Did Guns N' Roses really save us from 'The 80's' - synth music and spandex rock

[Rovim]

managed to retain Izzy's and Izzy's spirit and Izzy's

[Bono]

Nope. Helped us to get away from pop metal until alternative rock came along and baffled Axl and Guns didn't know how to move forward while still being relevant after Illusions.

Guns was so big they coudl've put out more of the same and still ruled. the alt rock scene didn't baffle anyone other than maybe Axl who was too hell bent on being trendy.he was the ONLY one who didn't know how to move forward as his career post Slash proves that without a shadow of a doubt. Bands like U2, Bon Jovi, Metallica all slightly changed but still remained massive forces in mainstream music. Guns would've been no different had they chose to continue. Hell Aerosmith had a revival during that period. This notion that Alt bands from Seattle mainly came along and squashed GnR is such nonsense and has just built momentum over the years by people buying into hyperbole of a Kurt Cobain legend that has been so exaggerated by media over the years it's ridiculous. Ok Nirvana was popular but Nevermind sold as much as Piece of me by Jewel. Kurt Cobain wasn't fucking John lennon they way media has manipulated people into thinking. People need to stop being such sheep when it comes to this. Grunge and alternative rock didn't do kill or hurt GnR. they did it to themselves period.

[Rovim]

Nope. Helped us to get away from pop metal until alternative rock came along and baffled Axl and Guns didn't know how to move forward while still being relevant after Illusions.

Guns was so big they coudl've put out more of the same and still ruled.

This shows you can't read dem letters vurry gud. Kinda worrid. I do not believe you to be retarded.

Edit: nevermind. The rest of your post proves you're retarded.

Edit 2: your use of eyebrow icon is fucked up and horrid just like most of your boring opinions on various subjects.

Edited December 15, 2014 by Rovim

[Rovim]

I see them as a sort of aesthetic bridge between the outright hair bands and what happened in the early '90s, with on the one hand The Black Crowes, and on the other hand, (coincidentally, perhaps), grunge. Guns were sort of, partially 'hair' themselves (e.g. Back off Bitch), but partially had their toes in punk and Stonesy rock. They had a raw bluesy 1970s sound and a back-to-basics production. They also had more attitude. So the period following Appetite does show a new incentive to strip down the sound - even with some of the bonafide hair bands like Kiss on Hot in the Shade who began wearing leather jackets again and putting away the spandex. You can certainly see a slight difference between, 1986, and 1988 - and Appetite was the main instigator of that. You also had old rockers like Neil Young (e.g. Freedom and Ragged Glory) getting their mojo back; even the Stones on Steel Wheels. So Guns are part of a small, late 1980s rock revival, circa 1987-1990, which sees a new incentive to strip down things and get rid of 1980s gloss and sheen and lipstick.

But then when grunge arrived it seemed so much more revolutionary and dramatic. People have a tendency to not see these little pre-grunge aesthetic changes, and merely placing everything Kurt's door. And grunge was revolutionary and deserves that reputation as a, 'year 0', of music but that does not mean we should ignore the changes underway by Appetite. There is a reason Appetite still holds up, whereas Look What the Cat Drowned in sounds dated.

The sad thing is, Guns become this really bloated operation and their singer was acting like a dick so they in turn, looked dated themselves when 1991 hit. It did not inherently have to be that way: If the cheesy 10 minute videos, overdubs and Axl's rather odd stage outfits had never surfaced - if they managed to retain Izzy's and Izzy's spirit and Izzy's integrity and not arsed around with inflatables, Guns might have weathered the storms of grunge better than they actually did.

One of those super rare good Diesel posts. It's like I've suspected: most of us can be less retarded by just trying it from time to time. Even Diesel showed a ton of grease and much izzy integrity, izzy's, and Neil Young and inflatables.

[wasted]

I think Axl was ambitious and aware/intelligent like U2, Metallica to know you had to change a little to adapt to what was going on. Slash/Izzy seem to have the opposite opinion to a degree. Not to start a fight, not categorically opposed but they were more ACDC or Ramones or something. Maybe what Axl was talking about was just outside of their ambitions. And Slash is right also they might have had a career as a ACDC Stones. Guns could have competed with grunge, U2, Metallica but I don't think they could capture a wider audience again with just party rock n roll. They need to use everything in their canon. It was harder for them because of the punk rock. Stones or Aerosmith had their mid period slumps before coming back to permanent Pump or Voodoo Beidges Lounge. Seems like there's two ways, fall apart to come back or Achtung evolve it. Guns fell apart then brought out Nu Achtung instead of the commercial reunion moneymaker.

[wasted]

No.

Guns just brought some fresh air and honesty to the mainstream that was full of crap and poseurs.

It was alternative rock that made that bomb explode. The whole Seattle scene and some LA bands like Jane's Addiction had been simmering and making something new, fresh and different. The whole vibe was beyond the debauchery of the Hollywood music scene that was trapped in its own cliches (Hello, Motley Crue?).

It was a bit like Seattle goes to Hollywood. Like those bands with their raw debuts like Bleach, Louder than Love suddenly had glossier more metal studio albums. And AFD was probably less raw and punk than they were as a street band.

I think AFD opened the labels minds about what could sell rather than GNR killing 80s hair metal directly, in a way I see that bands like Fasterpussy cat or LA Guns just didn't have enough to be stadium bands. Guns or Axl really jumped on that with UYI.

To me GNR were the stadium band of the 90s. Some of bands we are talking about couldn't really do it on such a scale.

[Dr. Who]

I would argue no.

Honestly, as much as we love Guns N' Roses, they were not ALL THAT different from the then current crop of Glam Rock musicians. They were grittier in theme and stylings, yes, but not as real lyrically as say, Metallica was. They weren't as socio-political or issue oriented as a band like Queensyrche. They didn't even really introduce anything that had been missing from Rock, in my opinion. You have a few dark songs on Appetite, but the overriding themes on that album are sex, drugs and rock n' roll--the same old story, just retold a bit differently. GN'R were not the "Dark Knight" of '80s music; they did not reinvent the genre--they offered a take on it that had been done before, but with a tad more depth. They were basically a darker version of Aerosmith on AFD, and then a watered down mix of all their '70s influences on the Illusions.

The only real game changers of the period were U2 (which I hate), Nirvana and R.E.M. Those groups introduced something brand new to the masses. The others simply did what GN'R did--their own take on old '70s stuff. Soundgarden, Pearl Jam and Guns N' Roses were, spiritually speaking, not very far removed. Sound wise yes. But both had the same idea. Take '70s Aerosmith/Zeppelin style rock and repackage it for a new generation.

Guns N' Roses did not save anyone from anything except perhaps individuals. They were already what is called "dad rock" when they began, which is why a good dose of above 30 people in the '80s got into them just as much as the teens and kids.

[GN'R Forever]

To me, Guns are what hard rock should've continued to be. They were influenced by 70s bands, yes, but I've never heard a band and thought "hey this sounds like Guns N' Roses". I'm 21 years old and I listen to a lot of modern music (most of it not even rock) but I desperately wish there was something similar to GN'R going on these days. I have probably listened to Guns every day since I was born, and they don't even have that much material. Most of their stuff I don't listen to and think "man this sounds so 80s", I think "If they were young today they could still be just as famous. This is hard rock music, yes. But it's not dusty sounding." 1991 just doesn't seem that long ago to me. Looking back, I wouldn't think that Guns made people stop listening to cheesy 80s music but they were a nice reality check.

[wasted]

I guess there's success and superstardom. There were tons of bands and they were probably loving it. But only GNR and Nirvana really scarred the mainstream.

[wkuk04]

GnR essentially broke open the door for bands like Metallica and Nirvana to enter the mainstream audience. That's basically what they did.

I believe this also. Saying that though Metallica had a huge underground following before they "Sold Out".

[GNRfan2008]

I would argue no.

Honestly, as much as we love Guns N' Roses, they were not ALL THAT different from the then current crop of Glam Rock musicians. They were grittier in theme and stylings, yes, but not as real lyrically as say, Metallica was. They weren't as socio-political or issue oriented as a band like Queensyrche. They didn't even really introduce anything that had been missing from Rock, in my opinion. You have a few dark songs on Appetite, but the overriding themes on that album are sex, drugs and rock n' roll--the same old story, just retold a bit differently. GN'R were not the "Dark Knight" of '80s music; they did not reinvent the genre--they offered a take on it that had been done before, but with a tad more depth. They were basically a darker version of Aerosmith on AFD, and then a watered down mix of all their '70s influences on the Illusions.

The only real game changers of the period were U2 (which I hate), Nirvana and R.E.M. Those groups introduced something brand new to the masses. The others simply did what GN'R did--their own take on old '70s stuff. Soundgarden, Pearl Jam and Guns N' Roses were, spiritually speaking, not very far removed. Sound wise yes. But both had the same idea. Take '70s Aerosmith/Zeppelin style rock and repackage it for a new generation.

Guns N' Roses did not save anyone from anything except perhaps individuals. They were already what is called "dad rock" when they began, which is why a good dose of above 30 people in the '80s got into them just as much as the teens and kids.

Guns had a lot harder edge to them than the typical rock band. Legitimately dangerous (riots and whatnot). I was just watching a live video of the Cars in one of these articles about bands that keep getting snubbed for the Hall of Fame. What struck me most about it is just how uptight and nerdy the Cars were in their presentation to the audience. Good music for sure, but lacking anywhere near the energy and "cool" factor GN'R brought to the table.

GN'R was a sleazy 1970's hard rock band trapped in the 1980's Hollywood glam scene. What separated them from Motley Crue and all the others is that they wanted to escape that shitty life instead of enjoying the hell out of it. GN'R easily could have just ended up as some little cult band. I think they accidentally stumbled on to something the public was desperately wanting in rock music at the time: real musicians with an honest perspective on the world.

Edited December 17, 2014 by GNRfan2008

[Rovim]

I would argue no.

Honestly, as much as we love Guns N' Roses, they were not ALL THAT different from the then current crop of Glam Rock musicians. They were grittier in theme and stylings, yes, but not as real lyrically as say, Metallica was. They weren't as socio-political or issue oriented as a band like Queensyrche. They didn't even really introduce anything that had been missing from Rock, in my opinion. You have a few dark songs on Appetite, but the overriding themes on that album are sex, drugs and rock n' roll--the same old story, just retold a bit differently. GN'R were not the "Dark Knight" of '80s music; they did not reinvent the genre--they offered a take on it that had been done before, but with a tad more depth. They were basically a darker version of Aerosmith on AFD, and then a watered down mix of all their '70s influences on the Illusions.

The only real game changers of the period were U2 (which I hate), Nirvana and R.E.M. Those groups introduced something brand new to the masses. The others simply did what GN'R did--their own take on old '70s stuff. Soundgarden, Pearl Jam and Guns N' Roses were, spiritually speaking, not very far removed. Sound wise yes. But both had the same idea. Take '70s Aerosmith/Zeppelin style rock and repackage it for a new generation.

Guns N' Roses did not save anyone from anything except perhaps individuals. They were already what is called "dad rock" when they began, which is why a good dose of above 30 people in the '80s got into them just as much as the teens and kids.

Guns had a lot harder edge to them than the typical rock band. Legitimately dangerous (riots and whatnot). I was just watching a live video of the Cars in one of these articles about bands that keep getting snubbed for the Hall of Fame. What struck me most about it is just how uptight and nerdy the Cars were in their presentation to the audience. Good music for sure, but lacking anywhere near the energy and "cool" factor GN'R brought to the table.

GN'R was a sleazy 1970's hard rock band trapped in the 1980's Hollywood glam scene. What separated them from Motley Crue and all the others is that they wanted to escape that shitty life instead of enjoying the hell out of it. GN'R easily could have just ended up as some little cult band. I think they accidentally stumbled on to something the public was desperately wanting in rock music at the time: real musicians with an honest perspective on the world.

And great songs that had production with balls, epic solos, a banshee wail, and a punk edge. And it had groove and freshness to it. Basically, they woke some people up.

I'd love another album like Appetite in spirit to fill the void we kinda have now in the music world.

It's more realistic then to hope for another generation defining band like Nirvana to come along imo.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Rovim

[Kater]

It is said that every generation has it's spokesman in pop culture.

Nirvana definately was the voice of early 90's and I'm fine with that.

I know it is little off topic, but what is with today? Who is speaking for and about them? Beyonce,Rihanna? Miley? Is it this bad?

[wasted]

No.

Guns just brought some fresh air and honesty to the mainstream that was full of crap and poseurs.

It was alternative rock that made that bomb explode. The whole Seattle scene and some LA bands like Jane's Addiction had been simmering and making something new, fresh and different. The whole vibe was beyond the debauchery of the Hollywood music scene that was trapped in its own cliches (Hello, Motley Crue?).

It was a bit like Seattle goes to Hollywood. Like those bands with their raw debuts like Bleach, Louder than Love suddenly had glossier more metal studio albums. And AFD was probably less raw and punk than they were as a street band.

I think AFD opened the labels minds about what could sell rather than GNR killing 80s hair metal directly, in a way I see that bands like Fasterpussy cat or LA Guns just didn't have enough to be stadium bands. Guns or Axl really jumped on that with UYI.

To me GNR were the stadium band of the 90s. Some of bands we are talking about couldn't really do it on such a scale.

Once again, record labels killing the great vibe of real music.

I really like Nevermind, it's an amazing album, but it's missing that rough, gritty nasty roots of Bleach. When Nirvana recorded In Utero with a "back to basics" approach towards sound, the suit and tie douchebags from the label didn't want to release it because it wasn't commercial enough and according to them it sounded like shit...

It was such a short period of time, but so fucking intense.

True I followed the making of In Utero pretty closely and it had a similar vibe to CD making. An artist struggling to deal with the expectations and industry.

There were rumours that one album they handed in was like I hate you or Rubbing alcohol, a whole album of those kind of tracks would have been insane. In the end they kind of spitefully parodied themselves with Rape Me.

Riad, Sorry, IRS kind of sound like In Utero tracks. Themantically or attitude wise. Maybe Prostitute too.

Milk it and Very Ape kind of snuck in some very caustic stuff. No band I've heard has ever reached that level. It's pretty uncompromising.

I was reading a Ratt bio and they were saying how they were basically on a studio treadmill. Every album was really pressure out by the label. To step off the train takes a lot of balls. To challenge anything in the status quo is basically career suicide. The labels prefer the artists as a flavour to coat a safe formula not some guy that wants to reinvent the money wheel every time.

Angel Dust was also one where the label was a bit shocked. But they were on the money with Mid life Crisis.

[Dr. Who]

Having become a huge Pearl Jam recently, I have some thoughts:

People always pit Nirvana against GN'R in the 90s. But that's like comparing apples and oranges. Nirvana was from a completely different background, musically and otherwise, from GN'R. They were basically a mainstream, accessible version of The Pixies mixed with some Beatles influences, to simplify it. They didn't create a new sound, but conglomerated elements of various underground bands and put in a mainstream package. While Nirvana was also influenced by classic rock bands like Aerosmith, it didn't really ever show in their sound.

Where Kurt Cobain talked the talk about the establishment, he still attended all the award shows and played the establishment's game (released music videos, heavily promoted his work), Pearl Jam stopped giving interviews at the height of their fame, took on Ticketmaster in support of the fans to lower ticket prices, stopped making videos - all for the fans.

Pearl Jam on the other hand, did have glam roots like Guns N' Roses to an extent, and incorporated into their sound a new twist on classic rock, similar to the way GN'R did. Where GN'R took from Punk for Appetite, Pearl Jam took from Neil Young.

Ten is the album that GN'R should've released in 1991. Ten is similar in some ways to Appetite:

-Short anthemic arena rock songs

-Loose, groovy drumming

-Understated guitar riffs and solos

By contrast, The UYI featured long, Joe Perry-esque guitar solos (every song has at least a 30 second solo), were self indulgent in that aspect, had 10 minute long suites and the drumming was very technical and mechanical. Very few of the songs lacked any real memorable or anthemic choruses - utterly different from AFD. Where Guns N' Roses on the UYIs was now channeling the excesses of Aerosmith, 70s Stones and Led Zeppelin, Pearl Jam was bringing real soul in the form of Hendrix inspired, short solos and melodies.

Ten showed a more mature side to rock without wallowing in darkness or despair; a lyricism that was clear and concise unlike Nirvana's abstract poetry. The UYIs, while they had some amazing, deep and mature moments lyrically, also leaned on hair metal juvenile bravado like Back off Bitch and Shotgun Blues.

Both bands incorporated piano and organ into these records - but Ten used the piano in an understated, subtle way; on the UYIs, piano and organ color over harder parts of rock songs.

The real comparison, when examining 90s rock, is between Pearl Jam and GN'R. Nirvana only enters the conversation because of Kurt Cobain's well publicized dislike of Axl - but musically and in every other way they couldn't be more different, whereas comparisons can be made - between Eddie and Axl's vocals and lyricism, McReady and Slash's guitar, Adler vs. Krusen, Sorum vs. Abbruzzese (who later and briefly replaced Sorum in GN'R).

Also, it could be argued that it was Pearl Jam, and not Nirvana, who displaced GN'R in terms of popularity:

Between October 12th 1992 and and September 13th 1994, UYI II had went 5x Platinum, and UYI I went 5x Platinum on October 18th 1994. The Spaghetti Incident, released in November 1993, was certified 1x Platinum in January 1994.

In contrast, Ten, by Pearl Jam, had shipped 6x Platinum between its release in August 1991 and December 1st 1993. Vs, from its release in October 1993, had went to being 5x Platinum on January 6th 1994.

Nirvana on the other hand, between its' release in September 1991, and November 5th 1993, Nevermind was certified 5x million. The followup, In Utero, only went 1x Platinum between September and November 1993. It wouldn't hit 2x Platinum until April 11th 1994 - 3 days after Kurt Cobain's suicide was announced to the public. By early '94, Nirvana had become very unpopular, struggling to sell out arenas on their last tour.

Where GN'R promoted the UYI records, their sophomore album(s) with expensive music videos and a two year long tour (including a joint summer tour with Metallica), Pearl Jam toured regularly and usually on their own, and offered no promotion for their sophomore album, Vs.

The Pearl Jam-GN'R connection is also tightened by the fact that, according to Slash, Axl in the mid 1990s wanted to do a Pearl Jam sounding record - not a Nirvana sounding record.

Slash:

Axl's whole trip was "What's gonna happen when Guns is no longer.. when a new fad comes along?" or whatever. And I'd be, "I don't give a fuck". And I watched it happen, and it didn't matter to me. With Axl it mattered a hell of a lot. Next thing you know, he wants to be Pearl Jam, right? Why? I hate Pearl Jam anyway, so what's the point? And it's great to watch Pearl Jam going through what they're going through, cos I'm going, "See Axl?"

A magazine in 1991 proclaimed Nirvana "The Guns N' Roses it's Okay to Like". That title should've gone to Pearl Jam instead.

While many bands will claim GN'R or Nirvana as their influence today, in terms of newer bands sound, Pearl Jam's influence is much more easily heard. If any band saved us from 80s cock rock or synth pop it was Pearl Jam.

[GNRmello77]

You have so many different bands from that era and before GN'R and indeed they openen the door for other bands, but isn' the succes of GN'R Because their way of rock is Just perfect? Perfect to be kick ass rock real hard kick ass rock but also lets say friendly enough for the ears of the main public. And i love the Stones i love Aerosmith before and in the 80's i love Motley Crue i love ac/dc but they just are i don't know one way street and GN'R is and was so diverse in their music and had a perfect combination in their songs, thats atleast what it is to me and Just the things together, slash and axl the vocals the guitar sound the way the songs are written. I don't know about you guys? Would like to hear your opinion on this if you understand me

[wkuk04]

GnR essentially broke open the door for bands like Metallica and Nirvana to enter the mainstream audience. That's basically what they did.

Spot on. If folk believe Nirvana just strolled in and blew the top of the music scene then they are sadly mistaken.

[Angelica]

No. As has been pointed out, Motley, Bon Jovi and Poison had massive hits after AFD broke. Those bands just made GNR look even cooler in comparison (the very same favor Tracy & Roberta era Guns would end up doing the grunge bands a few years later).

[TeeJay410]

You can see that after Appetite that while they hair bands were still there, they changed their look. Their hair not quite as teased, less makeup, etc. Guns definitely made an impact, particularly that fans were ready for an edgier band and that the reward for taking a chance on a band that's different can be worth the risk. It's fair to say that GNR marked the beginning of the end for pop hair metal, but Nirvana is what killed it. While Guns was an edgier band, they were still the similar sort of rock stars. Nirvana was something completely different.

Edited July 3, 2015 by TeeJay410

[dalsh327]

The imagery was only important because MTV was so big at the time but I think some bands put too much priority on videos over the music. Over time most of those videos become a thing of the past, but the music sticks around. You had the same videos being played over and over in the background at the time, unless you dubbed copies and built up a collection. Now you can go online and be your own VJ but they'll hear the music and then see the video most of the time, or see a live performance on an award show before seeing the video.

When MTV does the VMAs, guarantee that most of the people there haven't seen most of the videos nominated. They should bring a countdown show back, even if it's just an hour long. MTV turned its back on bands, new album releases, and band appearances, and the monster they helped create - reality TV -is the reason. They should start letting the music back in. It's another reason why album sales declined, not just Napster.

[The Glow Inc.]

How about this guy ?



I'd argue that even though NIN was never as big as GnR, Trent had a way bigger impact on the musical trends of the 90s.

The imagery of his videos, the sound-design approach to electronic music, some of the sonorities...Stuff that most media composers use nowadays and didn't back then...Not to mention his influence as a producer and arranger.

[acor]

GnR essentially broke open the door for bands like Metallica and Nirvana to enter the mainstream audience. That's basically what they did.

Spot on. If folk believe Nirvana just strolled in and blew the top of the music scene then they are sadly mistaken.

Nirvana is lamest band that ever played music. Not fan of "synth and spandex", but Id take it over Nirvana every time...

[niceguy]

Idk man, I love me some synths and spandex rock..

MTV turned its back on bands, new album releases, and band appearances, and the monster they helped create - reality TV -is the reason. They should start letting the music back in. It's another reason why album sales declined, not just Napster.

The prez of mtv released a really interesting video explaining why they don't do music anymore.

It comes down to money. Once people started pirating music, there was such little money going into the music industry, which included mtv. So, mtv being a business, they stopped pushing music and turned to whatever else they could make money from: reality TV.

Mtv is a business, not a charity. So yeah, as a businessperson myself, I completely understand why they turned their backs on music videos. I'd do the same. It was either that or go out of business.

And you can thank all the people who insist that music piracy is a good thing.

Edited July 3, 2015 by niceguy

[maynard]

How about this guy ?

I'd argue that even though NIN was never as big as GnR, Trent had a way bigger impact on the musical trends of the 90s.

The imagery of his videos, the sound-design approach to electronic music, some of the sonorities...Stuff that most media composers use nowadays and didn't back then...Not to mention his influence as a producer and arranger.

I think Trent/NIN was much more important to music than Kurt and Nirvana.

[IncitingChaos]

Guns N Roses was so big it's incomprehensable today. There's too much going on now, too many indies, too much social media, just too much. Back then guns n roses had captivated people around the world.

They had stories of drugs, arrest, and just about anything the media could make up or get their hands on. The fact that they were making really good music and pulling together some great shows made them the perfect package.

But with that came the people who wanted to say "they aren't that good!" Or "they will fall apart" but they kept it together for quite a bit longer than they should have. When it fell apart though people were ready to pounce. "Nirvana killed them" and dumb comments like that.

I don't think GNR saved anything, they were just that band that comes along every once in a while and grabs your attention. They were that good, that they could carry the music industry. From big music videos, to double albums they controlled what direction music was heading. When nirvana came along they were doing some good things. They had a great album, but their focus on hating every step was ridiculous. Their music was good but they couldn't carry an industry, they were just helping destroy music. How would their legacy be remembered if Kurt hadn't shot himself? Where were they going with their music. It just seemed like a whole lot of nothing. But people were buying into it at the time so it was fine, but Gn'R is to me a much bigger presence in music than was nirvana.

As far as the slash and Axl view of music changing I think they always found an excellent middle ground. One of my favorite songs is Dead Horse bc of the depressed Intro with Axl on acoustic. And then all of a sudden the song breaking into a great rocker. To me that sounds like GN'R saying yea we can be nirvana but we're not. We are just going to make great rock music!

This post has a lot of nothing in it also, just some thoughts from reading some of what you guys posted. Great discussion though. I just hate when people say nirvana killed gnr. Dumbest thing I've ever heard!