blackrose87 Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 I would definitely go to see these guys live.The performance at the hall of fame was great. Would be awesome if they went into the studio and could somehow convince Izzy to join them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moreblack Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 GNR were Led Zeppelin big. no, not nearly as big, and for nowhere near as long. Zeppelin were huge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Izzyslash Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 GNR were Led Zeppelin big. no, not nearly as big, and for nowhere near as long. Zeppelin were huge.Hehe, well, you are probably wrong. Maybe in the USA, if that's where you are at, but not in Europe, even though I doubt is was that much different in the US..I remember having this conversation with my parents way back, both of them being huge fans of Led Zep. among others. My mom is also a huge fan of The Beatles, and she have told me many times that the only band in her life that came close to how huge GNR were at they're peak was The Beatles, even though there were a lot of more fanatics in The Beatles' time, Guns had much more media-coverage(papers,radio and of course due to videos, TV), and merch were everywhere you looked. Every stand all over the place had Guns items, if they were even a cookiestand. In the period 91-93 GNR were probably the biggest band that has been and ever will be. I might have some wrongs here ofcourse, as I didn't get to experience bands in the 60's and 70's firsthand, but that comes from people who were fans and were there. And I clearly remember how insanely huge GNR were back then. Me, as a big fan then as well, were in a frustrating heaven. I wanted it all, just couldn't afford to use hundreds of thousands on every merch item and every bootleg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KBear Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 I would also point out that although many agree with you that today's lineup is inferior to old lineups, everybody of those won't agree with you that the AFD lineup was more influential and important than, say, the UYI lineup. It might easily be argued that it was with the UYI lineup Guns N' Roses really became one of the biggest bands in the world. And if you are going to argue that the AFD lineup was more important because they laid the groundwork for that success, then as a devil's advocate I might point out that then the original lineup (the one with the founding fathers) must be even more important since it laid the groundwork for the AFD lineup.Jeez man, you're trying to think too hard. Who wrote the music for AFD, Lies, and UYI? One group of guys: Axl, Slash, Duff, Izzy. And the material was killer. That's the group of guys who define GN'R. Period, end of sentence.That's a silly sentence since if you insist on defining Guns N' Roses by the song writers from AFD, UYI and Lies, then many more names should be added to your list...They may have had guys like Paul Huge and West Arkeen co-write some songs here and there, but let's be honest - the vast majority of what that band sounded like and was all about came down on the four guys I named.I think a very strong argument can be made for defining the band by the song writers. That's what bands do. They write and perform songs, this is the whole point. And great music lives on. Bad music performed well does not (and I'm certainly not arguing that any incarnation of GN'R released bad music).Keep reaching with guys like Tracii Guns, Ole Beich, and Rob Gardner. They are more important? Really?No, you misunderstand me. I am NOT saying that the guys laying the groundwork are more important than those who came after, that was an argument from earlier in the thread which I am actually trying to argue against.Sorry if I sound pissed, but bringing up the 1985 version of the band is just a tactic to derail the conversation as far as I'm concerned. They accomplished nothing, other than Tracii's role in coming up with a cool name for a band.I don't disagree at all, this is a misunderstanding .I'm glad that I misunderstood!You try to break this down like some kind of legal proceeding where facts are all that matter. It's not that at all, it's a rock band.But we are not talking about the band -- of which I have lots of feelings and opinions, too -- but about the name of the band. These are two different things.It sounded like you were talking about the band. You mentioned not getting attached to any lineup.Anyways, I'd disagree with the idea that a name is just a name. In 1985 Guns N' Roses was just a name. In 1992 it was a lot more than that. Names take on meaning when something significant happens. "Guns N' Roses" identified that band and those songs. Ask random strangers what they think of "Hollywood Rose" and ask what they think of "Guns N' Roses". The latter will get a reaction just about every time, the former almost not at all. And it's why when GN'R came up for induction, the HOF knew enough to choose the guys they chose. They didn't pull up the GN'R website and just induct whoever was identified there because legally that band has the right to the name Guns N' Roses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moreblack Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 (edited) GNR were Led Zeppelin big. no, not nearly as big, and for nowhere near as long. Zeppelin were huge.Hehe, well, you are probably wrong.Hoho, probably not. GNR were big for about 3 years all told. That's dwarfed by Zeppelin's time at the top by some distance. Edited April 18, 2012 by moreblack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Izzyslash Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 GNR were Led Zeppelin big. no, not nearly as big, and for nowhere near as long. Zeppelin were huge.Hehe, well, you are probably wrong.Hoho, probably not. GNR were big for about 3 years all told. That's dwarfed by Zeppelin's time at the top by some distance.Not as long, as I pointed out. But for an extended period of time they were bigger than Zep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moreblack Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 (edited) Not as long, as I pointed out. But for an extended period of time they were bigger than Zep.not on this earth. "bigger than Zep" is a small list.Sure we all have parents, and uncles and older cousins who remember stuff, but none of that makes GNR as big.You gotta remember, bands like Metallica got huge with hardly any media attention until the 90s, covers of magazines, merch and news reports are all fine and good but all they do is influence the sheep.Zep for one, held a pretty tight leash on merch, and almost 0 media contact. Edited April 18, 2012 by moreblack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zint Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Zep for one, held a pretty tight leash on merch, and almost 0 media contact.The music did the talking.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dead Flower Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts