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

[RONIN]

We've heard this many times from the press : "GnR could have been the next...." or "GnR was the modern-day...."

Which classic rock band would have been the best inspiration for GnR's hypothetical career had they stayed together? 

You could also interpret this as the career you would have liked GnR to have had - doesn't necessarily have to be the best fit.

Quotes:

“To me, they are Led Zeppelin, without a doubt, and the Stones." - Zakk Wylde

"As far as I’m concerned, they are the [Led] Zeppelin of our generation, hands down." - Zakk Wylde

"They could have been the next Rolling Stones. The tragedy of the last 20 years was Guns N' Roses... they were well up there... then Axl [Rose] read the tealeaves in his cup and went nuts or something." - Ozzy Osbourne

"They were the first group to remind me of Led Zeppelin." - Joe Perry

 

Edited April 30, 2017 by RONIN

[Original]

Zep.   Although on a dark note part of me chose Zep because the road Guns were on someone was on way to pulling a Bonham.   Maybe they were destined to be more like Aerosmith.  Break up, have a shitty album with side hacks then sober up, reunite and kick ass again.  

[Sosso]

Led Zeppelin

 

With this line up:

Axl, Slash, Robin, Duff, Josh, Dizzy, Chris

Edited April 30, 2017 by Sosso

[DieselDaisy]

'Should have' or 'could have'. They had one terrific debut, a tiny acoustic album and an uneven double album. There was never much there for Jagger to lose any sleep (over).

[RONIN]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

'Should have' or 'could have'. They had one terrific debut, a tiny acoustic album and an uneven double album. There was never much there for Jagger to lose any sleep (over).

Come on DD, play along. Let's pretend they stayed together -- which direction do you see the band going in? If it helps - what direction do you wish the band went in post-Illusions?

[Darkenchantress]

I'm obviously biased towards the Stones/Zep/Ramones that are my favorite bands on the lists, so I would have loved to see them go that way.

57 minutes ago, RONIN said:

"They could have been the next Rolling Stones. The tragedy of the last 20 years was Guns N' Roses... they were well up there... then Axl [Rose] read the tealeaves in his cup and went nuts or something." - Ozzy Osbourne

 

Gotta love Ozzy. 

[Silent Jay]

Guns N Roses are nothing like Led Zeppelin. People have a tendency to judge a band by look than talent. GnR never had a John Paul Jones and wasn't as much creative as evryone here listed.

[NicDwolfwood]

I would have been cool with a Stones/Zep direction tbh. The Illusions had that ambition/indulgence of a Physical Graffitti/Exile on Main St. They could have continued keeping things in that kinda blueprint and somehow mix Axl's desire to keep up with the joneses and be experimental. 

It really is a shame that they were too fractured, too fucked up and the egos were too big for them to come to sort of middle ground. A quarter century of wasted time is next to impossible to make up. 

[EvanG]

4 minutes ago, Silent Jay said:

 and wasn't as much creative as evryone here listed.

They were very creative from 1987 till 1991. UYI was a very creative and enormous project. The fact that almost every member contributed to the songwriting confirmed that. But then it stopped. You can never compare them in that sense to Led Zeppelin because they released 9 albums in little over ten years.

[Rovim]

It went perfectly. They've ruined it in their own special way. But like Zeppelin without the dead drummer thing. On the contrary.

Edited April 30, 2017 by Rovim

[mikeman5150]

11 minutes ago, Silent Jay said:

Guns N Roses are nothing like Led Zeppelin. People have a tendency to judge a band by look than talent. GnR never had a John Paul Jones and wasn't as much creative as evryone here listed.

Was zeppelin really that creative? I just thought they made a career ripping off others. Wasn't the band spirit, the band who actually wrote stairway, the creative ones?

[Silent Jay]

Just now, EvanG said:

They were very creative from 1987 till 1991. UYI was a very creative and enormous project. The fact that almost every member contributed to the songwriting confirmed that. But then it stopped. You can never compare them in that sense to Led Zeppelin because they released 9 albums in little over ten years.

Of course. But I will never compare that band to such a classic band like Led Zeppelin. Two separate world. Gimme one Guns N' Roses song from that tiny period that sound like Led Zeppelin.

2 minutes ago, mikeman5150 said:

Was zeppelin really that creative? I just thought they made a career ripping off others. Wasn't the band spirit, the band who actually wrote stairway, the creative ones?

Ludicrous.

[Rovim]

5 minutes ago, mikeman5150 said:

Was zeppelin really that creative? I just thought they made a career ripping off others. Wasn't the band spirit, the band who actually wrote stairway, the creative ones?

Of course they were. Was Oasis creative? are Guns creative? Black Dog, Dazed And Confused, and Since I've Been Loving You like so countless other Zep tunes derive their magic from the individuals that were in the band and their talents. No one else has that energy or creativity. Stealing is allowed if it's got it's own distinctive character and in that quality. They have a weird sterile metal thing about their sound but it's the real deal. Creative as fuck. Especially Page.

Edited April 30, 2017 by Rovim

[mikeman5150]

Just now, Rovim said:

Of course they were. Was Oasis creative? is Guns creative? Black Dog, Dazed And Confused, and Since I've Been Loving You like so countless other Zep tunes derive their magic from the individuals that were in the band and their talents. No one else has that energy or creativity. Stealing is allowed if it's got it's own distinctive character and in that quality. They have a weird sterile metal thing about their sound but it's the real deal. Creative as fuck.

Each their own. I'm a casual zep fan, I just know that stairway was pretty blatantly ripped off of spirit. I dig most of their tunes, but I always felt they were  overrated. Admittedly, I haven't listened to a lot of their deep tracks, just what's  on the radio 

[Rovim]

38 minutes ago, mikeman5150 said:

Each their own. I'm a casual zep fan, I just know that stairway was pretty blatantly ripped off of spirit. I dig most of their tunes, but I always felt they were  overrated. Admittedly, I haven't listened to a lot of their deep tracks, just what's  on the radio 

It's like Axl saying SCOM was their attempt to write the perfect Skynard tune or something. And their influence is so vast and it covers Gn'R as well that it's hard not to see the elements in their style, sound, and approach that are so you know... potent.

Even if you only know Stairway To Heaven, the outro is basically the blueprint to the modern solo. It doesn't end there cause even though it's a larping kind of band with mostly shit lyrics and theft, in Zep's case they've created many hard rock standards and that can only come through "good" music or at least music with some value.

Edited April 30, 2017 by Rovim

[Sunset Gardner]

for me it's always been the stones.  Axl, Izzy, Slash, had the potential to surpass or at least run parallel with jagger/richards biggest and best songs.  also the stones are a perfect example of how to move new members in and out in a way that is seamless and has integrity, brian to mick to ron is seamless, each guitarist clearly defines their era and the band is better for their unique tenures.  and when bill left they didn't make daryl a member which is classy and true to who the stones members really are.  not like axl who gives away band positions left and right and expects us to go along with them being "members" instead of employees.   

if you want to talk about how much potential gnr had and the heights they could have achieved… look at the stones' body of work.  look at it and weep.  

Edited April 30, 2017 by Sunset Gardner

[Bono]

Oh I have no idea which direction musically they should've gone but I feel like they should've mirrored U2's path as far as success and output  goes.  1997 should've been their "experimental album", 2000 should've been their "return to form album" and then an album release in 2004, 2009, 2014 and hopefully 2017

[Rovim]

2 minutes ago, Bono said:

and hopefully 2017

There's a better chance of U2 writing a good song/doing something interesting.

[Bono]

Just now, Rovim said:

There's a better chance of U2 writing a good song/doing something interesting.

It's probably more likely a retired Motley Crue releases new music before GnR

[Rovim]

1 minute ago, Bono said:

It's probably more likely a retired Motley Crue releases new music before GnR

We still have AC/DC to fall back on.

[NicDwolfwood]

17 minutes ago, mikeman5150 said:

Each their own. I'm a casual zep fan, I just know that stairway was pretty blatantly ripped off of spirit. I dig most of their tunes, but I always felt they were  overrated. Admittedly, I haven't listened to a lot of their deep tracks, just what's  on the radio 

Pagey may have nicked the progression from spirit, but Stairway is leaps and bounds the better tune than Taurus. 

[mikeman5150]

I can agree with that. 

[Len Cnut]

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.  

Edited April 30, 2017 by Len Cnut

[The Holographic Universe]

8 hours ago, Rovim said:

There's a better chance of U2 writing a good song/doing something interesting.

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.

[DexAxl]

Axl forced them to sign name and everything else on him so he became the boss so Axl direction is the answer. They had every predisposition to become one of biggest bands ever but they will be remembered just as what they could have been, but pretty sure they don't have problem with that with their fat bank accounts.

It's so sad that we have to talk about this because of lack of any fucking news from band I hate them. 

Edited May 1, 2017 by DexAxl