Jump to content

Would Guns N' Roses sound better if they were drinking, smoking and taking other drugs?


Recommended Posts

Sound better as in playing better live? No... no one plays their instrument better while being wasted.

Better songwriters? Who knows... some musicians get inspired by being on something, for others it doesn't make a difference, and some write their best stuff while being sober.

Edited by EvanG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

All their best stuff was made on drugs and booze just like The Stones, so it seems reasonable to presume so. Now, pies is their fuel.

Most of that is coincidence. Just like the myth that song writers have "primes". The real answer as to why they don't seem to write their best stuff post 30 and clean is simply do to having used up all their bullets. Even the best song writers run out of ideas or simply expend their energy talking about things. Take Roger Waters for example. He wrote The Wall in his late 30's. Now how is that possible if musicians have "primes"? It's not. The reason he was able to do that was because he took creative control of Pink Floyd later in life due to Syd leaving.

If a song writer starts writing his music in his 30's or 40's, sober, his best music will come out of him then. It has nothing to do with drugs or age. 

Edited by Nintari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, EvanG said:

Sound better as in playing better live? No... no one plays their instrument better while being wasted.

Not really true that, especially in jam-orientated genre such as jazz, blues and stoner rock. I can even say from personally experience that I play better when I'm slightly drunk.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tsinindy said:

Actually it's more reasonable to assume that in general rock and roll is a young mans game....most every iconic piece of rock history was created by individuals on the front half of their life span.  Not the back end.   And, to tie this all up in a pretty bow, substance abuse is typically more accepted and forgiving on younger individuals.

i am certain had this band never existed until all members were 50 AFD would never exist.  However, I am not certain it would not if you take substances out of the equation when it was created.

Ultimately, I would contend the fountain of youth is as important if not more important in this scenario than drugs and alcohol.

Yes and no. I'd agree about your prioritising of youth in rock n' roll, but most of GN'R's lyrical content (from their best era) is directly inspired by the drugs and alcohol, so here we have a scenario of the drugs and alcohol impacting itself on the content. 'Brownstone' and 'Nightrain' wouldn't have happened if they were a christian rock band, would they?

Edited by DieselDaisy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Liquor & Whores said:

except for Axl

never a junkie nor alcoholic

I wouldn't be so sure. He looks like he's been hitting the booze too much for the last decade or so. I wouldn't be surprised if he has a problem. Sometimes people develop alcoholism later in life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, WhazUp said:

All their best stuff was made while they were young and had the fire and passion with nothing to lose. They just happened to be on drugs and booze as that happened

But all of the lyrics are about drugs and booze (and loose women). They were not writing songs about sobriety, were they?

Why is it so offensive to admit that an act's greatest stuff was fueled by and inspired by drugs? The jazz musicians were all on heroin. The psychedelic bands were inspired by LSD. Neil Young recorded Tonight's the Night drunk on tequila. He recorded On the Beach stoned on honey glides (cannabis fried with honey). And regardless, the Stones were not exactly whipper snappers, spring chickens, when they had their big heroin phrase and did Sticky Fingers and Exile!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No way. However...its unbelievable how good and perfectly structured the played the UYI Tour back then...Sure there were some spots where they had some flaws, but the intros and outros, the long tour itself, the UYI albums...all of them were top notch and at their prime when they were high as fuck...

Its good that they are sober now. But Axl's soberness went in a very different sound of GnR -> CD. 

GnR lost very productive years because of Axl's ego...thats the main reason why GnR is pretty boring now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt they would make it on stage. They be like a band of Vince Neils on stage. I doubt it would sound better. They could do like a Tom Waites version of a GNR show. All of them lying on the floor with IV drips. I wish I was in a coma...

Edited by wasted
Coma guns
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, maxpax said:

No way. However...its unbelievable how good and perfectly structured the played the UYI Tour back then...Sure there were some spots where they had some flaws, but the intros and outros, the long tour itself, the UYI albums...all of them were top notch and at their prime when they were high as fuck...

Its good that they are sober now. But Axl's soberness went in a very different sound of GnR -> CD. 

GnR lost very productive years because of Axl's ego...thats the main reason why GnR is pretty boring now...

Axl wanted to do this, Slash wanted to do that, neither were willing to bend and they went their separate ways. How's it Axl's ego and not Slash's?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Slash would have a lot more stage presence with drugs/booze, but he'd probably drop dead on the first or second show. Duff is actually better now than he was before although him playing his bass guitar laying down while trying not to pass out is part of the devil-may-care spirit of original guns.

But why stop there? Izzy would be better if he was still Stradlin' groupies and angry Axl who didn't self medicate with cake would also be far more interesting.

Those days are gone. Take it for what it is.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

But all of the lyrics are about drugs and booze (and loose women). They were not writing songs about sobriety, were they?

Why is it so offensive to admit that an act's greatest stuff was fueled by and inspired by drugs? The jazz musicians were all on heroin. The psychedelic bands were inspired by LSD. Neil Young recorded Tonight's the Night drunk on tequila. He recorded On the Beach stoned on honey glides (cannabis fried with honey). And regardless, the Stones were not exactly whipper snappers, spring chickens, when they had their big heroin phrase and did Sticky Fingers and Exile!

Agreed but I suspect the '96 album would have moved past that subject matter into a more reflective area. The grunge era encouraged that kind of songwriting and the band themselves had largely cleaned up their act after the UYI tour. But it never happened that way and so Guns are frozen in time as a rebellious youthful band.

3/4 of UYI has its roots in the AFD era and the remaining 1/4 chronicles their descent into self-destruction following sudden fame. In a way, UYI is a perfect bookend to the original band and the AFD years.

Edited by RONIN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guns N' Roses would sound a lot better now if it was REALLY Guns N' Roses, and not 3 guys with assorted nobodies.

They would sound even more like their former selves if Axl stopped singing like Mickey Mouse, and started singing like he does in Axl/DC.

Whether or not they would LOOK more like Guns N' Roses is a whole different issue ...

If they start SOUNDING like Guns N' Roses again, and if they start LOOKING like a rock n' roll band again, then they can do all the drugs they want!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Not really true that, especially in jam-orientated genre such as jazz, blues and stoner rock. I can even say from personally experience that I play better when I'm slightly drunk.

 

I'm not talking about being tipsy, there won't be much lack of control when you've had a few beers, but no one will have more control over their instrument while being drunk. I'm sure some people out there are able to still sound pretty great even highly intoxicated, but it won't be as tight as when you're sober. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Yes and no. I'd agree about your prioritising of youth in rock n' roll, but most of GN'R's lyrical content (from their best era) is directly inspired by the drugs and alcohol, so here we have a scenario of the drugs and alcohol impacting itself on the content. 'Brownstone' and 'Nightrain' wouldn't have happened if they were a christian rock band, would they?

Fair enough :)

So, we can agree both may be equally important?  Or something along those lines?  I can't imagine we may actually agree, but I think we might!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guns songs were very rarely directly about drugs though. Especially the big singles off AFD/UYI. Feel like drugs and the lifestyle were very important though. They weren't the only ones at all. A lot of bands did drugs, not all made great music. So maybe it's not just the drugs. 

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

1 hour ago, double talkin jive mfkr said:

im pretty sure axl is the only one that still likes to get fucked up

I think being fucked up in Axl's case is quite different from the way Duff and Slash used to get fucked up back in the days.

Axl's idea of being "fucked up" now a days is probably more along the lines of him laughing a bit to much at Fernando joking about Bumbles beard or something after 3 beers and a shot of whisky.

Edited by youngswedishvinyl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, youngswedishvinyl said:

I think being fucked up in Axl's case is quite different from the way Duff and Slash used to get fucked up back in the days.

Axl's idea of being "fucked up" now a days is probably more along the lines of him laughing a bit to much at Fernando joking about Bumbles beard or something after 3 beers and a shot of whisky.

agreed i do think axl smokes a lot of weed, does lines, keeps it together and boozes a bit but somehow doesn't let himself get cracked out 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Axl has stated before that he never allowed himself to having an addiction. He simply doesn't allow it. Of course that's easier said than done, but it worked for him... when it comes down to alcohol and drug abuse, he has been the wisest of the bunch. He can still do something simple now as having a few beers without it being a problem. The other ones can't even do that anymore. Although there are junkies who manage to find the discipline of moderation even after a very bad addiction. John Frusciante, who was a terrible junkie in the mid 90s, managed to get away from the heroin but as far as I know of he still drinks and maybe smokes pot, but in a normal way. I guess the GnR guys are all or nothing kind of people.

Edited by EvanG
i kant spel
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...