"GN'R were the next Rolling Stones"

[SoulMonster]

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.

You display such a fundamental lack of understanding of subjectivity. I don't think any of these Stones' records are "truly great albums". I simply don't. To me ALL Gn'R albums sans TSI!? is better than any RS album. The cumulative output of GN'R beats the cumulative output of RS, in my humble opinion. I realize this is a subjective opinion and acknowledge that people are allowed to have other subjective opinions, I also understand that there are probably more people preferring RS to GN'R, but that doesn't change the fact that when I hear GN'R I feel better than when I hear RS.

[Len Cnut]

Guns n Roses are nowhere near the calibre of Rolling Stones. Attempting to be as objective as possible, and I'm not even the worlds biggest Stones fan, I've been into GnR a helluva lot longer too...but there really is no comparison. The Stones nailed a number of different styles, they had a run of albums from their debut all the way up to Exile (might even include Goats Head here) that were some of the best rock n roll ever produced. There is not a single GnR album that I would say belongs within that collection in terms of being of equivalent quality, not even Appetite. And even The Stones albums from 73 to 81, they're considered lesser albums but lesser by Stones standards, any other band releasing those and they'd be among the best of their fuckin' output.

Guns n Roses were a deriative facsimille of The Stones, lets face it...and like more derivatives they lack something, they don't have the groove of The Stones, the style of The Stones, the range of The Stones, nothing. The comparison is just weak. Even as people they are less interesting than The Stones. Quite frankly, as human beings, GnR are quite boring. Slash, Stevie, Izzy, Duff...not really a lot to them when it's all said and done. Axl is some kinda surface level interesting until you scratch that surface and realise he's just a petulant self obssessed tart and not much besides.

But thats all bullshit really, what matters is the music, The Stones could give you blues, disco, country, they could give you ballads, they could give you honky tonk, rock n roll, you fuckin' name it, if it's an original American art form (aside from Jazz) The Stones'll have a decent run at it. They wrote infinitely better, more interesting and enduring lyrics, they are one of the most covered bands on this fuckin' planet, they have written songs that have come to define entire times in the hearts and minds of generations, in a time where rock music was of the highest quality and there was SO many quality bands, to where even lesser bands of those eras beat the hell out of anything in GnRs era, The Stones stood tall and proud as, with the exception of The Beatles, the best fuckin' rock band out there.

This whole could've, should've, would've thing, this 'if my granny had bollocks' argument holds no fuckin' water whatsoever and cannot be taken as worth anything. I mean seriously, to presume that a band, had they stayed together or got it together, would have even had the creative mileage in them to go as far as The Stones is a major disrespect to The Stones legacy. Really and truly speaking Guns n Roses only have one serious classic on their hands, Appetite...and thats it, thats the yardstick that they are still measured against...The Stones have a catalogue full of them stretching the course of generations.

Truly great albums define genres, they set standards, personal taste is something else, personally i like Hermans Hermits more than I like, for example, Led Zeppelin but i would have to be a fucking wally to sit here and state that Mrs Brown You've Got A Lovely Daughter is better than Led Zeppelin 4 or whatever the fuck it's called, it's more pleasing to my ears yes but Zep's scope of influence and acclaim, their musicianship and the space that that album occupies in popular culture far outweighs that of Hermans Hermits (sorry Pete! ).

I mean Satisfaction, Wild Horses, Brown Sugar, Paint it Black, Sympathy for the Devil, Gimme Shelter, Can't Always Get What You Want, Angie, Start Me Up, Wild Horses, Jumping Jack Flash, Honky Tonk Women, She's A Rainbow, Lets Spend the Night Together, It's Only Rock n Roll, Get Off My Cloud, i mean it's like there ain't enough time in the day to even list em...and these are just their big hit type songs, of which there are scores more...and thats not counting the just generally classic album tracks, for a time their brilliance was almost routine, how can anyone in their right mind compare this band to Guns n Roses?!? It's just mind blowingly ridiculous as a comparison, it's like comparing Sugar Ray Robinson to Nigel Benn.

The Rolling Stones invented the rock band, the entire format, they are the standard behind which it's archetypes, the cool nomadic lead guitarist, the reliable drummer, the wild charismatic lead singer etc etc, thats The Stones, the mould that GnR and indeed every rock band that came after The Stones followed was that which was put in place by The Rolling Stones, their songs are the sounds of commercials, sporting events, television and film soundtracks, they are so far and above and beyond GnR it's not even a fair comparison.

Even as songwriters, the glimmer twins could reel shit off, brilliant songs, they wrote songs and gave them to other people that those people then built careers off of, such was the power of their particular talent. The same cannot be said for GnR, GnR were really a disappointment, a bone thrown to a generation starved of good rock n roll, a consequence of which was that they made more out of them than they were, because it's all they had, and more than it appears they were capable of. Guns n Roses were not are not and will not ever evolve to anything that will ever be worthy of putting up against a Stones, they are not even as good as lesser bands of The Stoneses various eras that The Stones were better than, had they shared a generation with The Doors or The Beatles or Led Zeppelin or Cream or any of those great bands they would be considered a bag of shite.

[DieselDaisy]

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

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.

You display such a fundamental lack of understanding of subjectivity. I don't think any of these Stones' records are "truly great albums". I simply don't. To me ALL Gn'R albums sans TSI!? is better than any RS album. The cumulative output of GN'R beats the cumulative output of RS, in my humble opinion. I realize this is a subjective opinion and acknowledge that people are allowed to have other subjective opinions, I also understand that there are probably more people preferring RS to GN'R, but that doesn't change the fact that when I hear GN'R I feel better than when I hear RS.

Oh this place is getting ridiculous - absolutely ridiculous! Soul, you went up in my estimation with you discussions on Napoleonic warfare and you produce this! This is as bad as your anti-religion tirades!

Edited November 4, 2015 by DieselDaisy

[DieselDaisy]

I actually do not think you can compare Guns N' Roses with the 'greats' and just to prove I'm being objective, I am including on that list of 'greats' bands I do not care for (Led Zeppelin, Nirvana) or I am ''so so'' on (Aerosmith). If I am speaking subjectively for instance, I prefer ''Nightrain'' and Appetite to anything in Zeppelin's oeuvre. If I am speaking objectively, there is no way Guns can be discussed in the same sentence as Led Zeppelin.

Heck, GN'R themselves would say ''we are shit compared to the Rolling Stones''. Izzy Stradlin worshiped at the altar of all things Rolling Stones and wrote his songs around their teachings. ''Patience'' and ''Used to Love Her'' are basically imitations of Keith's ''Gram Parsons'' phase as seen on songs like ''Dead Flowers'' and ''Sweet Virginia''. Mick Taylor was also a huge influence on Slash, Slash being another Stones addict. Further, more Stones songs were covered by Guns than any other artist: Jack Flash, Wild Horses (Gilby's solo spot), Dead Flowers, Sympathy for the Devil - am I missing any Soul as you are the Guns historian?

What does that tell you?

The problem with Guns - besides a paltry discography - is that they are too affiliated with the 1980's hair rock genre, a genre universally considered shite by anyone of taste. Guns sort of aspired to the level of bands like the Stones, but failed in the attempt to sever their connections with Sunset Shite rock. Consequentially, If Nirvana were the guillotine, Illusion represented the voluntarily act of putting one's head in that guillotine.

[shjtjustgotreal]

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.

lol wut?

[Strange Broue]

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

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.

You display such a fundamental lack of understanding of subjectivity. I don't think any of these Stones' records are "truly great albums". I simply don't. To me ALL Gn'R albums sans TSI!? is better than any RS album. The cumulative output of GN'R beats the cumulative output of RS, in my humble opinion. I realize this is a subjective opinion and acknowledge that people are allowed to have other subjective opinions, I also understand that there are probably more people preferring RS to GN'R, but that doesn't change the fact that when I hear GN'R I feel better than when I hear RS.

Oh this place is getting ridiculous - absolutely ridiculous! Soul, you went up in my estimation with you discussions on Napoleonic warfare and you produce this! This is as bad as your anti-religion tirades!

For the record, i don't agree with SoulMonster on this one

[SoulMonster]

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

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.

You display such a fundamental lack of understanding of subjectivity. I don't think any of these Stones' records are "truly great albums". I simply don't. To me ALL Gn'R albums sans TSI!? is better than any RS album. The cumulative output of GN'R beats the cumulative output of RS, in my humble opinion. I realize this is a subjective opinion and acknowledge that people are allowed to have other subjective opinions, I also understand that there are probably more people preferring RS to GN'R, but that doesn't change the fact that when I hear GN'R I feel better than when I hear RS.

Oh this place is getting ridiculous - absolutely ridiculous! Soul, you went up in my estimation with you discussions on Napoleonic warfare and you produce this! This is as bad as your anti-religion tirades!

Sorry, I am just not a big fan of the Rolling Stones.

Is it hard to live in a world where people have different preferences in art than yourself?

[SoulMonster]

Discussing what "music is the best" is a ludicruous adolescent pasttime and as meaningful as discussing which hair color is the "best". As far as music go, except discussing technical aspects, cultural impact, and thelike, anything beyond merely stating what you like is a complete waste of time. We like what we like due to social context and genetics. We can't affect what music we like more than we can affect the shapes of our noses. Spending time arguing about which band is the best is as much a waste of time as arguing about which faces we are attracted to. And then, on top of this, getting riled up about others having different preferences, is pointless beyond description. yet, for unnown reasons, this seems to be a favurite pasttime for young men. Luckily, they soon grow up.

That being said, Stones is overhyped shit.

[DieselDaisy]

Discussing what "music is the best" is a ludicruous adolescent pasttime and as meaningful as discussing which hair color is the "best". As far as music go, except discussing technical aspects, cultural impact, and thelike, anything beyond merely stating what you like is a complete waste of time. We like what we like due to social context and genetics. We can't affect what music we like more than we can affect the shapes of our noses. Spending time arguing about which band is the best is as much a waste of time as arguing about which faces we are attracted to. And then, on top of this, getting riled up about others having different preferences, is pointless beyond description. yet, for unnown reasons, this seems to be a favurite pasttime for young men. Luckily, they soon grow up.

That being said, Stones is overhyped shit.

I am sorry you do not have the capacity to analyse music objectively.

[SoulMonster]

Discussing what "music is the best" is a ludicruous adolescent pasttime and as meaningful as discussing which hair color is the "best". As far as music go, except discussing technical aspects, cultural impact, and thelike, anything beyond merely stating what you like is a complete waste of time. We like what we like due to social context and genetics. We can't affect what music we like more than we can affect the shapes of our noses. Spending time arguing about which band is the best is as much a waste of time as arguing about which faces we are attracted to. And then, on top of this, getting riled up about others having different preferences, is pointless beyond description. yet, for unnown reasons, this seems to be a favurite pasttime for young men. Luckily, they soon grow up.

That being said, Stones is overhyped shit.

I am sorry you do not have the capacity to analyse music objectively.

Maybe that's why I rarely do?

[DieselDaisy]

I could argue the Stones are better subjectively and I could argue the Stones are better objectively. The Stones are simply better in any aspect you care to mention. They are far more influential; in fact it is ironic we are comparing them with Guns as Guns were basically a Stones rip-off band. They admit it themselves! Izzy and Slash worshiped at Exile's altar. But returning to the point, the Stones created more masterpiece LPs - Guns only have one. More masterpiece songs - Guns only have twenty at a push whereas the Stones have literally hundreds. Their frontman is better. Their piano players (Stu, Hopkins, Billy Preston) make Dizzy Reed look like a complete joke basically, a wanker who would not know a piano from his elbow. Better live band (Guns were only good until 1988). Better drummer - Charlie is better than every single Guns drummer combined.

The only thing I will say is Slash is probably better than all of the Stones guitarists except Mick Taylor. But then Richards (with Jones and Wood) never built his sound around singular virtuoso displays but interplay and wrote a much larger body of sublime guitar work than Slash so this aspect is touch-and-go.

[SoulMonster]

*yawn*

[Len Cnut]

When it's all said and done the only place you can have this discussion and anyone give Guns a look in is on a GnR forum.

[DieselDaisy]

When it's all said and done the only place you can have this discussion and anyone give Guns a look in is on a GnR forum.

Yes. You can go on any respected music forum and the notion that ''Guns are greater than the Stones''. Heck, you could go on a Beatles forum, the Stones' rival in certain aspects, and Beatles fans would laugh their head off at the suggestion. Guns are considered a cheesy '80s band who released one great hard rock band by most people.

[SoulMonster]

When it's all said and done the only place you can have this discussion and anyone give Guns a look in is on a GnR forum.

Yes. You can go on any respected music forum and the notion that ''Guns are greater than the Stones''.

You can go EVERYWHERE in the world and MOST people would say, "I prefer [insert artist] over The Rolling Stones", because, believe it or not, most people don't have RS as their favourite artist.

[DieselDaisy]

When it's all said and done the only place you can have this discussion and anyone give Guns a look in is on a GnR forum.

Yes. You can go on any respected music forum and the notion that ''Guns are greater than the Stones''.

You can go EVERYWHERE in the world and MOST people would say, "I prefer [insert artist] over The Rolling Stones", because, believe it or not, most people don't have RS as their favourite artist.

True, but my point still stands.

Guns N' Roses and Rolling Stones fans cannot participate in this discussion. They are inherently biased. Now, go to a Zeppelin, Beatles - or anyone - forum and put forward this same question. Heck, go on a general rock forum. What do you think the answer will be?

[Free Bird]

When it's all said and done the only place you can have this discussion and anyone give Guns a look in is on a GnR forum.

Yes. You can go on any respected music forum and the notion that ''Guns are greater than the Stones''.

You can go EVERYWHERE in the world and MOST people would say, "I prefer [insert artist] over The Rolling Stones", because, believe it or not, most people don't have RS as their favourite artist.

True, but my point still stands.

Guns N' Roses and Rolling Stones fans cannot participate in this discussion. They are inherently biased. Now, go to a Zeppelin, Beatles - or anyone - forum and put forward this same question. Heck, go on a general rock forum. What do you think the answer will be?

It's pretty simple Diesel, whether people agree with you or not. Zodiac and Monstertruck are one of my favorite bands currently. And I personally don't like anything U2 has ever released. At least anything that I know of. Does it mean Zodiac or Monstertruck are bigger bands than U2? Hell no . There are opinions and personal preferences and there are facts.

Guns were big at one point, a small amount of time compared to other big rock bands. And maybe they had the potential to be the next Stones, but they fucked it up, so there's no competition. I just don't know why some people here start to argue about everything, just to make GNR and for most Axl bigger than they are.

[SoulMonster]

When it's all said and done the only place you can have this discussion and anyone give Guns a look in is on a GnR forum.

Yes. You can go on any respected music forum and the notion that ''Guns are greater than the Stones''.

You can go EVERYWHERE in the world and MOST people would say, "I prefer [insert artist] over The Rolling Stones", because, believe it or not, most people don't have RS as their favourite artist.

True, but my point still stands.

Guns N' Roses and Rolling Stones fans cannot participate in this discussion. They are inherently biased. Now, go to a Zeppelin, Beatles - or anyone - forum and put forward this same question. Heck, go on a general rock forum. What do you think the answer will be?

The answer to what question exactly? The answer to the question "what is your favourite band", would necessarily be whatever band they happen to prefer. The answer to the question "what is the best band in the world, objectivelly", makes no sense and deserves no answer. The answer to the question "do you prefer RS over GN'R", would probably for most people be affirmative. We can only compare bands by objective measurements like no. of records sold, no of weeks on billboard, etc. Everything else is down to subjective preferences.

So I don't understand what point you have that remains. It all boils down to the fact that you prefer RS over GN'R (which is all well and good), and that there are probably more people in this world who prefer RS over GN'R (also all well and good). This is rather indisputable and makes for a very trivial point.

[Apollo]

I think we all can agree that Soulmonster is probably the life of the party at every party he attends.

[whatashame]

The Stones < Axl

bikoz

1. Axl didnt sell out (yeah I know you can use the same arguments as I could to say he did sell out)

2. The Stones ain't no nothing what they used to be, are remembered for and used to stand for (like, rebellion, for one)

They got more ka-chiiing than the whole continent of Africa, yet they seek more representing nothing

connected to the principals of Rock n Roll

Axl, on the other hand...

[Sixes]

This thread is lulz

[Free Bird]

GNR could have been the next RS but they fucked it up themselves.

Edited December 13, 2015 by Free Bird

[RichardNixon]

I'd take GNR over the Stones, not even close. Just my own personal preference.

[DieselDaisy]

The Stones have outtakes which are better than gn'r's entire discography.

[Strange Broue]

I think we all can agree that Soulmonster is probably the life of the party at every party he attends.

well, at least he has got a decent argument here

The Stones have outtakes which are better than gn'r's entire discography.

Then what the actual fuck are you doing here?

Why don't you post on a Stones forum instead on a bands forum that you think some RS outtakes are better than an entire discography ?