GnR’s place in hard rock history?

[Apollo]

Well GNR changed the face and style of rock music in the middle to late 80's, so their rank would have to be high on any list.

GNR brought the dirty gritty in your face rock music back and lived to talk about it.

No.

When did Appetite really break? Wasn't it in 88? That's hardly middle of the 80s.

GnR came along with the right sound at the exact right time. The hair band era was fading out and grunge hadn't taken off yet.

And do people really call the Illusions and Lies "dirty and gritty in your face" rock music? November Rain, Patience, Estranged, Yesterday's, Dont Cry, Breakdown, Locomotive.....

And what does "live to talk about it" even mean?

Take fanboy bias out of it and:

GnR was the best rock band in the world for a six year period.

They are without a doubt one of the five best hard rock bands of all time. And comfortably one of the 25 best rock bands of all time. And top 100 overall bands of all time.

Throw 2-3 more classic albums into the mix and GnR could have been the best hard rock band ever, top 5 rock band and top 20 bands of all time. Throw in another Illusions 1 and 2 and an album half as good as Appetite.....then we are talking hard rock's greatest band of all time.

[Iron MikeyJ]

If you take the top 10 songs of the Stones vs the top 10 of the Beatles, who wins? I would say Stones.

Sympathy

Satisfaction

You Can't Always Get what you Want

Wild Horses

Gimmie Shelter

Honkey Tonk Women

Paint it Black

Brown Sugar

Beast of Burden

Start Me Up

I can keep going:

Sister Morphine

Salt of the Earth

Bitch

Angie

Shine A Light

Midnight Rambler

Let's Spend the Night Together

Can't you hear me knockin

It's only Rock N Roll

Heart breaker

Winter

I think the Stones best beats the Beatles best. Beatles don't have enough to balls for me.

John Lennon wrote The Stones first hit single. End of discussion...

That is actually far from the end of the discussion.. It is true but tired and really doesn't hold any water in the debate.. It wasn't even a good song.

If you like The Stones better than The Beatles, good for you man. I'm not trying to convert anyone, the whole discussion is subjective anyways. But the facts remain as follows

The Rolling Stones got their very first hit because of the Beatles. Also the Stones spent the entire decade of the 60s trying to be just like the Beatles. Those two facts make a strong case for the Beatles being the superior band. Yes The Stones did some great stuff in the 70s after the Beatles were gone, and because of that they finally managed to escape the Beatles shadow and become somthing on their own.

I love the Rolling Stones, so I'm not just trying to bash them here. But they do come up short when compared to the Beatles imo. People like to bash the Beatles early days by calling it bubble gum pop and what not. But what were the Stones doing during that same time? Trying to be exactly like the Beatles but coming up short. So that while argument doesn't hold water with me, because the Stones were doing the same damn thing, just not doing it as well. But it's not just The Stones that copied the beatles, so did The Who and early Pink Floyd. Most of the British Invasion bands during the 60s were trying to copy the Beatles. They were the standard everyone else tried to live up to.

Now if you like the music of the Stones better, well that is your right. I'm not going to argue opinion with anyone. But people like to bash the Beatles in order to build up the Stones or whomever else, and I'm not having it. Mick Jagger wishes he was half the songwriter Lennon was (and I say that as someone that loves many of Jaggers songs). But song for song, (including his solo career) Lennon has the Stones beat across the board. More number 1 hits, more anthems, more deep songs, harder rocking songs, etc, etc.

Imagine, all you need is love, instant karma, revolution, cometogether, helter skelter, ballad of John and yoko, working class hero, watching the wheels, God, nobody told me, you've got to hide your love away, help, ticket to ride, across the universe, a day in the life, etc etc. I could go on and on man. Lennon could write about a variety of topics and produce timeless music. The Stones can write about sex, drugs, rock and roll, and the devil. But that's it. Hell Lennon even wrote a Christmas song that gets played every year, for my money he was the single greatest musician of the 20th century. You put John Lennon in ANY band, and he makes that band better. ANY BAND, including the Rolling Stones.

Edited December 20, 2015 by Iron MikeyJ

[EvanG]

Not to mention how revolutionary the Beatles were in many aspects... they were doing studio related stuff that had never been done before at the time. The Rolling Stones were/are more a live band, the Beatles were studio guys and invented stuff that are still being used today. They were more than just a band with really good songs. I can understand someone not being into the Beatles, that is subjective and no one can argue that, but you can't deny how revolutionary they were in many different ways.

Edited December 20, 2015 by EvanG

[luciusfunk]

Definitely had the potential for top 10.

[smoking guns]

I like Lennon, McCartney annoys me. Imagine is the greatest song ever written probably. pure genius.

[Strange Broue]

If you take the top 10 songs of the Stones vs the top 10 of the Beatles, who wins? I would say Stones.

Sympathy

Satisfaction

You Can't Always Get what you Want

Wild Horses

Gimmie Shelter

Honkey Tonk Women

Paint it Black

Brown Sugar

Beast of Burden

Start Me Up

I can keep going:

Sister Morphine

Salt of the Earth

Bitch

Angie

Shine A Light

Midnight Rambler

Let's Spend the Night Together

Can't you hear me knockin

It's only Rock N Roll

Heart breaker

Winter

I think the Stones best beats the Beatles best. Beatles don't have enough to balls for me.

John Lennon wrote The Stones first hit single. End of discussion...

But he later wrote horribly dated songs

end of the beatlemania

[Strange Broue]

If you take the top 10 songs of the Stones vs the top 10 of the Beatles, who wins? I would say Stones.

Sympathy

Satisfaction

You Can't Always Get what you Want

Wild Horses

Gimmie Shelter

Honkey Tonk Women

Paint it Black

Brown Sugar

Beast of Burden

Start Me Up

I can keep going:

Sister Morphine

Salt of the Earth

Bitch

Angie

Shine A Light

Midnight Rambler

Let's Spend the Night Together

Can't you hear me knockin

It's only Rock N Roll

Heart breaker

Winter

I think the Stones best beats the Beatles best. Beatles don't have enough to balls for me.

John Lennon wrote The Stones first hit single. End of discussion...

That is actually far from the end of the discussion.. It is true but tired and really doesn't hold any water in the debate.. It wasn't even a good song.

If you like The Stones better than The Beatles, good for you man. I'm not trying to convert anyone, the whole discussion is subjective anyways. But the facts remain as follows

The Rolling Stones got their very first hit because of the Beatles. Also the Stones spent the entire decade of the 60s trying to be just like the Beatles. Those two facts make a strong case for the Beatles being the superior band. Yes The Stones did some great stuff in the 70s after the Beatles were gone, and because of that they finally managed to escape the Beatles shadow and become somthing on their own.

I love the Rolling Stones, so I'm not just trying to bash them here. But they do come up short when compared to the Beatles imo. People like to bash the Beatles early days by calling it bubble gum pop and what not. But what were the Stones doing during that same time? Trying to be exactly like the Beatles but coming up short. So that while argument doesn't hold water with me, because the Stones were doing the same damn thing, just not doing it as well. But it's not just The Stones that copied the beatles, so did The Who and early Pink Floyd. Most of the British Invasion bands during the 60s were trying to copy the Beatles. They were the standard everyone else tried to live up to.

Now if you like the music of the Stones better, well that is your right. I'm not going to argue opinion with anyone. But people like to bash the Beatles in order to build up the Stones or whomever else, and I'm not having it. Mick Jagger wishes he was half the songwriter Lennon was (and I say that as someone that loves many of Jaggers songs). But song for song, (including his solo career) Lennon has the Stones beat across the board. More number 1 hits, more anthems, more deep songs, harder rocking songs, etc, etc.

Imagine, all you need is love, instant karma, revolution, cometogether, helter skelter, ballad of John and yoko, working class hero, watching the wheels, God, nobody told me, you've got to hide your love away, help, ticket to ride, across the universe, a day in the life, etc etc. I could go on and on man. Lennon could write about a variety of topics and produce timeless music. The Stones can write about sex, drugs, rock and roll, and the devil. But that's it. Hell Lennon even wrote a Christmas song that gets played every year, for my money he was the single greatest musician of the 20th century. You put John Lennon in ANY band, and he makes that band better. ANY BAND, including the Rolling Stones.

The biggest fact is: Beatles disbanded while Stones are still here

Beatles is singlehandedly the most over rated band on the entire earth

They were iconic, they have a legacy? of course

But the Stones are still rolling while the beatles....

well, just exploded in 1970

Neither Mccarthy nor Ringo do anything SIGNIFICANTLY great since then

Edited December 21, 2015 by Strange Broue

[DieselDaisy]

They are both great bands, but they have had very different careers. The Stones were just beginning to hit their peak when The Beatles were breaking up. The Stones had a longer gestation period basically. It took longer for Jagger-Richards to reach a potency. Lennon-McCartney had a tremendous head start.

[Rovim]

Beatles is singlehandedly the most over rated band on the entire earth

You have no idea how wrong you are. Their influence on bands you probably like is all encompassing. Many bands in all different kinds of genres were and are influenced by The Beatles.

Edited December 21, 2015 by Rovim

[Lies They Tell]

Can't believe people are seriously arguing about which band is better, Beatles or The Rolling Stones. That's like the most Apples and Oranges question there is. People like different things. I though people normally learn that at the age of 3.

I prefer The Beatles, because they were more experimental. But I can see why some prefer Rolling Stones.

[Rovim]

Can't believe people are seriously arguing about which band is better, Beatles or The Rolling Stones. That's like the most Apples and Oranges question there is. People like different things. I though people normally learn that at the age of 3.

I prefer The Beatles, because they were more experimental. But I can see why some prefer Rolling Stones.

Not really. Many musical influences are shared by both. Rock n' Roll, The Blues, and other genres. The Beatles concentrated on more pop and The Stones were heavier, but what's it really about is that The Stones settled down in one sound, and The Beatles incorporated more genres in their music and were more experimental.

Edited December 21, 2015 by Rovim

[DieselDaisy]

Have you heard satanic? It is not a 'pale imitation of pepper', the common argument, but a far more experimental album incorporating as it does African instrumentation. The stones have covered blues, rock n' roll, soul, psychedelia, english music hall, country, gospel, funk, reggae, disco, new wave.

[Rovim]

Have you heard satanic? It is not a 'pale imitation of pepper', the common argument, but a far more experimental album incorporating as it does African instrumentation. The stones have covered blues, rock n' roll, soul, psychedelia, english music hall, country, gospel, funk, reggae, disco, new wave.

Yes, I'm aware. But it was after The Beatles did it their own way. Like how they did psychedelic for example. It paved the way for others to do it, but The Stones took it to a more limited place musically imo. Like it's great, but it's not as original as The Beatles.

And they did have a comfort zone that they always returned to imo. Clapton did reggae as well for example, but that's not really his forte. The Stones were good at implementing many different styles, but I don't think psychedelia when I think about The Stones. I think it's bluesy rock n' roll mainly.

When I think The Beatles, I don't think of a specific genre, even though it almost always has a pop element. So they can do Strawberry Fields Forever and be more than a psychedelic sounding band. To achieve that you have to be at least better than The Stones in that regard imo and they were.

Edited December 21, 2015 by Rovim

[Lies They Tell]

Can't believe people are seriously arguing about which band is better, Beatles or The Rolling Stones. That's like the most Apples and Oranges question there is. People like different things. I though people normally learn that at the age of 3.

I prefer The Beatles, because they were more experimental. But I can see why some prefer Rolling Stones.

Not really. Many musical influences are shared by both. Rock n' roll, blues, and other genres. The Beatles concentrated on more pop and The Stones were heavier, but what's it really about is that The Stones settled down in one sound, and The Beatles incorporated more genres in their music and were more experimental.

Likewise apples and oranges are both round. healthy fruits that contain seeds and vitamin C. They have a similar size and weight and both grow on trees. They even have about the same amount of calories. They have lots of similarities exactly like The Beatles and The Rolling Stones but still... It's apples and oranges for crying out loud. Some prefer one and some prefer the other. It's as simple as that.

[Rovim]

Likewise apples and oranges are both round. healthy fruits that contain seeds and vitamin C. They have a similar size and weight and both grow on trees. They even have about the same amount of calories. They have lots of similarities exactly like The Beatles and The Rolling Stones but still... It's apples and oranges for crying out loud. Some prefer one and some prefer the other. It's as simple as that.

I gave a disclaimer earlier though. Any musical comparison is silly, cause every group of people are different and what they create together, if they're any good, reflects their specific personalities.

But The Beatles and The Stones sucked from the same tit. Each band just went on the natural musical direction that was dictated by where they're musical passion really was. For The Beatles, it was all of it. Everything that was cool.

The Stones were darker, and certainly had a lot of personality, charisma you know, and of course musical talent. A rare band. I love The Stones. But it wasn't in the scale of The Beatles, musically as well. They sometimes took similar musical avenues too. You can compare certain elements if you want. It's fun. Especially on weed.

Edited December 21, 2015 by Rovim

[action]

i think it's funny people dont count lies as a complete album, yet almost every led zeppelin album featured 8 or 9 tracks.

Edited December 21, 2015 by action

[Silent Jay]

i think it's funny people dont count lies as a complete album, yet almost every led zeppelin album featured 8 or 9 tracks.

That's dumb sir.

Edited December 21, 2015 by Silent Jay

[Strange Broue]

Beatles is singlehandedly the most over rated band on the entire earth

You have no idea how wrong you are. Their influence on bands you probably like is all encompassing. Many bands in all different kinds of genres were and are influenced by The Beatles.

and their influences (i mean the Beatles) live through about them...

btw this thread was about HARD rock history... Beatles got nothing to do with hard rock

In fact, blues rock relates to hard rock more than any Beatles influences ever

So another pointless off topic discussion

P.S. i don't like poppy rock songs, sorry.

Can't believe people are seriously arguing about which band is better, Beatles or The Rolling Stones. That's like the most Apples and Oranges question there is. People like different things. I though people normally learn that at the age of 3.

I prefer The Beatles, because they were more experimental. But I can see why some prefer Rolling Stones.

Not really. Many musical influences are shared by both. Rock n' Roll, The Blues, and other genres. The Beatles concentrated on more pop and The Stones were heavier, but what's it really about is that The Stones settled down in one sound, and The Beatles incorporated more genres in their music and were more experimental.

But this thread was about hard rock, not pop rock

So you derail another thread, congrats

Btw Stones settled on one sound? Put down the crack pipe, bro

The Stones were more experimental, influencal and overal BETTER and more relevant to hard rock than Beatles

end of story

Edited December 21, 2015 by Strange Broue

[Strange Broue]

Have you heard satanic? It is not a 'pale imitation of pepper', the common argument, but a far more experimental album incorporating as it does African instrumentation. The stones have covered blues, rock n' roll, soul, psychedelia, english music hall, country, gospel, funk, reggae, disco, new wave.

Yes, I'm aware. But it was after The Beatles did it their own way. Like how they did psychedelic for example. It paved the way for others to do it, but The Stones took it to a more limited place musically imo. Like it's great, but it's not as original as The Beatles.

And they did have a comfort zone that they always returned to imo. Clapton did reggae as well for example, but that's not really his forte. The Stones were good at implementing many different styles, but I don't think psychedelia when I think about The Stones. I think it's bluesy rock n' roll mainly.

When I think The Beatles, I don't think of a specific genre, even though it almost always has a pop element. So they can do Strawberry Fields forever and be more than a psychedelic sounding band. To achieve that you have to be at least better than The Stones in that regard imo and they were.

Oh gimme a break....

Pink Floyd was more experimental than both bands combined and they started in what, 1964? a LOT of psychedelic band existed in the 60's and they were MORE experimental and psych than the Beatles ever can be

Just admit that you're tryin' to t.r.ol.l. here...

You are a guy who got actual musical knowledge, then you pretend you know nothing about rock music's history...

Edited December 21, 2015 by Strange Broue

[Rovim]

I wouldn't call The Stones hard rock either. Not trying to t.r.o.l.l. I just got off topic a little bit. On topic: I think The Jimi Experience was psychedelic bluesy hard rock. I consider them to be the finest hard rock group ever.

Edited December 21, 2015 by Rovim

[Sixes]

i think it's funny people dont count lies as a complete album, yet almost every led zeppelin album featured 8 or 9 tracks.

It's not an album. It's an ep coupled with a previously released fake live ep.

[Rovim]

But I'm not gonna lie, Guns is the closest to my heart. They were the coolest in their generation, and I relate to the silly image and how they kinda were responsible for turning that shit to 11 with Appetite, Illusions and Lies. I like how Axl took it pretty far with the 90's influences mixed with his brand of weeping and hard rock.

If I can only pick one, it's Jimi and his experience, but Guns are definitely my second favorite hard rock group and that is only cause you can't really challenge Jimi.

Jimi was also bigger than life. In Guns, you had all the personalities amazingly getting along with each other for a few years with perfect musical chemistry. I don't actually give a fuck Appetite is retro, cause it's a masterpiece.

On topic: if Guns made 4 or 5 albums that were equally as good, than perhaps. But they didn't. It got overblown and they did kinda like the White Album with Illusions: it was really a bunch of solo albums put together by the same band, it wasn't unified.

The Beatles were starting to come apart. But the White album was still great, like Illusions. But The Beatles released many Appetites before The White album and after it. For Guns, sadly it was just one masterpiece. But I like to think it's great that we even have one album like that. It's still doesn't sound like anything else. So it's original enough.

Edited December 21, 2015 by Rovim

[smoking guns]

The Stones were a much bigger influence on hard rock than the Beatles could ever dream of being.

Bands that don't exist if it wasn't for the Stones:

Aerosmith

Guns N Roses

AC/DC

[Rovim]

The Stones were a much bigger influence on hard rock than the Beatles could ever dream of being.

Bands that don't exist if it wasn't for the Stones:

Aerosmith

Guns N Roses

AC/DC

Guns is good, the rest crimes against ears. But no Slash without them, so indirectly important. I assure you The Beatles influenced many hard rock bands. The Stones as well, but it's too specific. Overall I think The Beatles influenced more people and musicians. They are the most influential exactly because they spoke to all different kinds of people and musicians.

Edited December 21, 2015 by Rovim

[EvanG]

i think it's funny people dont count lies as a complete album, yet almost every led zeppelin album featured 8 or 9 tracks.

Dude, there were like three new songs on it. It's like releasing a greatest hits album with only two new songs. I suppose officially it's an album, but that's not what we mean.

Anyway, a lot of people are always bashing McCartney because he was the happy-go-lucky guy and prefer Lennon as the 'tortured artist', but when you make a top ten favourite Beatles songs you'd be surprised how many were written solely by McCartney.