Jump to content

Official GNR Social Media Update / Discussion


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, DownUnderScott said:

Looks promising. I don’t actually follow Guns N’ Roses on social media or anything, I just couldn’t be f*cked and lets face it there’s nothing to follow. But I just noticed the above Instagram (?) post of theirs and it suggests 4.7m followers. Now ‘m’ either stands for million or mediocre (jokes) but if it is 4.7 million then that is pretty impressive. How does that compare to more popular contemporary artists  and bands? Seems decent popularity. Maybe they should release new music and capitalise on that :-)

Billie Eilish has 62.4 million followers. :drevil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, registra said:

Honestly think 99% of the hate she gets is older people trying to hate on what youth are doing and people trying to be edgy saying she's the worst thing to happen music. Maybe I'm even a bit older then her target audience. Just look at r/unpopularopinion on reddit, where there's thousands of posts saying how much Billie apparently sucks.

In reality, I think most would agree her first album was a fantastic debut and has a very unique musical style in comparison to other mainstream pop artists, and she has some amazing songs in her EP's(haven't listened to all of them but thought Ocean Eyes was beautiful).  The brother is also a great song writer in terms of pop, and I'm fairly excited to see where they go from here.

Saw her live at ACL for a few mins actually. Didn't have much interest in watching the full show but still love her music.

100% this. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Manfisman said:

And also, Michael Jackson is probably the best artist of all time. Name any other one that could sing, compose and dance like that. And have all that presence and influence everywhere around the world. I'll wait.

Prince? maybe Prince. I'm just getting into his music but I feel like he was at MJ's level as a singer, was a better composer, and when it comes to dancing, maybe MJ was better but Prince was also great in that department and was a multi instrumentalist.

edit: and just to clarify I don't think either one was the best artist of all time

Edited by Rovim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, James Bond said:

Billie Eilish and her brother manage her career better than Guns N' Roses.

100%..I'd rather have Billie Eilish and Finneas managing GNR than TB

  • GNFNR 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rovim said:

Prince? maybe Prince. I'm just getting into his music but I feel like he was at MJ's level as a singer, was a better composer, and when it comes to dancing, maybe MJ was better but Prince was also great in that department and was a multi instrumentalist.

edit: and just to clarify I don't think either one was the best artist of all time

That's a good point. We're going way off-topic, but yeah Prince is there too I think. It's really difficult to pick only one though, we end up having biases and preferences. I guess I was trying to say that MJ is so far away from "meh".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Manfisman said:

I'll never get this kind of arguments. Like "yeah the stuff I listen to is  better because it is more complex and requires more work". Bullshit, art can be really simple. Don't try to justify your personal preferences by saying that one is better than the other because it really isn't.

And also, Michael Jackson is probably the best artist of all time. Name any other one that could sing, compose and dance like that. And have all that presence and influence everywhere around the world. I'll wait.

I should have made myself clear from the beginning, but for the third time, I wasn’t really talking about MJ too much. Yes, I know it looks like I was, but please see my following posts. 
As for the rest, I don’t think these things are too comparable, but on the other hand, there are certain undisputable facts. Have you ever practised any instrument? Angus Young is a real artist, while legions of these pop shits (Bieber and the likes) just aren’t, not really, sorry. Am I oversimplifying it? Of course I am. There are lots of talented singers etc. who, despite of making the sort of music that I would normally never go for – like Shakira etc. – are definitely great, and all I can do is take a bow. But I was aiming for the general managerial pop shit that feeds today’s radio charts. These things will go away, whereas Sweet Child O’ Mine and Paradise City won’t. I hope you get my point. 
 

Edited by jamillos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Rovim said:

Prince? maybe Prince. I'm just getting into his music but I feel like he was at MJ's level as a singer, was a better composer, and when it comes to dancing, maybe MJ was better but Prince was also great in that department and was a multi instrumentalist.

edit: and just to clarify I don't think either one was the best artist of all time

Prince every day of the week musically for me. Jackson was a phenomenal dancer and was a phenomenal showman, but that meant lip syncing was necessary on occasion as dancing the way he did and belting out tunes in unison would’ve been near impossible.

As I type this out, The Most Beautiful Girl in the World just came on the radio. 
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, allwaystired said:

I was wondering how few digital copies you have to sell to enter the iTunes top ten rock chart! Can't be many these days. 

 

 

You should bang out a tune yourself. See how it does

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/9/2020 at 5:04 PM, Zinia_29 said:

Gnr is pretty popular despite their lack of music and various mess ups. It still amazes me that they have two 1 biliion viewed song while Michael Jackson has none. Contemporary pop artist lady gaga has only one. 

That is actually quite incredible. Imagine if they actually made music :facepalm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/9/2020 at 7:42 PM, alfierose said:

I dunno. In terms of instagram 4.7 mil followers isn't a lot. Not when you have self styled youtube 'make up gurus' who have follower counts upwards of 16/17 mil.

I think that's a reflection of what youth culture is about now rather than anything else. Lil Peep has 5.5 mil followers and he's been dead a while now.

I haven't looked but I would expect Guns to have a higher following on FB due to age demographics. 

Oh, okay. I stand corrected, shows you how much I know or care about social media. It sounded impressive to me but as 'James Bond' pointed out above that doesn't compare too favourably to someone like Billie Eilish. 

I will have a parting shot though at some of the popularity of those artists - here we are discussing Guns N' Roses, and they are attracting huge crowds to shows, featuring on twitter trends etc... some three decades or more after their debut album. 

My guess is no-one will even remember Billie Eilish, and countless others like her, in one decade let alone three decades. :headbang:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DownUnderScott said:

Oh, okay. I stand corrected, shows you how much I know or care about social media. It sounded impressive to me but as 'James Bond' pointed out above that doesn't compare too favourably to someone like Billie Eilish. 

I will have a parting shot though at some of the popularity of those artists - here we are discussing Guns N' Roses, and they are attracting huge crowds to shows, featuring on twitter trends etc... some three decades or more after their debut album. 

My guess is no-one will even remember Billie Eilish, and countless others like her, in one decade let alone three decades. :headbang:

Spoken like a true middle-ager! 

'Kids these days don't know what music is, their music is just trash, it won't be remembered'....I remember people saying the same thing to me about GNR! 

Let's face it, music has moved on. GNR choose not to. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While its true that the internet brings forward less deserving artists, that in no way means that all artists in the internet era are undeserving. Each time period will have its geniuses. And like the Beatles, they could arrive in the form of teeny-pop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, soon said:

While its true that the internet brings forward less deserving artists, that in no way means that all artists in the internet era are undeserving. Each time period will have its geniuses. And like the Beatles, they could arrive in the form of teeny-pop.

...and old farts who toddle off to play mass-kareoke at stadiums will never understand it. 

It's the way the music world has always been....and always should be, if it's healthy. Every generation needs something older people don't understand. 

  • Like 4
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...