Jump to content

Guns n' Roses "small catalogue" is a myth


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Zurimor said:

If you count the number of albums and songs, yes, but not if you count total length. That's my point.

As I said in my opening post, they easily could've made at least 8 albums with the material they produced. However, most of them have a length of 1+ hour, both Use your illusions are around 75-80 min. Those 2 albums alone could've been splitted into 2 each, if you look at other bands average album length. It's really not that bad :)

And I actually mean L.A. Guns, Axl was a member and he left his influence there. I know, he left years before they released anything, but  at least imo you clearly can hear it on their first album. Sure, it's far-fetched, I'll give that to you. ;)

 

I was being sarcastic. I really don't think it's that bad. But I used to think it was horrid. Also, doesn't really matter if Lies is or isn't a full album or 2 EP's. It's 8 tunes, even if 4 of those were already released. And like Don't Cry has 2 versions, You're Crazy is the same.

It's 5 albums worth of material. 5 albums worth is decent.

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

Just now, Rovim said:

I Was being sarcastic. I really don't think it's that bad. But I used to think it was horrid. Also, doesn't really matter if Lies is or isn't a full album. It's 8 tunes, even if 4 of those were already released. And like Don't Cry has 2 versions, You're Crazy is the same.

It's 5 albums. 5 albums is decent imo.

It's not five albums, but even if it were five albums you really believe that is decent for a 30+ year old band?

Dude, you're getting crazier and crazier.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, EvanG said:

It's not five albums, but even if it were five albums you really believe that is decent for a 30+ year old band?

Dude, you're getting crazier and crazier.

I think it's fine. That is my honest and crazed opinion. Given the circumstances, (a lunatic frontman in hiding) it's also understandable. Plus I believe he recorded and completed many additional tunes, just failed to release those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Rovim said:

I think it's fine. That is my honest and crazed opinion. Given the circumstances, (a lunatic frontman in hiding) it's also understandable. Plus I believe he recorded and completed many additional tunes, just failed to release those.

Well, it's not the first time your opinion on something is completely wacko. Circumstances are irrelevant anyway, the amount of their catalog is nothing but a joke and if you seriously don't see that then I bid you a goodnight.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 albums since 1987 is not very good.

 

Aerosmith has released 15 in what, 40 years? Iron Maiden has released 16 since 1980. And to everyone who says that 1993-2016 doesn't count, GN'R technically never disbanded and there were new members willing to make music. There could have been tons of potential, there should have been at least 4 albums in the Nu Era.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, EvanG said:

Well, it's not the first time your opinion on something is completely wacko. Circumstances are irrelevant anyway, the amount of their catalog is nothing but a joke and if you seriously don't see that then I bid you a goodnight.

First of all: I ain't crazy. Second: why are you threatening me EvanG? you know that shit hurts when you always bid me a goodnight when shit gets crazy. (when I disagree)

It's almost as if...as if you're disrespecting me. :max:

5 albums, 4.5 albums... not that bad imo. Don't be cruel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bigpoop said:

It's three albums. Appetite and the UYIs.  Lies is not an album and CD is not GNR.

It's 2 albums actually: Appetite and UYI. UYI is one album they've released on 2 discs cause it was too long and expensive for poor people to buy as one.

Edited by Rovim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rovim said:

5 albums is minuscule? hardly.

5 albums in thirty years is minuscule - one of them is a dodgy covers' album.

I cannot believe I'd see a day when gnr fans would defend their tiny discography. There are really no things gnr fans are not willing to defend about this ridiculous band!!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Rovim said:

10,000 people in the whole world bought Live Like A Suicide. Millions have bought Lies. But you don't care. I appreciate accuracy so:

Live Like A Suicide is an old half album. And the other half of Lies was a new half album. If we're in agreement these are facts then:

Lies, is a hybrid "album"? it's not just a regular EP. At the very least it's 2 EP's? at this point I consider it an album. If you don't, then Guns released:

4 albums and 2 Ep's that were packaged together, but the vast majority of people never fuckin' heard all 8 tunes on that one.

I guess I took liberties cause 10,000 people have already heard it and probably also made bootlegs for friends and relatives.

 

 

I look at it this way: Other bands I like have released EP's with 7-8 songs, but only half are new songs and the rest are live or remixes or whatever. (And they're referred to as EP's). How is LLAS different? Instead of other versions they just re-released the original songs. This is a ridiculous argument anyway :lol: The overall point remains that their catalogue, for a 30 year old, HOF inducted band, is pretty small.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 30 years argument is weak and isn't really relevant when you take into consideration Axl was not active for many years, lost most of his band members or fired them, was being sued, etc.

I'm not excusing anything. I believe he recorded and completed a lot of unreleased material, but even that is not relevant.

5 albums worth of tunes is a decent amount. I judge what is there, not what others have done, other bands, without Axl as their frontman and his obsessive way of doing things.

Not all musicians are prolific. And Axl does seem to be one musician who won't release anything if it's not good enough as a Guns album. It's that simple really.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's relative and subjective, depending on what extent someone takes into consideration the particularity of GnR as a band (the only other big band that I can right now think of comparing them to is Fleetwood Mac). Technically and legally GnR has been continuously active for over 30 years and never ceased existing, so, in this regard, the catalog is small. But in reality, Axl built a new band from scratch and there are people who don't consider it the same band, even though it bears the same name. Regardless of this, I think everyone acknowledges at least  that there are two distinctive periods in the lifespan of the band (1986-1996 and 1998-2015, with 1997 being a transitional year and 2016 on a possibly third period), despite the lineup changes within each of these periods; Axl himself has repeatedly made the distinction between the "old band" and the "new" one.

During its first period (let's call it 'classic'), GnR released 3 albums, an extended EP and a covers album within 10 years, a quantity that meets the average of the respective era (late 80s-early 90s), ie. one album every 2 or 3 years, or slightly surpasses it (considering that 2 of 3 albums were double). The new band released an album in 17 years; although this era coincides with structural changes  in the music industry, the rate is below average.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

It is a tiny discography.

Please stop making excuses.

65 tunes is a decent amount. Please stop expecting Axl to be prolific and not obsess over tunes for a decade. It's silly to believe his musical process and self importance are not factors here. Clearly these are main reasons of why we got "only" 5 albums and it wasn't in 30 years either. He wasn't active for long periods of time.

Edited by Rovim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rovim said:

55 tunes is a decent amount. Please stop expecting Axl to be prolific and not obsess over tunes for a decade. It's silly to believe his musical process and self importance are not a factor here. It clearly one of the main reasons of why we got "only" 5 albums and it wasn't in 30 years. He wasn't active for long periods of time.

His output is the size of a postage stamp. There is no dodging this one I'm afraid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

His output is the size of a postage stamp. There is no dodging this one I'm afraid.

Not dodging anything. Neil Young he is not. Sorry. He is not prolific. You expect Axl Rose to be someone he just isn't. Especially when we know he wanted to delay Illusions and when he got full control of the band, he never looked back and tinkered with the material. This is his approach.

Still managed to release 5 albums. I honestly cannot understand how that is a tiny amount. He wasn't active for those 30 years. You act like he was this happy go lucky guy...no. When Slash left he admitted that took it's toll on him and he needed to rebuild the band.

Edited by Rovim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I look at it this way. We are fans or we wouldn't be on this forum. Sure, we would have loved more music, but to quote Hillary, "what difference, at this point, does it make??" It is what it is, and I refuse to put Axl down for whatever his reasons truly are for not releasing more music. I am just thankful we have what we have, and hope that there will be more.

Also, Axl is not a lunatic and the band is not ridiculous.

Just my opinion. :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Rovim said:

First of all: I ain't crazy. Second: why are you threatening me EvanG? you know that shit hurts when you always bid me a goodnight when shit gets crazy. (when I disagree)

It's almost as if...as if you're disrespecting me. :max:

5 albums, 4.5 albums... not that bad imo. Don't be cruel.

Never threatened you, though. But I know you're just trolling... even you must admit that not a lot of music has come out under the GnR name in the last 32 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Well he isn't very good then. Every 'great' has a multitude of albums.

Or maybe he's just the type of musician that needs others to complete an album he views as good enough? you do know those exist? he needs a band to complete a Guns album and he doesn't want to release disposable shit it seems. So he works on it until he feels it's good enough and only then releases it.

And the road with Chinese was described as a "nightmare". So I imagine he faced some challenges that derailed his plans. He failed to deliver it after saying it was "this year" in 2006.

You don't make the distinction between talent and standards. Or wanting to do something and failing to deliver. I think he is great, just not prolific and actually cares about his art actually meaning something and living with it after it's released.

Slash doesn't give a fuck for example. His main thing is touring. Axl specifically said his main thing is recorded music.

 

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...