Choose GnR's Career if they hadn't broken up

[Rovim]

2 hours ago, The Holographic Universe said:

Yeah, because U2 are releasing an album in the next year. U2 are the mostly consistently great band in history. Zepp had a 10 year run. Stones haven't had a good album since 1980, and U2 have been interesting and relevant for 30+ years.

No, because the music lacks the balls and the bite, lyrics, and more balls to be of any value to someone with adequate taste in music. But whatever floats your universe.

 

Edited May 1, 2017 by Rovim

[Rovim]

10 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

I think they could've easily stayed the biggest rock n roll band in the world and all it would've taken is putting out product consistently.  It wouldn't've had to be the greatest albums in the world or some forward thinking trailblazing shit, they could've just done straight ahead rock n roll with a few ballads and stayed the biggest band in the world for a fair old while and, to refer more acutely to the question, I think their particular direction or path in doing so would've been very different and difficult to assign a parallel to simply because they would've been that step further in terms of the bigness as everything is (bigness, is that a word?) as time progresses, the manner in which bands/big artists are big would've been taken that one step further with them.  

When it comes down to it though, all the acrimony stuff is rubbish, they just bottled it really, they got to a certain level and didn't have the constitution for drugs and fame and fuckin'...all that bollocks.  

Don't know about easily, or to be honest, if at all. (didn't read all of it, I'm sure the rest of the post is interesting) If there was a chance for it to be different considering the egos at the time and the lost of unity as a band. Times were changing, I think even if they released a good Guns album in 1996, there was going to be a loss in popularity and I think Axl was determined to keep Guns relevant which is ironic looking back, but it was kinda ruined at the right time.

We were thrown to a different reality when it was over for old Guns and that bought them and us a chance to take some interesting turns in the road like hiring people with masks to play in Guns and a Gn'R tune with the title "I.R.S".

Edited May 1, 2017 by Rovim

[EvanG]

24 minutes ago, Rovim said:

No, because the music lacks the balls and the bite, lyrics, and more balls to be of any value to someone with adequate taste in music. 

 

Hahahaha... you're always so full of shit. I'm not even a big U2 fan, but to make a statement like that shows how ignorant you are.

Subjectivity, bud, look it up.

[Rovim]

5 minutes ago, EvanG said:

Hahahaha... you're always so full of shit. I'm not even a big U2 fan, but to make a statement like that shows how ignorant you are.

Subjectivity, bud, look it up.

I like Even Better Than The Real Thing. The only pro-Bono thing I can think of, if that helps. Opinion police, it's making me feel ill.

Edited May 1, 2017 by Rovim

[EvanG]

Just now, Rovim said:

I like Even Better Than The Real Thing. The only pro-bono thing I can think of, if that helps. Opinion police, it's making me feel ill.

It's totally irrelevant what your opinion is on U2, it's funny how you accuse their music to not be of any value for anyone else just because you don't like them. 

[Rovim]

Just now, EvanG said:

it's funny how you accuse their music to not be of any value for anyone else just because you don't like them. 

I aim to please.

[EvanG]

Just now, Rovim said:

I aim to please.

You aim to be an internet troll, as always. So I'm not going to get into another pointless discussion with you on here, I should know better.

[Rovim]

Just now, EvanG said:

You aim to be an internet troll, as always. So I'm not going to get into another pointless discussion with you on here, I should know better.

Maybe you should read this thread more carefully, that is my real opinion. The U2 fella chose to "troll" the discussion with his 2017 comment. Please learn how to read good EvanG.

[EvanG]

6 minutes ago, Rovim said:

Maybe you should read this thread more carefully, that is my real opinion. The U2 fella chose to "troll" the discussion with his 2017 comment. Please learn how to read good EvanG.

Maybe you should, though. I called you out on what you said, not anyone else. You made a very ignorant assumption just because you don't like a band. But I guess you don't understand that. I said I should know better, so I'll leave it at this.

Edited May 1, 2017 by EvanG

[Rovim]

15 minutes ago, EvanG said:

Maybe you should, though. I called you out on what you said, not anyone else. You made a very ignorant comment just because you don't like a band. But I guess you don't understand that. I said I should know better, so I'll leave it at this.

I'll take it from here. Thanks for derailing btw. I've allowed myself to be more expressive cause his comment was dumb. I hope that's clear enough for you. And I wasn't trolling, that is my real U2 opinion. You don't have to like it, and we don't have to pretend you don't have an issue with subjectivity. It's clear as shit.

Edited May 1, 2017 by Rovim

[Fourteenbeers]

I chose :Ramones/Stones/Aerosmith/ACDC fusion - Izzy, Duff and Slash direction - Axl = "Shut up and sing." only  because it would be 8th wonder of the world if someone could make Axl just shut up and sing. 

 

Edited May 1, 2017 by Fourteenbeers
typo

[EvanG]

1 minute ago, Rovim said:

I'll take it from here. And thanks for derailing btw. I've allowed myself to be more expressive cause his comment was dumb. I hope that's clear enough for you. And I wasn't trolling, that is my real U2 opinion. You don't have to like it, and we don't have to pretend you don't have an issue with subjectivity. It's clear as shit.

It's clear as shit you don't know what an assumption is. No one cares whether you like them or not. It's fine if you don't like them. But to make the assumption that they can't be of any value for anyone with a different opinion, is beyond ignorant. You just don't understand that, huh? Ok, third time's the charm? I'm out.

[Archtop]

I would hope if they had stood the test of time that GnR sound would be individual to them. That you couldn't  pick out a specific sound of the other bands. That said we know the individual members were strongly influenced musically in various directions and if they were still going I could only assume it would be because all of them brought thier ideas to the table. So the Ramones/Stones/Zep/Aerosmith/ACDC fusion - Duff/Izzy/Axl/Slash equal influence seems to make most sense to me.  You didn't mention Steven who we know was very important to the original sound, he has said he  was largely influence by queen, and the 70's  so I would like to throw a little pop rock in that option too. ?

 

Edited May 1, 2017 by Archtop

[RONIN]

10 hours ago, Rovim said:

Don't know about easily, or to be honest, if at all. (didn't read all of it, I'm sure the rest of the post is interesting) If there was a chance for it to be different considering the egos at the time and the lost of unity as a band. Times were changing, I think even if they released a good Guns album in 1996, there was going to be a loss in popularity and I think Axl was determined to keep Guns relevant which is ironic looking back, but it was kinda ruined at the right time.

We were thrown to a different reality when it was over for old Guns and that bought them and us a chance to take some interesting turns in the road like hiring people with masks to play in Guns and a Gn'R tune with the title "I.R.S".

1996 was a weird time for GnR style music. I'm sure they would have been fine but it would have been tough in that musical climate for them to rise above the backlash. There is no way the 96' album would have put up blockbuster numbers like UYI or AFD. I think oddly enough, there was a better chance of them striking a nerve and delivering a hit album in the late 90's/early 00's. Whatever backlash there was in the mid 90's had largely turned into curiosity by the end of the decade.

[2414225]

Don't get the poll. GnR's real considered direction after 1993 was the Snakepit and VRs sound. 

The NuGnR sound was just Axl's sound. 

GnR should have continue the Lynyrd Skynyrd sound like in Civil War and Kohd. And combine that with the sound of VR. 

[RONIN]

3 hours ago, 2414225 said:

Don't get the poll. GnR's real considered direction after 1993 was the Snakepit and VRs sound. 

The NuGnR sound was just Axl's sound. 

GnR should have continue the Lynyrd Skynyrd sound like in Civil War and Kohd. And combine that with the sound of VR. 

 Duff and Axl wanted to experiment with the Gnr sound and get away from southern rock. Duff rejected the snakepit songs along with Axl. Slash wanted to go back to stripped down acdc style cock rock. Had they worked it out, Axl would have still been dominating the album with his grunge/industrial shit with a few snakepit and Izzy rockers thrown in there. Basically another disjointed illusions style album where everyone is doing their own solo thing under the confines of the Gnr name.

[The Holographic Universe]

4 hours ago, RONIN said:

 Duff and Axl wanted to experiment with the Gnr sound and get away from southern rock. Duff rejected the snakepit songs along with Axl. Slash wanted to go back to stripped down acdc style cock rock. Had they worked it out, Axl would have still been dominating the album with his grunge/industrial shit with a few snakepit and Izzy rockers thrown in there. Basically another disjointed illusions style album where everyone is doing their own solo thing under the confines of the Gnr name.

Lower would have been a great GNR song

[Silent Jay]

17 hours ago, 2414225 said:

Don't get the poll. GnR's real considered direction after 1993 was the Snakepit and VRs sound. 

The NuGnR sound was just Axl's sound. 

GnR should have continue the Lynyrd Skynyrd sound like in Civil War and Kohd. And combine that with the sound of VR. 

By the sound of VR do you mean that VR had to compete with a world full of Creeds and Nickelbacks?

[Eddie Money]

I agree with Ronin.  It's possible that if GNR mostly stayed together in its 1994 configuration that today's band would be playing theaters or double-billing an amphitheater show with Def Leppard in 2017.  They split at the right time in my opinion.  

Imagine what would have happened if in 2000, Axl showed up with the original line-up with a new album (and in slightly better physical shape), played a show in Vegas for NYE,  and then did Rock in Rio.  Rock fans would have gone nuts and it would have propelled the band back to what it was pre-1995.  I think the break was necessary, but it's too bad they broke up.  Had they kept playing, I agree that it's possible that music fans everywhere could have tired of the big production, big videos, etc.

However, on another note, had GNR not split in the 90's, maybe MTV would still find it necessary to show videos (in the US anyway where MTV programming went to all reality TV).  

[cqleonardo]

On 01/05/2017 at 7:01 AM, Rovim said:

No, because the music lacks the balls and the bite, lyrics, and more balls to be of any value to someone with adequate taste in music. But whatever floats your universe.

 

I bet your ass is jealous of your fingers because of the pile of shit that came out of them

[MADDOGJONES]

1 hour ago, Eddie Money said:

However, on another note, had GNR not split in the 90's, maybe MTV would still find it necessary to show videos (in the US anyway where MTV programming went to all reality TV).

GN'R "splitting" in the 90's has nothing to do with what programming MTV chooses or doesn't choose.

MTV has had massive success with reality TV, most notably with "the real world" and went with that makes them the most money and what gives them the most creative control.

If MTV hadn't gone that route, MTV likely wouldn't exist today, outside of being a YouTube channel. They saw the writing on the wall or got very lucky.

[Silent Jay]

The breakup may be the best thing that ever happened to the band. I don't think they'd be such a big thing now without it.

[purplestargirl]

I thought you were talking about individual careers if Guns hadn't made it when I first saw the thread title. Whoops.

 

 

[AXL_N_DIZZY]

I would have really tried to make the Axl/Slash/Duff/Zakk line-up (with maybe Freese on drums and Dizzy sticking around) work. Hopefully that would have translated to a leaner, menacing sound as a follow-up to the Illusions. Something in the vein of BLS meets A Perfect Circle (Mer de Noms). I think that approach could have gotten them through the late 90s/early 00s (IMHO) with credibility and then they could have worked their way back to a more classic sound if they wished in subsequent years...

Edited May 3, 2017 by AXL_N_DIZZY

[Tom2112]

Who knows!? I kinda believe that any Guns record would have been viciously attacked at the time regardless of quality. Any band that tried to move with the times, with the exception of Metallica failed miserably and it took them years to recover. They should have just moved bullheaded on making a fiery rock record and added 2/3 ballads... 25yrs on, and it's still the record they should make. But I'm not a total revisionist though, I still want some progression so that whatever record whether it was 25yrs ago or now, that it isn't UYI III (not that, that would be the end of the world... any quality new new music is fine by me)

On 5/2/2017 at 5:05 PM, Eddie Money said:

I agree with Ronin.  It's possible that if GNR mostly stayed together in its 1994 configuration that today's band would be playing theaters or double-billing an amphitheater show with Def Leppard in 2017.  They split at the right time in my opinion.  

Imagine what would have happened if in 2000, Axl showed up with the original line-up with a new album (and in slightly better physical shape), played a show in Vegas for NYE,  and then did Rock in Rio.  Rock fans would have gone nuts and it would have propelled the band back to what it was pre-1995.  I think the break was necessary, but it's too bad they broke up.  Had they kept playing, I agree that it's possible that music fans everywhere could have tired of the big production, big videos, etc.

However, on another note, had GNR not split in the 90's, maybe MTV would still find it necessary to show videos (in the US anyway where MTV programming went to all reality TV).  

Exactly this!