"GN'R were the next Rolling Stones"

[Dr. Who]

I've heard it said here at times that, if only GN'R hadn't broken up in 1996, they would've been the next Rolling Stones, they'd be the Rolling Stones of Gen X. I'm increasingly coming to rebuke this train of thought. GN'R, more and more it seems to me, were a bit of a flash in the pan. They came out with one huge album in 1987 and several good albums until 1991. But their activity, for one, was nowhere near as prolific as the Stones were in the 1960s or 1970s. Secondly, in the public consciousness (outside of GN'R forums), the UYI records, while huge in 1991, are largely forgotten or considered mixed works. By 1991, Guns N' Roses' popularity, while still huge in terms of mainstream appeal, had largely decreased. Where Appetite sold 15 million album copies (in the US), the Use Your Illusions only sold 7 million copies, a drop of almost 8 million records. Their next album, cover album aside, just broke 1 million. After Appetite, in terms of sales we see a trend of diminishing returns. By 1993, GN'R, while still popular, had lost a lot of their cultural relevance due to Axl's on stage antics and the rise of Pearl Jam and other bands. I read an article once from 1997 which stated that Guns were touring stadiums (in the US) in 1992 and arenas in 1993, indicating a decline in popularity even in terms of the live act.

Compare this to the Stones, who aren't known for just one album and whose career didn't hit it's peak until they had been at the game for a decade - roughly the early 1970s. The Stones also averaged one album per year from 1962 to 1972 and had by 1971 put out 9 albums, where GN'R put out 5 records in the same amount of time.

I contend that even if GN'R had stayed together, they would not have become the Rolling Stones of the 1990s and beyond; they would've just faded away. It is actually better GN'R broke up when they did as it allowed them to have a mystique ("What could have been") that didn't necessarily translate into reality. It's becoming more and more clear - due to the general public not remembering GN'R outside of Appetite + UYI singles - that GN'R were a flash in the pan, just a late 80s trend - not really primed to become one of the legendary acts like the Stones or Aerosmith.

[ludurigan]

I've heard it said here at times that, if only GN'R hadn't broken up in 1996, they would've been the next Rolling Stones, they'd be the Rolling Stones of Gen X. I'm increasingly coming to rebuke this train of thought. GN'R, more and more it seems to me, were a bit of a flash in the pan. They came out with one huge album in 1987 and several good albums until 1991. But their activity, for one, was nowhere near as prolific as the Stones were in the 1960s or 1970s. Secondly, in the public consciousness (outside of GN'R forums), the UYI records, while huge in 1991, are largely forgotten or considered mixed works. By 1991, Guns N' Roses' popularity, while still huge in terms of mainstream appeal, had largely decreased. Where Appetite sold 15 million album copies (in the US), the Use Your Illusions only sold 7 million copies, a drop of almost 8 million records. Their next album, cover album aside, just broke 1 million. After Appetite, in terms of sales we see a trend of diminishing returns. By 1993, GN'R, while still popular, had lost a lot of their cultural relevance due to Axl's on stage antics and the rise of Pearl Jam and other bands. I read an article once from 1997 which stated that Guns were touring stadiums (in the US) in 1992 and arenas in 1993, indicating a decline in popularity even in terms of the live act.

Compare this to the Stones, who aren't known for just one album and whose career didn't hit it's peak until they had been at the game for a decade - roughly the early 1970s. The Stones also averaged one album per year from 1962 to 1972 and had by 1971 put out 9 albums, where GN'R put out 5 records in the same amount of time.

I contend that even if GN'R had stayed together, they would not have become the Rolling Stones of the 1990s and beyond; they would've just faded away. It is actually better GN'R broke up when they did as it allowed them to have a mystique ("What could have been") that didn't necessarily translate into reality. It's becoming more and more clear - due to the general public not remembering GN'R outside of Appetite + UYI singles - that GN'R were a flash in the pan, just a late 80s trend - not really primed to become one of the legendary acts like the Stones or Aerosmith.

what?

gnr were a late 80s trend?

Edited September 13, 2015 by ludurigan

[Crazyman]

Comparing bands throughout eras is like comparing Quarterback stats in football throughout eras: it's all about context.

The Stones themselves were not releasing albums every year or two anymore by the time GnR released AFD.

The UYI Albums combined to sell about 14 million, AFD is at 18 (in the US). Definitely a drop-off, but not as severe as you make it seem. TSI was a cover album with "Since I Don't Have You" released as a single. Are you really surprised it didn't sell well in the grunge era?

GnR had toured the US several times by 1993. It makes perfect sense they'd scale back a bit.

I'm not even trying to question the sentiment (I agree, btw), but some of the things you listed are quite easy to debunk.

[Dr. Who]

Comparing bands throughout eras is like comparing Quarterback stats in football throughout eras: it's all about context.

The Stones themselves were not releasing albums every year or two anymore by the time GnR released AFD.

The UYI Albums combined to sell about 14 million, AFD is at 18 (in the US). Definitely a drop-off, but not as severe as you make it seem. TSI was a cover album with "Since I Don't Have You" released as a single. Are you really surprised it didn't sell well in the grunge era?

GnR had toured the US several times by 1993. It makes perfect sense they'd scale back a bit.

I'm not even trying to question the sentiment (I agree, btw), but some of the things you listed are quite easy to debunk.

But when people say "they were the next Stones", it doesn't seem like they're talking about the Stones of the late 80s, but more that Guns were going to be what the Stones in the 70s were or the enduring brand that Aerosmith became. One of the big players, game changers in rock n' roll. Whereas I look at Guns increasingly, as simply a bridge between Motley Crue and Pearl Jam - both feet planted in that world. WTTJ, SCOM, NR are great tunes but they're not the gamechangers that say, Gimme Shelter or Satisfaction were. They're nowhere near as legendary as Sweet Emotion etc. I don't think Guns, even if the original/UYI band stayed together, had much more left in them in terms of popularity or relevance. They'd be in a better position than Axl's Guns are, but they wouldn't be as big as U2 say. The only reason they have this mythos surrounding them is because they had an amazing debut album and wild live shows and they ended so prematurely, so people think 'Wow, what might've been would've been so cool." But the reality is they were fading even by the mid 90s. They weren't going to be like the Stones and Aerosmith were.

[bacardimayne]

nope

I contend that even if GN'R had stayed together, they would not have become the Rolling Stones of the 1990s and beyond; they would've just faded away. It is actually better GN'R broke up when they did as it allowed them to have a mystique ("What could have been") that didn't necessarily translate into reality. It's becoming more and more clear - due to the general public not remembering GN'R outside of Appetite + UYI singles - that GN'R were a flash in the pan, just a late 80s trend - not really primed to become one of the legendary acts like the Stones or Aerosmith.

100% this aside from Aerosmith being "legendary"

[DR DOOM]

I disagree.

If all parties could have got their shit together I could see them as something like ACDC.

Putting aside whether ACDC are trendy or still putting out stuff that rivals their heyday they're an institution and their shows are always very well attended.

[Bono]

By 1991, Guns N' Roses' popularity, while still huge in terms of mainstream appeal, had largely decreased.

It is actually better GN'R broke up when they did as it allowed them to have a mystique ("What could have been") that didn't necessarily translate into reality.

- Guess you weren't around in 1991 when the clock struck midnight on the release date of the Illusion albums

- Better they broke up rather than continue on and create great music because...... a mystique is better than actual content? Because NIrvana fans might think GnR is lame?

[Dr. Who]

By 1991, Guns N' Roses' popularity, while still huge in terms of mainstream appeal, had largely decreased.

It is actually better GN'R broke up when they did as it allowed them to have a mystique ("What could have been") that didn't necessarily translate into reality.

- Guess you weren't around in 1991 when the clock struck midnight on the release date of the Illusion albums

- Better they broke up rather than continue on and create great music because...... a mystique is better than actual content? Because NIrvana fans might think GnR is lame?

You went from them having the highest selling debut of all time in 1987 to selling 7 million apiece in '91. They certainly weren't the biggest rock group in 1991 in terms of popularity, Metallica's self-titled from that year waaay outsold the UYI records for example. But they had retained enough of a fanbase to garner the midnight release lines, but it didn't translate into record sales. The Use Your Illusions were expected within the industry to outsell Thriller, and they didn't; they didn't have as much staying power on the charts as AFD did either.

AFD was certified 8x Platinum on July 26th 1989, two years after its' release and the closest certification AFD had to the release of the UYIs; it was certified 10x platinum in February 1993.

By two years of release (November 2nd 1992) Use Your Illusion I had only certified 4x Platnum; UYI 2 met this certification on October 12th 1992; by this same point, Metallica's self-titled had went 6x Platinum in October 1992; Nevermind had hit 5x Platinum by this point, and Ten had hit 3x Platinum (it would jump to 6x Platinum by Dec '93 whereas the UYIs wouldn't chart 6x platinum until 1995)

[Free Bird]

By 1991, Guns N' Roses' popularity, while still huge in terms of mainstream appeal, had largely decreased.

It is actually better GN'R broke up when they did as it allowed them to have a mystique ("What could have been") that didn't necessarily translate into reality.

- Guess you weren't around in 1991 when the clock struck midnight on the release date of the Illusion albums

- Better they broke up rather than continue on and create great music because...... a mystique is better than actual content? Because NIrvana fans might think GnR is lame?

You went from them having the highest selling debut of all time in 1987 to selling 7 million apiece in '91. They certainly weren't the biggest rock group in 1991 in terms of popularity, Metallica's self-titled from that year waaay outsold the UYI records for example. But they had retained enough of a fanbase to garner the midnight release lines, but it didn't translate into record sales. The Use Your Illusions were expected within the industry to outsell Thriller, and they didn't; they didn't have as much staying power on the charts as AFD did either.

AFD was certified 8x Platinum on July 26th 1989, two years after its' release and the closest certification AFD had to the release of the UYIs; it was certified 10x platinum in February 1993.

By two years of release (November 2nd 1992) Use Your Illusion I had only certified 4x Platnum; UYI 2 met this certification on October 12th 1992; by this same point, Metallica's self-titled had went 6x Platinum in October 1992; Nevermind had hit 5x Platinum by this point, and Ten had hit 3x Platinum (it would jump to 6x Platinum by Dec '93 whereas the UYIs wouldn't chart 6x platinum until 1995)

So do you wanna say The Rolling Stones had always the biggest selling numbers when releasing an album?

It's about consistency and we all know how Guns end up. But would they have stayed together I have no doubt they were up there with the likes of the Stones, ACDC, U2

Edited September 13, 2015 by Free Bird

[RichardNixon]

Considering half of GNR'S greatest hits is made up of UYI songs and that it sold millions, I'd say people still dug those songs in 2004+.

As for relevance, more young people can probably name a GNR song than can name a song by Jack White, Vampire Weekend, etc., or any other overrated, overhyped band from the 00s.

As for Aerosmith's legacy...just look at the response, both critical and commercial from their last album. A full scale reunion with Slash and Duff would be far more successful.

And every band sees a drop in sales from their heyday. Pearl Jam's last few albums, Nirvana's In Utero was considered a flop in 1993, etc.

Edited September 13, 2015 by RichardNixon

[Bono]

By 1991, Guns N' Roses' popularity, while still huge in terms of mainstream appeal, had largely decreased.

It is actually better GN'R broke up when they did as it allowed them to have a mystique ("What could have been") that didn't necessarily translate into reality.

- Guess you weren't around in 1991 when the clock struck midnight on the release date of the Illusion albums

- Better they broke up rather than continue on and create great music because...... a mystique is better than actual content? Because NIrvana fans might think GnR is lame?

You went from them having the highest selling debut of all time in 1987 to selling 7 million apiece in '91. They certainly weren't the biggest rock group in 1991 in terms of popularity, Metallica's self-titled from that year waaay outsold the UYI records for example. But they had retained enough of a fanbase to garner the midnight release lines, but it didn't translate into record sales. The Use Your Illusions were expected within the industry to outsell Thriller, and they didn't; they didn't have as much staying power on the charts as AFD did either.

AFD was certified 8x Platinum on July 26th 1989, two years after its' release and the closest certification AFD had to the release of the UYIs; it was certified 10x platinum in February 1993.

By two years of release (November 2nd 1992) Use Your Illusion I had only certified 4x Platnum; UYI 2 met this certification on October 12th 1992; by this same point, Metallica's self-titled had went 6x Platinum in October 1992; Nevermind had hit 5x Platinum by this point, and Ten had hit 3x Platinum (it would jump to 6x Platinum by Dec '93 whereas the UYIs wouldn't chart 6x platinum until 1995)

You don't get it. If you actually think album sales tell the whole story then I'm sorry there's not much I can say. If you think Nirvana's 5X platinum album made them a bigger band than GnR in 1991-1992 you're sadly mistaken. They were the new "it" thing but they weren't selling out arenas and stadiums like GnR was. Again you must not have been around for the frenzy that was the release of the Illusions. There hadn't been anythng like that in decades so. To say GnR's popularity had decreased by 1991 is absurd because the FACT is their popularity was at an all time high between 1991-1993

[Dr. Who]

By 1991, Guns N' Roses' popularity, while still huge in terms of mainstream appeal, had largely decreased.

It is actually better GN'R broke up when they did as it allowed them to have a mystique ("What could have been") that didn't necessarily translate into reality.

- Guess you weren't around in 1991 when the clock struck midnight on the release date of the Illusion albums

- Better they broke up rather than continue on and create great music because...... a mystique is better than actual content? Because NIrvana fans might think GnR is lame?

You went from them having the highest selling debut of all time in 1987 to selling 7 million apiece in '91. They certainly weren't the biggest rock group in 1991 in terms of popularity, Metallica's self-titled from that year waaay outsold the UYI records for example. But they had retained enough of a fanbase to garner the midnight release lines, but it didn't translate into record sales. The Use Your Illusions were expected within the industry to outsell Thriller, and they didn't; they didn't have as much staying power on the charts as AFD did either.

AFD was certified 8x Platinum on July 26th 1989, two years after its' release and the closest certification AFD had to the release of the UYIs; it was certified 10x platinum in February 1993.

By two years of release (November 2nd 1992) Use Your Illusion I had only certified 4x Platnum; UYI 2 met this certification on October 12th 1992; by this same point, Metallica's self-titled had went 6x Platinum in October 1992; Nevermind had hit 5x Platinum by this point, and Ten had hit 3x Platinum (it would jump to 6x Platinum by Dec '93 whereas the UYIs wouldn't chart 6x platinum until 1995)

You don't get it. If you actually think album sales tell the whole story then I'm sorry there's not much I can say. If you think Nirvana's 5X platinum album made them a bigger band than GnR in 1991-1992 you're sadly mistaken. They were the new "it" thing but they weren't selling out arenas and stadiums like GnR was. Again you must not have been around for the frenzy that was the release of the Illusions. There hadn't been anythng like that in decades so. To say GnR's popularity had decreased by 1991 is absurd because the FACT is their popularity was at an all time high between 1991-1993

[Crazyman]

Comparing bands throughout eras is like comparing Quarterback stats in football throughout eras: it's all about context.

The Stones themselves were not releasing albums every year or two anymore by the time GnR released AFD.

The UYI Albums combined to sell about 14 million, AFD is at 18 (in the US). Definitely a drop-off, but not as severe as you make it seem. TSI was a cover album with "Since I Don't Have You" released as a single. Are you really surprised it didn't sell well in the grunge era?

GnR had toured the US several times by 1993. It makes perfect sense they'd scale back a bit.

I'm not even trying to question the sentiment (I agree, btw), but some of the things you listed are quite easy to debunk.

But when people say "they were the next Stones", it doesn't seem like they're talking about the Stones of the late 80s, but more that Guns were going to be what the Stones in the 70s were or the enduring brand that Aerosmith became. One of the big players, game changers in rock n' roll. Whereas I look at Guns increasingly, as simply a bridge between Motley Crue and Pearl Jam - both feet planted in that world. WTTJ, SCOM, NR are great tunes but they're not the gamechangers that say, Gimme Shelter or Satisfaction were. They're nowhere near as legendary as Sweet Emotion etc. I don't think Guns, even if the original/UYI band stayed together, had much more left in them in terms of popularity or relevance. They'd be in a better position than Axl's Guns are, but they wouldn't be as big as U2 say. The only reason they have this mythos surrounding them is because they had an amazing debut album and wild live shows and they ended so prematurely, so people think 'Wow, what might've been would've been so cool." But the reality is they were fading even by the mid 90s. They weren't going to be like the Stones and Aerosmith were.

I think I've heard WTTJ and Paradise City at almost every single sporting event since they came out. To say that they haven't been endured into culture isn't fair, simply because they aren't used in every Martin Scorsese movie. And it's impossible to consider what Guns would do if they stayed together because we don't know what type of music (quality, style, etc) they would've made from '93 onwards.

Also Aerosmith faded pretty quickly after they came out, then regrouped in the late 80's and made a comeback. What's the say that GnR wouldn't have done the same?

Edit: Also I think that the quote you started this thread with was based more on their type of music and band rather than commercial appeal. Then again, maybe I'm wrong.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Crazyman

[dalsh327]

It's hard to know what kind of material GNR would have done had they stayed together and put something out every few years, all you can base it on is what they did apart from each other and speculate.

One of the worst things that happens to a band is people take for granted that they'll always be around, so they become indifferent to the touring and new music. We were starting to see that with GNR...so GNR's been off the road for a year into 2016. No idea what's coming. Better to be talked about than not at all. So the reunion rumor mill is good for GNR, sells music, keeps the name alive.

Then you have Duff with his "what band is he in this week", Slash who seems to put out an album every year and always doing interviews, and then there's Izzy, where no one even knows if he has new music out or what country distributed it.

The Stones...after Keith's book, who really thought they were going to stay together? Now it's just a matter of how long can they keep this going and what archives are going to be mined next. Mick gets to produce the show with Scorsese about the early 70s, Keith has new music and a possible tour, Ron Wood does his Faces reunion shows and Charlie... probably jazz music.

I don't think Nirvana really made it big until 1992, they were supporting the RHCP and Pearl Jam was the opening act on a fairground tour at the end of '91. They were doing in-stores for Nevermind around the time UYI was flying off of shelves.

Just because an album goes platinum doesn't mean it's good. It might have had a lot of publicity behind it. There have to be some albums you thought were going to be good, but then you bought it and just felt ripped off.

Edited September 13, 2015 by dalsh327

[Powerage5]

By 1991, Guns N' Roses' popularity, while still huge in terms of mainstream appeal, had largely decreased.

It is actually better GN'R broke up when they did as it allowed them to have a mystique ("What could have been") that didn't necessarily translate into reality.

- Guess you weren't around in 1991 when the clock struck midnight on the release date of the Illusion albums

- Better they broke up rather than continue on and create great music because...... a mystique is better than actual content? Because NIrvana fans might think GnR is lame?

You went from them having the highest selling debut of all time in 1987 to selling 7 million apiece in '91. They certainly weren't the biggest rock group in 1991 in terms of popularity, Metallica's self-titled from that year waaay outsold the UYI records for example. But they had retained enough of a fanbase to garner the midnight release lines, but it didn't translate into record sales. The Use Your Illusions were expected within the industry to outsell Thriller, and they didn't; they didn't have as much staying power on the charts as AFD did either.

AFD was certified 8x Platinum on July 26th 1989, two years after its' release and the closest certification AFD had to the release of the UYIs; it was certified 10x platinum in February 1993.

By two years of release (November 2nd 1992) Use Your Illusion I had only certified 4x Platnum; UYI 2 met this certification on October 12th 1992; by this same point, Metallica's self-titled had went 6x Platinum in October 1992; Nevermind had hit 5x Platinum by this point, and Ten had hit 3x Platinum (it would jump to 6x Platinum by Dec '93 whereas the UYIs wouldn't chart 6x platinum until 1995)

You don't get it. If you actually think album sales tell the whole story then I'm sorry there's not much I can say. If you think Nirvana's 5X platinum album made them a bigger band than GnR in 1991-1992 you're sadly mistaken. They were the new "it" thing but they weren't selling out arenas and stadiums like GnR was. Again you must not have been around for the frenzy that was the release of the Illusions. There hadn't been anythng like that in decades so. To say GnR's popularity had decreased by 1991 is absurd because the FACT is their popularity was at an all time high between 1991-1993

I...don't think I've ever 100% agreed with one of your posts before Bono. Seriously, brilliant post there.

[Powerage5]

I disagree.

If all parties could have got their shit together I could see them as something like ACDC.

Putting aside whether ACDC are trendy or still putting out stuff that rivals their heyday they're an institution and their shows are always very well attended.

The thing AC/DC has going for them is they don't oversaturate the market. They've been in a state of semi-retirement since 1991, where they're more or less working on a 5 year cycle: release an album, tour for 16-18 months, take a 4-5 year break, rinse and repeat. People knock them for their inactivity, but it's seriously what keeps them being so popular. If classic GN'R was touring on the same cycle that GN'R actually did from 2009 to 2014, I seriously doubt they'd be selling out arenas or stadiums every night, and AC/DC surely wouldn't either. They'd be playing bigger venues than GN'R actually did, but they wouldn't be selling them out without some trickery (Which, in that sense they'd be exactly like the Stones). But look at AC/DC - with how infrequently they tour they never oversaturate even the biggest markets, and have no problem selling out 180 dates like they did for Black Ice, or 60 stadium shows this year.

[IncitingChaos]

UYI was a way bigger event than AFD. Those records confirmed for everyone that this band was the real deal, and the GNR craze was huge in the U.S. And even bigger around the world.

It's an interesting thought though...there are multiple ideas from the band itself if they would have sustained their success if they stayed together.

Slash said a few years ago that he felt they had run the gamut in terms of musical creation in GNR. He said they quit writing after 91 and any ideas that they had to make a new record were incomplete and amounted to nothing, so from Slash's perspective the whole thing was over, they weren't going to be Led Zeppelin or the stones.

Duff says the issue was they fell into every amateur mistake that a band can make when they get success. They didn't know how to lay off the drinks or drugs, they couldn't control themselves, they let everything get too big and lost control.

In my opinion the talent level of the guys in GNR is crazy. They had so much potential, the songs are so well crafted and out together with great lyrics, riffs, melodies. It's all really professional and well done. They were great and to make a debut album like AFD speaks to how good they were. I wish they could have stayed in that moment of song writing excellence for a few more years. "Your moment" as a band is short, and if you let it pass then you miss out on what could have been. GNR did well though. 3 huge albums with memorable songs all in the span of 4 years...they nailed it in my opinion. They lived in that moment and made it happen. Sometimes when you leave your moment it can get ugly, and it did.

[Dr. Who]

By 1991, Guns N' Roses' popularity, while still huge in terms of mainstream appeal, had largely decreased.

It is actually better GN'R broke up when they did as it allowed them to have a mystique ("What could have been") that didn't necessarily translate into reality.

- Guess you weren't around in 1991 when the clock struck midnight on the release date of the Illusion albums

- Better they broke up rather than continue on and create great music because...... a mystique is better than actual content? Because NIrvana fans might think GnR is lame?

You went from them having the highest selling debut of all time in 1987 to selling 7 million apiece in '91. They certainly weren't the biggest rock group in 1991 in terms of popularity, Metallica's self-titled from that year waaay outsold the UYI records for example. But they had retained enough of a fanbase to garner the midnight release lines, but it didn't translate into record sales. The Use Your Illusions were expected within the industry to outsell Thriller, and they didn't; they didn't have as much staying power on the charts as AFD did either.

AFD was certified 8x Platinum on July 26th 1989, two years after its' release and the closest certification AFD had to the release of the UYIs; it was certified 10x platinum in February 1993.

By two years of release (November 2nd 1992) Use Your Illusion I had only certified 4x Platnum; UYI 2 met this certification on October 12th 1992; by this same point, Metallica's self-titled had went 6x Platinum in October 1992; Nevermind had hit 5x Platinum by this point, and Ten had hit 3x Platinum (it would jump to 6x Platinum by Dec '93 whereas the UYIs wouldn't chart 6x platinum until 1995)

You don't get it. If you actually think album sales tell the whole story then I'm sorry there's not much I can say. If you think Nirvana's 5X platinum album made them a bigger band than GnR in 1991-1992 you're sadly mistaken. They were the new "it" thing but they weren't selling out arenas and stadiums like GnR was. Again you must not have been around for the frenzy that was the release of the Illusions. There hadn't been anythng like that in decades so. To say GnR's popularity had decreased by 1991 is absurd because the FACT is their popularity was at an all time high between 1991-1993

Nirvana didn't want to tour stadiums. Maybe in 1991 Guns was big but by 1993 they were old-hat. Pearl Jam was better than both bands anyway.

[Len Cnut]

All this could've been would've been bollocks, you are what you are, you're judged on what you achieve and what didn't happen simply didn't happen, end of, there is no indication GnR could've been anything like The Stones, quite frankly they didn't show anything like the prodigious talent required, on ANY level. First of all output of top end tunes, where are they, bearing in mind the volume that The Stones chucked em out at? Exactly, fucking nowhere. The Stones were finely tuned to groove, GnR weren't, and thats a fundamental really, GnR leaned towards a kind of a Metal sensibility, which immediately disqualifies them really.

They had nothing like the wit, talent, style or even the correct musical sensibilities to be a Stones, The Stones are The Stones, in their particular thing they stand alone, there's no one to beat The Stones at what they do, least of all GnR. They're nowhere in the league of The Stones, on any level. And I ain't even that much of a Stones fan.

[DR DOOM]

I disagree.

If all parties could have got their shit together I could see them as something like ACDC.

Putting aside whether ACDC are trendy or still putting out stuff that rivals their heyday they're an institution and their shows are always very well attended.

The thing AC/DC has going for them is they don't oversaturate the market. They've been in a state of semi-retirement since 1991, where they're more or less working on a 5 year cycle: release an album, tour for 16-18 months, take a 4-5 year break, rinse and repeat. People knock them for their inactivity, but it's seriously what keeps them being so popular. If classic GN'R was touring on the same cycle that GN'R actually did from 2009 to 2014, I seriously doubt they'd be selling out arenas or stadiums every night, and AC/DC surely wouldn't either. They'd be playing bigger venues than GN'R actually did, but they wouldn't be selling them out without some trickery (Which, in that sense they'd be exactly like the Stones). But look at AC/DC - with how infrequently they tour they never oversaturate even the biggest markets, and have no problem selling out 180 dates like they did for Black Ice, or 60 stadium shows this year.

Understood, but say GNR remained quiet after Sympathy For The Devil and came back with an album and tour in say 2000 or around then, and reappeared every 5 years or so to tour.

Axl was/is too unreliable to cement that ACDC rock solidness but I think it's a fair comparison.

[Powerage5]

I disagree.

If all parties could have got their shit together I could see them as something like ACDC.

Putting aside whether ACDC are trendy or still putting out stuff that rivals their heyday they're an institution and their shows are always very well attended.

The thing AC/DC has going for them is they don't oversaturate the market. They've been in a state of semi-retirement since 1991, where they're more or less working on a 5 year cycle: release an album, tour for 16-18 months, take a 4-5 year break, rinse and repeat. People knock them for their inactivity, but it's seriously what keeps them being so popular. If classic GN'R was touring on the same cycle that GN'R actually did from 2009 to 2014, I seriously doubt they'd be selling out arenas or stadiums every night, and AC/DC surely wouldn't either. They'd be playing bigger venues than GN'R actually did, but they wouldn't be selling them out without some trickery (Which, in that sense they'd be exactly like the Stones). But look at AC/DC - with how infrequently they tour they never oversaturate even the biggest markets, and have no problem selling out 180 dates like they did for Black Ice, or 60 stadium shows this year.

Understood, but say GNR remained quiet after Sympathy For The Devil and came back with an album and tour in say 2000 or around then, and reappeared every 5 years or so to tour.

Axl was/is too unreliable to cement that ACDC rock solidness but I think it's a fair comparison.

Okay, fair enough. Can't argue there at all.

[Axl owns dexter]

All this could've been would've been bollocks, you are what you are, you're judged on what you achieve and what didn't happen simply didn't happen, end of, there is no indication GnR could've been anything like The Stones, quite frankly they didn't show anything like the prodigious talent required, on ANY level. First of all output of top end tunes, where are they, bearing in mind the volume that The Stones chucked em out at? Exactly, fucking nowhere. The Stones were finely tuned to groove, GnR weren't, and thats a fundamental really, GnR leaned towards a kind of a Metal sensibility, which immediately disqualifies them really.

They had nothing like the wit, talent, style or even the correct musical sensibilities to be a Stones, The Stones are The Stones, in their particular thing they stand alone, there's no one to beat The Stones at what they do, least of all GnR. They're nowhere in the league of The Stones, on any level. And I ain't even that much of a Stones fan.

No groove on songs like Brownstone or the second half of Lies? When a band has Patience, Locomotive, Sweet Child O Mine, November Rain, and You Could Be Mine in their repertoire its safe to say they are a jack of all trades. Your comments would be more apropos of Motley Crue and not a band like GnR.

[Free Bird]

Don't Cry, 14 Years, Dust N Bones, Civil War

[Apollo]

By 1991, Guns N' Roses' popularity, while still huge in terms of mainstream appeal, had largely decreased.

It is actually better GN'R broke up when they did as it allowed them to have a mystique ("What could have been") that didn't necessarily translate into reality.

- Guess you weren't around in 1991 when the clock struck midnight on the release date of the Illusion albums

- Better they broke up rather than continue on and create great music because...... a mystique is better than actual content? Because NIrvana fans might think GnR is lame?

You went from them having the highest selling debut of all time in 1987 to selling 7 million apiece in '91. They certainly weren't the biggest rock group in 1991 in terms of popularity, Metallica's self-titled from that year waaay outsold the UYI records for example. But they had retained enough of a fanbase to garner the midnight release lines, but it didn't translate into record sales. The Use Your Illusions were expected within the industry to outsell Thriller, and they didn't; they didn't have as much staying power on the charts as AFD did either.

AFD was certified 8x Platinum on July 26th 1989, two years after its' release and the closest certification AFD had to the release of the UYIs; it was certified 10x platinum in February 1993.

By two years of release (November 2nd 1992) Use Your Illusion I had only certified 4x Platnum; UYI 2 met this certification on October 12th 1992; by this same point, Metallica's self-titled had went 6x Platinum in October 1992; Nevermind had hit 5x Platinum by this point, and Ten had hit 3x Platinum (it would jump to 6x Platinum by Dec '93 whereas the UYIs wouldn't chart 6x platinum until 1995)

You don't get it. If you actually think album sales tell the whole story then I'm sorry there's not much I can say. If you think Nirvana's 5X platinum album made them a bigger band than GnR in 1991-1992 you're sadly mistaken. They were the new "it" thing but they weren't selling out arenas and stadiums like GnR was. Again you must not have been around for the frenzy that was the release of the Illusions. There hadn't been anythng like that in decades so. To say GnR's popularity had decreased by 1991 is absurd because the FACT is their popularity was at an all time high between 1991-1993

Maybe in 1991 Guns was big but by 1993 they were old-hat. Pearl Jam was better than both bands anyway.

No. Talk to people that were alive in 1993. GnR was still absolutely huge.

Illusions have sold more than 17 million copies each. Not 7 million.

Pearl Jam was better? That's your own personal preference. I found them boring and overplayed. I would be happy to never hear Jeremy or even flow ever again.

In a five year period GnR released four albums that went on to sell 75 million copies and produced several iconic songs that are still well known today.

Nobody can predict the future. But based on their success from 87-93, it's obvious they had the potential to be our generation's Stones or Aerosmith. Unfortunately the band broke up. And the main dynamic of the band, Axl Rose, decided to not release music any more.

Your topic is a good one.

Your reasoning in your posts - pretty terrible and pretty much flat out wrong.

[Dr. Who]

By 1991, Guns N' Roses' popularity, while still huge in terms of mainstream appeal, had largely decreased.

It is actually better GN'R broke up when they did as it allowed them to have a mystique ("What could have been") that didn't necessarily translate into reality.

- Guess you weren't around in 1991 when the clock struck midnight on the release date of the Illusion albums

- Better they broke up rather than continue on and create great music because...... a mystique is better than actual content? Because NIrvana fans might think GnR is lame?

You went from them having the highest selling debut of all time in 1987 to selling 7 million apiece in '91. They certainly weren't the biggest rock group in 1991 in terms of popularity, Metallica's self-titled from that year waaay outsold the UYI records for example. But they had retained enough of a fanbase to garner the midnight release lines, but it didn't translate into record sales. The Use Your Illusions were expected within the industry to outsell Thriller, and they didn't; they didn't have as much staying power on the charts as AFD did either.

AFD was certified 8x Platinum on July 26th 1989, two years after its' release and the closest certification AFD had to the release of the UYIs; it was certified 10x platinum in February 1993.

By two years of release (November 2nd 1992) Use Your Illusion I had only certified 4x Platnum; UYI 2 met this certification on October 12th 1992; by this same point, Metallica's self-titled had went 6x Platinum in October 1992; Nevermind had hit 5x Platinum by this point, and Ten had hit 3x Platinum (it would jump to 6x Platinum by Dec '93 whereas the UYIs wouldn't chart 6x platinum until 1995)

You don't get it. If you actually think album sales tell the whole story then I'm sorry there's not much I can say. If you think Nirvana's 5X platinum album made them a bigger band than GnR in 1991-1992 you're sadly mistaken. They were the new "it" thing but they weren't selling out arenas and stadiums like GnR was. Again you must not have been around for the frenzy that was the release of the Illusions. There hadn't been anythng like that in decades so. To say GnR's popularity had decreased by 1991 is absurd because the FACT is their popularity was at an all time high between 1991-1993

Maybe in 1991 Guns was big but by 1993 they were old-hat. Pearl Jam was better than both bands anyway.

No. Talk to people that were alive in 1993. GnR was still absolutely huge.

Illusions have sold more than 17 million copies each. Not 7 million.

Pearl Jam was better? That's your own personal preference. I found them boring and overplayed. I would be happy to never hear Jeremy or even flow ever again.

In a five year period GnR released four albums that went on to sell 75 million copies and produced several iconic songs that are still well known today.

Nobody can predict the future. But based on their success from 87-93, it's obvious they had the potential to be our generation's Stones or Aerosmith. Unfortunately the band broke up. And the main dynamic of the band, Axl Rose, decided to not release music any more.

Your topic is a good one.

Your reasoning in your posts - pretty terrible and pretty much flat out wrong.

They've only been certified 7x platinum. Which is 7 million.