GnR in the Press: Criticism and Perception post Reunion

[RONIN]

Has anyone noticed how the tide is slowly turning in the press towards the perception of GnR? Blackstar brought this point up in the Apollo show thread (see below) and I thought it warranted discussion.

From my earliest recollection of GnR back in the 90's, they were considered largely inconsequential in music history and rendered obsolete by far more important bands of the Grunge era. A band that was destined to be eventually forgotten...even if they made a good debut with AFD.

When GnR were mentioned, it was almost back-handed praise. And only Appetite was singled out with any positive connotation. The rest of their canon was implied to be largely forgettable and subpar. A one album band essentially. They neither had the credibility nor longevity of other bands like U2, Pearl Jam, Metallica - nor did they have any critical respect like Nirvana. Several generations worth of kids grew up thinking GnR were a lame band that grunge killed off and subsequently ignored them.

In some ways their legacy and contribution to music has been downplayed and de-ligitimized by the rock press. Mostly due to the "grunge" wave I would wager which has become hugely important in American rock history. If one were to believe the press back then, essentially nobody turned up to buy Lies or Illusions and GnR were has-beens. You would be hard pressed to think this was the biggest band in the world during Cobain's peak. That this band was selling out stadiums. That illusions had sold 30 million+ copies worldwide.

If Cobain was the hero who saved rock to the press, Axl and GnR were the antithesis of it - and this was essentially the story oft told in the media. Even Slash was unable to escape the stigma of this revisionist history (as evidenced by the struggles him and Duff faced in finding a singer for VR). 

If you surf through music forums and check opinions on GnR, particularly on elitist sites, the reception is largely mixed to negative from both younger "hipsters" as well as the older generation who were around for Guns during their prime. If you have to admit to liking a Guns song, then it's treated like a guilty pleasure. As if to like GnR itself is an admission of poor taste in music and a lack of sophistication. Essentially the criticism is a variation of the following:

"One album band. Everything they did afterwards was crap."

"Mediocre and overrated. None of them had talent."

"Axl is a horrible singer and Slash can barely play guitar - his solos are very generic." 

"Hair metal. Glad Nirvana killed these posers off. Their music is garbage. I hate arena rock!"

"They're so cheesy. It's music for people who have no idea what good music is. Thank god alt-rock ended them."

 

And yet - with the partial reunion bringing legitimacy to GnR and the NITL stadium tour becoming a massive worldwide success and revitalizing the GnR brand - the press is slowly but surely covering them in a mostly positive way. Even the initial glut of negative press that hit them right before the reunion ("Can these rock dinosaurs come back? Does anyone care?") and after the Coachella gigs have been completely drowned out. Almost as if the press initially expected it to be a failure and for GnR to remain the joke they have been for the last 20 years - and then quickly pivoting to positive coverage when they saw that the band was firing on all cylinders.

Goes to show you how the press and journalists are swayed by the trends of the day. 20 years later - GnR is seen as a legendary band among the people and critics are finally catching up. If GnR can parlay this momentum into a great album and a few more years of solid touring - I think the stage would be set enough to give the GnR saga a worthy finale. It will take years before the band gets their fair due given 20 years of the press diminishing GnR's presence in the pantheon of rock's greatest bands. 

What's amusing to me is how they constantly bring up the band's punk rock roots and their "dangerous" reputation. Duff is mentioned consistently as the punk rocker from Seattle. This disclaimer is included in just about every retrospective of the band - as if to say "Hey, it's okay to like them - they had a punk rock guy from Seattle, Kurt Cobain was a punk rocker from Seattle..." . AFD is not just the best debut hard rock record ever - it also brought "danger" back to rock n' roll. It paved the way for grunge bands. The latter two points are a new narrative from the rock press.

It remains to be seen if hipsters/indie rock will embrace the band. Seems unlikely given GnR's reputation for debauchery, immaturity (get in the ring), and misogyny. It makes them much harder to accept compared to other bands of the time. At best, I see them getting a Sex Pistols legacy or perhaps (huge stretch) something closer to The Doors. If the Illusions are given their due and re-evaluated in the press - I could see that potentially happening.

 

 

8 hours ago, Blackstar said:

About britpop etc.:

The AFD/Lies period of GnR coincided with The Stone Roses and the Manchester scene (and, although The Smiths had broken up they were still very relevant and Morrissey continued solo) but this didn't prevent the success of GnR. They weren't the "gigantic" band of the Illusions era yet, but they were still very different (probably the audiences were different too). I guess there would be an audience in the UK in the 90s that wanted something "heavier" than britpop.

I remember britpop being "marketed" as the British response to grunge and a Beatles vs Stones hype made by the British music press for Oasis and Blur. Here (which is a "third"/"neutral" country), both grunge/post grunge and britpop were popular. I liked only Pulp and Oasis from britpop (Pulp were great, in a similar vein as The Kinks).

---------------

I always believed that, even though "grunge" came from a different place (not all; I think Pearl Jam, for example, wouldn't have been considered alternative had they broken earlier - it was just arena rock), it wouldn't have made it to the mainstream if AFD hadn't made it before. This is an "if", of course, but it was huge in that period that an album with a songs like Jungle and It's So Easy became No 1.

For years GnR were seen as representative of the pre-Nirvana "silly"hair metal era and were completely distinguished from grunge, musically, culturally and politically. But in the recent years this has started to change, and many magazines acknowledge that AFD prepared the ground for the 90s rock (the latest example is the Pitchfork video).

Edited July 25, 2017 by RONIN

[Blackstar]

This change of perception has slowly started since around 2010-12 (25th anniversary of AFD, RRHOF etc), despite of Axl's rep and credit being very low; even the release of CD may have played a role, regardless of whether it was well received or bashed in each review, because it caused people in the press to revisit this band, make the comparisons with the old albums etc. But after the reunion this tendency has surely become more noticeable.

7 hours ago, RONIN said:

It remains to be seen if hipsters/indie rock will embrace the band. Seems unlikely given GnR's reputation for debauchery, immaturity (get in the ring), and misogyny. It makes them much harder to accept compared to other bands of the time. At best, I see them getting a Sex Pistols legacy or perhaps (huge stretch) something closer to The Doors. If the Illusions are given their due and re-evaluated in the press - I could see that potentially happening.

I think that even the sexism etc in the lyrics has started to be contextualized and seen in a new light, as reminiscent of an era when rock was realistic and bold.

A point many people (including even fans) had missed about AFD was that it didn't glamorize that lifestyle (it didn't preach against it either, of course), but just depicted it realistically, as it was. It's So Easy, for example, has been misreceived because of the existing misogyny, but the misogyny is not the center of it.

The punk roots were also largely ignored post-grunge (TSI was widely perceived as an attempt to jump on the bandwagon), not only musically, but also in regards to the above. Sexism was considered as something exclusive to the LA glam bands and metal, although the American punk scene in the 80s wasn't so pc (see the lyrics of Attitude, for example: not so different to the infamous lines in It's So Easy); it's a connection that, strangely, was overlooked for years.

Maybe the hipsters of the next generation will like them

Edited July 25, 2017 by Blackstar

[WhenYou'reTalkinToYourself]

Do you really want GN'R to become a hipster favourite band? That would be dreadful. Fuck them.

Of course there are kids that like GN'R, but it won't get mainstream, no matter how many Melissas get into the band, that's for sure.

3 hours ago, RONIN said:

"One album band. Everything they did afterwards was crap."

This is definitely the most moronic perception about Guns, shared mostly among some hard rock ACDC-type fans.

Even if they hate NR or DC (that's their problem) or whatever, UYIs are not only that.

 

P.S. Did I mention how much I hate anything those hipsters like? 

Edited July 25, 2017 by WhenYou'reTalkinToYourself

[MyPrettyTiedUpMichelle]

Yep, definitely a topic worth discussing thanks for raising it.  I’ve noticed the same U-turn by the press.  Maybe the change of heart is simply nostalgia driven.  Or because the tour is making so much damn money it’s hard to mock them and even harder to dismiss their new-found relevance (how long will this last without new music though?).  Maybe it's because now that 30 years have gone by, we can sit back and say, well shit, there hasn’t been another band like Guns n Roses.  That line is also peddled by the press, so much so, it’s become something of a cliché and yet it’s true.  You try and define that by the way – there’s been no other band like Guns n Roses - what does that even mean?  What’s the definition of GnR?  Yet everyone knows what is meant by it.

Bands that modelled their sound and style on Nirvana were a dime a dozen.  But you can’t really point to a plethora of copy-cat Guns n Roses bands, not even back in the day, unless I’m missing something.  So there’s that. 

There’s also a sector of the young generation who are looking for something different musically and they’re turning to their parents’ old record and CD collections for the answer.  They're familiar with Guns n Roses and they like them.  I work with teenagers and I’ve noticed a curious thing: rock isn’t just some niche genre to them; rock is considered underground, anti-mainstream.  Certain teens seeking some kind of alternative/rebellious identity are turning to rock – and it’s catching on.  These teens are definitely still in the minority but that’s the point.  It’s weird for me to see, because rock now occupies the same space that emerging rap/hip-hop once did when I was growing up.  I see young people wearing rock t-shirts - some you have to question if they’ve ever heard an Iron Maiden song - but just being seen wearing this shirt seems to be about making some sort of 'I’m anti-establishment' statement.  Well, it's a good thing to see anyway!  

So maybe it’s just a case of swings and roundabouts, you know, everything happening in cycles, or waves?  Could be that rock is coming round again. 

[default_]

I think the critics just started to realize how much rock n' roll is missed. GNR is the last band on that genre so its natural they're praising the band now that they're back.

But I dont think its gonna last that long if they dont release anything to solidify their legacy... For now they are just being praised for their past and nothing more, they are a nostalgia act, but an album could change it and I think it could revitalize rock n roll in general if real and not some weird electronic stuff.

[Original]

The fact that they are actually being professional now (showing up on time etc...no riots, no violence), playing 2.5- 3 hours and just kicking ass is probably the main deal.  I mean what is their to criticize/not like?  *other than the same people on here that hyper analyze 56 year old Axl's voice not being like it was 25 years ago and the set list birthing when in reality this set is lights out for the most part. 

[Lies They Tell]

Yeah, it's been fun following how GNR has become a cool band again. I always hated the term alternative rock, cause it didn't really mean anything. But at one point it was cool to listen to the so called alternative rock bands and uncool to enjoy bands like GNR. But it's been fun to see how the image of GNR has changed throughout the years. It used to be a has been band that's uncool cause it's not alternative rock. Then suddenly people started to refer to GNR as classic rock. To me that was the first sign that things were starting to change.

And now this reunion has been a success and it's cool to enjoy GNR again. The easiest explanation is of course the fact that GNR was uncool without Slash and now it's cool again because he's back. But we all know that's not the whole story. The truth is that the negativity towards GNR has grown old. The people who thought that GNR isn't cool anymore have grown older and the new generation have nothing against GNR. They just stumble upon great music and add it to their playlist. Just the other day I was watching Baker 3, a skate video, and it had Reckless Life on it's soundtrack. Kids of today stumble upon old rock songs and they love it cause it's nothing like the mainstream music of today. You see more and more people wearing GNR shirts everyday.

These days the word alternative rock has lost it's meaning. Not that the word ever really made any sense. But these days rock music in general is alternative music. At the same time rock bands are dying out literally. We just lost Chris Cornell and Chester Bennington. GNR is one of the last rock bands out there. But people will never stop enjoying rock n' roll music. Rock is the only genre with the kind of aggressive energy that many people love. There's definitely demand for bands like GNR. So it shouldn't be a surprise that the public perception of GNR has become more positive.

[Blackstar]

44 minutes ago, MyPrettyTiedUpMichelle said:

see young people wearing rock t-shirts - some you have to question if they’ve ever heard an Iron Maiden song - but just being seen wearing this shirt seems to be about making some sort of 'I’m anti-establishment' statement.  Well, it's a good thing to see anyway!  

I've seen a lot of teenage kids wearing rock bands' T-shirts, mainly The Ramones. I once told one of them something like "you listen to The Ramones? that's great!" and the disarming answer was "huh?.... oh, no, it's just a cool T-shirt"

[IndiannaRose]

It's rather interesting to witness this continental shift of critical appeal. I personally think their Rock & Roll Hall of Fame nomination/induction sealed the deal and gave the necessary momentum to get them to where they are today. They were inducted on their first year of eligibility--that rarely happens. Also, millennials are so far removed from Gen X's grunge-era gripes that they are better able to enjoy GN'R for what it is--just good fucking music. This has been my favorite band since 2000, and I have never seen them be so well accepted in the mainstream. I imagine this is how it was in the late 80s and beginning of the 90s. I really do believe that there is an appetite for something that is more raw, authentic, and straightforward. While GN'R's past may be more representative of that, their music has still passed the test of time. The material embodies those characteristics--regardless of when it was written. As someone else has mentioned, Rock is one of a few genres (perhaps the only one) that is truly driven by aggression. I do think that's missing nowadays, and people are beginning to take notice. As a whole, it has lost so much mainstream traction that it's beginning to take more of an anti-establishment appeal--just like it did decades ago. The only way for the band to capitalize on this is for a new album to be recorded. I don't think they will lead a new resurgence of Rock & Roll (they have been around too long for that), but I certainly believe they can ride the wave. 

Edited July 25, 2017 by IndiannaRose

[killuridols]

1 hour ago, default_ said:

I think the critics just started to realize how much rock n' roll is missed. GNR is the last band on that genre so its natural they're praising the band now that they're back.

But I dont think its gonna last that long if they dont release anything to solidify their legacy... For now they are just being praised for their past and nothing more, they are a nostalgia act, but an album could change it and I think it could revitalize rock n roll in general if real and not some weird electronic stuff.

^ this

[Eric Cantona]

I've started to hear Guns get more songs on the radio, I swear to God I heard Better once, in Norway I see lots of people wearing GNR t-shirts and stuff, and recently when I was in Sweden there were people everywhere wearing GNR t-shirts.

A store started selling GNR stuff in my hometown which is pretty cool.

[baldek]

Once upon a time, there was an album that had been in the works for 15 years, with millions of dollars buried in it. 

How could the press not mock this band, and especially the only true known face of it? This perception tends to spread among those who read or listen to rock dedicated magazines/podcasts, and those same people share ideas with others thus influencing tastes and waves. I remember vividly buying a magazine around 2007 which had Axl on the cover and read "What on Earth has Axl Rose been doing?". This is an example of how the media dealt with Guns N' Roses - are they dead? Recording? Who cares?

I come from an era when it was far from cool to like GN'R. However, like most of you, I couldn't give two fucks about that; especially letting the media or my mates' taste define what was cool or not. 

These positive reviews they are getting from the media, are influenced by GN'R's way of handling things. The songs are no different from the years when they were not considered cool anymore. The message in them is the same. So, what changed? Slash is a maior bonus of course, but above all, is the commitment to it and the ability to kick ass all along. 

That is Guns N' Roses being one step above the others. The ultimate real deal.

✌

[magnumpi]

I've always found hipsters and indie people to be pretentious imbeciles devoid of any independent thought.  They practice group think

[Ratam]

3 hours ago, WhenYou'reTalkinToYourself said:

Do you really want GN'R to become a hipster favourite band? That would be dreadful. Fuck them.

Of course there are kids that like GN'R, but it won't get mainstream, no matter how many Melissas get into the band, that's for sure.

This is definitely the most moronic perception about Guns, shared mostly among some hard rock ACDC-type fans.

Even if they hate NR or DC (that's their problem) or whatever, UYIs are not only that.

 

P.S. Did I mention how much I hate anything those hipsters like? 

Too me with hipsters ?

[Nicklord]

Do you even know what does a hipster mean?  

[magnumpi]

Invariably hipsters all have the same leftists viewpoints on everything. I guess mix well with duff the feminist Mckagen.

The persona they attempt to project is one of open mindedness, and being laid back.

The opposite is true and they come off like narrow minded social justice warriors.

Plus  a good number of them appear like they havnt been properly groomed or bathed in quite some time.

[Marie82]

I'm glad to see this change of heart within the press. About damn time.

[J Dog]

Well it's the press. If something is hot, they love it to death and no wrong can be done. If it's not hot, they're like sharks with blood in the water. If it gets hot again, they go back to loving it up. The press are bitches like that.

[EvanG]

It's probably different in every part of the world. I remember when that live album came out there was definitely something 'cool' about them again, that WTTJ clip was being played a lot on the music channels.

[IncitingChaos]

Not sure if the point has been made as I haven't had a chance to read through the comments, however the change of perception stems from Axl being on time, Axl not stopping a show, and the band being cleaned up from alcohol and drugs.

No matter their current talent in their 50's now the media have shown to value things like timeliness, like showmanship, and being a good example over being able to hit all the notes, and look like their prime self. 

It starts with Axl though, when he's good the press is good. 

Part of me wants Axl to be more himself, express himself as he sees fit. But then there's that element of having enjoyed each show Bc he's on time. I'm not worried that a contact lense will cause him to leave. 

2016 was one of the best years of his career so the praise in the press is all the more deserved imo. 

[gnfnrs1972]

Fuck the press! 

[RONIN]

9 hours ago, magnumpi said:

I've always found hipsters and indie people to be pretentious imbeciles devoid of any independent thought.  They practice group think

Probably some truth to this as ironic as it might seem. I guess as humans, we are all very tribal and stick to people who think as we do. For them - I suppose they reject anything that is excessively mainstream and commercial - which again doesn't really make sense since Nirvana is as mainstream as it gets and they're perhaps the most iconic indie rock band of the last 30 years. Cobain was really the first hipster of his era - back when it actually meant something. 

 

[RONIN]

I think the thing with "hipsters" and indie rockers are that many of them are tastemakers - that particular group wields a lot of influence within the mainstream press who take their cues from them. The hipsters themselves take their directives from the indie critics. So now, when you have influential outlets like Pitchfork suddenly saying that GnR is a legitimately good band with real influence - that's completely taking their audience by surprise after 20 years of saying the exact opposite in so many words. Perceptions are not formed overnight and they certainly will not change overnight. 

I have a lot of friends who are indie rock fans and their perception of GnR is that it's an anti-intellectual "redneck" band. This is purely off of Appetite and possibly Lies. I don't think a lot of these people have listened to Illusions or are even aware of the musical versatility of the band or even that Axl himself is a very skilled vocalist and lyricist. GnR is still branded very much as an 80's band - aside from November Rain, their 90's era seems to have been largely forgotten in the mainstream. That may also add to the mix of why the band is seemingly miscategorized by armchair critics.

I remember surfing a few big music forums prior to the reunion and people generally were scoffing at the idea of GnR selling out stadiums (even on the metallica forums that seemed to be a general feeling). It was outrageous to even suggest that this band could have a successful stadium tour. They were such has-beens, even arenas would have been a challenge to fill despite having the original lineup. I imagine a lot of these people are surprised at how successful GnR's comeback has been despite the low expectations.

And needless to say, a lot of this baggage is down to Axl. He's the biggest strength and weakness of the band. I recall reading some old articles from 1990-1991 in the run-up to UYI's release where some prominent critics were saying Axl reminded them of Jim Morrison. To suggest something like this now would get you laughed out of a room and yet - the guy had all the credibility in the world prior to the ST. Louis riot and UYI tour. 

Now they're being called the Led Zeppellin of their generation or that they could have been The Stones for Gen X. 

[RONIN]

An example of the type of intellectual insecurity and trend influenced mentality that persists towards GnR among rock critics. This is right after Coachella:

It is correct, if not reassuring, that the press loathes Guns N' Roses. The brief but definitive epoch of thinking person's rock music only began when acts like Nirvana and R.E.M., who rejected the swagger and grandiosity of Guns N' Roses and their hairspray-loving ilk, started selling millions upon millions of records. Writers are, in theory, thinking people, and thinking people, in theory, aren't supposed to like Guns N' Roses.

http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/music/news/a44110/axl-rose-guns-n-roses-coachella/

Have any of these people heard Estranged? 

[Rubicon]

12 hours ago, Blackstar said:

I've seen a lot of teenage kids wearing rock bands' T-shirts, mainly The Ramones. I once told one of them something like "you listen to The Ramones? that's great!" and the disarming answer was "huh?.... oh, no, it's just a cool T-shirt"

 That's quite the same thing that happened to me once...

But there is still hope:
I met a guy (about my age) with his 13 year old daughter in line to see Mötley Crüe. 
I was like: "Wow... it's cool that you listen to this stuff..."
Girl: "Yes...I love Rock! My Dad takes me to every concert. He took me to see Robert Plant... He is great!"

 I was very confused and really impressed that a girl that age even knows who that is. 
So: There's still hope for the next generation...