Jump to content
Dcrazed212

What if GNR never split up and released 5 or 6 albums ?

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Spaghetti Guy said:

What if GNR died in a plane crash in 1993?

It kinda did

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kind of agree, but I do think if they went back to the hard rock thing like Axl said they were gonna do after UYI, they could have probably gotten 1-2 more huge albums in before the bottom fell out. They are huge because they never had an artistic downfall (sans SI? but that was just a cover album). CD was an okay seller (but that was justified as a low seller because it was just Axl). If they put out an album now, it would probably sell as much as a new Megadeth album...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same Question: What if Titanic never hit the iceberg?  I think it's the event, what makes the Titanic so famous. Same with Guns N' Roses. It's the story behind Guns N' Roses what makes this band so special. I think GN'R with happy dudes, a very public Axl and 20 or more records make them boring. It's my opinion.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if your Aunty had balls she would be your Uncle...   that's what my Dad always used to reply to 'What if" scenarios  :-)

  • GNFNR 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tadsy said:

you can’t turn back the clock. 
the 80s and early 90s were a special time! 
going to a rock concert meant something! 
The band was dangerous! The music had an edge to it. Axl was axl, there was a feeling in the air that anything could happen. The crowds didn’t stand there holding mobile phones like zombies instead of enjoying themselves, You just can’t replicate that time or the vibe, it was a lot of different ingredients that made it what it was!!! The band was 30 years younger than it is now. As were most of us!  As for  5 more albums???? I dunno, I think the tide had turned musically & socially and the world wanted to move onto a heap of different shit that imo was a backward step! Hip hop and grunge were exploding,

As someone else said I think by mid noughties 06, there was a turning point where people missed gnr and rock in general and festivals like rock am ring were huge keeping gnr in peoples minds! Axl looked and sounded amazing! I am still shocked at the major body changes he underwent between 06-10 (four years) and he just morphed into an older dude in that time! So 06 was the opportunity to do it, imo. 
I’m a dinosaur, I hate most of the music from the last 20 years, people walking around on phones like zombies, the instant gratification era... whatever you want to call it. 
just give me every minute of footage of this band between 87-93 and I’ll die a happy man! 😉

 

Like this post, as someone who was in their early 20s by 96,  grunge was on the way out by the time slash left gnr. I would say if the band could have held on and released an album in 97, maybe recoded different stuff like metallica did in the 90s i think the band could have gone through the 90s and into 00s still intact. If the band released new music they may have been the main focus instead of numetal crap.

But i suppose the band wouldnt have a certain mystique like they do now.

Ps. Unpopular opionion, i like axls porn tache.icant beleive his body change between 06 to 2010 to 2014. In 2014 he looks like a lead singer in a southern rock band. Then 2016 was the biggest shock.

Edited by Sydney Fan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How hypothetically shit does that make Guns N' Roses look, or how little faith you have in them, if you believe they would have started producing inferior albums if they had continued producing records after Illusion? The Stones were on their (circa) 16th album before producing a dodgy one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GnR have one great album and two very good albums and a very good EP.  You're only as good as your output.  GnR don't really qualify as a great band to me.  Great like The Stones where you can go, OK, Beggars, Out of Our Heads, Exile, Sticky, Let it Bleed, all albums that to me qualify as great...with more besides.  Or The Beatles or The Who or The Kinks or what have you.  Guns didn't really show signs ever that they were improving as a band, I wouldn't necessarily have high expectations for another 5 or 6 albums. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

 Guns didn't really show signs ever that they were improving as a band

I disagree. They already evolved musically speaking on their second record, some bands need 3 or 4 records to evolve like that, and some never evolve at all.

As for the songs, that is subjective. Personally I think they grew as songwriters and that if the UYI's would have been one record without the filler, it would have been even better than AFD. But that's just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

GnR have one great album and two very good albums and a very good EP.  You're only as good as your output.  GnR don't really qualify as a great band to me.  Great like The Stones where you can go, OK, Beggars, Out of Our Heads, Exile, Sticky, Let it Bleed, all albums that to me qualify as great...with more besides.  Or The Beatles or The Who or The Kinks or what have you.  Guns didn't really show signs ever that they were improving as a band, I wouldn't necessarily have high expectations for another 5 or 6 albums. 

but great like the stones is the greatest or like the beatles. Gn'R never claimed to be that good. Axl seemed to mock himself in the interview he did in 2016 about how the Gn'R catalog was small.

I believe they could have released a full acoustic album expanding on lies and take it to a more rock n' roll based place like on Appetite letting Izzy guide it and and go for a more AC/DC-ish career but maybe a little more varied but their egos didn't allow it and different musical goals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, EvanG said:

I disagree. They already evolved musically speaking on their second record, some bands need 3 or 4 records to evolve like that, and some never evolve at all.

As for the songs, that is subjective. Personally I think they grew as songwriters and that if the UYI's would have been one record without the filler, it would have been even better than AFD. But that's just my opinion.

I guess its that subjectivity because I don't really feel they evolved, the term evolved doesn't just mean expanding musically but expanding into territory that shows improvement, otherwise its devolving.  I don't think there's anything on Illusions that you could look at Lies or Appetite and go 'OK, they've kinda pushed on there'.  Alright, ballads but you could see they had ballads in em, just look at Patience.  As for lyrically evolving, I'm not sure I agree, the songs became less tight and more like forums for Axl to rant.

Quote

but great like the stones is the greatest or like the beatles. Gn'R never claimed to be that good. Axl seemed to mock himself in the interview he did in 2016 about how the Gn'R catalog was small.

Yeah, I suppose I'm talking more with the hype in mind.

Quote

I believe they could have released a full acoustic album expanding on lies and take it to a more rock n' roll based place like on Appetite letting Izzy guide it and and go for a more AC/DC-ish career but maybe a little more varied but their egos didn't allow it and different musical goals.

Honestly, I'm not sure they had the talent.  Its alright to throw around names like AC/DC or The Ramones but like...its no easy feat y'know, even though the songs are relatively simple, coming up with that shit isn't as simple as it looks otherwise a lot more people would've done it.  I mean talent in terms of like...consistent writing of good songs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, t-p-d-a said:

Same Question: What if Titanic never hit the iceberg?  I think it's the event, what makes the Titanic so famous. Same with Guns N' Roses. It's the story behind Guns N' Roses what makes this band so special. I think GN'R with happy dudes, a very public Axl and 20 or more records make them boring. It's my opinion.

I dont think becoming a joke that lives off nostalgia is anything special hmmm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they did split up. If they didn't, they would have been different people in the first place, and GN'R would be a different band than what we have in our reality. 

What if Kurt Cobain never died? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I guess its that subjectivity because I don't really feel they evolved, the term evolved doesn't just mean expanding musically but expanding into territory that shows improvement, otherwise its devolving.  I don't think there's anything on Illusions that you could look at Lies or Appetite and go 'OK, they've kinda pushed on there'.  Alright, ballads but you could see they had ballads in em, just look at Patience.  As for lyrically evolving, I'm not sure I agree, the songs became less tight and more like forums for Axl to rant.

Except for more diversity and them becoming better musicians, lyrically especially Axl became better, or at least he evolved. Maybe he could have written some of those lyrics during the AFD era too, but AFD was basically about sex, drugs and life on the streets and after that he started writing personal stuff about his childhood and depressions. This is subjective too, but I prefer those lyrics to the shallow lyrics on AFD about partying and other debauchery.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

How hypothetically shit does that make Guns N' Roses look, or how little faith you have in them, if you believe they would have started producing inferior albums if they had continued producing records after Illusion? The Stones were on their (circa) 16th album before producing a dodgy one.

The stones for the better part of their career existed in a world that didn’t change all that much until the back end of their career. 
guns were volatile, all 5 classic members Had drug, alcohol or maniacal issues,  times were changing quickly in the industry and no one would really know if they were ever going to release another album to stay at the top or not. I am one of the few on here who happens to be fine with what they’ve released. I do feel it was a waste of their prime how it ended up however. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Tadsy said:

The stones for the better part of their career existed in a world that didn’t change all that much until the back end of their career. 
guns were volatile, all 5 classic members Had drug, alcohol or maniacal issues,  times were changing quickly in the industry and no one would really know if they were ever going to release another album to stay at the top or not. I am one of the few on here who happens to be fine with what they’ve released. I do feel it was a waste of their prime how it ended up however. 
 

I cannot agree with any of this. Most of what you said, ''drug, alcohol'', ''times changing quickly in the industry'', uncertainly over ''another album'', also apply to the Stones with the volume turned up to maximum! And their world certainly changed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tadsy said:

The stones for the better part of their career existed in a world that didn’t change all that much until the back end of their career. 
guns were volatile, all 5 classic members Had drug, alcohol or maniacal issues,  times were changing quickly in the industry and no one would really know if they were ever going to release another album to stay at the top or not. I am one of the few on here who happens to be fine with what they’ve released. I do feel it was a waste of their prime how it ended up however. 
 

Shit they went from the teenybopper beginnings of the tail end of rock n roll era to the seething politicized couldron in the late mis to late 60s to the dark early 70s, then the punk movement that fuckin' hated them, right through gunses era.

Edited by Len Cnut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, EvanG said:

Except for more diversity and them becoming better musicians, lyrically especially Axl became better, or at least he evolved. Maybe he could have written some of those lyrics during the AFD era too, but AFD was basically about sex, drugs and life on the streets and after that he started writing personal stuff about his childhood and depressions. This is subjective too, but I prefer those lyrics to the shallow lyrics on AFD about partying and other debauchery.

I don't see much diversity at all.  More ballads, thats about it.  Also I don't agree necessarily that if lyrics are about sex, drugs and life on the streets that necessarily makes them more shallow.  Its about how you approach a subject that gives it depth, not the subject in and of itself, you could write an entire album of personal shit but just because its personal doesn't necessarily mean it has depth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/02/2020 at 4:23 PM, t-p-d-a said:

Same Question: What if Titanic never hit the iceberg?  I think it's the event, what makes the Titanic so famous. Same with Guns N' Roses. It's the story behind Guns N' Roses what makes this band so special. I think GN'R with happy dudes, a very public Axl and 20 or more records make them boring. It's my opinion.

Right on, great analogy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What ever they do they better do it in this lifetime, they are all getting old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

I don't see much diversity at all.  More ballads, thats about it.  Also I don't agree necessarily that if lyrics are about sex, drugs and life on the streets that necessarily makes them more shallow.  Its about how you approach a subject that gives it depth, not the subject in and of itself, you could write an entire album of personal shit but just because its personal doesn't necessarily mean it has depth. 

I agree with the last part, but personally I think some of the lyrics on AFD are rather shallow. But I never considered lyrics to be their forte anyway, at least not on AFD. I'm sure many disagree.

As for diversity, there is definitely more diversity on UYI but it's a double record, there's a lot more room for it. Not to say that AFD is one dimensional. But on UYI they started experimenting with more different instruments and exploring more sub-genres and different influences and lyrically it is more diverse too.

Edited by EvanG
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just fooled around with some examples of what albums could have been comprised of. Its not a scientific study by any means, but at a glance Id be happy with albums somewhere along these lines. I could have done 2-3 more albums too of stuff that they could have been conceived of along the timeline. Just some fun. Not in track order.

  1. Good To Be Alive
  2. Dime Store Rock
  3. Beggars And Hangers On
  4. Soma City Ward
  5. Lower
  6. Back And Forth Again
  7. Monkey Chow
  8. Tijuana Jail
  9. Cure Me Or Kill Me
  10. This I Love

 

  1. Zack track
  2. Zack track
  3. Zack Track
  4. I hate Everybody But You
  5. Skin and Bones
  6. Black
  7. Neurotic Outsiders Track
  8. Down By The Ocean
  9. Madagascar
  10. Whatever Track Fortus Mentioned about a Slash riff before Slash returned (Hardschool?)

 

  1. Snakepit 2 track
  2. Snakepit 2 track
  3. Snakepit 2 track
  4. Riff Axl mentioned and claimed was Fall To Pieces 
  5. Rock Star SuperNova Track (I kid, I kid!!)
  6. Catcher
  7. Atlas Shrugged
  8. Duff/Izzy
  9. Duff/Izzy
  10. Snakepit 2 track

 

 

Edited by soon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the GNR legend/lore is the "what if" aspect to the band's history. People are attracted and pulled to the band because of the "man, they were awesome and it sucks that they split up so fast."

 

If they stick around and put out some above-average albums, does that make the band a little less appealing to talk about and opine with regards to the abstract and purely subjective "greatness" conversation?

 

There's definitely an argument to be made.

 

However, this is purely for the general rock fans sector of the discussion. As diehard fans, we would be much much much happier. Then again, if GNR put out 3-4 more above-average albums and finished with a lengthier discography that was a little more of a slow decline to irrelevance, then it's possible that some of the diehard fans wouldn't actually be diehard fans. Again, part of what makes GNR attractive (to at least some people) is the rollercoaster ride.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, EvanG said:

I agree with the last part, but personally I think some of the lyrics on AFD are rather shallow. But I never considered lyrics to be their forte anyway, at least not on AFD. I'm sure many disagree.

As for diversity, there is definitely more diversity on UYI but it's a double record, there's a lot more room for it. Not to say that AFD is one dimensional. But on UYI they started experimenting with more different instruments and exploring more sub-genres and different influences and lyrically it is more diverse too.

I see increasingly, especially on this forum, a similar indictment of Appetite, that its kinda shallow but I don't think thats an entirely fair assessment.  To me, what set GnR apart from your average Motley Crue bollocks is the real-ness and indeed a relative depth compared to its like.  For example, Rocket Queen, what the fuck is that end bit doing on that song, its ostensibly a song about a slag but then it ends with a very different reflection on its central protagonist.  Paradise City has the chorus of a pop sing-a-long juxtaposed with cynical verses about survival on the streets, light and dark, contrast, its low key good songwriting technique. 

Illusions has its lyrical moments too, You Could Be Mine etc but a lot of what passes for depth on it is just Axl ranting.  More words, thats about all it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I see increasingly, especially on this forum, a similar indictment of Appetite, that its kinda shallow but I don't think thats an entirely fair assessment.  To me, what set GnR apart from your average Motley Crue bollocks is the real-ness and indeed a relative depth compared to its like.  For example, Rocket Queen, what the fuck is that end bit doing on that song, its ostensibly a song about a slag but then it ends with a very different reflection on its central protagonist.  Paradise City has the chorus of a pop sing-a-long juxtaposed with cynical verses about survival on the streets, light and dark, contrast, its low key good songwriting technique. 

Illusions has its lyrical moments too, You Could Be Mine etc but a lot of what passes for depth on it is just Axl ranting.  More words, thats about all it is.

I guess I just like poetic lyrics more and not per se those subjects.

I've had discussions about the lyrics of Think About You on here so many times. I fucking love that song but the lyrics are so cringeworthy. Yet people were telling me how rock and roll they are but I can't get past how incredibly cheesy they are. 

Quote

Illusions has its lyrical moments too

I like a lot of the lyrics on UYI. Even some of Izzy's lyrics (14 Years), although I regard him as a terrible lyricist overall.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×