GnR in Spin magazine's readers polls (1989, 1991, 1993, 1994)

[RONIN]

3 hours ago, soon said:

Those polls definitely reflect my memory of being a Guns fan in that era.  They had such an undeniable presence in early 90's that even people who voted them for 'worst ______' would still probably have a song or video, or even just member they liked.  And I remember feeling like there was an effort, conspiracy even, between certain fans and publications to destroy them by around 94'.

Slightly off topic: I cant recall if it was Spin, but a lot of "alternative rock" magazines in that era would talk about how guitar solos were out of style, but youd have Billy Corgan on the cover because of his hit songs full of guitar solos.  There was an agenda.  All the grunge bands had not only guitar solos, but guitar hereos.  Eventually even the trade publications for guitarists were perpetuating this myth of solos being out of style.  Then Metallica started laying off the solos, while the "alternative" universe kept churning them out.  Forever baffled by this.

An aside: In 91' poll its great to see Mariah topping the best female vocalist category.  She doesnt get the respect she deserves from the younger pop audience these days.  Those were the days!

Great post. People have pointed this out before but it's pretty ironic that a lot of these alternative/punk/metal acts slamming GnR in the press were closet fans (Appetite era anyway) and went public about it years later. Members of AIC, Nirvana (Dave Grohl was backstage at RIR 3 to see Axl's return), Green Day, Pantera, Pearl Jam, Billy Corgan from Smashing Pumpkins - even Marilyn Manson who was slagging off Axl in the press back in 93/94 was an Appetite era fan. 

There's a tidal wave of backlash and loss of credibility with their peers/critics that seems to follow the Illusion era. And the 93 polls seem to reflect that sentiment with GnR making the "sellout" list. There was a perceived lack of authenticity about their brand. Was it their unbelievable success and rockstardom? It's hard to say whether the same stripped down rock n' rollin' punkers from the Appetite era could have maintained themselves with a followup similar to Appetite. I suspect they would have been written off by guys like Cobain as cock rockers and decadent dinosaurs anyway. And the press would have criticized them for rehashing AFD and being irrelevant in the face of grunge. Lose/lose situation. Maybe they just got too big, too fast and unfortunately for them, they were in the midst of a massive musical movement with the grunge bands. Their audience collectively had moved onto Alt rock bands and Metallica. 

GnR frequently tops lists of being massively overrated but imho I consider them underrated, particularly the Illusion era and Axl as a frontman/artist. As you said - there's been an effort since '94 to diminish their impact and credibility in the press, particularly hipster media circles.

Edited December 14, 2017 by RONIN

[Blackstar]

On 13/12/2017 at 11:40 PM, RONIN said:

American hipsters love British bands.

Yeah, I've figured that out (although it wasn't much the case with the British bands in the 90s - the polls were mostly dominated by American bands). I guess The Smiths were a measure for good alternative taste, coolness and intellectuality.

Considering that, the place of GnR and AFD in the 1989 poll is pretty impressive. They were rated by an audience which listened mostly to bands like The Smiths, The Replacements, The Cure etc. and not so much to hard rock and metal; and also despite that the voting took place at the peak of the One In A Million controversy - it's safe to assume that Spin's readership consisted mostly of (middle class) liberals.

Maybe it had partly to do with the fact that, apart from the likes of Hit Parader, Spin was the first big US magazine to feature GnR before they made it big with SCOM distinguishing them from the hair bands and the metal of the era.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/jul/22/guns-n-roses-interview-appetite-destruction-1988-spin

On 14/12/2017 at 4:56 PM, soon said:

Those polls definitely reflect my memory of being a Guns fan in that era.  They had such an undeniable presence in early 90's that even people who voted them for 'worst ______' would still probably have a song or video, or even just member they liked.  And I remember feeling like there was an effort, conspiracy even, between certain fans and publications to destroy them by around 94'.

Slightly off topic: I cant recall if it was Spin, but a lot of "alternative rock" magazines in that era would talk about how guitar solos were out of style, but youd have Billy Corgan on the cover because of his hit songs full of guitar solos.  There was an agenda.  All the grunge bands had not only guitar solos, but guitar hereos.  Eventually even the trade publications for guitarists were perpetuating this myth of solos being out of style.  Then Metallica started laying off the solos, while the "alternative" universe kept churning them out.  Forever baffled by this.

 

I think all that was a symptom of the pseudo-alternative (meaning that it was mainstream in reality) hyping in the 90s. There was an eagerness to move rapidly from a trend to the next one; which of course was always the case in pop music, but I think in the 90s there was a more intense tendency to slam last years' "darlings" as passé or sellouts.

On 14/12/2017 at 7:46 PM, RONIN said:

There's a tidal wave of backlash and loss of credibility with their peers/critics that seems to follow the Illusion era. And the 93 polls seem to reflect that sentiment with GnR making the "sellout" list. There was a perceived lack of authenticity about their brand. Was it their unbelievable success and rockstardom? It's hard to say whether the same stripped down rock n' rollin' punkers from the Appetite era could have maintained themselves with a followup similar to Appetite. I suspect they would have been written off by guys like Cobain as cock rockers and decadent dinosaurs anyway. And the press would have criticized them for rehashing AFD and being irrelevant in the face of grunge. Lose/lose situation. Maybe they just got too big, too fast and unfortunately for them, they were in the midst of a massive musical movement with the grunge bands. Their audience collectively had moved onto Alt rock bands and Metallica. 

I wouldn't read too much inτο that particular list though, considering that GnR were listed behind Metallica and Red Hot Chili Peppers.

 

Edited December 17, 2017 by Blackstar

[gnrkoncerti]

In 1991-1995 GNR had strong hardcore fan base.Probably the biggest in world...

Other people hated them.

So what did we have in 1992: Gnr soldout stadiums and was bad in polls...

Nirvana sellout 5k place and was number one on polls...

[MyPrettyTiedUpMichelle]

19 hours ago, Blackstar said:

It's also notable that Pearl Jam and Jane's Addiction/Perry Farrell were much more popular than Nirvana in '92-'93 among Spin's readers. Smells Like Teen Spirit was just #43 in the "top 100 songs of our time" poll, being topped by 3-4 songs by each of Pearl Jam, REM, Jane's Addiction and U2 (and also by Welcome To The Jungle). Nirvana's popularity rose again after Kurt Cobain's suicide.

18 hours ago, RONIN said:

Agreed. In Utero had underperformed as well compared to Nevermind in '93. Someone mentioned some months back how it had even undersold TSI? in its first week. There seems to be a lot of revisionist history about Nirvana's relevance and place in the industry post-Cobain's death.

Don't get me started on the revisionist history concerning Nirvana! LOL  

So many myths are perpetuated about Nirvana, for instance that right from the get-go they dominated and were worshipped, that they singled-handedly killed off bands like GNR, that Kurt was 'authentic' (fans ended up turning against him because he was perceived to be enjoying the millionaire lifestyle he was supposed to reject amongst a host of other reasons.  He was also seen as being controlled by Courtney, and the Social Services investigation into their parenting and alleged drug use during Courtney's pregnancy harmed the band's image tremendously), that they were more popular than any other band, the list goes on.  

It wasn't until after Kurt's death that the backlash was forgotten about and many things swept under the carpet to create a new narrative where Nirvana assumed almost mythological status in music history.

If GNR were considered decadent dinosaurs,, Kurt was, in the months leading up to his death, considered a joke.  Nirvana had become the Kurt and Courtney train wreck and there were rumours Nirvana might not last i.e. they'd break up/implode GNR style.

For anyone who's interested, this excerpt from Killing Yourself To Live by Chuck Klosterman who is basically a music journalist/critic, sums up what was happening during the Nirvana backlash really well.  What he says certainly resonates with me and what I remember of attitudes towards Nirvana at the time.

Fun fact: when Pearl Jam's Vs came out, it shifted something close to a million units in a week, breaking GNR's previous record for UYI.

 

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

Edited December 14, 2017 by MyPrettyTiedUpMichelle

[AXL_N_DIZZY]

This will make sense to American football fans I think- but I have always felt Illusions-era Guns were sort of the “Dallas Cowboys” of rock. Their international fame and commercial draw was undeniable- but there were a hell of a lot of people that passionately hated/resented them and/or were jealous of them.

[DieselDaisy]

5 minutes ago, AXL_N_DIZZY said:

This will make sense to American football fans I think- but I have always felt Illusions-era Guns were sort of the “Dallas Cowboys” of rock. Their international fame and commercial draw was undeniable- but there were a hell of a lot of people that passionately hated/resented them and/or were jealous of them.

An European analogy would be Manchester United or Real Madrid perhaps? Gigantic, corporate, impressive in many ways but lacking a certain ''cool'' factor somehow. 

[AXL_N_DIZZY]

18 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

An European analogy would be Manchester United or Real Madrid perhaps? Gigantic, corporate, impressive in many ways but lacking a certain ''cool'' factor somehow. 

Yeah- or how the rest of Germany looks at Bayern-Muenchen, etc. 

I would argue they had the “cool” factor going in the early part of ‘91 with RIR II, insane interest in T2 and their first headlining tour, etc. What the ‘91 poll results show me though is that they paid a heavy price with fans and the media for St. Louis. Heavier than I remember actually as I had pinpointed the backlash as more of a 92/93 phenomenon.

[EvanG]

I like how Mick Jagger was voted one of the worst old-timers in 1991, and now 26 years later he's still dancing his ass off on stage.

[EvanG]

On 14-12-2017 at 9:29 PM, MyPrettyTiedUpMichelle said:

 

Fun fact: when Pearl Jam's Vs came out, it shifted something close to a million units in a week, breaking GNR's previous record for UYI.

 

And all that without a lot of promotion... they didn't do a lot of press at the time because they had a hard time dealing with all the attention, and didn't even make a video for that album, in an era when MTV could make or break you. Oddly enough Nirvana was doing a lot of promotion for In Utero, even making a commercial for it, and still Vs. was selling better than In Utero at the time.

 

Edited December 16, 2017 by EvanG

[Blackstar]

3 hours ago, AXL_N_DIZZY said:

What the ‘91 poll results show me though is that they paid a heavy price with fans and the media for St. Louis. Heavier than I remember actually as I had pinpointed the backlash as more of a 92/93 phenomenon.

Probably St. Louis had something to do, but I reckon it was mostly due to the late starts. If I'm not mistaken, in 1991 they (Axl) were more late than ever.

[MyPrettyTiedUpMichelle]

5 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

An European analogy would be Manchester United or Real Madrid perhaps? Gigantic, corporate, impressive in many ways but lacking a certain ''cool'' factor somehow. 

Is Man U not cool?  I always thought they were?  There you go, I learned something today.  Wasn't David Beckham considered cool?

Edited December 16, 2017 by MyPrettyTiedUpMichelle

[MyPrettyTiedUpMichelle]

1 hour ago, EvanG said:

And all that without a lot of promotion... they didn't do a lot of press at the time because they had a hard time dealing with all the attention, and didn't even make a video for that album, in an era when MTV could make or break you. Oddly enough Nirvana was doing a lot of promotion for In Utero, even making a commercial for it, and still Vs. was selling better than In Utero at the time.

 

That is one of the most bizarre things...

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, MyPrettyTiedUpMichelle said:

Is Man U not cool?  I always thought they were?  There you go, I learned something today.

Do you live in the United States? The reason I ask is I believe Manchester United are thought of in similar terms as the New York Yankees, being hugely successful (that, even their detractors cannot deny) yet attract what (we call) a lot of ''glory seeker'' fans from disparate parts of the globe. Maybe there is an element of 'sour grapes' from fans of other less successful clubs?

[MyPrettyTiedUpMichelle]

10 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Do you live in the United States? The reason I ask is I believe Manchester United are thought of in similar terms as the New York Yankees, being hugely successful (that, even their detractors cannot deny) yet attract what (we call) a lot of ''glory seeker'' fans from disparate parts of the globe. Maybe there is an element of 'sour grapes' from fans of other less successful clubs?

No, I'm in the UK, but don't follow football - except at WC time (for entertainment value) and I only know of the most famous players - there see, I'm like a casual GNR fan.   That's terrible isn't it?  So my perception has always been that Man U is cool.  So I have to wonder which club is actually cool?

Edit: forgot what thread I was in - sorry for derailing the topic with football.   Just ignore me. lol

Edited December 16, 2017 by MyPrettyTiedUpMichelle

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, MyPrettyTiedUpMichelle said:

No, I'm in the UK, but don't follow football - except at WC time (for entertainment value) and I only know of the most famous players - there see, I'm like a casual GNR fan.   That's terrible isn't it?  So my perception has always been that Man U is cool.  So I have to wonder which club is actually cool?

Man U are the anti-hipster team. They are too popular to be truly ''cool'' and tend to attract a lot of global fans who couldn't point to Manchester on a map and are attracted to the team because of the success and brand.   

[Nicklord]

When you really think about it there aren't many cool football clubs in Europe? If they're on top it's cause they're rich, if they're Arsenal they're Arsenal, if they are middle of the table then they're treadmilling, if they suck they suck and that's not cool either  

  

[DieselDaisy]

4 minutes ago, Nicklord said:

When you really think about it there aren't many cool football clubs in Europe? If they're on top it's cause they're rich, if they're Arsenal they're Arsenal, if they are middle of the table then they're treadmilling, if they suck they suck and that's not cool either  

  

Leicester City. 

Thing is with football, one man's cool is another man's - well, you see what I mean? Such is the tribal passions. 

[Nicklord]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Leicester City. 

Thing is with football, one man's cool is another man's - well, you see what I mean? Such is the tribal passions. 

Are they cool tho?

[Izzymacbeth]

6 hours ago, MyPrettyTiedUpMichelle said:

Is Man U not cool?  I always thought they were?  There you go, I learned something today.  Wasn't David Beckham considered cool?

He's considered a thick twat mostly in the UK. Especially by those not English. 

Cool clubs: it would seem my own team Celtic strikes a chord with the rich and famous mostly due to its representation of Irish immigrants and heavy left leaning fan base. Robert Downey Jr, Keifer Sutherland, Snoop Dogg, Lana Del Rey, Coolio, Jay Z have all been seen wearing Celtic shirts and attending games and inside the UK have attending fans like James McAvoy, Billy Connolly, Rod Stewart, Paulo Nutini, Gerard Butler.... The list goes on. 

Our sister club  in Germany St Pauli are considered pretty cool too cos they share our left leaning politics and have that whole Skull & Crossbone merch and a huge punk following. 

Some people follow a band like a football team or any other sport esoecially to the 'extremes' of seeing it as a represantaion of themselves which is what teams in the UK are like. 

I don't. I see music like food, its a matter of taste, not necessarily support. I wouldnt berate someone for not liking bacon or spicy food so I'm not going to charge through and go nuts on someone if they dont follow or rate my favourite band/guitarist/sing etc. Its daft. 

As someone mentioned though, ones cool is anothers hate. 

Just my 2 cents. 

Edited December 16, 2017 by Izzymacbeth

[AXL_N_DIZZY]

5 hours ago, Blackstar said:

Probably St. Louis had something to do, but I reckon it was mostly due to the late starts. If I'm not mistaken, in 1991 they (Axl) were more late than ever.

Yep. That was a rough “combo” when Axl’s coming on hours late- and potentially in a bad mood when he gets there...

Some people (my 15-17 year old self included) ate it up with a spoon (e.g. “world’s most dangerous band!”, “out on the edge!”, “r n’ r baby!”)- but for many others it was obviously a real turn off- and the alt./grunge bands were highly effective (for a time) in seizing that “opening”.