SeBaZ Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 (edited) michael jackson was cool in the 80s Edited November 29, 2011 by SeBaZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Linguini Occurrence Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 controversy was cool in the 80s. Sorry, couldn't resist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snconnolly Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 ugh. when i heard he wanted it to be a photo of the Challenger i rolled my eyes........ that would be like having a photo of 9/11 on an album being released in 2002. love axl, but come on.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt13 Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Axl is also very immature. Bet you can relate there, too.Right, and insulting people on the internet is the height of maturity. What, was your mother on the Challenger or something? If so, my condolences. If not, lighten up pal. I said it would have been hilarious, not that it would have been in good taste. I agree that the actual cover is better.It wasn't an insult. It was a well-thought-out, and probably accurate, educated guess. Call it reality, not an insult. Finding anything 'hilarious' in imagery of a tragedy, any tragedy, no matter how it's used, is immature. Maybe shallow? Uneducated perhaps? You tell me. Would you find pictures of either of the WTC's collapsing hilarious? Maybe pictures of somebody falling to their deaths from one of those buildings? Maybe you found the images of the tsunami over in Japan hilarious, too. Like I said. Not an insult. Was just a mere observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgy Zhukov Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 9/11 would make a great album cover actually. It gets people's attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saber_ Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 (edited) Axl said in the TMS Interview is that he wanted a Picture of the Challenger explosion to be the Famous Appetite Cover? ... What are your opinion's on that?I think if you pay careful attention to his mannerisms and what he said right after, it was partially in jest. If I remember correctly, in the interview Axl mentioned that he had the other original cover along with the Challenger photo when he was talking to the record label dude or whoever. To me, this implies he knew the challenger photo would get rejected. So while he probably was serious about wanting the Challenger on there, he knew it would get shot down and that's why he had the other cover with him. He says it very quickly at the end (of his answer), something about having the other photo there which he tossed on the table after the Challenger idea was rejected. Edited November 28, 2011 by Popcorn's Timbre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verruckt Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 So while he probably was serious about wanting the Challenger on there, he knew it would get shot down ....Interesting choice of words ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AXL_N_DIZZY Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 I'm not sure if I would have been "offended" or not. Kind of need to see the final product and how it would have been "presented" to know for sure. I do think it's fair to say that thanks to "timing" if nothing else- it would have been greeted with near universal criticism though...That said IMHO I bet Axl was actually attracted to the idea not as part of some cheap PR-generating controversy opportunity but rather as a true and honest visual depiction of "destruction" (physical, personal, emotional, etc.)... much like most of the amazing music on the debut album itself. Regardless of whether the debut album's title would have still been Appetite For Destruction- I think a reasonable argument could have been made that much of the music/art created and the overall aura of the band at the time correlated fairly well with an image of the Challenger explosion (not sure if that's a compliment or an insult- probably a bit of both). Poor taste? Perhaps. But perhaps Guns N' Roses ca. 1987-88 was overall in "poor taste"? Lots of folks felt so a year or two later when "One In A Million" began to draw attention- that's for damn sure. Frankly, the fact that GN'R was anything but a safe, politically-correct band and sincerely seemed to not give a damn about societal convention was part of their draw and at least part of the reason folks still even care about what the band's up to this very day. They were/are different- for better or worse.Anyway- just my .02 cents. I was in grade school at the time and certainly grieved with everyone else when the Challenger tragedy occurred. No offense intended with these comments- and the Challenger tragedy would certainly have not have been my choice for an album cover. But then again... maybe that's one of many reasons why I have a desk job and I'm not frontman for what at one time was unquestionably the most dangerous rock band in the world... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrBrownstone Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Axl is also very immature. Bet you can relate there, too.Right, and insulting people on the internet is the height of maturity. What, was your mother on the Challenger or something? If so, my condolences. If not, lighten up pal. I said it would have been hilarious, not that it would have been in good taste. I agree that the actual cover is better.It wasn't an insult. It was a well-thought-out, and probably accurate, educated guess. Call it reality, not an insult. Finding anything 'hilarious' in imagery of a tragedy, any tragedy, no matter how it's used, is immature. Maybe shallow? Uneducated perhaps? You tell me. Would you find pictures of either of the WTC's collapsing hilarious? Maybe pictures of somebody falling to their deaths from one of those buildings? Maybe you found the images of the tsunami over in Japan hilarious, too. Like I said. Not an insult. Was just a mere observation.What I take from this is you realize that you're out of room to argue, and yet you don't want to admit it, so you continue this little rant of yours, as if in some valiant effort to make the rest of us think he's immature and shallow. In reality, "maybe just a mere observation" but you look like the immature one, so aggressively attacking in your posts. You need to lighten up. A lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0612 Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Use Your Delusion 1 Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 tasteless? Too personal in my opinion, many know all 6? (sorry if it is more or less) who died whereas ironically 9/11 would probably not as bad as you may think, 2000 deaths is not so relatable to the public. "one death is a ..., one million a statistic" and all that. Anyway glad they didn't do it, both covers of AFD are cool and this would have probably been to far Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nambis Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 but as mentioned, it would not have been called AFD in that case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrBrownstone Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 but as mentioned, it would not have been called AFD in that case.While that is true, based on the chronology of the events, I think when Axl mentioned this on TMS, he was talking about The Challenger explosion and Appetite for Destruction as one. I think he mentioned this picture, and thinking of the title AFD, thought it would go well, in a twisted way. I don't think they would've used this and not called it AFD. I could be totally wrong though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeBaZ Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 I have this one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kill Devil Hill Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 I'm not sure if I would have been "offended" or not. Kind of need to see the final product and how it would have been "presented" to know for sure. I do think it's fair to say that thanks to "timing" if nothing else- it would have been greeted with near universal criticism though...That said IMHO I bet Axl was actually attracted to the idea not as part of some cheap PR-generating controversy opportunity but rather as a true and honest visual depiction of "destruction" (physical, personal, emotional, etc.)... much like most of the amazing music on the debut album itself. Regardless of whether the debut album's title would have still been Appetite For Destruction- I think a reasonable argument could have been made that much of the music/art created and the overall aura of the band at the time correlated fairly well with an image of the Challenger explosion (not sure if that's a compliment or an insult- probably a bit of both). Poor taste? Perhaps. But perhaps Guns N' Roses ca. 1987-88 was overall in "poor taste"? Lots of folks felt so a year or two later when "One In A Million" began to draw attention- that's for damn sure. Frankly, the fact that GN'R was anything but a safe, politically-correct band and sincerely seemed to not give a damn about societal convention was part of their draw and at least part of the reason folks still even care about what the band's up to this very day. They were/are different- for better or worse.Anyway- just my .02 cents. I was in grade school at the time and certainly grieved with everyone else when the Challenger tragedy occurred. No offense intended with these comments- and the Challenger tragedy would certainly have not have been my choice for an album cover. But then again... maybe that's one of many reasons why I have a desk job and I'm not frontman for what at one time was unquestionably the most dangerous rock band in the world... Good post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsfanoldie Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 Well thats not really fair. Everything looks good with the classic GNR font . But agreed, I prefer the cross cover to any of them. Its simple and with the skulls its just very bare bones (pun intended). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sailaway Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 It's a jedi mindfuck,If you want to get something offensive past critics,present something much darker,and more warped.I'll stop before starting my NASA jokes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Screamin' Demon Posted October 27, 2013 Share Posted October 27, 2013 9/11 would make a great album cover actually. It gets people's attention.I wouldn't be surprised if a satanic death metal band eventually used it for a cover Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wfuckinga Posted October 27, 2013 Share Posted October 27, 2013 It's a jedi mindfuck,If you want to get something offensive past critics,present something much darker,and more warped.I'll stop before starting my NASA jokes.That's what Mötley Crüe did with their Girls Girls Girls video They sent in what was basically a sextape, and when it was denied, they sent in the one we all know (strip club video) and it was approved and aired and what not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts