Jump to content

Official GNR Social Media Update / Discussion


Recommended Posts

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 post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 29k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Just a friendly reminder:  

With any other band, it might mean "Hey we know the fans are talking about new music. And where's there's smoke, there's fire" meaning that new music is on the way.  With GNR, it probably just me

Well, well, well...   

Posted Images

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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
Share on other sites
16 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:

"New music bad"

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 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:

Her career is literally just getting started. So only time will tell. I think it's a bit unfair to say who will or won't be played in a couple decades based on your apparent bias. 

And if you want to compare social media stats to "flimsy" pop artists that are still going strong more than a decade into their careers: Beyonce has 145 million on IG and Rihanna has 81. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, baje said:

Her career is literally just getting started. So only time will tell. I think it's a bit unfair to say who will or won't be played in a couple decades based on your apparent bias. 

 

I know your not talking literally when you say her career is just getting started, but it's crazy to think she's been in the industry almost 5 years now. Some of her EPs from back when shes was like 15/16 and even younger amazing. So many good songs for someone so young.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, registra said:

I know your not talking literally when you say her career is just getting started, but it's crazy to think she's been in the industry almost 5 years now. Some of her EPs from back when shes was like 15/16 and even younger amazing. So many good songs for someone so young.

Yeah. She's 18 so it's hard to believe what she's been able to accomplish already. Her album was one of my most listened to last year and all of her EPs are great. "Lovely" is just beautiful. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...