"Guns N' Roses is overrated..."

[Iron MikeyJ]

I'm not jumping in as a die hard "gnr fan" like SIxes said but I will add this little bit of info to the discussion...

Led Zeppelin are pretty much the standard by which all hard rock is measured against (I think most would tend to agree with that statement). Well I wanted to get down to "facts" of this debate and compare Zeppelin's and gnr's discography purely by the numbers, total run time I mean. How much actual music did each band produced.

(I listen to mostly vinyl, and by vinyl standards gnr released 3 double albums. Let me repeat that, GNR RELEASED 3 DOUBLE ALBUMS; UYI1, UYI2, and CD. Yes I am counting CD in this discussion).

Back in the "day," pretty much before 1990 or so, albums were a lot shorter than they are today. SO is it really fair to determine a bands output based upon the amount of releases compared to the "old days"? I say no, the total run time's are a better indicator of career output. (I actually did the math on this a while ago and posted it, but I couldn't find the actual thread it was in. But I will add them up again if no one believes me).

When you add Zeppelin's entire catalog vs gnr/Axl's this is what you will find, Axl is only about 90 mins behind Zeppelin. That's only a little over 1 album (assuming that the next album will be at least 70 mins, since both Illusions and CD were all over 70 mins). So if Axl ever releases another album, he is only about 20 mins behind Led Zeppelin. Also when compared to the albums of the 70's, gnr lies is pretty much a full length release, not an EP. (Hell VH's Diver Down is only 2 mins longer than Lies).

My point: Axl/gnr's career output is actually a lot bigger than we often give the credit for. Sure their should have been at least one more classic gnr album, and we should already of had CD2 by now, but still only about 90 mins less than Zeppelin as we stand today...

Edited June 4, 2014 by Mike420

[brocky888]

Yeah you right there are others and that list of 6 will never be added to now the moments gone no matter how good CD2 is or anything else up axls sleeve. Maybe better and twat could have come close but wrong place wrong time wrong promotion etc etc. Not that I won't enjoy them tho but still....

[DR DOOM]

Since when did Broskirose start video recording his thoughts about GnR and uploading them to youtube? I was waiting for the guy to say 'dad rock/shit rock/grandpa rock/ nin is better than appetite' but it never materialized.

[Apollo]

Sixes - I thought we were just talking about hard rock music. Let me ask you this then, in total seriousness and not in the "if u don't like GnR, why are you here" vein............but if you think there are 50 bands that are just as good or that have just as many great songs as GnR...........why do you post on a GnR forum? GnR is the only band that I go to their forums, simply because they are my favorite band of all time. I don't go to my 4th, 5th, 6th favorite bands forums because there just isn't enough time in the day to spend/waste at them. Much less the forum of the 47th band I like. So what compels you to spend time on the forum of a band that you don't really seem to have that much emotion invested in?

Mike - the Led Zep comparison is not an accurate picture at all. You chose the one HUGE band that just happens to have a tiny catalog. Aerosmith has over 30 albums. Rolling Stones has over 50 albums and has release more SINGLES than GnR has released total songs.

GnR's lack of material is one of the biggest shames/disappointments of rock music. To say that's an overrated statement because of the example of one other band isn't a fair statement, imo. Axl has released one album of original material in the last 20 years. That is just a shame for rock fans and for rock music.

[Sixes]

Sixes - I thought we were just talking about hard rock music. Let me ask you this then, in total seriousness and not in the "if u don't like GnR, why are you here" vein............but if you think there are 50 bands that are just as good or that have just as many great songs as GnR...........why do you post on a GnR forum? GnR is the only band that I go to their forums, simply because they are my favorite band of all time. I don't go to my 4th, 5th, 6th favorite bands forums because there just isn't enough time in the day to spend/waste at them. Much less the forum of the 47th band I like. So what compels you to spend time on the forum of a band that you don't really seem to have that much emotion invested in?

Mike - the Led Zep comparison is not an accurate picture at all. You chose the one HUGE band that just happens to have a tiny catalog. Aerosmith has over 30 albums. Rolling Stones has over 50 albums and has release more SINGLES than GnR has released total songs.

GnR's lack of material is one of the biggest shames/disappointments of rock music. To say that's an overrated statement because of the example of one other band isn't a fair statement, imo. Axl has released one album of original material in the last 20 years. That is just a shame for rock fans and for rock music.

I'll never ever ever get this whole "why are you here?" thing.

When have I said they are my 47th fav band...and if they are, so what? What if they're my 100000000000th fav band? Why does that preclude me from posting here? I like hundreds, probably thousands really, of bands. Maybe I post on other bands forums, for all you know...and that shouldn't matter anyway. Maybe I post on my 26th fav band's forum...that 26th fav band would be Darkthrone...yes, I have a master list of my fav bands....

I don't have any emotion invested? No, I don't. I'm not a 12 year old girl. But I've liked GNR since 1987 and I continue to like them. As much as I once did? Not by a mile.

I didn't know that I had to have a fav band and only post on their forum(s). Didn't know that was a rule.

Thanks for clearing that up for me champ.

Bottom line...why do I post here? Because I want to.

That is all.

Do I think there are 50 bands better than GNR? Fucking A fucking right I do. Still don't know why that means anything whatsoever. I didn't know that there were these rules.

[Apollo]

Sixes - I thought we were just talking about hard rock music. Let me ask you this then, in total seriousness and not in the "if u don't like GnR, why are you here" vein............but if you think there are 50 bands that are just as good or that have just as many great songs as GnR...........why do you post on a GnR forum? GnR is the only band that I go to their forums, simply because they are my favorite band of all time. I don't go to my 4th, 5th, 6th favorite bands forums because there just isn't enough time in the day to spend/waste at them. Much less the forum of the 47th band I like. So what compels you to spend time on the forum of a band that you don't really seem to have that much emotion invested in?

Mike - the Led Zep comparison is not an accurate picture at all. You chose the one HUGE band that just happens to have a tiny catalog. Aerosmith has over 30 albums. Rolling Stones has over 50 albums and has release more SINGLES than GnR has released total songs.

GnR's lack of material is one of the biggest shames/disappointments of rock music. To say that's an overrated statement because of the example of one other band isn't a fair statement, imo. Axl has released one album of original material in the last 20 years. That is just a shame for rock fans and for rock music.

I'll never ever ever get this whole "why are you here?" thing.

When have I said they are my 47th fav band...and if they are, so what? What if they're my 100000000000th fav band? Why does that preclude me from posting here? I like hundreds, probably thousands really, of bands. Maybe I post on other bands forums, for all you know...and that shouldn't matter anyway. Maybe I post on my 26th fav band's forum...that 26th fav band would be Darkthrone...yes, I have a master list of my fav bands....

I don't have any emotion invested? No, I don't. I'm not a 12 year old girl. But I've liked GNR since 1987 and I continue to like them. As much as I once did? Not by a mile.

I didn't know that I had to have a fav band and only post on their forum(s). Didn't know that was a rule.

Thanks for clearing that up for me champ.

Bottom line...why do I post here? Because I want to.

That is all.

Do I think there are 50 bands better than GNR? Fucking A fucking right I do. Still don't know why that means anything whatsoever. I didn't know that there were these rules.

Sigh.

I thought I prefaced that question by saying I wasn't asking in the typical "why post here" mode.

But thanks for the smartass response, and completely ignoring what I said. Champ.

[sweetness]

lol, couldn't care less

Guns N' Roses is underrated

[jbhutto]

loll one dude's opinion and we'll have 30 pages

Yeah, sorta counter intuitive in giving him attention but eh.

[RichardNixon]

UYI II is half "terrible"?

It could have done without "Shotgun Blues" and GITR, but it's mostly pretty awesome, IMO.

KOHD

Get in the Ring

Shotgun Blues

Breakdown

So Fine

My World

HM to Don't Cry alt. as well. Both album versions are awful compared to demo and live versions.

KOHD is overblown, but I like it. GITR and SB are filler, IMO. I always liked "Breakdown" and "So Fine." "My World" is a cool closer, IMO.

[Val22]

One person's opinion. Who the hell cares?

[Smokin' Cigarettes]

Eddie Trunk wears coverkiller pajamas.

[Apollo]

Sixes - I thought we were just talking about hard rock music. Let me ask you this then, in total seriousness and not in the "if u don't like GnR, why are you here" vein............but if you think there are 50 bands that are just as good or that have just as many great songs as GnR...........why do you post on a GnR forum? GnR is the only band that I go to their forums, simply because they are my favorite band of all time. I don't go to my 4th, 5th, 6th favorite bands forums because there just isn't enough time in the day to spend/waste at them. Much less the forum of the 47th band I like. So what compels you to spend time on the forum of a band that you don't really seem to have that much emotion invested in?

Mike - the Led Zep comparison is not an accurate picture at all. You chose the one HUGE band that just happens to have a tiny catalog. Aerosmith has over 30 albums. Rolling Stones has over 50 albums and has release more SINGLES than GnR has released total songs.

GnR's lack of material is one of the biggest shames/disappointments of rock music. To say that's an overrated statement because of the example of one other band isn't a fair statement, imo. Axl has released one album of original material in the last 20 years. That is just a shame for rock fans and for rock music.

I'll never ever ever get this whole "why are you here?" thing.

When have I said they are my 47th fav band...and if they are, so what? What if they're my 100000000000th fav band? Why does that preclude me from posting here? I like hundreds, probably thousands really, of bands. Maybe I post on other bands forums, for all you know...and that shouldn't matter anyway. Maybe I post on my 26th fav band's forum...that 26th fav band would be Darkthrone...yes, I have a master list of my fav bands....

I don't have any emotion invested? No, I don't. I'm not a 12 year old girl. But I've liked GNR since 1987 and I continue to like them. As much as I once did? Not by a mile.

I didn't know that I had to have a fav band and only post on their forum(s). Didn't know that was a rule.

Thanks for clearing that up for me champ.

Bottom line...why do I post here? Because I want to.

That is all.

Do I think there are 50 bands better than GNR? Fucking A fucking right I do. Still don't know why that means anything whatsoever. I didn't know that there were these rules.

Sigh.

I thought I prefaced that question by saying I wasn't asking in the typical "why post here" mode.

But thanks for the smartass response, and completely ignoring what I said. Champ.

I answered your dick question with an appropriate answer champ,

I post here because I want to. Bottom line. Do I need thousands of underlying reasons?

Sigh sigh sigh .... can't wait for your over the top holier than thou response!!!

I await with baited breath....I am emotionally invested in it.

Can't wait for your "ignore me" post coming up toot sweet. You are the champ of champs of that.

I might be awhile...I have 46 other band forums to post on, champ

Wow, lots of built up animosity there.

I don't recognize your screen name, sorry, so I can't really comment on your entire rant. Feel free to PM me though and let me know what I've said in the past that has hurt you so. I do apologize for whatever I've done that has made you so angry. This is a rock n roll forum, it really isn't healthy to let complete strangers get you so fired up.

And hey, I hear there is a new star wars moving coming out soon. That should calm you down a bit!!!!

[Smokin' Cigarettes]

I've got no dog in that fight but I don't really know if I'd be bragging about having another 46 band forums to post on.

[Thin White Duke]

As most big names in music, there is this sacred halo surrrounding them that makes them more generally rated than they objectively are. Now I am not saying they were shit. GNR is a hell of a band or I wouldn't be here. But there is certain overvaluation, yes.

[Kill Your Hero]

They're not overrated, no one is claiming they're better than zep or the stones. They're just one of the best rock n roll bands, period.

[Nosaj Thing]

Did anyone watch the video?

[ManetsBR]

GNR were a great band and they did a lot of great things, but for a band with so few albums, they sure had a lot of bad songs. UYI 2 is like, half perfect, half terrible. UYI 1 has way too much boring speedrock filler. Even AFD has a few stinkers. Most of the songs on TSI had no business being written and recorded by their original bands in the first place, let alone being covered by GNR.

I agree with pretty much all you said. Yet... here we are.

Edited June 4, 2014 by ManetsBR

[Apollo]

They're not overrated, no one is claiming they're better than zep or the stones. They're just one of the best rock n roll bands, period.

Agreed.

I think what most people say is that they "could" have been the best rock band of all time if they'd released a larger catalog.

[Iron MikeyJ]

Mike - the Led Zep comparison is not an accurate picture at all. You chose the one HUGE band that just happens to have a tiny catalog. Aerosmith has over 30 albums. Rolling Stones has over 50 albums and has release more SINGLES than GnR has released total songs.

I agree with you that many bands have larger discographies than both gnr and Zeppelin, but I've never heard anyone (except for you) say that Zeppelin has a tiny discography. Van Halen is another HUGE band, and Van Halen's entire discography (Van Halen- ADKOT) then yes they are bigger than both Zeppelin and gnr. However if you take either major era; Roth and Van Hagar separate, than GNR released more than both of those individually. That's why I said "by 70's standards, gnr released 3 double albums." So that makes 2 major bands who's discography gnr really isn't that far behind.

BTW the reason why I feel it's ok to separate the two era's of VH is because one era is always neglected. So it's basically like they were two different bands.

Edited June 5, 2014 by Mike420

[Apollo]

Mike - the Led Zep comparison is not an accurate picture at all. You chose the one HUGE band that just happens to have a tiny catalog. Aerosmith has over 30 albums. Rolling Stones has over 50 albums and has release more SINGLES than GnR has released total songs.

I agree with you that many bands have larger discographies than both gnr and Zeppelin, but I've never heard anyone (except for you) say that Zeppelin has a tiny discography. Van Halen is another HUGE band, and Van Halen's entire discography (Van Halen- ADKOT) then yes they are bigger than both Zeppelin and gnr. However if you take either major era; Roth and Van Hagar separate, than GNR released more than both of those individually. That's why I said "by 70's standards, gnr released 3 double albums." So that makes 2 major bands who's discography gnr really isn't that far behind.

Sorry, I'm not really getting your point.

Who are the other "two" bands that GnR's discography isn't that far behind?

You initially said that people were wrong for suggesting that GnR had a small catalog, and you used Led Zep has a comparative band. I just pointed out that the majority of bands that are in the discussion for best band of all time - Stones and Aero - being two examples - have catalogs that dwarf GnR.

Not trying to argue with you. I just honestly don't understand the point you are trying to make. GnR has only put out four studio albums of original material, one EP, one cover album, a greatest hits album and a live 2-cd set........that's a pretty small catalog for a band that has been around for almost 30 years. Especially compared to bands like the Stones and even GnR contemporaries like Metallica and Bon Jovi.

[Iron MikeyJ]

Mike - the Led Zep comparison is not an accurate picture at all. You chose the one HUGE band that just happens to have a tiny catalog. Aerosmith has over 30 albums. Rolling Stones has over 50 albums and has release more SINGLES than GnR has released total songs.

I agree with you that many bands have larger discographies than both gnr and Zeppelin, but I've never heard anyone (except for you) say that Zeppelin has a tiny discography. Van Halen is another HUGE band, and Van Halen's entire discography (Van Halen- ADKOT) then yes they are bigger than both Zeppelin and gnr. However if you take either major era; Roth and Van Hagar separate, than GNR released more than both of those individually. That's why I said "by 70's standards, gnr released 3 double albums." So that makes 2 major bands who's discography gnr really isn't that far behind.

Sorry, I'm not really getting your point.

Who are the other "two" bands that GnR's discography isn't that far behind?

You initially said that people were wrong for suggesting that GnR had a small catalog, and you used Led Zep has a comparative band. I just pointed out that the majority of bands that are in the discussion for best band of all time - Stones and Aero - being two examples - have catalogs that dwarf GnR.

Not trying to argue with you. I just honestly don't understand the point you are trying to make. GnR has only put out four studio albums of original material, one EP, one cover album, a greatest hits album and a live 2-cd set........that's a pretty small catalog for a band that has been around for almost 30 years. Especially compared to bands like the Stones and even GnR contemporaries like Metallica and Bon Jovi.

The other band was Van Halen, if you separate the Roth era from the Hagar era (together than yes they are bigger). But it total run time, gnr recorded more music that Van Halen (Roth era) and Van Hagar. Van Halen is another band that can throw it's name in the hat for "greatest rock band of all time." Yet as I have said before, gnr's discography actually measures up quite favorably yet again.

My point is that people use the "small discography" argument against gnr frequently, yet they have recorded more music than Van Halen (Roth) and Van Hagar, and are not that far behind Led Zeppelin. So I don't feel that argument is warranted.

Having said that, yes I firmly believe we gnr fans should have had two more albums by now (1996 classic gnr album) and CD2. So yes we are behind the 8 ball when it comes to albums, but still gnr's discography is actually deceptively bigger than many give them credit for.

[Apollo]

Mike - the Led Zep comparison is not an accurate picture at all. You chose the one HUGE band that just happens to have a tiny catalog. Aerosmith has over 30 albums. Rolling Stones has over 50 albums and has release more SINGLES than GnR has released total songs.

I agree with you that many bands have larger discographies than both gnr and Zeppelin, but I've never heard anyone (except for you) say that Zeppelin has a tiny discography. Van Halen is another HUGE band, and Van Halen's entire discography (Van Halen- ADKOT) then yes they are bigger than both Zeppelin and gnr. However if you take either major era; Roth and Van Hagar separate, than GNR released more than both of those individually. That's why I said "by 70's standards, gnr released 3 double albums." So that makes 2 major bands who's discography gnr really isn't that far behind.

Sorry, I'm not really getting your point.

Who are the other "two" bands that GnR's discography isn't that far behind?

You initially said that people were wrong for suggesting that GnR had a small catalog, and you used Led Zep has a comparative band. I just pointed out that the majority of bands that are in the discussion for best band of all time - Stones and Aero - being two examples - have catalogs that dwarf GnR.

Not trying to argue with you. I just honestly don't understand the point you are trying to make. GnR has only put out four studio albums of original material, one EP, one cover album, a greatest hits album and a live 2-cd set........that's a pretty small catalog for a band that has been around for almost 30 years. Especially compared to bands like the Stones and even GnR contemporaries like Metallica and Bon Jovi.

The other band was Van Halen, if you separate the Roth era from the Hagar era (together than yes they are bigger). But it total run time, gnr recorded more music that Van Halen (Roth era) and Van Hagar. Van Halen is another band that can throw it's name in the hat for "greatest rock band of all time." Yet as I have said before, gnr's discography actually measures up quite favorably yet again.

My point is that people use the "small discography" argument against gnr frequently, yet they have recorded more music than Van Halen (Roth) and Van Hagar, and are not that far behind Led Zeppelin. So I don't feel that argument is warranted.

Having said that, yes I firmly believe we gnr fans should have had two more albums by now (1996 classic gnr album) and CD2. So yes we are behind the 8 ball when it comes to albums, but still gnr's discography is actually deceptively bigger than many give them credit for.

Gotcha.

Thanks man!

[Iron MikeyJ]

I haven't done the math on it, but I'm sure gnr are right near or a head of many great bands like The Doors, Hendrix, Cream, and many more. But as many would say that's counting CD, TSI (a covers album), and E.P. So I am more or less just playing devil's advocate here, just for the spirit of conversation. Cheers.

[DangerousCurves]

Go out to any random public area and poll 50 people of all ages. 98% will know who GNR is. Most of them will also know Axl and Slash by name. Now, ask the same people about Five Finger Death Punch. Or Black Veil Brides. Or Nickelback. Any band really in the past 5-10 years and see if they can name any members or recognize them on sight. Very few could. Most of them would be neo-goth, emo chicks under 17. Guns is many things. Over rated is not one of them.

[shjtjustgotreal]

Go out to any random public area and poll 50 people of all ages. 98% will know who GNR is. Most of them will also know Axl and Slash by name. Now, ask the same people about Five Finger Death Punch. Or Black Veil Brides. Or Nickelback. Any band really in the past 5-10 years and see if they can name any members or recognize them on sight. Very few could. Most of them would be neo-goth, emo chicks under 17. Guns is many things. Over rated is not one of them.

neo-goth