GnR’s place in hard rock history?

[Free Bird]

absolute top!

4 albums, 4 EPIC albums, EPIC monster tour, unseen tour to that date as a matter of fact.

Basically two albums... UYI should have been released as a double album and not sold seperately, that was just their way of cashing in even more so.

Basically not.

UYIs are two albums. Two. 2. Not 4. Not 1. It's 2 albums. And why shouldn't it be? 30 tracks and almost 150min full of music have every right to be on two separate albums.

Even Lies is an album. GNR are not the first band releasing an 8 track album...

So GNR in their prime had 4 albums. 3 great albums and an outstanding ultimate classic album. GNR made their name. They are amongst the best.

Maybe a class below The Stones, Pink Floyd, ACDC, Sabbath, Zeppelin.

On a level with Kiss, Aerosmith, Purple, Doors.

Actually UYI is 4 records....on vinyl...which was the primary format until cassettes eclipsed them in the 80s Just because you can fit more music on tape or CD doesn't mean you can fit more on records.

The primary format of the early and mid 80s doesn't affect much the primary format of the 90s which in fact was the CD.

[Mr. Dude]

absolute top!

4 albums, 4 EPIC albums, EPIC monster tour, unseen tour to that date as a matter of fact.

Basically two albums... UYI should have been released as a double album and not sold seperately, that was just their way of cashing in even more so.

Basically not.

UYIs are two albums. Two. 2. Not 4. Not 1. It's 2 albums. And why shouldn't it be? 30 tracks and almost 150min full of music have every right to be on two separate albums.

Even Lies is an album. GNR are not the first band releasing an 8 track album...

So GNR in their prime had 4 albums. 3 great albums and an outstanding ultimate classic album. GNR made their name. They are amongst the best.

Maybe a class below The Stones, Pink Floyd, ACDC, Sabbath, Zeppelin.

On a level with Kiss, Aerosmith, Purple, Doors.

Actually UYI is 4 records....on vinyl...which was the primary format until cassettes eclipsed them in the 80s Just because you can fit more music on tape or CD doesn't mean you can fit more on records.

The primary format of the early and mid 80s doesn't affect much the primary format of the 90s which in fact was the CD.

All the bands you are citing are from eras when vinyl was the primary formate therefore it does affect the argument you are putting forth,

[Tyson]

Too few albums unfortunately.

Fair point...but in my original post I intentionally specified that I wanted to limit the scope of the conversation to the quality of the music, not the quantity...so for example, if you considered GnR at their best (whatever you consider that to be) and compare that to Zep/Stones at their best (whatever you consider that to be), how does Guns hold up?

I am absolutely convinced that Guns N Roses, pound for pound, are as good as Led Zeppelin and The Rolling Stones. End of story.

[Rovim]

Too few albums unfortunately.

Fair point...but in my original post I intentionally specified that I wanted to limit the scope of the conversation to the quality of the music, not the quantity...so for example, if you considered GnR at their best (whatever you consider that to be) and compare that to Zep/Stones at their best (whatever you consider that to be), how does Guns hold up?

I am absolutely convinced that Guns N Roses, pound for pound, are as good as Led Zeppelin and The Rolling Stones. End of story.

I am absolutely convinced you either don't get The Stones, or you've got shit taste in music. Gotta be one of those cause there's no fuckin' way in hell. Pounds, kilos, or sacks of shit.

Do you know how many great albums The Stones created? how original they were compared to Guns? Influence? you just name it. Guns had nothing on The Stones. Nothing. They were their own retro thing and they were also great, but not on the level of The Stones. Never on the level of The Stones. It's not even close.

Edited December 20, 2015 by Rovim

[DieselDaisy]

Too few albums unfortunately.

Fair point...but in my original post I intentionally specified that I wanted to limit the scope of the conversation to the quality of the music, not the quantity...so for example, if you considered GnR at their best (whatever you consider that to be) and compare that to Zep/Stones at their best (whatever you consider that to be), how does Guns hold up?

I am absolutely convinced that Guns N Roses, pound for pound, are as good as Led Zeppelin and The Rolling Stones. End of story.

I am absolutely convinced you either don't get The Stones, or you've got shit taste in music. Gotta be one of those cause there's no fuckin' way in hell. Pounds, kilos, or sacks of shit.

Do you know how many great albums The Stones created? how original they were compared to Guns? Influence? you just name it. Guns had nothing on The Stones. Nothing. They were their own retro thing and they were also great, but not on the level of The Stones. Never on the level of The Stones. It's not even close.

You are no longer a wanker sir.

[Rovim]

Compared to The Beatles however, The Stones sucked as well. They tried to be The Beatles, but ended up sounding like The Stones, which was also great, but nothing compared to The Beatles. And they did hard rock as well, but they had better taste so they didn't linger on it too much. They had other musical avenues to explore. Much more interesting as well imo. They were busy being The Beatles, creating perfect music together.

But it's all subjective really. The comparison is silly, cause bands are formed of people and the music these people create together reflect their personality.

So in a way, it's kinda like saying this group of people is better than the other, when in reality, a lot of people like that group for who they are or what they reflect musically regardless of the existence of another group. They relate to that specific group the most, for whatever reason.

Edited December 20, 2015 by Rovim

[Apollo]

Too few albums unfortunately.

Fair point...but in my original post I intentionally specified that I wanted to limit the scope of the conversation to the quality of the music, not the quantity...so for example, if you considered GnR at their best (whatever you consider that to be) and compare that to Zep/Stones at their best (whatever you consider that to be), how does Guns hold up?

I am absolutely convinced that Guns N Roses, pound for pound, are as good as Led Zeppelin and The Rolling Stones. End of story.

I am absolutely convinced you either don't get The Stones, or you've got shit taste in music. Gotta be one of those cause there's no fuckin' way in hell. Pounds, kilos, or sacks of shit.

Do you know how many great albums The Stones created? how original they were compared to Guns? Influence? you just name it. Guns had nothing on The Stones. Nothing. They were their own retro thing and they were also great, but not on the level of The Stones. Never on the level of The Stones. It's not even close.

But he said "end of story."

Doesn't that make it a fact?

[TeeJay410]

Easily top 4 or 5 American rock bands ever. Include everyone they might be top 10. The 6 years they peaked is unparalleled, but longevity is significant in the discussion. The specification "hard rock" helps them in that they're not really up against the Beatles or pink Floyd. Not sure I'd call the Rolling Stones hard rock either.

[smoking guns]

Compared to The Beatles however, The Stones sucked as well. They tried to be The Beatles, but ended up sounding like The Stones, which was also great, but nothing compared to The Beatles. And they did hard rock as well, but they had better taste so they didn't linger on it too much. They had other musical avenues to explore. Much more interesting as well imo. They were busy being The Beatles, creating perfect music together.

But it's all subjective really. The comparison is silly, cause bands are formed of people and the music these people create together reflect their personality.

So in a way, it's kinda like saying this group of people is better than the other, when in reality, a lot of people like that group for who they are or what they reflect musically regardless of the existence of another group. They relate to that specific group the most, for whatever reason.

I would be fine never hearing another Beatles song ever, the Stones from 69-75 is the greatest band of all time. They were on fire then. Before that era that were great and had great songs but they were still finding themselves. Once Mick Taylor joined the band they went to a new level and they do have moments of hard rock, but were still mainly rock and roll.

[DR DOOM]

I'd have no problem putting them (I mean, the real Guns N Roses-as in AFD lineup) in the top 10 greatest American hard rock bands...I'm thinking alongside Alice Cooper, The Stooges, Aerosmith, KISS, Van Halen...

[Free Bird]

absolute top!

4 albums, 4 EPIC albums, EPIC monster tour, unseen tour to that date as a matter of fact.

Basically two albums... UYI should have been released as a double album and not sold seperately, that was just their way of cashing in even more so.

Basically not.

UYIs are two albums. Two. 2. Not 4. Not 1. It's 2 albums. And why shouldn't it be? 30 tracks and almost 150min full of music have every right to be on two separate albums.

Even Lies is an album. GNR are not the first band releasing an 8 track album...

So GNR in their prime had 4 albums. 3 great albums and an outstanding ultimate classic album. GNR made their name. They are amongst the best.

Maybe a class below The Stones, Pink Floyd, ACDC, Sabbath, Zeppelin.

On a level with Kiss, Aerosmith, Purple, Doors.

Actually UYI is 4 records....on vinyl...which was the primary format until cassettes eclipsed them in the 80s Just because you can fit more music on tape or CD doesn't mean you can fit more on records.

The primary format of the early and mid 80s doesn't affect much the primary format of the 90s which in fact was the CD.

All the bands you are citing are from eras when vinyl was the primary formate therefore it does affect the argument you are putting forth,

It doesn't. Try harder dude.

[Lies They Tell]

I don't believe that popularity is a good way to measure quality. Nevertheless, it is pretty much the only measurement tool we have, that is even remotely objective.

So if you look at how much people actually listen to GNR compared to other classic rock bands for example on Spotify, GNR is actually very popular. It's more popular than Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath, The Doors, Jimi Hendrix, AC/DC, Kiss, Aerosmith, Van Halen etc... Only The Rolling Stones are more popular.

Guns N' Roses is actually more popular tha neven Metallica and Nirvana, when you look at the amount of monthly listeners.

Then again Foo Fighters is more popular than GNR, so that says something about popularity as a measure of quality.

[Mr. Dude]

Compared to The Beatles however, The Stones sucked as well. They tried to be The Beatles, but ended up sounding like The Stones, which was also great, but nothing compared to The Beatles. And they did hard rock as well, but they had better taste so they didn't linger on it too much. They had other musical avenues to explore. Much more interesting as well imo. They were busy being The Beatles, creating perfect music together.

But it's all subjective really. The comparison is silly, cause bands are formed of people and the music these people create together reflect their personality.

So in a way, it's kinda like saying this group of people is better than the other, when in reality, a lot of people like that group for who they are or what they reflect musically regardless of the existence of another group. They relate to that specific group the most, for whatever reason.

Not really. Perhaps briefly in the very beginning their hairstyles were somewhat similar. The Stones were the anti-Beatles.

[Rovim]

Compared to The Beatles however, The Stones sucked as well. They tried to be The Beatles, but ended up sounding like The Stones, which was also great, but nothing compared to The Beatles. And they did hard rock as well, but they had better taste so they didn't linger on it too much. They had other musical avenues to explore. Much more interesting as well imo. They were busy being The Beatles, creating perfect music together.

But it's all subjective really. The comparison is silly, cause bands are formed of people and the music these people create together reflect their personality.

So in a way, it's kinda like saying this group of people is better than the other, when in reality, a lot of people like that group for who they are or what they reflect musically regardless of the existence of another group. They relate to that specific group the most, for whatever reason.

Not really. Perhaps briefly in the very beginning their hairstyles were somewhat similar. The Stones were the anti-Beatles.

Yes, really really. When they were trying to forge their identity, to construct an image, and musically as well, they've followed The Beatles in many ways.

Of course it was in the beginning. Never said it wasn't, but that wasn't my point. The fact they didn't have what The Beatles had just shows they were not as great imo. But they did find their own sound and the personalities were strong.

They've created together an impressive body of work. They were not as versatile, original, or really as talented as The Beatles. But there was a musical vision there which was brilliant and their sound kept everything that's cool about rock n' roll. At least what was there had a good sense of the past, but with enough fresh ideas to sell it as something new.

But yeah, they've tried to be The Beatles for a time there. That's all I was saying.

Edited December 20, 2015 by Rovim

[EvanG]

Too few albums unfortunately.

Fair point...but in my original post I intentionally specified that I wanted to limit the scope of the conversation to the quality of the music, not the quantity...so for example, if you considered GnR at their best (whatever you consider that to be) and compare that to Zep/Stones at their best (whatever you consider that to be), how does Guns hold up?

I am absolutely convinced that Guns N Roses, pound for pound, are as good as Led Zeppelin and The Rolling Stones. End of story.

I am absolutely convinced you either don't get The Stones, or you've got shit taste in music. Gotta be one of those cause there's no fuckin' way in hell. Pounds, kilos, or sacks of shit.

Do you know how many great albums The Stones created? how original they were compared to Guns? Influence? you just name it. Guns had nothing on The Stones. Nothing. They were their own retro thing and they were also great, but not on the level of The Stones. Never on the level of The Stones. It's not even close.

You are something... you have obviously never heard of an opinion. Everyone has a different taste in music fortunately, do you really not get that?

Almost everything in this thread is subjective anyway, you can't argue an opinion.

[action]

if today there was a festival featuring the rolling stones, beatles, zeppelin, sabbath, aerosmith, doors, guns n roses, nirvana, metallica, hendrix....you name it, all in their prime, then i wouldnt hesitate to watch the GNR concert. as a rocking performance they would offer the most exciting concert, full of surprises, danger, madness, exquisite guitar playing and a singer who for a start doesnt look like a woman (tyler, jagger, plant) and has a killer voice to boot, and then you also have a drummer with incredible swagger.

GNR offered the full package, no compromises. other bands had a weak point, not GNR. the doors had a great frontman but forgettable musicians, sabbath while revolutionary isnt a band which i'd chose over GNR, plant i just can't stand, jagger is highly unlikeable, etc...zeppelin with it's 30 minute improvisations is a bit much for loo time, etc.

you can agree or not. it is what is is.

so what if GNR wasnt original. so what if they only made 4 original albums. there is a difference between originality, catalog size,, historical importance on the one hand and actual live performance on the other. it's an element that gets overlooked too easily.

Edited December 20, 2015 by action

[Free Bird]

That would be a really great festival.

Don't mind The Beatles, Nirvana and Metallica but the rest would be awesome.

[Rovim]

if today there was a festival featuring the rolling stones, beatles, zeppelin, sabbath, aerosmith, doors, guns n roses, nirvana, metallica, hendrix....you name it, all in their prime, then i wouldnt hesitate to watch the GNR concert. as a rocking performance they would offer the most exciting concert, full of surprises, danger, madness, exquisite guitar playing and a singer who for a start doesnt look like a woman (tyler, jagger, plant) and has a killer voice to boot, and then you also have a drummer with incredible swagger.

GNR offered the full package, no compromises. other bands had a weak point, not GNR. the doors had a great frontman but forgettable musicians, sabbath while revolutionary isnt a band which i'd chose over GNR, plant i just can't stand, jagger is highly unlikeable, etc...zeppelin with it's 30 minute improvisations is a bit much for loo time, etc.

you can agree or not. it is what is is.

so what if GNR wasnt original. so what if they only made 4 original albums. there is a difference between originality, catalog size,, historical importance on the one hand and actual live performance on the other. it's an element that gets overlooked too easily.

Have you seen any live performances other than Gn'R though? cause Jimi fuckin' buries Guns. A lot of other bands as well. They were a great live band though. The Doors, The Beatles, Nirvana. All better imo as far as live performances go.

Gn'R's place in hard rock history is dictated by all of it. Albums are important. They only made one cohesive album. That doesn't compare with other bands, but it doesn't need to. It's just a mistake imo to think they were somehow better compared to The Experience when it's clear they didn't have a totally new direction. Originality is important. The Beatles and The Stones were far more original. The Doors as well.

Edited December 20, 2015 by Rovim

[smoking guns]

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.

[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...

[foghat43]

I've never been able to get into the Beatles, and believe me I've tried. Their music just does nothing for me. However, I still respect their status, their place in music history, their influence, etc. Objectively I recognize them as one of the greatest bands, even though subjectively I don't care for their music. I'll take the Stones, Zeppelin or Guns over the Beatles any day. The Beatles just seem more like a bubblegum pop band...whereas the other bands being discussed are rock bands. Just my opinion/personal preference.

And speaking of the Stones...I've started a Stones thread in the My World section...asking for suggestions on which compilation best covers their early (pre-Beggars Banquet) period?

[Tom-Ass]

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.

[Val22]

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.

[Tyson]

Too few albums unfortunately.

Fair point...but in my original post I intentionally specified that I wanted to limit the scope of the conversation to the quality of the music, not the quantity...so for example, if you considered GnR at their best (whatever you consider that to be) and compare that to Zep/Stones at their best (whatever you consider that to be), how does Guns hold up?

I am absolutely convinced that Guns N Roses, pound for pound, are as good as Led Zeppelin and The Rolling Stones. End of story.

I am absolutely convinced you either don't get The Stones, or you've got shit taste in music. Gotta be one of those cause there's no fuckin' way in hell. Pounds, kilos, or sacks of shit.

Do you know how many great albums The Stones created? how original they were compared to Guns? Influence? you just name it. Guns had nothing on The Stones. Nothing. They were their own retro thing and they were also great, but not on the level of The Stones. Never on the level of The Stones. It's not even close.

I'm pretty sure you're a moron. Thanks for the laugh.

[Apollo]

if today there was a festival featuring the rolling stones, beatles, zeppelin, sabbath, aerosmith, doors, guns n roses, nirvana, metallica, hendrix....you name it, all in their prime, then i wouldnt hesitate to watch the GNR concert. as a rocking performance they would offer the most exciting concert, full of surprises, danger, madness, exquisite guitar playing and a singer who for a start doesnt look like a woman (tyler, jagger, plant) and has a killer voice to boot, and then you also have a drummer with incredible swagger.

GNR offered the full package, no compromises. other bands had a weak point, not GNR. the doors had a great frontman but forgettable musicians, sabbath while revolutionary isnt a band which i'd chose over GNR, plant i just can't stand, jagger is highly unlikeable, etc...zeppelin with it's 30 minute improvisations is a bit much for loo time, etc.

you can agree or not. it is what is is.

so what if GNR wasnt original. so what if they only made 4 original albums. there is a difference between originality, catalog size,, historical importance on the one hand and actual live performance on the other. it's an element that gets overlooked too easily.

Lol. What a load of fanboy rubbish.

GnR has almost always been a really sloppy live band. When Axl is on, he is an absolute beast. Unfortunately, more often than not, his vocals aren't that great live. Even back in the early days.

Did GnR bring a high level of excitement and rawness to the stage? Of course. But to say they brought a level of perfection to the stage while all the other major bands were flawed.....one of the dumbest things ever posted on here.