GNR - image based. I guess the message of GNR if anything, is to just be your self. Which one? I always say but I guess if that's you be a schizophrenic. Be true to your schizophrenia. Maybe they were just trying to fit in and fucked it up. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people who talk about the impact of grunge and how it ended rock and metal are exaggerating. The reason GN'R remained popular was simply the fact that their music was good and their controversy kept them in the public eye. I mean, even after Nevermind hit and rock and metal apparantley became "uncool" you had GN'R, Metallica and Pantera. All of which were giant, had new found success and continued to grow at the midst of all the grunge hype. Aerosmith became bigger than ever throughout the '90s too and AC/DC and Iron Maiden were selling out stadiums throughout the world. Guns N' Roses just have a cross-over appeal were everybody from metal heads all the way to people who listen to radio pop and it's simply just down to the quality of their music. Their singles went to the mainstream charts all of the time in that period so they were everywhere.

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

9 minutes ago, AlexC said:

I think people who talk about the impact of grunge and how it ended rock and metal are exaggerating. The reason GN'R remained popular was simply the fact that their music was good and their controversy kept them in the public eye. I mean, even after Nevermind hit and rock and metal apparantley became "uncool" you had GN'R, Metallica and Pantera. All of which were giant, had new found success and continued to grow at the midst of all the grunge hype. Aerosmith became bigger than ever throughout the '90s too and AC/DC and Iron Maiden were selling out stadiums throughout the world. Guns N' Roses just have a cross-over appeal were everybody from metal heads all the way to people who listen to radio pop and it's simply just down to the quality of their music. Their singles went to the mainstream charts all of the time in that period so they were everywhere.

Grunge is very romanticized but living through it at the time it was a pretty fleeting scene probably only really the hot thing from 91 to 94 and people moved on pretty quickly. By 95 Cobain was dead, AIC was inactive due to Layne's drug issues and Pearl Jam had begun to disappear up their own asses. Hot on the heels of Grunge came your alt rock/metals like RATM and Tool, a Cali punk scene containing the likes of the Offspring-Green Day and to a lesser extent Pennywise-NOFX etc that was big and the like you say Pantera were fucking massive. By 97-98 the Nu-metal thing was starting to happen and was successful for years. Grunge made it's mark there is no doubt, but some people would have you believe it ruled the 90s with an iron fist but in reality it was one of many things that were going on.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lies They Tell said:

Dunno about the whole selling out thing. I just like GNR music, that's all.

GnR didn't have nothing to sell out, they set out to be the biggest rock band in the world and did it, they were never some outside of the lines Black Flag type band, they wanted to be huge and made it huge and good for them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't really know what selling out actually is, i would think the only way truly sell out would be completely changing your sound to cater to a bigger audience or getting a massive advance from a major label on the proviso you write in a style they want to sell more records. Some seem to think success is a way to label a band a sell out. A band can have ambitions of being huge or maybe even flying under the radar but it's not really up to them once the music hits the street, it's the people who decide i guess.

Edited by Silverburst80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Silverburst80 said:

I still don't really know what selling out actually is, i would think the only way truly sell out would be completely changing your sound to cater to a bigger audience or getting a massive advance from a major label on the proviso you write in a style they want to sell more records. Some seem to think success is a way to label a band a sell out. A band can have ambitions of being huge or maybe even flying under the radar but it's not really up to them once the music hits the street, it's the people who decide i guess.

It's not selling out if you want to do it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Silverburst80 said:

I think every band wants to be successful, as long as people appreciate them for what they are and not what someone else wants them to be.

Not all bands do. Mudhoney for examply could have gone pop at a certain point. Sonic Youth could have gone any direction. 

One of my favorite bands came out the blocks selling out. Some bands are pretty on it to the point it's not even selling out it's just what they do. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, wasted said:

Not all bands do. Mudhoney for examply could have gone pop at a certain point. Sonic Youth could have gone any direction. 

One of my favorite bands came out the blocks selling out. Some bands are pretty on it to the point it's not even selling out it's just what they do. 

 

Well that's my point, i doubt any of those bands would've had a problem selling more records or playing bigger places as long as they did it their way. I'm pretty sure Sonic Youth got off indy labels and signed with majors to get their stuff out there and there's nothing wrong with that, it just never really caught on in a huge way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Silverburst80 said:

Well that's my point, i doubt any of those bands would've had a problem selling more records or playing bigger places as long as they did it their way. I'm pretty sure Sonic Youth got off indy labels and signed with majors to get their stuff out there and there's nothing wrong with that, it just never really caught on in a huge way.

I'm not arguing I think we agree. There's few outright cases of selling out. I can think of more where a major label didn't change much other than studio time. Even in Metallica's case you can say they were young when they were shouting and they grew as artists. To me it's about the time you do it. If you really don't want to do hip hop then it probably won't work. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, wasted said:

I'm not arguing I think we agree. There's few outright cases of selling out. I can think of more where a major label didn't change much other than studio time. Even in Metallica's case you can say they were young when they were shouting and they grew as artists. To me it's about the time you do it. If you really don't want to do hip hop then it probably won't work. 

Yeah it's term that's gets thrown around way too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Silverburst80 said:

Yeah it's term that's gets thrown around way too much.

Especially just for signing to a major label. To me it's more down the road but really I have no examples. It's like a metal thing. Sell outs! Because you wrote a ballad and didn't commit suicide. But I guess you could look at Mudhoney, Sonic Youth and Nirvana. Mudhoney were too self conscious to really do anything near selling out. I think they purposely made a wreck of an album. Sonic Youth got some production values and a little Sugar Kane but they didn't just do like melodic pop. Nirvana were just naive maybe, young and let the producers bring out Kurt's songwriting abilities. It's like a producer showed them a song structure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Silverburst80 said:

I still don't really know what selling out actually is, i would think the only way truly sell out would be completely changing your sound to cater to a bigger audience or getting a massive advance from a major label on the proviso you write in a style they want to sell more records. Some seem to think success is a way to label a band a sell out. A band can have ambitions of being huge or maybe even flying under the radar but it's not really up to them once the music hits the street, it's the people who decide i guess.

Sacrificing artistic integrity and true expression for fame and fortune. Or the attempted gaining of it. If a band simply changes musical direction because they want to and as a result, turns out shit then it doesn't count. But purposefully releasing shit knowing it's shit is selling out.

Also, if a band happens to gain massive success but did so by creating what they wanted to create artistically then that's not selling out either. Like you pointed out. I think the distinction is obvious though and when a band/artist has done it it's easily noticable.

 

Edited by AlexC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Silverburst80 said:

Grunge is very romanticized but living through it at the time it was a pretty fleeting scene probably only really the hot thing from 91 to 94 and people moved on pretty quickly. By 95 Cobain was dead, AIC was inactive due to Layne's drug issues and Pearl Jam had begun to disappear up their own asses. Hot on the heels of Grunge came your alt rock/metals like RATM and Tool, a Cali punk scene containing the likes of the Offspring-Green Day and to a lesser extent Pennywise-NOFX etc that was big and the like you say Pantera were fucking massive. By 97-98 the Nu-metal thing was starting to happen and was successful for years. Grunge made it's mark there is no doubt, but some people would have you believe it ruled the 90s with an iron fist but in reality it was one of many things that were going on.

great topic btw...

growing up as a 90's teen I agree...Grunge was popular but only for 5 years max..but it was more of a "social" maybe even fashion movement...very different from what was going on. GNR during that time weren't seen as "cool" anymore (think 1994 and onwards) but at the same time they weren't really active...but other "rock" bands weren't popular during the 90's either (Motley Crew, ok Aeorosmith were dying out by then too...they hit it big around 1992 or so but that's really it...oh Alicia Silverstone vids lol)...by 1996 gunge was dead and I think more Oasis was coming up around that time...new metal was more later in the 1990's if I recall...

but the real winner after grunge was Rap unfortunately...oh Lordie...can't stand the bubblegum rap nowadays...

I think the OP is correct...if they wanted to "sell out" they would've done it when the pressure was on...in 2004 and during the Rock n' Roll hall of Fame. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, coolranchdressing! said:

great topic btw...

growing up as a 90's teen I agree...Grunge was popular but only for 5 years max..but it was more of a "social" maybe even fashion movement...very different from what was going on. GNR during that time weren't seen as "cool" anymore (think 1994 and onwards) but at the same time they weren't really active...but other "rock" bands weren't popular during the 90's either (Motley Crew, ok Aeorosmith were dying out by then too...they hit it big around 1992 or so but that's really it...oh Alicia Silverstone vids lol)...by 1996 gunge was dead and I think more Oasis was coming up around that time...new metal was more later in the 1990's if I recall...

but the real winner after grunge was Rap unfortunately...oh Lordie...can't stand the bubblegum rap nowadays...

I think the OP is correct...if they wanted to "sell out" they would've done it when the pressure was on...in 2004 and during the Rock n' Roll hall of Fame. 

I think most "scenes" have around a 5 year shelf life anyway, by then you start getting watered down copycats and labels trying to sign any band that sounds/dresses like the originators and it becomes a joke. People then naturally gravitate to the next thing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really know what you mean by ''selling out'' artistically. You mentioned that Aerosmith song, so did they sell out artistically because they had a huge hit with a ballad for some big hollywood movie? Because GnR gave one of their songs to a big hollywood movie too and I don't consider that selling out.

I think some bands might have made fun of GnR back in the day because of those movie budget videos they made and Axl being the diva that he was, not because of their music.

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...