classicrawker Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 As Soulmonster stated it was the right record released at the right time. Rock does not sell these days so they would be lucky to sell half a million in today's wasteland of modern music IMHO........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxpax Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 6 hours ago, spliff said: Great answer. AFD 2016 would be a bit more successful than wolfmother, but that's it. Rock is out. Hip Hop is dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkknite63 Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 It wouldn't do well because even though it would sound good, young people aren't interested in that, they would rather hear Justin Bieber crying about shit. Its all about what is popular and what gets you the revenue. And it would sound a little bit dated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rd Wheel Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 Some of it is too insensitive and sexist to be released today and thrive. I'm slightly surprised GNR aren't called out by the media for still playing "It's So Easy." Some would enjoy it simply because of this. Hell, some Trump fans would probably hoist it as their flag, even if the the band never would want the album to become a symbol of division in American social politics. Also, the fifth track would need to be restructured around a different drug. Heroin just isn't as prevalent in the 21st century as it was in the 1980s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killuridols Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 8 hours ago, DexAxl said: Pretty sure he was thinking if GNR is new band who will release AFD right now as 20 years old will they be still that huge. Sexism can pass ignored today do you ever listened to this new "rappers"? I think AFD will be still huge because we don't have good hard rock bands today and of course with SCOM more people who don't listen to rock will hear it. Somebody need to destroy these R&B and Pop shit teenagers listen today. I dont think sexism is ignored nowadays. There's a lot of awareness about it but it doesn't mean that its completely gone or that someone can do something to forbid it. Ok. Maybe a 20 year old Axl Rose could rival a Justin Bieber but he would have to come out from somewhere. A 20 year old Axl would have to be someone born in 1996. By the time that kid was 10, he was already listening to pop music and who would be his influences? 20 year old Axl was influenced by Queen, Rolling Stones, AC/DC, Janis, Jim Morrison, Elvis..... all great artists from previous generations. I can't see that happening now so nope, AFD wouldnt have even come out in 2016. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tourettes2400 Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 They also would be doing it with out WTTJ, SCOM,and Paradise City videos on MTV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-W.A.R- Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 massive hysteria over "turn around bitch, i got a use for you" some pale white women with glasses and boobs hanging out would be on CNN complaining Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DexAxl Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 8 hours ago, killuridols said: I dont think sexism is ignored nowadays. There's a lot of awareness about it but it doesn't mean that its completely gone or that someone can do something to forbid it. Ok. Maybe a 20 year old Axl Rose could rival a Justin Bieber but he would have to come out from somewhere. A 20 year old Axl would have to be someone born in 1996. By the time that kid was 10, he was already listening to pop music and who would be his influences? 20 year old Axl was influenced by Queen, Rolling Stones, AC/DC, Janis, Jim Morrison, Elvis..... all great artists from previous generations. I can't see that happening now so nope, AFD wouldnt have even come out in 2016. Guy born in 1996 is internet kid, he have easy access to all music so he will hear all those artists on some point. Jungle will be great single like it was and SCOM will still be no.1 on charts. But i think 1996 born Axl would release more ballads because today you have to give what people like or you are fucked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killuridols Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 2 hours ago, DexAxl said: Guy born in 1996 is internet kid, he have easy access to all music so he will hear all those artists on some point. Jungle will be great single like it was and SCOM will still be no.1 on charts. But i think 1996 born Axl would release more ballads because today you have to give what people like or you are fucked. Really doubt the kid will listen to those bands and become influenced by them like Axl was. If that was true we would be witnessing this Axl kid right now. He's nowhere to be found. So no AFD in 2016. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axlweave Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 15 hours ago, 3rd Wheel said: Some of it is too insensitive and sexist to be released today and thrive. I'm slightly surprised GNR aren't called out by the media for still playing "It's So Easy." Some would enjoy it simply because of this. Hell, some Trump fans would probably hoist it as their flag, even if the the band never would want the album to become a symbol of division in American social politics. Also, the fifth track would need to be restructured around a different drug. Heroin just isn't as prevalent in the 21st century as it was in the 1980s. Dude heroine abuse opiod abuse is bigger now then it was back then 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinkforgirls Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 6 minutes ago, axlweave said: Dude heroine abuse opiod abuse is bigger now then it was back then now it could be Appetite for Oxycontin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeez Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 18 hours ago, classicrawker said: As Soulmonster stated it was the right record released at the right time. Rock does not sell these days so they would be lucky to sell half a million in today's wasteland of modern music IMHO........... Basically this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 Impossible to know....fun to speculate. Better question would be 'how would the whole "hair band" genre go over now in today's world (provided it never happened back in the day). I'm guessing they would be LOL'd the fuck outta here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tourettes2400 Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 I have shown my daughters a few pics and they laugh and roll their eyes. My 6 year old says "why do they dress like girls?" She does love Slash though. Probably because she has listened to him her whole life. The 13 yr old likes pop garbage and represents more of a teen in today's world. Most kids now only like over produced pop music. It is kind of sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ludurigan Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 On 6/14/2016 at 11:45 AM, john lennon said: Honestly I think most people would just shake their heads and think "ahh, another retro sounding band". There are loads of retro sounding bands out there. please give me ONE "retro band" that has a singer who is on par with Axl voice/deliver, a rhythm guitar player who is on par with Izzys rhythm/groove/songwriting ability, a lead guitar player that is on par with Slashs ability and musicality etc etc etc please give me ONE album released on the last 25 years that has got ONE SONG that is just as good as an Appetite For Destruction song Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 It wouldn't sell so no one would care. They wouldn't have video budgets to dominate world. So not as much fame or money to fuel drug use. It might get attention of PC twitter people for a day. Firstly I think they wouldn't get signed because no company would take the chance on 4 junkies and a crazy guy today. I think because of low sales they might be like the Driveby Truckers or Avenged Sevenfold or Black Crowes, Alice in Chains. A good band but not as wildly sccessful as GNR. It does make you think what success means. Especially to the artist who has to deal with negative side as well. Bands that were less successful like the Manics have a bigger catalog and all the videos, played stadiums. But just not as huge globally. So maybe GNR's popular appeal. Those songs would just make them as big as Adele today. They would take the metal market, then SCOM would take them to the mainstream again. Would The Beatles sell more than Jack White? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RONIN Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 On 6/14/2016 at 8:07 AM, spliff said: Exactly. The band/album would sink like a stone and Patton would probably take a shit on it. Appetite is a product of its time. Nirvana's "Nevermind" on the other hand.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THEJOBLIN Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 What people aren't taking into account here, is that Appetite almost failed as an album even back then. They went out on tour opening for Alice Cooper and Iron Maiden and Aerosmith, and only sold 100,000 copies in like the entire first year, while being on one of the biggest record labels at the time. That was a failure for a band getting that kind of major label push. If not for MTV playing the Jungle video one time, and then it taking off, the record label would have probably pulled the plug on them soon after that. The album however, would have probably become a cult classic, as great music does have a tendency to stand the test of time. If it was released now? I'm not even sure a record label would sign a bunch of wasted drug addicts in todays music industry. The recording would sound different, the band members would have more modern influences, and it wouldn't have the same subject matter. And they wouldn't look like that either nowadays, they would all probably have short emo haircuts or something, it would be bad. . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sprite Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 7 hours ago, wasted said: It does make you think what success means. Especially to the artist who has to deal with negative side as well. Bands that were less successful like the Manics have a bigger catalog and all the videos, played stadiums. But just not as huge globally. I think this is what Axl was sort of getting at in the China Exchange. Had they formed their own label there could be more music. But then you trade in the mega success, popularity and money for complete artistic freedom. I guess you have to ask yourself is success a proper creative outlet or attention? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 22 minutes ago, Sprite said: I think this is what Axl was sort of getting at in the China Exchange. Had they formed their own label there could be more music. But then you trade in the mega success, popularity and money for complete artistic freedom. I guess you have to ask yourself is success a proper creative outlet or attention? They sogned that 7 record deal with Geffen and kind of wanted to be the next Aerosmith. Axl may have had more ambitions than that. It probably was the 90s money that guided a lot of choices. They really were set for a solid career but they had lost their cool? Other guys died trying to stay the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom-Ass Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 Rock music is even more bland pathetic than it was in 1987. If Appetite came out today, I still think it would be great. It wouldn't sell as much but I bet it would still be popular. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LikeADog93 Posted June 16, 2016 Author Share Posted June 16, 2016 11 minutes ago, Tom-Ass said: Rock music is even more bland pathetic than it was in 1987. If Appetite came out today, I still think it would be great. It wouldn't sell as much but I bet it would still be popular. Agreed. Like I said in my original post, WTTJ, SCOM, and PC are timeless and would be popular songs no matter when they came out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john lennon Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 13 hours ago, ludurigan said: please give me ONE "retro band" that has a singer who is on par with Axl voice/deliver, a rhythm guitar player who is on par with Izzys rhythm/groove/songwriting ability, a lead guitar player that is on par with Slashs ability and musicality etc etc etc please give me ONE album released on the last 25 years that has got ONE SONG that is just as good as an Appetite For Destruction song Whoa whoa whoa, you don't have to go all defensive here, do you? Art is subjective and also, perhaps unfortunately, very much a fashion thing. I can name plenty of albums that, in my opinion, has multiple songs as good as those on Appetite for Destruction. Shit is, you probably won't agree. Why? Because art is subjective. Music is subjective. You can't take one album and then another album, state that the first one is the better and have everyone all over the world agreeing with you. Hey, I know people who would gladly listen to Justin Bieber rather than Guns N' Roses any fucking day. Doesn't mean they're right or wrong or that I'm right or wrong - it's a matter of personal taste. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sprite Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 6 minutes ago, john lennon said: Whoa whoa whoa, you don't have to go all defensive here, do you? Art is subjective and also, perhaps unfortunately, very much a fashion thing. I can name plenty of albums that, in my opinion, has multiple songs as good as those on Appetite for Destruction. Shit is, you probably won't agree. Why? Because art is subjective. Music is subjective. You can't take one album and then another album, state that the first one is the better and have everyone all over the world agreeing with you. Hey, I know people who would gladly listen to Justin Bieber rather than Guns N' Roses any fucking day. Doesn't mean they're right or wrong or that I'm right or wrong - it's a matter of personal taste. No doubt. I've been listening to AFD for a long time and still can't see what's so great about You're crazy and Anything Goes. 2 of my least favorite GNR songs. It's all subjective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sprite Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 2 hours ago, wasted said: They sogned that 7 record deal with Geffen and kind of wanted to be the next Aerosmith. Axl may have had more ambitions than that. It probably was the 90s money that guided a lot of choices. They really were set for a solid career but they had lost their cool? Other guys died trying to stay the same. Well I think it's just one of those situations that you can't say what you'd do till you're there. Hindsight is 20/20. Because they did have freedom on UYI but was that necessarily the best thing? Like Get in the Ring's rant or My world. Maybe Geffen had a point. I think we just need another album. Too much whispering and gossip for my blood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts