SoulMonster Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 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.Based on reception of AFD and UYIs, and their sales, there is no doubt in my mind that if GN'R had continued to release great music like that, over as many decades as The Stones have, they would now be in the same league. Of course that didn't happen, because GN'R didn't have The Stones' stamina and resilience, but based on sales and popularity, I think they could have made it over time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 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.Based on reception of AFD and UYIs, and their sales, there is no doubt in my mind that if GN'R had continued to release great music like that, over as many decades as The Stones have, they would now be in the same league. Of course that didn't happen, because GN'R didn't have The Stones' stamina and resilience, but based on sales and popularity, I think they could have made it over time.But thats sort of an 'if my Auntie had bollocks' type of argument isnt it? The Stones didnt just have stamina and resilience, they also kept up a high level of quality over a long period of time with consistent releases, you can apply that 'if' to any band in musical history that ever released a couple of very good albums and put them up there with The Stones, it wont wash though.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.Thats my point though, its just a couple of songs, they generally tended to lean towards a more Metal type feel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 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.Based on reception of AFD and UYIs, and their sales, there is no doubt in my mind that if GN'R had continued to release great music like that, over as many decades as The Stones have, they would now be in the same league. Of course that didn't happen, because GN'R didn't have The Stones' stamina and resilience, but based on sales and popularity, I think they could have made it over time.But thats sort of an 'if my Auntie had bollocks' type of argument isnt it? The Stones didnt just have stamina and resilience, they also kept up a high level of quality over a long period of time with consistent releases, you can apply that 'if' to any band in musical history that ever released a couple of very good albums and put them up there with The Stones, it wont wash though.I understood this question as "if GN'R hadn't broken apart, could they have become the new Stones", not "if they hadn't broken apart AND been massively more talented" In my opinion the answer is yes to that first question. I feel the talent was so strong that they easily could have rivalled the Stones today. If they had only kept it together. So there is a small if, but still things to discuss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 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.Based on reception of AFD and UYIs, and their sales, there is no doubt in my mind that if GN'R had continued to release great music like that, over as many decades as The Stones have, they would now be in the same league. Of course that didn't happen, because GN'R didn't have The Stones' stamina and resilience, but based on sales and popularity, I think they could have made it over time.But thats sort of an 'if my Auntie had bollocks' type of argument isnt it? The Stones didnt just have stamina and resilience, they also kept up a high level of quality over a long period of time with consistent releases, you can apply that 'if' to any band in musical history that ever released a couple of very good albums and put them up there with The Stones, it wont wash though.I understood this question as "if GN'R hadn't broken apart, could they have become the new Stones", not "if they hadn't broken apart AND been massively more talented" In my opinion the answer is yes to that first question. I feel the talent was so strong that they easily could have rivalled the Stones today. If they had only kept it together. So there is a small if, but still things to discuss.Well if you were just answering the question of the thread then why did you quote my post, when you quote my post the presumption is you are addressing it specifically as opposed to just a plain answer to the question of the thread title. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsh327 Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 Rolling Stones didn't have that "I want to bury my last album" attitude, because those songs from the previous album were carried over into the next one, but by 1989, the Stones were already a part of history and living legends, GNR had a smash hit album but longevity was definitely not in the cards at that time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maynard Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 I can count with one hand the number of actually good Stones songs. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bono Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 I can count with one hand the number of actually good Stones songs. Wow! I normally agree with pretty much most of what you say but this is absurd. We're a trillion miles apart on this one. GnR alone has covered a handful of great Rolling Stones songs. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maynard Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 I can count with one hand the number of actually good Stones songs. Wow! I normally agree with pretty much most of what you say but this is absurd. We're a trillion miles apart on this one. GnR alone has covered a handful of great Rolling Stones songs. Never liked them. I Still love you Bono. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DR DOOM Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 I can count with one hand the number of actually good Stones songs. Dude no way!I also still love you though 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 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.Based on reception of AFD and UYIs, and their sales, there is no doubt in my mind that if GN'R had continued to release great music like that, over as many decades as The Stones have, they would now be in the same league. Of course that didn't happen, because GN'R didn't have The Stones' stamina and resilience, but based on sales and popularity, I think they could have made it over time.But thats sort of an 'if my Auntie had bollocks' type of argument isnt it? The Stones didnt just have stamina and resilience, they also kept up a high level of quality over a long period of time with consistent releases, you can apply that 'if' to any band in musical history that ever released a couple of very good albums and put them up there with The Stones, it wont wash though.I understood this question as "if GN'R hadn't broken apart, could they have become the new Stones", not "if they hadn't broken apart AND been massively more talented" In my opinion the answer is yes to that first question. I feel the talent was so strong that they easily could have rivalled the Stones today. If they had only kept it together. So there is a small if, but still things to discuss.Well if you were just answering the question of the thread then why did you quote my post, when you quote my post the presumption is you are addressing it specifically as opposed to just a plain answer to the question of the thread title.I wasn't just addressing the question in the first post. I addressed your opinion that GN'R could never have become the new Stones because they didn't have the required talent which in my opinion is negated by the very fact that AFD and UYI were tremendous sales successes, even more so than RS were with their first three records. So, if they had been able to keep it up, they would probably he even bigger than the Stones today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 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.Based on reception of AFD and UYIs, and their sales, there is no doubt in my mind that if GN'R had continued to release great music like that, over as many decades as The Stones have, they would now be in the same league. Of course that didn't happen, because GN'R didn't have The Stones' stamina and resilience, but based on sales and popularity, I think they could have made it over time.But thats sort of an 'if my Auntie had bollocks' type of argument isnt it? The Stones didnt just have stamina and resilience, they also kept up a high level of quality over a long period of time with consistent releases, you can apply that 'if' to any band in musical history that ever released a couple of very good albums and put them up there with The Stones, it wont wash though.I understood this question as "if GN'R hadn't broken apart, could they have become the new Stones", not "if they hadn't broken apart AND been massively more talented" In my opinion the answer is yes to that first question. I feel the talent was so strong that they easily could have rivalled the Stones today. If they had only kept it together. So there is a small if, but still things to discuss.Well if you were just answering the question of the thread then why did you quote my post, when you quote my post the presumption is you are addressing it specifically as opposed to just a plain answer to the question of the thread title. I wasn't just addressing the question in the first post. I addressed your opinion that GN'R could never have become the new Stones because they didn't have the required talent which in my opinion is negated by the very fact that AFD and UYI were tremendous sales successes, even more so than RS were with their first three records. So, if they had been able to keep it up, they would probably he even bigger than the Stones today.If sales were the yardstick of talent then Miley Cyrus would be up there with the best of em. And once again, 'if they had been able to keep it up' is a massive if and the way i see it is the ones that do it deserve credit for what they did and the ones that didnt dont. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bacardimayne Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 I can count with one hand the number of actually good Stones songs. And you gave me shit for not liking AC/DC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 I can count with one hand the number of actually good Stones songs. Are you one of those people with extra fingers on your hand? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maynard Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 I can count with one hand the number of actually good Stones songs. And you gave me shit for not liking AC/DC.Did I? Because I hate acdc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 GNR were controversial and had hit rock songs in the 90s like Stones were and did in the 60s and 70s. Maybe it didnt last as long, GNR went up in smoke like the Pistols. Thats kind of what they the band thought was cool. Only Axl want a more lasting career in my opinion. There was this idea that GNR had taken over from the Stones or ACDC but those bands lasted and U2 too. But GNR had this mythology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsh327 Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 "Appetite for Destruction" was more "the next Bat Out of Hell".... maybe Axl's ballads needed a little Jim Steinman *L* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bacardimayne Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 If GNR were such a generational band, surely they inspired waves of bands after them?Which big artists today were heavily inspired by GNR? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Broue Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 If GNR were such a generational band, surely they inspired waves of bands after them?Which big artists today were heavily inspired by GNR?kanye West Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little EMO Annie Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 "Appetite for Destruction" was more "the next Bat Out of Hell".... maybe Axl's ballads needed a little Jim Steinman *L* That could be a really cool collaboration. I love Bat out of Hell.And Wrecking Ball by Miley Cyrus is not half bad. talk about an appetite for destruction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 You cannot dare to speak of Guns N' Roses in the same sentence as The Rolling Stones. No comparison. No comparison worth making. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
double talkin jive mfkr Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 GUNS material goes toe to toe with any other band other than IMO Pink Floyd and maybe the Doors, there is no sense in comparing longevity just look at what they produced in the time that they did and hardly anyone can touch them - it's irrelevant comparing the stones etc ---- stones are good but guns are better if you want to compare slices to slices Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 (edited) GUNS material goes toe to toe with any other band other than IMO Pink Floyd and maybe the Doors, there is no sense in comparing longevity just look at what they produced in the time that they did and hardly anyone can touch them - it's irrelevant comparing the stones etc ---- stones are good but guns are better if you want to compare slices to slices Slices to slices, Stones have Aftermath, Beggars, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile, Some Girls and Tattoo You which you could call ''truly great albums'' whereas Guns only really have Appetite. Edited November 4, 2015 by DieselDaisy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsh327 Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 I think GNR did more to influence a change than bring a new style to the table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
double talkin jive mfkr Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 GUNS material goes toe to toe with any other band other than IMO Pink Floyd and maybe the Doors, there is no sense in comparing longevity just look at what they produced in the time that they did and hardly anyone can touch them - it's irrelevant comparing the stones etc ---- stones are good but guns are better if you want to compare slices to slices Slices to slices, Stones have Aftermath, Beggars, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile, Some Girls and Tattoo You which you could call ''truly great albums'' whereas Guns only really have Appetite.ummm lies to me is almost just as good as appetite and if you may lets not compare album but handfuls of songs and in my opinion Guns may win by a whisker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Broue Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 (edited) You cannot dare to speak of Guns N' Roses in the same sentence as The Rolling Stones. No comparison. No comparison worth making.why?Sympathy for the devil is better than the original. The original version is only good when you are in the mood for that. GNR version is universal Edited November 4, 2015 by Strange Broue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.