Perception of GnR/Axl between 1993-1997?

[Fashionista]

21 minutes ago, MyPrettyTiedUpMichelle said:

Yeah, I don't disagree with any of what you've said, particularly about Axl's pretentiousness being at odds with the cultural shift of the time (he'd love to have been an 18th aristocrat! lol).  My point was the status of rock was declining in terms of it no longer being a dominant genre in the music industry once you start getting past 96/97 - it just wasn't anymore and hasn't been ever since. 

Sure, later on you had your nu-metal and your emo (anyone remember My Chemical Romance?) and Fall Out Boy and what not, but they weren't dominating the industry and rock was becoming increasingly niche.  So Guns were up against that as well as the problems they created for themselves - as per usual with GNR, it's never just one factor, it's a combination of factors.

 

I disagree with you only slightly, in a nuanced sense. If you take into consideration the late 70s and early 80s, Rock was declining for a while. The late 70s had Rock being displaced by Disco until Disco burned itself out. The early-mid 80s were all about Synthesizers, Pop Music, New Wave and such. Michael Jackson and Prince were bigger in 1984 than any rock star on Earth. Artists like Paula Abdul were huge. Madonna. Cyndi Laupder. Any band that wanted to survive and still sell well changed their sound a lot. Look at Queen, who became a Pop band. Look at Genesis, who also became a Pop band. Look at Rush and Yes who went from being prog rock in the 70s to synth pop in the 80s. The late 80s-early 90s saw a revitalization of guitar driven Rock as the dominant genre but this was short lived. The 1986-1993 or so era of Rock dominance to me is like, a cancer patient going into remission, only for the cancer to come back. Horrible analogy but I hope my point gets across. I think Rock had been in a bad state since Disco came around. It just basically enjoyed a brief renaissance at being number one again before stuff like Rap and Boy Bands and such became another option for kids. Even now, Rock isn't dead. It's just one of a handful of genres people like. 

The Nu Metal was huge, I remember it. It was very cool. When I was in school, you were either, really, a Rocker (Tool, Manson, Korn) or a Hip Hop person. Rock was still relevant enough in the early 00s for songs like Rollin' by Limp Bizkit and such to dominate the airwaves. It's just like...If Rock was the majority shareholder (say 70%) of teen attention in 1992, it was more around 45-50% in 1997. You know what I mean? 

Also, bear in mind, it's easier to be a hip hop fan than it is to be a rocker.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Fashionista

[Ace Nova]

11 hours ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

A 1996 Guns album, especially if it was a "return to form" hard rock album would of done VERY well. Anybody that doesn't believe that, wasn't around during that time. Aerosmith sold Get a Grip like hot cakes, so did Van Halen with Balance, and Metallica with Load. A Mid 90s guns album goes to #1 on the charts, lots of MTV air play, and sells 5-7 million copies. It wouldn't of done as well with the teenagers, no. But music was still in HIGH regard back then, not like today. Plus Kurt Loader alone would of been singing it's praises on MTV. It would of done just fine.

This.

G N' R still had tons of fans waiting for a new original album.  Every once in a while you would hear a 10-20 second mention of the band on a radio station...usually something along the lines that they were working on new music.  

 

Edited November 1, 2017 by Kasanova King

[Fashionista]

I could easily see a 1996 GN'R hard rock album doing 3-4 million copies in the US, maybe more if it was good material. They were "uncool" to the teens but they did still have a large fanbase that were loyal. It wouldn't have been UYI numbers but it would've done at least more than Platinum.

Also, I think Kurt Loder was one of the best friends Axl/GN'R ever had in the press. I wish he was still doing business today. I'd love to see an Axl/Slash interview with Kurt now.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Fashionista

[Gunsdrummer63]

This is coming from someone born in the last 20 years. They easily could have been the biggest ban on Earth if they had released an original album and not one full of covers. The music industry did change and i'm sure that didn't help but TSI killed them. If aerosmith could survive all these years i'm sure GNR could have too. I'm a UYI fan and I easily think those albums could have been built upon and would have attracted the same grunge fans.

[Evil Doer]

my recollection is that gnr faded very fast.  i was a senior in high school and went to the skin and bones tour in march of 93' and it was huge.  the anticipation was great, the crowd was insane, the show was one of the best i've ever seen.  my freshman year in college, 93-94, the estranged video and since i don't have you video were on mtv constantly.  by mid 94, people moved on.  however, i do think a solid gnr album released in 96 would have done very well.

[Draguns]

9 hours ago, guitarpatch said:

I was a teenager around that time. GNR had passed its popularity by that point. Here was the rock scene at that time.

Think about Metallica and their image/sound change with Load/Reload. Think about Nine Inch Nails, Manson, Korn, Rage. Then you had post grunge bands like Bush or other genres like No Doubt/Green Day. That was the rock scene in the mid/late 90’s. That’s where fans had moved to. Sonically those albums sound much different than anything that came out 3 years earlier let alone 5.  

To be on those bands level or the level where they were in 91, GNR needed to evolve its sound and approach. Did it need to be on the level of a complete tear down? I don’t think so. Could the Snakepit songs done quickly have an impact? Unfortunately not outside of the main fanbase. Would UYI III been accepted?  Def not. It was something that needed to be in between and tweaked. Possibly an image change to update with the times. Def wear more black and shorter hair... 

People were growing tired of grunge let alone GNR by that time. Cobain’s death was the end of that genre’s growth. They wanted something different, something even heavier. They wanted to be shocked and rocked. Rap verses and rock choruses and Ska/punk were part of it.  It was cool because you hadn’t heard it before yet it was familiar. They put it in a pop song structure. Manson being a freak surprised you, but the songs were anthemic etc.... 

GNR could of done a riff heavy album. Lean more on Duff and let Slash fill in with what he does. They just needed another a guy to fill in to modernize some of those riffs though. Axl was right in that regard if they wanted to dominate the late 90’s. Gilby wasn’t it. Izzy was going in another direction. Slash could do it, but it seems like that’s not the stuff he wanted to do at the moment. He wanted a more organic rock approach 

This is partly why they split. Seems like it was a philosophical disagreement with the direction of the band. Axl wanted to evolve the sound to be on the level and compete with those modern bands, Slash wanted to do an album that was in line with what they had done before but not as complex. He didn’t want to be in the studio for 2 years to find that sound

Both of them had valid points, but unfortunately were too far apart to find a way to do it.   

 

What you said is exactly what I was aiming to do with my post. 

[Chris 55]

10 hours ago, soon said:

I think there were many angles and factors effecting perception of Guns and Axl at the time.  This is one, maybe?

Do people remember the "Grunge Speak" fiasco?  Culture was shifting.  Kill Rock Stars record label was pushing some significant units - need one say more?  There was a zine culture, as part of the hard rock landscape, that the major rock rags actually had to yield to, which discussed anti-capitalist and pro feminists ideas. Ideas that culture was being bought, sold and coming back as a replica instead of the authentic item was a major issue during early (anti) Globalization.  Culture Jamming and other tactics pushed back against this.  The reason anti-globalization protesters popularly targeted Star Bucks was because many coffee shops had until that point been independent, with their own character; and a place where poetry-readings, small scale local music, and lively political debate took place.  This underground movement and corporatism were finding themselves sharing space in the hard rock mainstream and it didnt work.  The major publications stumbled hard to try and absorb these disrupters into their profit machinery.  The "Grunge Speak" fiasco was where the NY Times called the Sub Pop office to ask what the cool kids were saying and the person who answered just lied to NYT and made up funny BS.  Which was then printed in the NYT!  And then based on what was written; fashion, print, music and other industries just pounced and actually production-lined that culture into existence.  This was culture jamming at its best at the beginning and also it back fired greatly. 

Even though the mini black block princesses in my world may not have been able to fully unpack and articulate how Guns was a corporate projection of Reaganomics.  Or a platform for misogyny.  They definitely knew that the music sounded like those things and that The Slits didnt.

So, this is just one tiny piece of the landscape I remember from 93-99ish.  I think that must have made it not only confusing, but less stable to make plans for Guns too, especially since young women and girls had Kathleen Hannah in one ear and Axl in the other.  Would this disrupter culture buy a ticket or storm the gates with scissors?  

 

 

This wiki has plenty of links to the NY Time and other articles about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grunge_speak

Anyone else think that at 1:19, the earplugs in the nose looked REALLY stupid?

[Draguns]

7 hours ago, Fashionista said:

For a cover song with no video, Sympathy for the Devil reached 55 on the Billboard Hot 100 and 10 on the Mainstream Rock Chart. Don't think they were THAT unpopular. GN'R had the highest selling rock single of all of 1992 with NR two years prior as well. Aerosmith had their biggest success ever with Get a Grip in 1993 selling over 7 million copies. Van Halen's Balance sold 3 million. GN'R would've done similar numbers if they had released a good album in the 1994-1996 timeframe. Load sold 7 million despite the backlash by fans of Metallica.

They were still popular in 94 when "Sympathy for the Devil" was released. In the NYC area Q104.3 was alternative rock at the time. They played this and had GNR's version of "Hair of the Dog" as their anthem. The popularity of GNR stopped around 95/96. 

[IncitingChaos]

14 minutes ago, Evil Doer said:

my recollection is that gnr faded very fast.  i was a senior in high school and went to the skin and bones tour in march of 93' and it was huge.  the anticipation was great, the crowd was insane, the show was one of the best i've ever seen.  my freshman year in college, 93-94, the estranged video and since i don't have you video were on mtv constantly.  by mid 94, people moved on.  however, i do think a solid gnr album released in 96 would have done very well.

A solid gnr album at any point would do well. 

Its like Axl said he doesn’t want people waiting around on him to release music. There’s other stuff out there and waiting on him isn’t going to make it come out any faster. 

There seems to be this idea that the fans turned against gnr. The truth is they (gnr) disappeared. It wasn’t like they couldn’t have sold out stadiums on a 95, 96 tour. 

Decades later people still appreciate and discover their music. They created timeless music, and it’s one of the greatest band names of all time. 

As time goes on the perception of this band will continue in a positive direction. It’s like they were offering a fantastic product and one day it sold out and you couldn’t get it anymore. People or other bands can’t duplicate their sound. You don’t see a lot of singers taking on songs that Axl sings...it’s too hard and too unique. 

What happened between 94-99 was simply the product not being available anymore. People had to look elsewhere. 

[Draguns]

3 hours ago, Fashionista said:

Here's the thing though. If rock had begun its steady decline after the mid 90s, explain why Load did as well as the UYI albums in the States even though the fans hated it. Explain why bands like Korn, Tool, Papa Roach, Rage Against the Machine, System of a Down, Green Day, Marilyn Manson Limp Bizkit, etc did so well and captured a big chunk of the teenage/young adult audience in the States in the late 90s/early 00s. Even as late as 2004 you had albums like American Idiot doing MASSIVE sales. American Idiot sold 14 million copies worldwide, and went 6x Platinum here in the States alone. Look at how big Evanescence was in 2003-2005.

I don't think it has much to do with rock music declining more than Axl turning people off because he appeared not only more and more egocentric, but also more and more bizarre. This is a guy who was acting like a snob, using cigarette holders, wearing $500 sneakers,  wearing fur coats and hanging out with supermodels and going to fashion shows in a time where the musicians who captured the public's imagination were wearing ripped jeans, cheap t-shirts and flannel shirts. Axl was out of touch. He was living and embracing this jetset, superstar lifestyle in a time when rockers were downsizing and trying to look humble.

What disaffected teenager is going to relate to some guy wearing fur and hobnobbing with the elite? People like Eddie Vedder and Kurt Cobain had simply become more REAL than Axl...And they also came with a lot less baggage. You didn't risk getting hurt in a riot going to a Nirvana or AIC show. You didn't risk waiting three hours for Eddie Vedder to show up. 

When Axl came on the scene, his scrappy screwed up personality  was refreshing. He spoke to a forgotten generation of kids and to disaffected teens everywhere. But, by 1993, those teens had become young adults. They had grown up and matured. Axl didn't mature  with his audience, and his nonsense got old quick. There's no excuse in the world to make your fans wait hours for you. There's no excuse to stop shows for 10-20 minutes a time to rant about stuff no one in the audience really cares about. He was still acting the part of this disaffected punk...While wearing Versacci suits and making the most expensive videos of all time. He was going on and on about HIS past life regression stuff in a time where Kurt Cobain was talking about real shit, like politics, feminism and such. Axl started off as a really cool down to Earth guy, but became increasingly more "me, me, me."

I mean, go look at the 1992 VMAs. You have Nirvana and Pearl Jam playing raw, ragged, stripped down angry sets and are dressed like how the kids on the street were dressing...Axl is performing with Elton John and a professional orchestra and is dressed like some kind of 18th century aristocrat. The pomposity and grandiosity and pretentiousness of his aspirations turned off a lot of people, too, besides all the drama.

His act just got old. The people who were teens in 1988 were tired of it, and the new teenagers in 1993 wanted something with less drama.

You are talking about  bands that were not  in the classic hard rock tradition. People wanted something different at the time. Classic hard rock, which is blues based was on the decline. The only new band that had that sound was Buckcherry at the time. They could have carried it on, but failed. 

You brought up Evanscene. Evanscene was a different type of rock band that incorporated rap with a female singer. It was something unique and no one heard of it. 

[Fashionista]

21 minutes ago, Draguns said:

You are talking about  bands that were not  in the classic hard rock tradition. People wanted something different at the time. Classic hard rock, which is blues based was on the decline. The only new band that had that sound was Buckcherry at the time. They could have carried it on, but failed. 

You brought up Evanscene. Evanscene was a different type of rock band that incorporated rap with a female singer. It was something unique and no one heard of it. 

 

In 1993, Aerosmith, blues based rock, released Get A Grip, sold 17 million copies worldwide. Same year Metallica released Live Shit: Binge & Purge, a boxset, which sold 15 million copies in the US alone. 1994, The Rolling Stones, blues based rock released Voodoo Lounge, which sold 2 million copies in the US alone, had videos all over MTV, and saw the band be invited to the MTV Music Awards in '95. Van Halen, another blues based band, released Balance in 1995, which went 2x Platinum in the US. AC/DC released Ballbreaker in 1995 which went 2x Platinum. Bon Jovi's These Days, released in 1995, sold around 8 mil worldwide.

Ozzy's Osmosis album went 3x Platinum in 95. Metallica's Load (1996) sold 5 million copies in the US; its sequel, Reload, sold 4 million.

 

[killuridols]

I dont think there was a solely unique reason for their demise but their dissapearance and lack of new material is clearly the central reason why people moved on faster.

Their inactivity coincided with many other facts: the 90's decade going in a different direction with music, lots of new alternatives and choices to listen to, the kind of fanbase they left was basically composed of teenagers and you can't expect a teen will sit on a chair and wait 20 years for you to come back and by the end of the 90s the whole world was connecting to the Internet, which was the begining of a new era in all aspects of human life.

This was GN'R choice to vanish and tarnish their future. Axl is the one who paid the major consequences of his stubborn act.

[h2sublime]

My thought on this topic was that at that point it felt like any band around before Nirvana and Pearl Jam were labeled a hair band and lost a ton of popularity. I remember requesting a Guns song to a radio DJ during that period and the woman literally laughed at the thought of play a GNR track on their station. I still loved GNR and they still had many fans but they would not have sold as well during that period but they weould have weathered the storm. Axl was and is a total rock star. That was frowned upon then. Sometime though, I would say towards 1997 or so the tides began to change. I recall the radio station that laughed at me for requesting them ended up adding them back in the playlist as the grunge revolution died down. The true staying power of Guns is shown by the fact that they were basically gone during the period after Sympathy was released yet Live Era and the Greatest Hits record especially showed that there was still a lot of demand for GNR. It is just too bad that so many years were wasted in the years that followed the Illusions tour.

[Blackstar]

On 11/1/2017 at 3:38 AM, RONIN said:

I always find it amusing how the rock press in '91 refer to Axl as "the voice of a generation" and "the next Jim Morrison" or comparing Guns to the Stones and Pistols - yet that kind of talk begins to die out soon after Use Your Illusion releases. Afterwards, Axl seems to transition into some villainous character in a rock opera. A garish cartoon-like figure to be mocked and scorned by his peers. I wonder if it was Axl's unrepentant douche-baggery or GnR simply existing in the wrong era (the early 90's instead of the late 60's and 70's) which sets them up for such a massive downfall.

Comparing Axl to Morrison or Guns to the Sex Pistols (the antithesis of Illusions era Guns) seems almost absurd now. You'd be laughed out of a room for making an Axl/Morrison comparison prior to 2016 - and yet in 1991, the rock press saw that as a completely legitimate connection to make. There's quite a few press reviews of Illusions which elevate Rose and GnR to this level - so it may not have even been the Illusions which change this perception of Axl in the press but rather his increasing lack of credibility/legitimacy with his peers in the alternative scene. His unlikeability post Illusions also probably contributed significantly to this as well.

Not all the rock press had that stance towards them. I'd say that the press was polarized about them from the beginning. Rolling Stone was very positive, but other than that, apart from magazines like Hit Parader, some magazines addressed to musicians and some metal orientated ones, the "serious" general rock press was so-so, critical or even negative. Also quite a few reviews of live shows weren't very favourable; and I'm not talking only about the "circus era", but even 1991, when Izzy was still in the band and before the UYI's were released:

http://web.archive.org/web/20080222191149/http://www.w-axl-rose.com:80/Reviews/ReviewsIndex.html

(It's a bit funny if you think how good the reviews for the NITL tour have been; if someone completely clueless about GnR (ie. never heard or seen them) attempted to form an opinion based only on reviews, they'd think that the 2016-17 band is much better than the 1991 one )

About the mid 90s:

- Regarding the press: As others already said, they had almost disappeared. To my recollection, they were nowhere in the few local rock outlets (magazines, newspapers, radio) - only just briefly when SFTD was released. And internationally, judging from the articles/interviews of that era, the majority of the press had almost "forgotten" about them and only Kerrang had articles on them more than a couple of times. A big part of it had to do with the change in the musical landscape, but I think it was also because they actually weren't making news; not only due to the lack of a release (apart from TSI and SFTD), but also because Axl (the main newsmaker, for good or bad) didn't talk to the media, Duff and Matt started talking in '96 when they did The Neurotic Outsiders, so, apart from Slash (who was the only one talking to the press in '94-'95) there weren't any other sources. I don't remember well what was going on with MTV (Europe) in regards to GnR at the time; I think that some videos (mainly SCOM, PC and NR) were popping up from time to time under the label "classic".

- My limited personal experience as someone living in a peripheral European country was was at her twenties at the time: I didn't have any friends at my age who were big GnR fans. Some of them were casuals at most, so they didn't care much. I had passed GnR tapes, among other stuff,  to some people in my circle (relatives, acquaintances etc.), 5-6 years younger than me, who had gotten into rock either through the Metallica black album or through Nirvana and "grunge", and they didn't connect; there was a general vibe that GnR were a "has been"/not very cool band. Bands like AC/DC and Metallica continued being very popular among an older metal-ish audience (although part of the hardcore metal Metallica fans considered them sellouts in the 90s), GnR not so much, but it was probably because GnR didn't gain as much popularity here among that audience as in other countries in the first place (same goes for the pre-grunge indie/alternative audience, which was relatively strong here). I think though that people who were already fans, like me (even though I was disappointed by some aspects of the UYI albums and era, mainly the NR video), didn't stop liking them; it was just that there was much other stuff going on in music currently and GnR didn't release anything, so (and depending on each one's musical taste) people moved on.

On a side note, in retrospect, to me personally GnR has aged much better (I even like the Illusions now more than I had at the time) than much of 90s popular rock. I'm talking mainly about the bulk of mid/late 90s mainstream "alternative": Green Day, post-grunge bands like Bush etc., some of Britpop, Marilyn Manson...  I wasn't a fan at the time (just casually listened to the aforementioned stuff), now I think they were just meh or utter shit. I never got into nu-metal; I was old for that crap, but I think I wouldn't have liked it regardless.

- I can't say how a GnR album in 1996 would have done commercially. I guess it would have found its audience, but how big that audience would've been and the relevance of the album in that era would've depended a lot on the musical direction. I think a good straight hard rock album or an Izzy-based one (in the direction Izzy had gone to in the 90s, ie. more stonesy/roots rock) could have sold and been received decently, but in order to make an impact they would need a bolder album with some progressive/contemporary touch without reinventing their sound completely - that's my personal opinion anyway. They would have been more than capable musically of doing it, hadn't it been for all the shit that went on (which was unavoidable given their personalities and the circumstances).

- A note on TSI: Imo its relative failure (as someone said, it didn't do so badly for a covers album) didn't have to do with the album itself, but with the perception of the band at the time. It might not say anything to people that were 13-14, had gotten to GnR with the Illusions , the big tour, the videos etc. and had never listened to punk, or to the traditional hard rock/metal GnR fanbase, but it wasn't the same for a little older people like me who knew most of the bands GnR covered. And it wasn't irrelevant neither to GnR themselves (since they had punk influences) nor to the era, with Kurt Cobain honouring and promoting his punk/post-punk influences, Pearl Jam covering a Dead Boys song etc.

15 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

There is actually a book about Guns from the author of No One Here Gets Out Alive which follows a similar train of thought,

Good book but his interpretation of the 'Bacchanalian v Dionysian' aspects of Guns I imagine drew a blank from most Gunners - Morrison and The Doors were on a higher intellectual plateau than Rose. 

I haven't read the book (only an article/Axl interview Sugerman had done for Spin magazine). I think I will because I'm curious about the comparison, considering that Sugerman knew Jim Morrison in person.

And I believe you meant to say 'Apollonian vs Dionysian/Bacchanalian'?

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

6 hours ago, Fashionista said:

Here's the thing though. If rock had begun its steady decline after the mid 90s, explain why Load did as well as the UYI albums in the States even though the fans hated it. Explain why bands like Korn, Tool, Papa Roach, Rage Against the Machine, System of a Down, Green Day, Marilyn Manson Limp Bizkit, etc did so well and captured a big chunk of the teenage/young adult audience in the States in the late 90s/early 00s. Even as late as 2004 you had albums like American Idiot doing MASSIVE sales. American Idiot sold 14 million copies worldwide, and went 6x Platinum here in the States alone. Look at how big Evanescence was in 2003-2005.

I don't think it has much to do with rock music declining more than Axl turning people off because he appeared not only more and more egocentric, but also more and more bizarre. This is a guy who was acting like a snob, using cigarette holders, wearing $500 sneakers,  wearing fur coats and hanging out with supermodels and going to fashion shows in a time where the musicians who captured the public's imagination were wearing ripped jeans, cheap t-shirts and flannel shirts. Axl was out of touch. He was living and embracing this jetset, superstar lifestyle in a time when rockers were downsizing and trying to look humble.

What disaffected teenager is going to relate to some guy wearing fur and hobnobbing with the elite? People like Eddie Vedder and Kurt Cobain had simply become more REAL than Axl...And they also came with a lot less baggage. You didn't risk getting hurt in a riot going to a Nirvana or AIC show. You didn't risk waiting three hours for Eddie Vedder to show up. 

When Axl came on the scene, his scrappy screwed up personality  was refreshing. He spoke to a forgotten generation of kids and to disaffected teens everywhere. But, by 1993, those teens had become young adults. They had grown up and matured. Axl didn't mature  with his audience, and his nonsense got old quick. There's no excuse in the world to make your fans wait hours for you. There's no excuse to stop shows for 10-20 minutes a time to rant about stuff no one in the audience really cares about. He was still acting the part of this disaffected punk...While wearing Versacci suits and making the most expensive videos of all time. He was going on and on about HIS past life regression stuff in a time where Kurt Cobain was talking about real shit, like politics, feminism and such. Axl started off as a really cool down to Earth guy, but became increasingly more "me, me, me."

I mean, go look at the 1992 VMAs. You have Nirvana and Pearl Jam playing raw, ragged, stripped down angry sets and are dressed like how the kids on the street were dressing...Axl is performing with Elton John and a professional orchestra and is dressed like some kind of 18th century aristocrat. The pomposity and grandiosity and pretentiousness of his aspirations turned off a lot of people, too, besides all the drama.

His act just got old. The people who were teens in 1988 were tired of it, and the new teenagers in 1993 wanted something with less drama.

There was another related discussion a while ago in a thread about the trilogy videos. I said then that Axl's role model were the larger-than-life rockstars of the 70s. Although he was always eclectic and liked/was influenced by different musical genres, the "bloated" 70s music and image was what mostly shaped him as he got into music through that as a kid. To him, his behaviour and appearance in the 90s was a reflection of a natural evolution of someone who from an "urchin under the street" became a rockstar. And in this sense, there is authenticity behind what has been perceived as pretentiousness.

Edited November 2, 2017 by Blackstar
added

[Fashionista]

21 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

Not all the rock press had that stance towards them. I'd say that the press was polarized about them from the beginning. Rolling Stone was very positive, but other than that, apart from magazines like Hit Parader, some magazines addressed to musicians and some metal orientated ones, the "serious" general rock press was so-so, critical or even negative. Also quite a few reviews of live shows weren't very favourable; and I'm not talking only about the "circus era", but even 1991, when Izzy was still in the band and before the UYI's were released:

http://web.archive.org/web/20080222191149/http://www.w-axl-rose.com:80/Reviews/ReviewsIndex.html

(It's a bit funny if you think how good the reviews for the NITL tour have been; if someone completely clueless about GnR (ie. never heard or seen them) attempted to form an opinion based only on reviews, they'd think that the 2016-17 band is much better than the 1991 one )

About the mid 90s:

- Regarding the press: As others already said, they had almost disappeared. To my recollection, they were nowhere in the few local rock outlets (magazines, newspapers, radio) - only just briefly when SFTD was released. And internationally, judging from the articles/interviews of that era, the majority of the press had almost "forgotten" about them and only Kerrang had articles on them more than a couple of times. A big part of it had to do with the change in the musical landscape, but I think it was also because they actually weren't making news; not only due to the lack of a release (apart from TSI and SFTD), but also because Axl (the main newsmaker, for good or bad) didn't talk to the media, Duff and Matt started talking in '96 when they did The Neurotic Outsiders, so, apart from Slash (who was the only one talking to the press in '94-'95) there weren't any other sources. I don't remember well what was going on with MTV (Europe) in regards to GnR at the time; I think that some videos (mainly SCOM, PC and NR) were popping up from time to time under the label "classic".

- My limited personal experience as someone living in a peripheral European country was was at her twenties at the time: I didn't have any friends at my age who were big GnR fans. Some of them were casuals at most, so they didn't care much. I had passed GnR tapes to some people in my circle (relatives, acquaintances etc.), 5-6 years younger than me, who had gotten into rock either through the Metallica black album or through Nirvana and "grunge", and they didn't connect; there was a general vibe that GnR were a "has been"/not very cool band. Bands like AC/DC and Metallica continued being very popular among an older metal-ish audience (although part of the hardcore metal Metallica fans considered them sellouts in the 90s), GnR not so much, but it was probably because GnR didn't gain as much popularity here among that audience as in other countries in the first place (same goes for the pre-grunge indie/alternative audience, which was relatively strong here). I think though that people who were already fans, like me (even though I was disappointed by some aspects of the UYI albums and era, mainly the NR video), didn't stop liking them; it was just that there was much other stuff going on in music currently and GnR didn't release anything, so (and depending on each one's musical taste) people moved on.

On a side note, in retrospect, to me personally GnR has aged much better (I even like the Illusions now more than I had at the time) than much of 90s popular rock. I'm talking mainly about the bulk of 90s "alternative", Green Day, post-grunge bands like Bush etc., some of Britpop, Marilyn Manson...  I wasn't a fan at the time (just casually listened to the aforementioned stuff), now I think they were just meh or utter shit. I never got into nu-metal; I was old for that crap, but I think I wouldn't have liked it regardless.

- I can't say how a GnR album in 1996 would have done commercially. I guess it would have found its audience, but how big that audience would've been and the relevance of the album in that era would've depended a lot on the musical direction. I think a good straight hard rock album or an Izzy-based one (in the direction Izzy had gone to in the 90s, ie. more stonesy/roots rock) could have sold and been received decently, but in order to make an impact they would need a bolder album with some progressive/contemporary touch without reinventing their sound completely - that's my personal opinion anyway. They would have been more than capable musically of doing it, hadn't it been for all the shit that went on.

- A note on TSI: Imo its relative failure (as someone said, it didn't do so badly for a covers album) didn't have to do with the album itself, but with the perception of the band at the time. It might not say anything to people that were 13-14, had gotten to GnR with the Illusions , the big tour, the videos etc. and had never listened to punk, or to the traditional hard rock/metal GnR fanbase, but it wasn't the same for a little older people like me who knew most of the bands GnR covered. And it wasn't irrelevant neither to GnR themselves (since they had punk influences) nor to the era, with Kurt Cobain honouring and promoting his punk/post-punk influences, Pearl Jam covering a Dead Boys song etc.

I haven't read the book (only an article/Axl interview Sugerman had done for Spin magazine), but I'm curious about the comparison, considering that Sugerman knew Jim Morrison in person.

And I believe it's Apollonian vs Dionysian?

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

There was another related discussion a while ago in a thread about the trilogy videos. I said then that Axl's role model were the larger-than-life rockstars of the 70s. Although he was always eclectic and liked/was influenced by different musical genres, the "bloated" 70s music and image was what mostly shaped him as he got into music through that as a kid. To him, his behaviour and appearance in the 90s was a reflection of a natural evolution of someone who from an "urchin under the street" became a rockstar. And in this sense, there is authenticity behind what has been perceived as pretentiousness.

Maybe there was an authenticity to it, but it was just the "wrong place, wrong time" for Axl to do what he was doing, dress how he was dressing etc. Axl would've been a much happier guy if he was born/if GN'R took off 20 years earlier.

[mikeman5150]

As a teen in the late 90's I remember there being a desire for new guns material. In the news section of every hit parader magazine, there was always talks about a new guns album coming. Slash said in one of them, great music is great music, whether it's 1987 or 1997, shouldn't make a difference. This was in a mid 96' issue. I remember being pretty excited about it. Unfortunately, a few month later, there was a story in the same magazine that said slash splits! Also the January 97' issue had a readers poll that named GNR as the top missing in action band. 

 I think as others have said, a new guns album would've done great at anytime. They weren't as popular because they weren't touring or releasing music, I think it's as simple as that. When oh my god came out, I remember there was a big story in the same magazine talking about it and how a new GNR record would perform well. 

My sophomore year in high school, the day after the 99' vma's, everybody was talking about how the new Arnold  Schwarzenegger movie had a new track from GNR because it said that during the trailer that premiered during the vma's. I remember spending my homeroom period trying to login to aol with dial up Internet to see if there was anymore info. 

[Fashionista]

25 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

- A note on TSI: Imo its relative failure (as someone said, it didn't do so badly for a covers album) didn't have to do with the album itself, but with the perception of the band at the time. It might not say anything to people that were 13-14, had gotten to GnR with the Illusions , the big tour, the videos etc. and had never listened to punk, or to the traditional hard rock/metal GnR fanbase, but it wasn't the same for a little older people like me who knew most of the bands GnR covered. And it wasn't irrelevant neither to GnR themselves (since they had punk influences) nor to the era, with Kurt Cobain honouring and promoting his punk/post-punk influences, Pearl Jam covering a Dead Boys song etc.

 

Yeah, the perception was pretty crappy at the time. Also a lot of people thought GN'R were doing a punk album for cynical reasons, not for artistic reasons. Also, when your lead single is a Doo Wop song, and your video for it is a really weird video featuring Gary Oldman as a weird clown demon...Teens were probably like "wut?" I mean..I love SIDHY but does a Doo Wop love ballad really fit in, in any way shape or form with the musical climate of 1994?

[Blackstar]

10 hours ago, Fashionista said:

Yeah, the perception was pretty crappy at the time. Also a lot of people thought GN'R were doing a punk album for cynical reasons, not for artistic reasons. Also, when your lead single is a Doo Wop song, and your video for it is a really weird video featuring Gary Oldman as a weird clown demon...Teens were probably like "wut?" I mean..I love SIDHY but does a Doo Wop love ballad really fit in, in any way shape or form with the musical climate of 1994?

Yeah, many people, as well as critics, had said that TSI was an attempt on GnR's part to jump on the bandwagon, not knowing that much of it was recorded during the UYI sessions and the release of a punk covers EP was announced in 1990.

You have a point on SIDHY, especially the video (not because of Gary Oldman though - I liked those parts). It wasn't the best choice for a single from that album.

It's true that teenagers/young people tend to reject something only because it's old/"not of their time", even if some of the new music they like and listen to is actually old stylistically; November Rain, for example, although released in 1991, was musically more 70s than current.

Not all teens were like that though (I don't know about these days). I wasn't; I liked it when I discovered a cool older song or band through a cover, which I wouldn't have otherwise (or I would much later). It was great that a lot of people knew about Leadbelly thanks to Nirvana; many, teenagers included, liked Where Did You Sleep Last Night without saying 'meh, it's old'. Same goes for even the David Bowie song, since many had never heard the original.

Edited November 2, 2017 by Blackstar

[bigpoop]

TSI was okay for what it was, or what it was meant to be...a sort of stop gap. The problem is that nothing came after. That was it. And as the last statement of a band, which is what it turned out to be.... it's a pretty weak one.

[Draguns]

14 hours ago, Fashionista said:

 

In 1993, Aerosmith, blues based rock, released Get A Grip, sold 17 million copies worldwide. Same year Metallica released Live Shit: Binge & Purge, a boxset, which sold 15 million copies in the US alone. 1994, The Rolling Stones, blues based rock released Voodoo Lounge, which sold 2 million copies in the US alone, had videos all over MTV, and saw the band be invited to the MTV Music Awards in '95. Van Halen, another blues based band, released Balance in 1995, which went 2x Platinum in the US. AC/DC released Ballbreaker in 1995 which went 2x Platinum. Bon Jovi's These Days, released in 1995, sold around 8 mil worldwide.

Ozzy's Osmosis album went 3x Platinum in 95. Metallica's Load (1996) sold 5 million copies in the US; its sequel, Reload, sold 4 million.

 

In 93, blues based hard rock was still popular. In NJ, blues based hard rock started to lose its appeal in the fall of 94. Green Day was huge during my freshman year in the fall of 94.  I would say that by 97,  blues based hard rock declined heavily for college students. Looking back, it seemed like there were a ton of one hit wonders that were mostly pop, post grunge, rap-rock, and rap artist. 

Metallica was one of a few bands that was popular. I think in part it was due to their change in style regarding fashion, video, and music. They came out with a very weird video at the time. 

[ludurigan]

say what you want about music styles, trends, this that and the other

one thing that never goes out of fashion is good songs

i even heard some strong and persistent rumours that there are people out there making a very good living based on good songs written over thirty years ago. can anyone confirm that?

 

[S1lkw0rm1]

I think during 1992-1997 they were uncool but still popular.

They were uncool because their audience had become much bigger than just teenage kids. And what happens when a rock band once described as “rebellious” or “dangerous” becomes so popular that your mother knows about them or that the guy/girl who has no clue about music likes one of their songs? Cool kids and snob music journalists start to repel them. The notion that they “fell off the earth” came from the fact that the media and music snobs had plenty of bands and “new” genres to listen to. Besides grunge, there was Brit Pop, Shoegaze, Trip-Hop, Hip-hop, Pop-punk, Nü Metal (and all the heavy metal sub-genres that appeared at that time), Stoner, Industrial, etc. All of these underground/alternative styles and bands had much more exposure to the music media than their peers from the '80s. The really relevant and important bands from 80's that made Nirvana possible (Minutemen-Black Flag-Pixies-Husker Dü-The Replacements-Melvins-Sonic Youth, etc.) did not have that privilege when they were “at their prime”.

Regarding their popularity, I can’t imagine GNR losing such a big audience from one year to another, especially if my hypothesis about their audience is correct. But I still cannot venture what would have happened if they released a record by 1996-1998. My guess is that they might have sold a lot if they released anything between Radiohead’s OK Computer and Kid A, regardless of the style or sound. I think nothing relevant happened during that time. Maybe Portishead’ second album, but not much more. In fact, most big bands released albums during that time and sold really well.

So, I would not say that the band disappeared or vanished from the collective unconscious. I think Axl just did not bother confronting anymore. For some people, this helped fixing the idea that he was (and will always be) a selfish diva who never cared about his fans and that his persona was against the sign of the times. Almost as if misogyny, artistic pomposity and racism was incarnated by him and, subsequently, eradicated by Kurt Cobain. For others, he cemented his image as the last true rock and roll myth.

[Carburetta]

I even placed myself in the "not a fan" category during this time, wasn't until the live era release that my interest was reignited.

Had all the albums and a worn out Paris '92 VHS prior to that.

[Carburetta]

I think it was the right time for the band to take a hiatus. Their popularity did seem to drop off over night, they more or less disappeared in an age with out the internet. I mean Axl probably still had mistique, he just wasn't in the public eye, so was easy to forget. People moved on pretty quickly. The music at the time played a part, grunge etc, Gnr definitely wasn't cool at that point.

[Carburetta]

This is me speaking as a teenager in the U.K, everybody liked Blur and/or Oasis or listened to rave music