Is Guns (both OLD and NEW) a niche thing, a thing of the past?

[Vincent Vega]

Rock music in general is pretty much dead in the US....

And GN'R (both old and new) only occupied a very short time in popular music history. Even while the old band was together they were beginning to be washed aside with Grunge and Rap on the rise in the mid 1990s. Each album as well showcased diminishing returns: AFD had sold over 12 million by 1991; In 1991, the UYI's sold seven million each; In 1993, TSI sold just over a million copies. An article I read from 1997 also stated that their 1993 tour sales were less than those of 1992.

Now, we're way beyond the mid 1990s. Hip Hop, Electro-Pop and the like is huge now. GN'R only really held mainstream interest from around 1988 (when SCOM took off) to 1993. That's just a five year run, with only 4 full albums in that period. Compare that to the Stones, who were founded in 1962 and were still as popular in 1977 as they were in 1967. By 1967, five years into their history, the Stones had released 8 albums. Led Zeppelin who remained relevant and popular even through radically different and rapidly changing musical landscapes from 1969 to 1980. By 1974, five years into Zep's history, they had released 5 albums and were working on a massive double album. Even a shorter lived act like The Doors released 6 albums in 4 years.

Guns' run was short in comparison to the world renowned greats, and they were not nearly as prolific in their span.

The thing is, how does the rest of the world look back on Guns? Do we just overinflate their greatness/popularity since we're die hard fans? Would your average music listener know what Guns N' Roses was/is, and if they did, what would they think? I've talked to people who like (modern) rock, and even some of them just view GN'R as nothing more than '80s Hair Metal--Not much differently than how they view Motley Crue. A remnant of a cheesy era. Sort of like how the character Randy the Ram is viewed in the movie The Wrestler--A shadow remaining from a brighter, more neon colored era of make up, big hair and wild clothes.

What is Guns' legacy? And were they really still as popular in 1993 as they were in 1991 or 1988 as some think?

Edited February 7, 2011 by Indigo Child

[Nintari]

I knew this was true in 1993 when everyone in my school showed up one day with long greasy bleached blond hair, baggy torn jeans,converse all stars and Nirvana t-shirts. At that moment, atleast in the US, Guns N Roses had become "your fathers band". I was really into the Seattle movement myself but I also liked Guns N Roses so it was a bit odd to walk around and hear everyone talking about how horrible TSI was along with the band who made it.

[moreblack]

How does the rest of the world look back on Guns? most ppl I find that bring it up, believe the only had one good album.

[bax]

I knew this was true in 1993 when everyone in my school showed up one day with long greasy bleached blond hair, baggy torn jeans,converse all stars and Nirvana t-shirts. At that moment, atleast in the US, Guns N Roses had become "your fathers band". I was really into the Seattle movement myself but I also liked Guns N Roses so it was a bit odd to walk around and hear everyone talking about how horrible TSI was along with the band who made it.

That was certainly true at the time. Some of the younger kids I talk to that are into indie and punk do recognize GN'R's legacy, but at this point it's not even a niche. It's a niche within a niche. That's true for rock in general now though, and it has just as much to do with piracy as it does the popularity of other genres.

[Vincent Vega]

How does the rest of the world look back on Guns? most ppl I find that bring it up, believe the only had one good album.

It seems the world felt that way in 1991, too. I love the UYI albums, personally, but that's just my subjective taste.

But it can't be denied that there was a definite fall of in sales. 15 million for AFD compared to UYI's 7 million and 1 million for TSI.

People who were alive/old enough then remember the release of the UYIs as some near Beatle-esque event, with long lines around the record store. And I'm not doubting their memories. But...The proof is in the sales. The Use Your Illusions weren't a massive cultural phenomenon like Thriller was.

I mean let's look at a contemporary band of Guns, Metallica, in terms of sales:

And Justice for All (1988): 8 million [uS]

Metallica (1991): 15 million [uS]

Live Shit Binge and Purge (1993): 15 million [uS]

Load (1996): 6 million [uS]

Note that in the same era (1991-1993) you had 15 million people buying Metallica's new products, compared with the declining returns of Guns'. And Metallica was around longer and had been selling steadily since the early '80s. Some would blame Guns' fall off on Grunge, or that TSI was a cover album. But Metallica was not grunge in 1991 or 1993, and Live Shit was an expensive boxset in the era of Nirvana which still managed to sell beyond 10 million.

Not only that, but...Plenty of new bands list the Stones, Led Zeppelin, Nirvana, Metallica as one of their influences or even their among main influences...How many have listed GN'R?

It just seems like GN'R was a flash in the pan....They're technically a one hit wonder, actually: SCOM is to date their only single to reach #1 on the Billboard Hot 100.

Edited February 7, 2011 by Indigo Child

[moreblack]

How does the rest of the world look back on Guns? most ppl I find that bring it up, believe the only had one good album.

It seems the world felt that way in 1991, too. I love the UYI albums, personally, but that's just my subjective taste.

But it can't be denied that there was a definite fall of in sales. 15 million for AFD compared to UYI's 7 million and 1 million for TSI.

People who were alive/old enough then remember the release of the UYIs as some near Beatle-esque event, with long lines around the record store. And I'm not doubting their memories. But...The proof is in the sales. The Use Your Illusions weren't a massive cultural phenomenon like Thriller was.

I mean let's look at a contemporary band of Guns, Metallica, in terms of sales:

And Justice for All (1988): 8 million [uS]

Metallica (1991): 15 million [uS]

Live Shit Binge and Purge (1993): 15 million [uS]

Load (1996): 6 million [uS]

Note that in the same era (1991-1993) you had 15 million people buying Metallica's new products, compared with the declining returns of Guns'. And Metallica was around longer and had been selling steadily since the early '80s. Some would blame Guns' fall off on Grunge, or that TSI was a cover album. But Metallica was not grunge in 1991 or 1993, and Live Shit was an expensive boxset in the era of Nirvana which still managed to sell beyond 10 million.

Not only that, but...Plenty of new bands list the Stones, Led Zeppelin, Nirvana, Metallica as one of their influences or even their among main influences...How many have listed GN'R?

It just seems like GN'R was a flash in the pan....They're technically a one hit wonder, actually: SCOM is to date their only number 1 top 40 single.

this is why we gotta laugh when someone here tries to say they were the best band "evar"

[Vincent Vega]

How does the rest of the world look back on Guns? most ppl I find that bring it up, believe the only had one good album.

It seems the world felt that way in 1991, too. I love the UYI albums, personally, but that's just my subjective taste.

But it can't be denied that there was a definite fall of in sales. 15 million for AFD compared to UYI's 7 million and 1 million for TSI.

People who were alive/old enough then remember the release of the UYIs as some near Beatle-esque event, with long lines around the record store. And I'm not doubting their memories. But...The proof is in the sales. The Use Your Illusions weren't a massive cultural phenomenon like Thriller was.

I mean let's look at a contemporary band of Guns, Metallica, in terms of sales:

And Justice for All (1988): 8 million [uS]

Metallica (1991): 15 million [uS]

Live Shit Binge and Purge (1993): 15 million [uS]

Load (1996): 6 million [uS]

Note that in the same era (1991-1993) you had 15 million people buying Metallica's new products, compared with the declining returns of Guns'. And Metallica was around longer and had been selling steadily since the early '80s. Some would blame Guns' fall off on Grunge, or that TSI was a cover album. But Metallica was not grunge in 1991 or 1993, and Live Shit was an expensive boxset in the era of Nirvana which still managed to sell beyond 10 million.

Not only that, but...Plenty of new bands list the Stones, Led Zeppelin, Nirvana, Metallica as one of their influences or even their among main influences...How many have listed GN'R?

It just seems like GN'R was a flash in the pan....They're technically a one hit wonder, actually: SCOM is to date their only number 1 top 40 single.

this is why we gotta laugh when someone here tries to say they were the best band "evar"

Even GN'R's long awaited live album, Live Era, just cracked 500,000 copies when released in 1999.

Metallica's live album, S&M, on the other hand, released the same year, sold more than 5 million.

[Nintari]

How does the rest of the world look back on Guns? most ppl I find that bring it up, believe the only had one good album.

It seems the world felt that way in 1991, too. I love the UYI albums, personally, but that's just my subjective taste.

But it can't be denied that there was a definite fall of in sales. 15 million for AFD compared to UYI's 7 million and 1 million for TSI.

People who were alive/old enough then remember the release of the UYIs as some near Beatle-esque event, with long lines around the record store. And I'm not doubting their memories. But...The proof is in the sales. The Use Your Illusions weren't a massive cultural phenomenon like Thriller was.

I mean let's look at a contemporary band of Guns, Metallica, in terms of sales:

And Justice for All (1988): 8 million [uS]

Metallica (1991): 15 million [uS]

Live Shit Binge and Purge (1993): 15 million [uS]

Load (1996): 6 million [uS]

Note that in the same era (1991-1993) you had 15 million people buying Metallica's new products, compared with the declining returns of Guns'. And Metallica was around longer and had been selling steadily since the early '80s. Some would blame Guns' fall off on Grunge, or that TSI was a cover album. But Metallica was not grunge in 1991 or 1993, and Live Shit was an expensive boxset in the era of Nirvana which still managed to sell beyond 10 million.

Not only that, but...Plenty of new bands list the Stones, Led Zeppelin, Nirvana, Metallica as one of their influences or even their among main influences...How many have listed GN'R?

It just seems like GN'R was a flash in the pan....They're technically a one hit wonder, actually: SCOM is to date their only number 1 top 40 single.

Metallica did better because they were metal and didn't sound/look anything like 80's music. As far as your observation of declining sales between AFD and UYI, you're wrong. UYI sales were THROUGH THE ROOF at the beginning of it's life cycle. They were actually far better then AFD. The difference between the two is AFD was on the market for 5 years when that sound and genre were popular. UYI only had 1, maybe 2 years and then Seattle invaded the scene and changed everything. That's why sales were massive at the launch of UYI but then soon plummeted. As far as Metallica's Black Ablum, as I said, that's a different genre, one that was still popular THROUGH the Seattle era.

[moreblack]

I remember Live S*&t Binge and Purge cost a pretty penny back in the day, and it still sold that much? not bad for a live album.

[STARABOSTES]

GNR were still popular in 1996 by media standards,

as music videos of GNR were played a lot,

the news papers and magazines were giving GNR articles,

about the fact that Slash left the band,

and that the band was inactive and with uncertain future ahead.

by 1997 and 1998,the music channels played like on some kind of occasions GNR videos

the stories were really rear, and no real attention was payed to the fact that Duff left the band, or that Matt got fired,

and certainly no one cared about the new people who got into GNR.

then came 1999 with the release of Oh My God, and with the expectation that a new album will come out.

then came 2002 with MTV performance - which was great by the way! and again the expectation of the release of the album.

then came 2006-2007 were GNR draw people around the globe who came to see them,

and the band got a lot of media covered.

then came 2008 with the release of the album - again GNR were all over the media, and still were and still are with the start of the world tour in 2009, and all 2010.

so, my guess is, that you can't talk about legacy with a live band,

who increase there facebook fan base in about 8 months, from 1 mil to 6 mil, because they were on the tour,

and because they created controversies with the Reading thing and Dublin shit.

so, GNR are the symbol of controversy in general opinion,

and the band newspapers seem to love to hate (if they are not payed to do so by the people interested financially to make this band fail, so that they could impose there demands on it)

so, No GNR are not a thing of the past, but of the present.

and just to prove my point, let's see how the media will react wheh the next thing GNR would do,

be that a USA tour or the release of some music - and I'm telling you, the media will cover it! all of it, all of the main media man,

because this band - GNR is big. ok!? it's big.

and has the potential to wipe out the likes of U2 from the position of the best band in the world

with one single music video. just one. even with a song from now 2 years old Chinese Democracy album,

or one completely new.

it doesn't matter which one,

it doesn't. because, by general standards, GNR have a cool music to listen to on TV or radio,

but in the human world were everything is about seeing, you need a music video to promote your music.

that's that.

.

[Axl owns dexter]

How does the rest of the world look back on Guns? most ppl I find that bring it up, believe the only had one good album.

It seems the world felt that way in 1991, too. I love the UYI albums, personally, but that's just my subjective taste.

But it can't be denied that there was a definite fall of in sales. 15 million for AFD compared to UYI's 7 million and 1 million for TSI.

People who were alive/old enough then remember the release of the UYIs as some near Beatle-esque event, with long lines around the record store. And I'm not doubting their memories. But...The proof is in the sales. The Use Your Illusions weren't a massive cultural phenomenon like Thriller was.

I mean let's look at a contemporary band of Guns, Metallica, in terms of sales:

And Justice for All (1988): 8 million [uS]

Metallica (1991): 15 million [uS]

Live Shit Binge and Purge (1993): 15 million [uS]

Load (1996): 6 million [uS]

Note that in the same era (1991-1993) you had 15 million people buying Metallica's new products, compared with the declining returns of Guns'. And Metallica was around longer and had been selling steadily since the early '80s. Some would blame Guns' fall off on Grunge, or that TSI was a cover album. But Metallica was not grunge in 1991 or 1993, and Live Shit was an expensive boxset in the era of Nirvana which still managed to sell beyond 10 million.

Not only that, but...Plenty of new bands list the Stones, Led Zeppelin, Nirvana, Metallica as one of their influences or even their among main influences...How many have listed GN'R?

It just seems like GN'R was a flash in the pan....They're technically a one hit wonder, actually: SCOM is to date their only single to reach #1 on the Billboard Hot 100.

I agree with parts of this, but I think it is pretty unfair to label GnR as a one hit wonder. It is hard for rock bands to get a number 1 single. Using that logic, Metallica and Nirvana are no-hit wonders (never had a number one single).

[moreblack]

so, No GNR are not a thing of the past, but of the present.

and just to prove my point, let's see how the media will react wheh the next thing GNR would do,

be that a USA tour or the release of some music - and I'm telling you, the media will cover it! all of it, all of the main media man,

because this band - GNR is big. ok!? it's big.

and has the potential to wipe out the likes of U2 from the position of the best band in the world

with one single music video. just one. even with a song from now 2 years old Chinese Democracy album,

or one completely new.

it doesn't matter which one,

it doesn't. because, by general standards, GNR have a cool music to listen to on TV or radio,

but in the human world were everything is about seeing, you need a music video to promote your music.

that's that.

.

Oh my God, that is delusional at best.

but you agreed with me. which one is it?

I did not, I said they got as close as anyone from the 80s 90s.

Edited February 7, 2011 by moreblack

[STARABOSTES]

so, No GNR are not a thing of the past, but of the present.

and just to prove my point, let's see how the media will react wheh the next thing GNR would do,

be that a USA tour or the release of some music - and I'm telling you, the media will cover it! all of it, all of the main media man,

because this band - GNR is big. ok!? it's big.

and has the potential to wipe out the likes of U2 from the position of the best band in the world

with one single music video. just one. even with a song from now 2 years old Chinese Democracy album,

or one completely new.

it doesn't matter which one,

it doesn't. because, by general standards, GNR have a cool music to listen to on TV or radio,

but in the human world were everything is about seeing, you need a music video to promote your music.

that's that.

.

Oh my God, that is delusional at best.

will see.

you definitely weren't around in 1991-1992

to get it how did the music videos of GNR were played on and on all over the place.

because if you were, you wouldn't consider my take on the matter as delusional.

[moreblack]

so, No GNR are not a thing of the past, but of the present.

and just to prove my point, let's see how the media will react wheh the next thing GNR would do,

be that a USA tour or the release of some music - and I'm telling you, the media will cover it! all of it, all of the main media man,

because this band - GNR is big. ok!? it's big.

and has the potential to wipe out the likes of U2 from the position of the best band in the world

with one single music video. just one. even with a song from now 2 years old Chinese Democracy album,

or one completely new.

it doesn't matter which one,

it doesn't. because, by general standards, GNR have a cool music to listen to on TV or radio,

but in the human world were everything is about seeing, you need a music video to promote your music.

that's that.

.

Oh my God, that is delusional at best.

will see.

you definitely weren't around in 1991-1992

to get it how did the music videos of GNR were played on and on all over the place.

because if you were, you wouldn't consider my take on the matter as delusional.

I was, and I do.

[Eah]

Guns are considered a classic band in here along with Metallica and Nirvana, from that particular era, they we're the holy trinity , Metallica remaining more popular today. Definitely a thing of the past.

I like the UYI albums more than Appetite, while you say that other bands have put out more albums in a shorter time than gnr, you got to consider the amount of songs or running time of those albums. Look at the UYI albums, that's 30 songs, most of the albums you listed of bands like the doors, the stones, led zepp, have like 8,9 or 10 songs each, the UYI albums would represent like 4 albums of material, maybe 3 to be more accurate... just saying...

But best band ever? no

Plenty of new bands list the Stones, Led Zeppelin, Nirvana, Metallica as one of their influences or even their among main influences...How many have listed GN'R?

None that i know, but GNR didn't create something new, they we're just the perfect mix of influences.

[bax]

so, No GNR are not a thing of the past, but of the present.

and just to prove my point, let's see how the media will react wheh the next thing GNR would do,

be that a USA tour or the release of some music - and I'm telling you, the media will cover it! all of it, all of the main media man,

because this band - GNR is big. ok!? it's big.

and has the potential to wipe out the likes of U2 from the position of the best band in the world

with one single music video. just one. even with a song from now 2 years old Chinese Democracy album,

or one completely new.

it doesn't matter which one,

it doesn't. because, by general standards, GNR have a cool music to listen to on TV or radio,

but in the human world were everything is about seeing, you need a music video to promote your music.

that's that.

.

Oh my God, that is delusional at best.

will see.

you definitely weren't around in 1991-1992

to get it how did the music videos of GNR were played on and on all over the place.

because if you were, you wouldn't consider my take on the matter as delusional.

During that time, MTV still played videos, so labels were willing to spend millions making them. It doesn't work that way anymore.

[Nintari]

GNR is a classic rock band. I hear their songs on the radio all the time. Nobody really caught on to "NuGNR" aside from the fervent believers on certain forums. I think most people see it as a nostalgia act with one original member singing the classics. No matter how many people want it to happen the new band will never catch on in terms of popularity. In fairness, though, I don't think the original lineup could produce an album now that would be a hit. The kids don't want to listen to music made by a bunch of guys nearing fifty. They want their Bieber and Swift.

That didn't stop AC/DC and Metallica from releasing commercially successful albums. There are different markets. Of course GNR will never sell to teens again but there's a bunch of 30-50 year olds that would LOVE an original classic rock album from the original band.

[dalsh327]

It's no different than talking about Van Halen vs Van Hagar in the mid 90s, or KISS when Tupac brought them out. Standing ovation and a lot of excitement over it. If the original GNR lineup walked on Kimmel or Fallon tonight or tomorrow, it would be #1 discussion on the internet tomorrow. TMZ and Perez discuss them.

SCOM is the 78th downloaded song on Amazon today overall, #3 for rock songs, and has been in their charts for 134 days. Roger Waters eventually came to terms when Gilmour was running Pink Floyd, that they put out 2 live albums and videos, and he got his check in the mail anyway.

People still want The Smiths, Dire Straits, and Talking Heads to reunite. If any of them put out a new album, it would do well. The Cars have a new one coming out, and I'm sure that if they tour, a lot of people will want to go see it. The older fans might care about one of them isn't in it.

[moreblack]

But it can't be denied that there was a definite fall of in sales. 15 million for AFD compared to UYI's 7 million and 1 million for TSI.

Both UYI's sold at least 7 million, so in total 13 million.

either way, it means half as many people bought it.

[bitstorm]

Rock music in general is pretty much dead in the US....

Like that's never been said before.

And GN'R (both old and new) only occupied a very short time in popular music history. Even while the old band was together they were beginning to be washed aside with Grunge and Rap on the rise in the mid 1990s.

New pop flavors come and go all the time, some more than you probably change your underwear. Where are all those bands now, and if they are still playing or have reunited, how well do their efforts (album quality, music sales, ticket sales) compare to Guns?

Each album as well showcased diminishing returns: AFD had sold over 12 million by 1991; In 1991, the UYI's sold seven million each;

So by your estimates, AFD sold 12 million in 5 years and UYI I/II sold 14 million combined in only its first year. Hello?

In 1993, TSI sold just over a million copies. An article I read from 1997 also stated that their 1993 tour sales were less than those of 1992.

It was also a covers album with a lot of obscure tracks, there were quite a few without the main vocalist which can hurt any similar effort, they didn't write much anything on it, and it was pretty clear by this point the band members had creative problems. As much as I like Guns new and old and think they do covers amazingly, I don't care for TSI personally, it has its moments, but I don't consider it a true Guns album or part of the GnR canon. It just feels too forced and maybe even contract filler, and I think part of it's negative feedback is what led to Axl wanting to make things right by doing a truly great original album. It's like Highlander 2 or similar efforts- just pretend it didn't happen.

Now, we're way beyond the mid 1990s. Hip Hop, Electro-Pop and the like is huge now. GN'R only really held mainstream interest from around 1988 (when SCOM took off) to 1993.

I don't think I've ever seen such a continued interest/buzz on any other unreleased album in my life other than The Beach Boys/Brian Wilson's Smile Album.

That's just a five year run, with only 4 full albums in that period.

Most bands never manage to get even a fraction of that level of success.

Compare that to the Stones, who were founded in 1962 and were still as popular in 1977 as they were in 1967. By 1967, five years into their history, the Stones had released 8 albums. Led Zeppelin who remained relevant and popular even through radically different and rapidly changing musical landscapes from 1969 to 1980. By 1974, five years into Zep's history, they had released 5 albums and were working on a massive double album. Even a shorter lived act like The Doors released 6 albums in 4 years.

All great classic bands that had their run well before the internet hit the masses and the music industry as we know it began to change. Zeppelin and The Doors had key members die which, love it or hate it, contributes to album sales and the whole myth thing. Stones lost Brian Jones, although he was fired before he died and maybe he was not quite as key member (I think he was), but their sound definitely changed without him.

An interesting point of reference: The Rolling Stones' last album A Bigger Bang sold a little over half a million in the US.

Guns' run was short in comparison to the world renowned greats, and they were not nearly as prolific in their span.

Guns are still running, there's still enough interest for them to keep doing it, and considering the lineup changes, all the hurdles and obstacles faced and other issues, they're not doing all that bad. Despite all the hype, mystery, edits, and years of wait, I truly like Chi-Dem. I don't need multiplatinum album sales to tell me an album's great.

The thing is, how does the rest of the world look back on Guns? Do we just overinflate their greatness/popularity since we're die hard fans? Would your average music listener know what Guns N' Roses was/is, and if they did, what would they think? I've talked to people who like (modern) rock, and even some of them just view GN'R as nothing more than '80s Hair Metal--Not much differently than how they view Motley Crue. A remnant of a cheesy era. Sort of like how the character Randy the Ram is viewed in the movie The Wrestler--A shadow remaining from a brighter, more neon colored era of make up, big hair and wild clothes.

There's always going to be some new band on the block. VERY few of them reach the same almost mythological level or have the same shelf life.

What is Guns' legacy? And were they really still as popular in 1993 as they were in 1991 or 1988 as some think?

A great band that's managed to shift musical direction and has survived a lot of problems/changes including lineup changes despite terrible odds, with some of the shittiest fans I've ever come across. And some of the best, as well.

[SunnyDRE]

Some people felt with UYI's GNR jumped the shark.

[bitstorm]

Some people felt with UYI's GNR jumped the shark.

UYI I/II had a lot of sounds to digest. Some songs were immediately likable, others took a while to grow on me. They took chances, but they'd already been doing that with some parts in AFD if you compare it to what else was going on at the time.

[HB3]

Plenty of new bands list the Stones, Led Zeppelin, Nirvana, Metallica as one of their influences or even their among main influences...How many have listed GN'R?

None that i know, but GNR didn't create something new, they we're just the perfect mix of influences.

I believe they created something new.

And even if some of you deny that, you have to admit that they're creating something new with their latest music. Chinese Democracy is only the beginning.

[GnR Chris]

I consider Guns N' Roses to be the greatest American rock band of all time. They never faded away. They burned out/disbanded.

[wasted]

From here to eternity.