What's your unpopular GN'R opinion?

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Nobody has really cited technical ability though so yet again you're dealing in straw men.

Oh. So what did you have in mind when you wrote this: "Opera singers are on a completely different plateau". You were thinking about their flamboyant clothes and pathos?

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

Oh. So what did you have in mind when you wrote this: "Opera singers are on a completely different plateau". You were thinking about their flamboyant clothes and pathos?

Do you not regard emotive power as being evident in classical singers just as much as rock? 

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

You agree and do what? Stop judging a band when the haven't released anything?

I cannot judge Guns N' Roses at all - that is precisely the point. They don't release anything. They are as dead as the Dodo.

[WhazUp]

9 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I cannot judge Guns N' Roses at all - that is precisely the point. They don't release anything. They are as dead as the Dodo.

You can judge their shows, their tours, the musical interplay between different band members in any given lineup based on said shows, no?

Edited March 30, 2019 by WhazUp

[SoulMonster]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

Do you not regard emotive power as being evident in classical singers just as much as rock? 

I cannot judge Guns N' Roses at all - that is precisely the point. They don't release anything. They are as dead as the Dodo.

Do I not regard it as much as rock? Like everything with opera I generally find the emotive power in opera overblown and exaggerated. Cartoonish. But that is just my personal opinion, more power to you if it grips you. 

So you cannot judge any music that isn't contemporary? That is ironic from one who raves about classical opera  And you can't compare old Rolling Stone albums to Beatles albums, either. How odd.

6 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I cannot judge Guns N' Roses at all - that is precisely the point. They don't release anything. They are as dead as the Dodo.

They did release two new singles last year, didn't they? So by your weird logic you can actually rate GN'R, but not Beatles or Mozart.

[DieselDaisy]

8 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Do I not regard it as much as rock? Like everything with opera I generally find the emotive power in opera overblown and exaggerated. Cartoonish. But that is just my personal opinion, more power to you if it grips you. 

So you cannot judge any music that isn't contemporary? That is ironic from one who raves about classical opera  And you can't compare old Rolling Stone albums to Beatles albums, either. How odd.

They did release two new singles last year, didn't they? So by your weird logic you can actually rate GN'R, but not Beatles or Mozart.

You've lost me.

[jekylhyde]

- I actually dug the handlebar mustache.

- My World should be a full song.

- The Seeker should stay on the setlist.

[DieselDaisy]

15 minutes ago, WhazUp said:

You can judge their shows, their tours, the musical interplay between different band members in any given lineup based on said shows, no?

I'm not really going to go to a Guns N' Roses how haha, let's be honest, and listening to bootlegs is apparently this massive crime in the eyes of the band.

[SoulMonster]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

You've lost me.

In connection with the box set they released 'Shadow of Your Love' and (possibly) 'Move to the City (acoustic)', didn't they? And now you will say that these don't count because they are old songs, which means that you cannot even rate new releases of classical music because a lot of the works were written in the 18th and 19th century, or re-releases of Beatles records, and hence digging yourself even further down because you simply have to reject GN'R even if it leads to ridiculous arguments like this.

Fact is that a band doesn't have to release anything to be a band. Those aspiring musicians playing at your local club right now are a band even if they haven't released anything yet. They are a band because they play music together. And Guns N' Roses is a band, too, because they play shows quite regularly. They are not a releasing band at the moment, but a band doesn't seize to be a band in those periods in-between records. A band seizes to be a band when they stop playing music together. 

And you can always rate music, irrespective of how old it is. Any piece of music you hear, you can rate. Guns N' Roses as a band can be judged and rated based on what it has released previously. Just like you can rate Beatles. Or old Rolling Stone records. Songs aren't temporal and stop being just because it is old, not even when you struggle to make an argument against Guns N' Roses. 

[WhazUp]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

I'm not really going to go to a Guns N' Roses how haha, let's be honest, and listening to bootlegs is apparently this massive crime in the eyes of the band.

Doesn't mean the bootlegs are not there to be listened to still though   

And anyways, the way I see it, DJ Ashbas's solo on Patience was a massive crime to our eardrums, so if bootlegs are a massive crime then me and GNR are now even 

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

In connection with the box set they released 'Shadow of Your Love' and (possibly) 'Move to the City (acoustic)', didn't they? And now you will say that these don't count because they are old songs, which means that you cannot even rate new releases of classical music because a lot of the works were written in the 18th and 19th century, or re-releases of Beatles records, and hence digging yourself even further down because you simply have to reject GN'R even if it leads to ridiculous arguments like this.

Fact is that a band doesn't have to release anything to be a band. Those aspiring musicians playing at your local club right now are a band even if they haven't released anything yet. They are a band because they play music together. And Guns N' Roses is a band, too, because they play shows quite regularly. They are not a releasing band at the moment, but a band doesn't seize to be a band in those periods in-between records. A band seizes to be a band when they stop playing music together. 

And you can always rate music, irrespective of how old it is. Any piece of music you hear, you can rate. Guns N' Roses as a band can be judged and rated based on what it has released previously. Just like you can rate Beatles. Or old Rolling Stone records. Songs aren't temporal and stop being just because it is old, not even when you struggle to make an argument against Guns N' Roses. 

It simply has to be. It simply has to be,

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, WhazUp said:

Doesn't mean the bootlegs are not there to be listened to still though   

I'm not going to listen to any of that, am I? Three old farts, session guys and some girl playing an album from 1987. If I wanted to listen to Guns N' Roses I'd watch the real deal in their prime, i.e., I'd stick on the Ritz.

[WhazUp]

4 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I'm not going to listen to any of that, am I? Three old farts, session guys and some girl playing an album from 1987. 

That's up to you - personally the audio of some 2016 shows I have I come back too often because I think they sound totally kickass.  Ritz one day, Houston the next

[LauraS]

55 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

You can only judge quality and relevancy on something. Guns don't release anything.

 

Must agree with you, your opinion is quite unpopular. Guns released music that is heavilly listened and apreciated even if it is 30 years old, that means it is important, relevant and the band succes must be measured also for work endurance, I am a high school teacher, GNR is hugely popular between my students. Better release good music in a small quantity and still important in decades than making huge amonts of songs with zero value in 5 years.

[soon]

46 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Reminds me of wankers who rave over experimental jazz musicians trying to convince others the music is good because they are so technically good, or can't fathom why other people don't like Yngwie Malmsteen when he can play soooo fast  Technical ability only means something when it translates to good music.

Experimental jazz and Yngwie both do translate to good music!

On another note from earlier in the conversation, I think me and an Opera soprano would get along swimmingly.

[LauraS]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

I found a list of your favorite bands: https://rateyourmusic.com/list/floflo79/the_most_productive_artists_of_all_time__chart_/

This is quitte an interesting list.

Edited March 30, 2019 by LauraS

[DieselDaisy]

6 minutes ago, LauraS said:

Must agree with you, your opinion is quite unpopular. Guns released music that is heavilly listened and apreciated even if it is 30 years old, that means it is important, relevant and the band succes must be measured also for work endurance, I am a high school teacher, GNR is hugely popular between my students. Better release good music in a small quantity and still important in decades than making huge amonts of songs with zero value in 5 years.

Most of the genuinely great bands of course aspire to being both productive and high quality. 

[LauraS]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

Most of the genuinely great bands of course aspire to being both productive and high quality. 

But only few actually succed to pass the test of time.

[killuridols]

How much of a boring wanker one has to be to analyze AFD, Lies, the Illusions, etc. after analyzing the shit of it during 30 years or so? 

With so many new artists and new music out there, why would we restrict ourselves to listening to GN'R or discussing their stale discography for the zillion time? 

Unless you were born yesterday and just discovered this band, I can't fucking see the point of telling a fan from the first hour to embark themselves into such a miserable task 

[lame ass security]

5 minutes ago, killuridols said:

How much of a boring wanker one has to be to analyze AFD, Lies, the Illusions, etc. after analyzing the shit of it during 30 years or so? 

With so many new artists and new music out there, why would we restrict ourselves to listening to GN'R or discussing their stale discography for the zillion time? 

Unless you were born yesterday and just discovered this band, I can't fucking see the point of telling a fan from the first hour to embark themselves into such a miserable task 

I don't know if it's boring or just bored.😄 I come on here sometimes just for a bit of friendly debate strictly out of boredom.

[killuridols]

Just now, lame ass security said:

I don't know if it's boring or just bored.😄 I come on here sometimes just for a bit of friendly debate strictly out of boredom.

I feel ya bro' 

Some of this shit it is pretty entertaining to read.

And I'm one of those poor people who don't have Netflix 

[Graeme]

15 hours ago, Draguns said:

You missed out on the REAL era of GNR. Nothing will ever compare to the 87-93 era. That era was pure magic for the band. 

See, it seems to me that on this board, there's always been much less respect from people who prefer the Appetite/Illusions/NITL line-ups towards the people who like the CD line-ups than from the people who enjoyed the CD line-ups towards those who liked the rest. 

You were around in 87-93, and you had a great time as a fan of the band... Cool, great. I'm glad. I can respect that, in fact I have a lot of respect for it.

If someone dares to say that they had a great time at a show in '02 or '06, that one of the CD line-up was their favourite member of the band or that a song from CD is one of their favourites, roll on the  reacts, the  emoticons or the verbal implications that they're not a "real" fan, or that they're some sort of musical retard.

It's like those opinions are unacceptable and the people who hold them need to be told that they're WRONG.

Obviously, it has its roots in the fact that the people who enjoyed the CD years still likely have a lot of appreciation for the overall legacy of the band, whereas the people who are devotees of the older/reunion line-ups are generally much more hateful or disparaging of the line-ups without Slash and Duff, but it's a real buzzkill in this section now, to be honest.

Notice, Len and Soul and I didn't agree on everything in our discussion earlier in the thread (far from it, in fact) but the discussion was still fun because no-one was trying to belittle the tastes, experiences and opinions of anyone else. 

[killuridols]

7 minutes ago, Graeme said:

Obviously, it has its roots in the fact that the people who enjoyed the CD years still likely have a lot of appreciation for the overall legacy of the band, whereas the people who are devotees of the older/reunion line-ups are generally much more hateful or disparaging of the line-ups without Slash and Duff, but it's a real buzzkill in this section now, to be honest.

I agree with some parts of this, not entirely. Because I have found some of the CD era devotees to be the biggest trolls on the Internet.

Their hate reaches to a point where they deny the work of Slash, and this is basically because they are mainly Axl fans, not fans of the whole band.

While I can see what you're saying about some fans disparaging the nuGNR line-up, this derives exclusively from how Axl alienated fans during that time, by saying things like Slash should have not even been in the band for starters and all the other shit he did to try to erase that legacy you talk about.

IMO, the fans from the first hour have seen the best of GN'R, because that was a time when the band was relevant, not only in context with their contemporaries but because what impresses you as a teenagers cannot be taken away and even though, in my case, I still enjoy discovering new artists and new music, it doesn't come nearly close to what I experienced in the early 90s and never will. That's why I can understand where the old fans are coming from, because we weren't told the history of GN'R. We LIVED it. And we know what it was like to see the band rising, Axl on his prime, waiting for the albums and videos to get released, the whole madness. Nothing, absolutely NOTHING similar happened later with this band.

You obviously are your own being and none of us should have the nerve to deny your experience, your joy and the feelings you had when you saw the band in the 00's, but people who were not alive or aware of GN'R during the mid 80s and 90s, also cannot deny what we experienced back then. Neither have the nerve to deny the legacy and the original people who created the music that allowed Axl Rose to play shows in the 00's, using the benefits of a name that was built on the shoulders of other 4 guys, aside from himself.

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, Graeme said:

See, it seems to me that on this board, there's always been much less respect from people who prefer the Appetite/Illusions/NITL line-ups towards the people who like the CD line-ups than from the people who enjoyed the CD line-ups towards those who liked the rest. 

You were around in 87-93, and you had a great time as a fan of the band... Cool, great. I'm glad. I can respect that, in fact I have a lot of respect for it.

If someone dares to say that they had a great time at a show in '02 or '06, that one of the CD line-up was their favourite member of the band or that a song from CD is one of their favourites, roll on the  reacts, the  emoticons or the verbal implications that they're not a "real" fan, or that they're some sort of musical retard.

It's like those opinions are unacceptable and the people who hold them need to be told that they're WRONG.

Obviously, it has its roots in the fact that the people who enjoyed the CD years still likely have a lot of appreciation for the overall legacy of the band, whereas the people who are devotees of the older/reunion line-ups are generally much more hateful or disparaging of the line-ups without Slash and Duff, but it's a real buzzkill in this section now, to be honest.

Notice, Len and Soul and I didn't agree on everything in our discussion earlier in the thread (far from it, in fact) but the discussion was still fun because no-one was trying to belittle the tastes, experiences and opinions of anyone else. 

With me it is more a case of, written and released,

- Old band: 4 allbums

- Buckethead era band: 1 album albeit delayed

- 2006 band: null

The old band wrote at least 80% of Guns N' Roses's music whereas the 2006 band wrote nothing to the best of our knowledge (although it did contribute overdubs to the Buckethead era's album).

Now if you love Chinese - really love Chinese with a passion - I can just about grasp the idea of somebody preferring the circa 2002 band, but am clueless why somebody would opt for a band who produced no written Guns N' Roses material.

 

Edited March 31, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[Draguns]

1 hour ago, Graeme said:

See, it seems to me that on this board, there's always been much less respect from people who prefer the Appetite/Illusions/NITL line-ups towards the people who like the CD line-ups than from the people who enjoyed the CD line-ups towards those who liked the rest. 

You were around in 87-93, and you had a great time as a fan of the band... Cool, great. I'm glad. I can respect that, in fact I have a lot of respect for it.

If someone dares to say that they had a great time at a show in '02 or '06, that one of the CD line-up was their favourite member of the band or that a song from CD is one of their favourites, roll on the  reacts, the  emoticons or the verbal implications that they're not a "real" fan, or that they're some sort of musical retard.

It's like those opinions are unacceptable and the people who hold them need to be told that they're WRONG.

Obviously, it has its roots in the fact that the people who enjoyed the CD years still likely have a lot of appreciation for the overall legacy of the band, whereas the people who are devotees of the older/reunion line-ups are generally much more hateful or disparaging of the line-ups without Slash and Duff, but it's a real buzzkill in this section now, to be honest.

Notice, Len and Soul and I didn't agree on everything in our discussion earlier in the thread (far from it, in fact) but the discussion was still fun because no-one was trying to belittle the tastes, experiences and opinions of anyone else. 

It's no disrespect to you or others who became a fan during the NU-GNR era. However, fans like me who have been following GNR from the very beginning saw the magic that 5 guys created. There wasn't anything like it nor do I think anything like that will come about. If it does, it'll be  a long time.

For myself, I fell in love with this band in October 1987. It was a time where I was fighting for my civil rights to be in a public school. At that time, students with disabilities weren't mainstreamed and forced to go into  specialized school for only students with disabilities. These specialized schools had a lower quality of education.  I  saw how these 5 guys were fighting for themselves to be successful as much as I was fighting for my civil rights. It left a HUGE  impression on me so much so that at 42 I still consider them role models. 

With that being said, I saw the difference when the original guys left and it was just Axl. Even though I will always support Axl, it was different. It wasn't the same band. The quality and attitude was no longer there in 2002. I think those were the things that people  like myself saw. We saw what the band was and what it became. It no longer was GNR. It was Axl and a band that was put together through trial and error.  

This is not disparaging you or any other fans but it's just that older fans like me saw it all. 

PS: I hate political correctness, but I kindly ask not to use the word "retard" in that manner again. It's offensive to me. Even though I have a physical disability, I've been told that in my life. It ticks me off and not just because I've been told that. It's also what I have seen from people with developmental disabilities.  Thanks 

[Rovim]

^^^

maybe it didn't compare to the classic line up but there was magic with the 2002 line up as well imo. the combination of musicians worked and it was weird how the different element worked together to form something that was very special.