Why is GnR different?

[Young_Gun]

Was listening to Coldplay's 'Paradise', I think it's a pretty good song. Nice melodies and piano work, just like Guns. Coldplay's newest album sold something like 447,000 units in it's first week and was number 1 on the US Billboard top 200. Now I have expressed that the lead single is a great song, but nothing to the likes of Better, TWAT, Prostitute etc. They also sell out most of their shows, and I would think Guns N' Roses would smoke the shit out of a Coldplay concert. So what is the difference? Lack of promotion? Lack of music videos? Not being 'safe' enough? Was it Coldplay's consistent and solid build up from their debut album and superseding records? Guns lack of intro-verse-chorus-verse-chorus-etc?? What do you guys think?

I'm not knocking Guns at all either, I wish Chidem was the most openly respected album in the last decade as it deserves to be.

[GnRDuff1]

It's because in USA, the lineup changes overshadow the music for the public. People aren't going to pay money tos ee what they consider a "glorified cover band". It's a crock of shit, and I hope when another album comes out, they cut even more AFD and UYI songs. I don't want to forget about them, but relying on them so much for the setlist keeps people wishing Slash were there. A lot of people won't even consider seeing them because of the lineup shit just to be assholes and they'll never give the show a chance.

[Aussiegun]

Coldplay have been playing it safe for years. Pop music dressed up as indie art shit, and people lap it up.

[Young_Gun]

Coldplay have been playing it safe for years. Pop music dressed up as indie art shit, and people lap it up.

I do agree with this, Parachutes and the follow up album(the record with Clocks) seemed to have the most integrity. Every subsequent album seems to be made just to appease the masses now...

[arm breaker]

One big difference here is the hardness of the music. Coldplay have never claimed to be rock n' roll. I think years ago they used to claim that they were very hard soft rock or something like that. Otherwise they are firmly in the same category as U2 and the likes, which for the most part have more mainstream appeal. Not everyone can relate to the emotion in Guns songs or the need for vulgarity and anger. I think though, that this is why people really love Guns when they like it, because it means something to them. There are a handful of Guns songs that I cannot relate to, and doubt anyone could, but for the most part it puts me into a position of "hey that's me he is talking about," or "I know how that feels." If people do not take the time to let that happen then they will never be more than a casual Guns fan. On top of all this is the lack of chance that Chinese had from the get-go. Too much had happened, too many broken promises and false accusations, too much money, and too much time. Only those of us who felt the the power from the old material needed to feel it anew. We know that in much of Chinese, on top of great music, we find some real connections that make our eyes close and memories whirl. That shit ain't happening with Coldplay unless it takes you back to making out during Yellow or something, and we all know that is not what matters when it comes to song-induced memories.

Having said all that I enjoy listening to Coldplay songs just for fun. When I listen to Guns everything has to stop for me. I have to enter completely into the song. This is not the case for Coldplay because there is nothing to enter, just some easy listening with catchy hooks. People in offices and with preferences for a bit of softness (including many teenagers and college students) will always listen to this over Guns. Let's face it, there is much more of that going on than the occasional football game playing Jungle over the PA.

I will also add that I have seen Coldplay several times, and while it is nothing like Guns for many reasons, it is a damn good show. They pull off a serious production with very few hiccups. If you like their music they are worth attending.

Edited November 28, 2011 by arm breaker

[watchman]

Sorry but I think comparing Coldplay to Guns is like comparing Amy Lee to Fiona Apple.

[arm breaker]

Sorry but I think comparing Coldplay to Guns is like comparing Amy Lee to Fiona Apple.

Anything can be compared. A quick look reveals the definition of compare as: estimate, measure, or note the similarity or dissimilarity between. I don't think you would hear me say that Coldplay and Guns compare in the sense of being similar. I think we can reasonably discuss why they are different without sufficiently shitting on either or being obtuse just because we can on an internet forum.

Edited November 28, 2011 by arm breaker

[Matt13]

The second poster hit the nail on the head. In short, if it were the original lineup... hell, if Slash was the only other original member on stage with Axl, GNR would sell out stadiums anywhere in the world, whenever they wanted to.

End of story. There is no need to dig up any other reason or excuse. An attempt to do so is desperate and futile.

Edited November 28, 2011 by Matt13

[arm breaker]

The second poster hit the nail on the head. In short, if it were the original lineup... hell, if Slash was the only other original member on stage with Axl, GNR would sell out stadiums anywhere in the world, whenever they wanted to.

End of story. There is no need to dig up any other reason or excuse. An attempt to do so is desperate and futile.

Well I am glad someone is the authority on the subject.

[steveysham]

I think it's simpler than that. Coldplay aren't as old as GNR. Pop music is about trends and the mainstream following of GNR died in the 90s.

[JimMorrison4]

If Coldplay's singer replaced everyone in the band, stayed out of the spotlight for years, developed a terrible media reputation, released 1 album with new band, while still calling themselves Coldplay, and have gone thru the many other problems GNR has, he'd probably have a tough time getting people to want to hear his new music too.

BTW, Coldplay sucks.

[axlsalinger]

I actually really like Coldplay. If you get past the silly biases, they are a very good band that writes good, catchy songs.

I'm not really sure why they are being compared here, but one reason they get a lot of media play every couple of years is because they release a new album every couple of years, which contains radio-friendly songs that get played on the radio. This is not rocket science.

If Guns had released a new album this summer prior to the U.S. tour that had a couple of hit songs on it, they would be getting just as much attention.

[zepsun]

I work in the music industry. Everyone in the office knows the band as Axl's cover band. No one, NO ONE, in my office, after 2002's show has any interest in seeing them live. I have friends that aren't massive GNR fans, but they are aware (not through me) that the band is just Axl (Most people don't know Dizzy was there from Illusions OR they're not even aware of him). I know people in the office that have gone to see Slash's show and Velvet Revolver... and enjoy such shows.

No one, I know of, in my office has bought any CD tracks.. A few in the office have VR tracks and some Slash tracks.

All I know is, people I work with in the office think it was the wrong move to keep the GNR name and continue as a band with only 1 member remaining from the original band. Whether or not Axl believes he made the right/wrong move is irrelevant. He should have been aware of branding/marketing and understood there would have been a backlash. He also should have understood that with his name, Axl Rose, he could have easily sold a lot of records/concert tickets. In doing so, he would not have lost any respect from the general public. There would also be no pride-related grief associated with re-grouping the original lineup, if he chose to do so. At this stage, the strong things he has said regarding the old band and Slash in particular will probably come back to haunt him (in media, from fans, or current/former band members) if he were to reunite.

Just my qualitative analysis. lol

[henfjel]

-Coldplay are more mainstream (easier for the masses to listen to)

-Coldplay have been consistent over the years (in all areas) whereas guns haven't

-Coldplay regularly releases albums

-Coldplay does promotion

-Coldplay would definitively sell out guns

-Majority of all people do not think of Chris Martin as an ignorant ass, compared to what most people thing about Axl. all the people i know think he is, because there has been so much shit and controversy over the years

i love gnr and i love coldplay, but even though i love guns more i have to say that they are more consistent in everything they do. and they are also more of a band for the masses. coldplay is a band that nobody really hates because there is nothing to hate. no controversies, e.t.c.

guns has been through alot and they lack the consistency and 'normal' status that coldplay have.

that said guns' music is alot more 'there', at least for me. it isn't something that everyone in the world listens to and alot of things happen to them that keeps me interested. and also: like someone above me said; coldplay are huge because they have the current mainstream appeal. the time when bands like guns were mainstream is over, at least for now.

Edited November 28, 2011 by henfjel

[RussTCB]

Was listening to Coldplay's 'Paradise', I think it's a pretty good song. Nice melodies and piano work, just like Guns. Coldplay's newest album sold something like 447,000 units in it's first week and was number 1 on the US Billboard top 200. Now I have expressed that the lead single is a great song, but nothing to the likes of Better, TWAT, Prostitute etc. They also sell out most of their shows, and I would think Guns N' Roses would smoke the shit out of a Coldplay concert. So what is the difference? Lack of promotion? Lack of music videos? Not being 'safe' enough? Was it Coldplay's consistent and solid build up from their debut album and superseding records? Guns lack of intro-verse-chorus-verse-chorus-etc?? What do you guys think?

I'm not knocking Guns at all either, I wish Chidem was the most openly respected album in the last decade as it deserves to be.

Lack of promotion absolutely killed Chinese Democracy in the US. If the record were promoted half as well as anything Coldplay has done, it would have been a massive hit.

[Eu4ic]

Sure original Guns would be selling out the biggest stadiums, but they wouldnt be the darling of the liberal lamestream culture as is Coldplay. Sorry but 2011 is almost polar opposite of 1992.

'I work in the music industry' - who cares if you work in 'the industry?' lol as far as I'm concerned, 'working in the industry' makes you immediately suspect in terms of judging art or what an artist chooses to do. Asking you about actual music is like asking Richard Dawkins about theology, or a fundamentalist about astrophysics.

By the way, here's one for everybody shitting on Axl for keeping the GNR name: I bet if original Gnr reunites they'll more successful than they would had Axl Rose given up the name 'Guns n Roses' in the mid 90s or whatever and gone completely solo. In fact, I remember one of those old Behind the Music specials on Vh1, like ten years ago at least, and one of Metallica's roadies (or something) commented on how 'history had written off Guns n Roses' completely off the map. This was indeed the public perception on Gnr: they'd been written off. Well, here it is a decade later and last time I checked Gnr is kicking ass and doing a lot more promising work than friggin Metallica is! The difference between then and now: GNR released Chi Dem and started touring, and this is because Axl Rose chose to kept the name alive.

[packersnroses]

I work in the music industry. Everyone in the office knows the band as Axl's cover band. No one, NO ONE, in my office, after 2002's show has any interest in seeing them live. I have friends that aren't massive GNR fans, but they are aware (not through me) that the band is just Axl (Most people don't know Dizzy was there from Illusions OR they're not even aware of him). I know people in the office that have gone to see Slash's show and Velvet Revolver... and enjoy such shows.

No one, I know of, in my office has bought any CD tracks.. A few in the office have VR tracks and some Slash tracks.

All I know is, people I work with in the office think it was the wrong move to keep the GNR name and continue as a band with only 1 member remaining from the original band. Whether or not Axl believes he made the right/wrong move is irrelevant. He should have been aware of branding/marketing and understood there would have been a backlash. He also should have understood that with his name, Axl Rose, he could have easily sold a lot of records/concert tickets. In doing so, he would not have lost any respect from the general public. There would also be no pride-related grief associated with re-grouping the original lineup, if he chose to do so. At this stage, the strong things he has said regarding the old band and Slash in particular will probably come back to haunt him (in media, from fans, or current/former band members) if he were to reunite.

Just my qualitative analysis. lol

Just because the people in your office are in the music industry doesn't mean they're not douchebags

[The Archer]

Sure original Guns would be selling out the biggest stadiums, but they wouldnt be the darling of the liberal lamestream culture as is Coldplay. Sorry but 2011 is almost polar opposite of 1992.

'I work in the music industry' - who cares if you work in 'the industry?' lol as far as I'm concerned, 'working in the industry' makes you immediately suspect in terms of judging art or what an artist chooses to do. Asking you about actual music is like asking Richard Dawkins about theology, or a fundamentalist about astrophysics.

By the way, here's one for everybody shitting on Axl for keeping the GNR name: I bet if original Gnr reunites they'll more successful than they would had Axl Rose given up the name 'Guns n Roses' in the mid 90s or whatever and gone completely solo. In fact, I remember one of those old Behind the Music specials on Vh1, like ten years ago at least, and one of Metallica's roadies (or something) commented on how 'history had written off Guns n Roses' completely off the map. This was indeed the public perception on Gnr: they'd been written off. Well, here it is a decade later and last time I checked Gnr is kicking ass and doing a lot more promising work than friggin Metallica is! The difference between then and now: GNR released Chi Dem and started touring, and this is because Axl Rose chose to kept the name alive.

Great post.

[moreblack]

Can't really fault Coldplay for being successful, they've pretty much done everything right...

[Matt13]

The second poster hit the nail on the head. In short, if it were the original lineup... hell, if Slash was the only other original member on stage with Axl, GNR would sell out stadiums anywhere in the world, whenever they wanted to.

End of story. There is no need to dig up any other reason or excuse. An attempt to do so is desperate and futile.

Well I am glad someone is the authority on the subject.

It's the absolute truth. I know countless fans, and it would seem so do a lot of other folks on this forum, who WON'T go see Axl Rose and a bunch of 'hired guns' or whatever you want to call it (for the record, I call it Guns N' Roses and thoroughly enjoy their concerts and original/newer material). Those very same fans WOULD go see Axl and the tophat on stage together. They could rival U2 in the concert world, even today after the split.

If they would have worked things out and stayed together, they had a shot at being the greatest rock band of all time. Or at least worthy of being mentioned in the same breath as Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, U2 or Pink Floyd.

It's not a knock, that's just how it is.

The simple reason why GNR isn't as mainstream and popular as a band like Coldplay, or any other act out there that has a large following, is the fact that Slash is not in the band. No matter how Axl feels or hardcore fans or anyone feels about the current state of GNR (whether it's a band or not), it does not matter. For every one person that thinks GNR is a band (like me) and understands how it's gotten to where it has, there's a half dozen casual fans who see it as the Axl Rose solo project and see a guy riding the coat tails of original GNR's success. People look at it as a cash grab and a farce.

[ITW 2012]

It just comes down to marketing. Coldplay have radio backing and record company backing. Noel Gallagher can explain it better than me:

[ironmt]

The second poster hit the nail on the head. In short, if it were the original lineup... hell, if Slash was the only other original member on stage with Axl, GNR would sell out stadiums anywhere in the world, whenever they wanted to.

End of story. There is no need to dig up any other reason or excuse. An attempt to do so is desperate and futile.

Well I am glad someone is the authority on the subject.

It's the absolute truth. I know countless fans, and it would seem so do a lot of other folks on this forum, who WON'T go see Axl Rose and a bunch of 'hired guns' or whatever you want to call it (for the record, I call it Guns N' Roses and thoroughly enjoy their concerts and original/newer material). Those very same fans WOULD go see Axl and the tophat on stage together. They could rival U2 in the concert world, even today after the split.

If they would have worked things out and stayed together, they had a shot at being the greatest rock band of all time. Or at least worthy of being mentioned in the same breath as Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, U2 or Pink Floyd.

It's not a knock, that's just how it is.

The simple reason why GNR isn't as mainstream and popular as a band like Coldplay, or any other act out there that has a large following, is the fact that Slash is not in the band. No matter how Axl feels or hardcore fans or anyone feels about the current state of GNR (whether it's a band or not), it does not matter. For every one person that thinks GNR is a band (like me) and understands how it's gotten to where it has, there's a half dozen casual fans who see it as the Axl Rose solo project and see a guy riding the coat tails of original GNR's success. People look at it as a cash grab and a farce.

They are one of the greatest rock bands of all time and they will be mentioned In the same breath as zeppelin,The stones,U2 and Pink Floyd.

[WhazUp]

Chinese Democracy imo wasn't made for mainstream success, it was Axl's vision of what he thinks is a great record. I think its a kickass album (although it isn't without flaws), but the majority of people I have talked to have given the record a chance and simply do not like it. In regards to the name, it is no secret that the number of people who disagree with Axl's use of the name outweighs the people with the opposite view. It just is what it is, and most importantly regardless of the whole name issue there is a devoted group of people who love the music and ultimately that is what matters the most. I don't personally agree with the use of the GNR name but its a bunch of great musicians playing cool music so its all good with me.

[JimMorrison4]

Was listening to Coldplay's 'Paradise', I think it's a pretty good song. Nice melodies and piano work, just like Guns. Coldplay's newest album sold something like 447,000 units in it's first week and was number 1 on the US Billboard top 200. Now I have expressed that the lead single is a great song, but nothing to the likes of Better, TWAT, Prostitute etc. They also sell out most of their shows, and I would think Guns N' Roses would smoke the shit out of a Coldplay concert. So what is the difference? Lack of promotion? Lack of music videos? Not being 'safe' enough? Was it Coldplay's consistent and solid build up from their debut album and superseding records? Guns lack of intro-verse-chorus-verse-chorus-etc?? What do you guys think?

I'm not knocking Guns at all either, I wish Chidem was the most openly respected album in the last decade as it deserves to be.

Lack of promotion absolutely killed Chinese Democracy in the US. If the record were promoted half as well as anything Coldplay has done, it would have been a massive hit.

I'm sorry, but I still don't buy into that crap. The label promoted it on their end. It was everywhere at the time. TV spots, people talking on entertainment shows and late night talk shows, magazine articles. I know not everyone was following the band's every step from 1994-2008, but if you even remotely cared about GNR, you'd at least know that Slash and the others were gone, Axl was replacing them all and going on recording as GNR, and they were taking forever to make the album. When the album hit, people were interested. Sure, Axl could've done more on his end to promote the record, but I feel if people really dug the nu music, we would've had a Van Hagar thing, and that would've been enough. I highly doubt music videos would've made that significant of a difference.

Most fans just didn't take to the music...

I agree. Everyone was well aware of the Chinese Democracy album. Between the album being played in it's entirety on Myspace the night before it was released (drawing over 8 million hits, which, to my knowledge, was a Myspace record), and people being able to hear songs for free, people heard the songs. A majority just didn't like them enough to pay for them.

Coldplay writes songs their fanbase will like. I guess, for Chinese Democracy, Axl wrote songs he liked. The people who listen to GNR want more Appetite-sounding music and less Elton John/Queen inspired songs.

[RussTCB]

Was listening to Coldplay's 'Paradise', I think it's a pretty good song. Nice melodies and piano work, just like Guns. Coldplay's newest album sold something like 447,000 units in it's first week and was number 1 on the US Billboard top 200. Now I have expressed that the lead single is a great song, but nothing to the likes of Better, TWAT, Prostitute etc. They also sell out most of their shows, and I would think Guns N' Roses would smoke the shit out of a Coldplay concert. So what is the difference? Lack of promotion? Lack of music videos? Not being 'safe' enough? Was it Coldplay's consistent and solid build up from their debut album and superseding records? Guns lack of intro-verse-chorus-verse-chorus-etc?? What do you guys think?

I'm not knocking Guns at all either, I wish Chidem was the most openly respected album in the last decade as it deserves to be.

Lack of promotion absolutely killed Chinese Democracy in the US. If the record were promoted half as well as anything Coldplay has done, it would have been a massive hit.

I'm sorry, but I still don't buy into that crap. The label promoted it on their end. It was everywhere at the time. TV spots, people talking on entertainment shows and late night talk shows, magazine articles. I know not everyone was following the band's every step from 1994-2008, but if you even remotely cared about GNR, you'd at least know that Slash and the others were gone, Axl was replacing them all and going on recording as GNR, and they were taking forever to make the album. When the album hit, people were interested. Sure, Axl could've done more on his end to promote the record, but I feel if people really dug the nu music, we would've had a Van Hagar thing, and that would've been enough. I highly doubt music videos would've made that significant of a difference.

Most fans just didn't take to the music...

The album wasn't "everywhere" when it was released in the US. Best Buy ran one or two commercials and put it in their ad the week it was released, that was it.