GnR in the Press: Criticism and Perception post Reunion

[Bertrice]

The alternative rock now isn't rock and what's  the "alternative". the song quality wins out at the end of day. UYI didn't have a enough pop sound which alt rock is. Muscled and fuzzed out pop songs i.e. Nirvana. UYI doesn't have enough radio influence but radio is being replaced. Kids find out about the catalogue on their phones. GnR is a live band at the end of the day with a large legacy left on youtube.  I can't find a grunge show on youtube that's great or watchable. 

[Fourteenbeers]

2 hours ago, RONIN said:

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.

Even though I don't have particularly warm feelings towards this band at the moment (reason: the Apollo show) I have to write this:

Every time the word "hair" is mentioned when criticizing Gn'R, it triggers me. "They are a hair band"  or "They are hair metal" etc.  It's so lazy and ignorant. Anyone who has listened their music at all (and know anything about subgenres of rock) know that they have very little to do with the actual hair bands of the 80's. Sure, if you look at their pictures from their earlier days (or even Axl's hair on WTTJ -video) someone could be fooled. But that is judging a book by its cover (and the cover has changed after the beginning)  

[EvanG]

5 hours ago, RONIN said:

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. 

I think that a big part of the generation that grew up after GnR, mainly knows the band from the big ballads, November Rain, Sweet Child, Don't Cry (and maybe Paradise City, but that's not exactly a punk song). Those are the songs that are mostly being played on mainstream radio still, at least in my neck of the woods. A lot of them have no idea about the edgier songs and might think of them as this big soft rock band, like Bon Jovi. And that doesn't help their reputation either.

5 hours ago, Bertrice said:

I can't find a grunge show on youtube that's great or watchable. 

I asked this yesterday in the other thread too, what is grunge? What's a grunge show?

[Blackstar]

9 hours ago, RONIN said:

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.

9 hours ago, RONIN said:

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? 

I think they don't have an actual clue about AFD either.

These are mostly people who have no experience or understanding neither about the massive impact rock use to have on working class/lower middle class young people nor about when there was underground rock and what underground means; although there was/is an element of elitism in some cases, real underground is not about being elitist and making music/art for a social/intellectual crème de la crème and academics.

Like you said, their perception largely derives from what they've read in 'prestigious' outlets; and those of them who are old enough to have been around in the early 90s, formed their tastes and opinions based on what was considered "hip". There's nothing wrong in reading magazines/reviews or liking things that aren't very popular, but hipsters usually stick with preconceived notions, because they probably don't really care to know and understand something, but just to be self-righteous and feel/look cool and intellectually superior; hence they categorize everything according to oversimplifications (like, in this case, "80s->silly->uncool, then Nirvana->intelligent->cool") and then they feel confident about themselves as "thinking people". That's why their opinions are homogenized: they like and dislike the same things.

 

Edited July 26, 2017 by Blackstar

[Ratam]

3 hours ago, Blackstar said:

I think they don't have an actual clue about AFD either.

These are mostly people who have no experience or understanding neither about the massive impact rock use to have on working class/lower middle class young people nor about when there was underground rock and what underground means; although there was/is an element of elitism in some cases, real underground is not about being elitist and making music/art for a social/intellectual crème de la crème and academics.

Like you said, their perception largely derives from what they've read in 'prestigious' outlets; and those of them who are old enough to have been around in the early 90s, formed their tastes and opinions based on what was considered "hip". There's nothing wrong in reading magazines/reviews or liking things that aren't very popular, but hipsters usually stick with preconceived notions, because they probably don't really care to know and understand something, but just to be self-righteous and feel/look cool and intellectually superior; hence they categorize everything according to oversimplifications (like, in this case, "80s->silly->uncool, then Nirvana->intelligent->cool") and then they feel confident about themselves as "thinking people". That's why their opinions are homogenized: they like and dislike the same things.

 

This people digest meat what make  others

[Ace Nova]

Not sure when hipsters became the decide all/end all when it comes to what is good and what is not good.  If anything, hipsters are a fad (just like their beloved grunge was a fad) and just like most fads, they will most likely fade away...while GN'R has stood the test of time, over and over again....and are once again proving to be among the biggest bands in the world....pretty impressive thing to do 30 years later, imo.

Edited July 26, 2017 by Kasanova King

[Ratam]

18 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Not sure when hipsters became the decide all/end all when it comes to what is good and what is not good.  If anything, hipsters are a fad (just like their beloved grunge was a fad) and just like most fads, they will most likely fade away...while GN'R has stood the test of time, over and over again....and are once again proving to be among the biggest bands in the world....pretty impressive thing to do 30 years later, imo.

Spot on

[PirateRadio]

On 7/25/2017 at 9:41 AM, MyPrettyTiedUpMichelle said:

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. 

 

I know what you're saying about the younger people...same here. It's funny too, because if someone turns up for school who "shouldn't" be wearing a rock tee, they are questioned by the established minority. Aww...youth is hell!

 

Absolutely everything seems to be cyclical huh?! It's a long time in waiting for rock to come back, and it seems to be starting with the old-timers who are still playing, or the youth discovering their dad's old collections, as you say. The current singer/bands/groups/collaborations catch on that it's cool to cover an old-timers songs.

 

There will be rock bands again, but the money comes in faster than it goes out, so I see it happening like this: Young new rock band really kicks ass, gains following, gets money and evolves a la GNR, or implodes (also a la GNR). But that's rock-n-roll I guess. It's the new, great, hungry sound, and then just like that - it's gone. And some other new band comes up to take their rightful place.