DieselDaisy Posted July 16, 2018 Share Posted July 16, 2018 2 hours ago, scooby845 said: So if you look at it from another perspective, GNR exits only 10 years (1985-93 + 2016-18). Irrespective, The Rolling Stones were peaking as a band in their tenth year, releasing their tenth album, considered by many to be their magnum opus, Exile on Main St. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlashisGOD Posted July 16, 2018 Share Posted July 16, 2018 In an alternate universe Guns never broke up and they continued to release new albums on a consistent basis. In another alternate universe Axl released the three albums with nuGuns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ludurigan Posted July 16, 2018 Share Posted July 16, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, billie said: I know That GNR are a poor man's stones. I am not disputing that I am saying that GNR are the new Rolling stones, in terms of touring and resting on past laurels, a proven and profitable concept A touring band that does not create new music. And why would they? Why release new music that is open to criticizing when you simply don't have to In fact. New music would be a bad template You make all the money and keep all the love by just touring Rolling stones last good album early 80s? Rolling Stones keeps on creating music, recording it, releasing it and performing it live Guns n Aliens seems unable to do any of those things Except, of course, play Guns n Roses songs I heard that their "Not Enough Loot In This Lifetime Tour" is brilliant === "keep all the love"? what is to love about GNA? Edited July 16, 2018 by ludurigan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YourMother'sDruthers Posted July 16, 2018 Share Posted July 16, 2018 No. The Stones still release music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axl_morris Posted July 16, 2018 Share Posted July 16, 2018 12 minutes ago, YourMother'sDruthers said: No. The Stones still release music. But is it any good? I couldn't name one of their songs in the last 30 years. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
default_ Posted July 16, 2018 Share Posted July 16, 2018 Thay couldve Bernardo in the same league as Zeppelin, Aerosmith and Black Sabbath, but theyve lost themselves. 11 minutes ago, Axl_morris said: But is it any good? I couldn't name one of their songs in the last 30 years. I like Blue and Lonesome and Bigger Bang and listen to these a LOT. Different strokes I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colossus of Rhodes Posted July 16, 2018 Share Posted July 16, 2018 many years ago I wrote on this forum, that as an argument pro-reunion - someone will have to become new Stones. they failed to reunite, or never even really tried. Stones just keep on rolling man, they never stop. on radio marathons from the late 90s, DJs called them Rolling Bones LOL.. how many bands were formed, reached certain level of success and then disintegrated since? here is one clue on becoming the new Stones: this is from their 75 tour (which is probably the first one where Mick started using massive props on the stage LOL). by that point, they shouldn't have existed - public fatigue with the band/sound, new trends coming in, internal turmoils, achieved success and wealth, drugs, everything is stacked against them - yet here they are: go figure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Propaganda Posted July 16, 2018 Share Posted July 16, 2018 No! Aerosmith are the new Rolling Stones! 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draguns Posted July 16, 2018 Share Posted July 16, 2018 GNR could have been the new Rolling Stones IF they didn't break up. They were on their way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vloors Posted July 16, 2018 Share Posted July 16, 2018 6 hours ago, DieselDaisy said: And there are six further songs to take into consideration, released on greatest hits albums. Forty Licks (2002) contained four original compositions whilst GRRR! (2012) contained two. Six songs is basically 1/2 an album. You are forgetting Blue and Lonesome one of their best albums since the 70s even though its a cover album. Released December 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 37 minutes ago, vloors said: You are forgetting Blue and Lonesome one of their best albums since the 70s even though its a cover album. Released December 2016 Well, I was including only original albums. And yes I know, I includes Spaghetti Incident in Guns's tally but I wanted to give Guns a fighting chance here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay410 Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 Nah, bruh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGeneral Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 I feel GNR has a lot left in the tank, they're not done yet. The public would still be open for a new album and radio would play the shit out of that if they ever decide to do another one. It feels like a new GNR album is something that everybody would totally 'dig'. Not being a Stones expert, I have the feeling that they were the opposite when they were GNR's age. They had so many albums already and such a big catalogue to choose from that new music just wasn't needed anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 Some laurels are big enough to rest on. The Stones are major contributors to 20th Century popular culture. In many ways The Stones are kind of still leading the way, no one has gone on as long as they have at such a high level...and the story still isn't over. It appears to me that they're going to go on until, Lord forbid, they die. Guns n Roses aren't comparable on any level. The Stones have no equals, just one superior (The Beatles). 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acor Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 15 hours ago, billie said: I know That GNR are a poor man's stones. I am not disputing that I am saying that GNR are the new Rolling stones, in terms of touring and resting on past laurels, a proven and profitable concept A touring band that does not create new music. And why would they? Why release new music that is open to criticizing when you simply don't have to In fact. New music would be a bad template You make all the money and keep all the love by just touring Rolling stones last good album early 80s? That would be legit comparisson only if Stones would tour with some clown in place of Keith... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acor Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 4 minutes ago, Len Cnut said: Some laurels are big enough to rest on. The Stones are major contributors to 20th Century popular culture. In many ways The Stones are kind of still leading the way, no one has gone on as long as they have at such a high level...and the story still isn't over. It appears to me that they're going to go on until, Lord forbid, they die. Guns n Roses aren't comparable on any level. The Stones have no equals, just one superior (The Beatles). Led Zeppelin were bigger band than Stones... Also, Rolling Stones at no point of their career were considered biggest/most popular band in the world. GnR were, in 88-91... 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holographic Universe Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 47 minutes ago, acor said: Led Zeppelin were bigger band than Stones... Also, Rolling Stones at no point of their career were considered biggest/most popular band in the world. GnR were, in 88-91... All valid points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackstar Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 The Stones are and always will be bigger. No question about it. But in regards to the quantity aspect, apart from the fact that GnR broke up and it was a different band after 1997, it has to be taken into account that the two bands had their prime in different eras. In the 60s and the 70s the album cycles were shorter, because the music industry was different. In the 60s it was 1 year from one album to the next; in the 80s it had become 2-3 years. The amount of music GnR released between 1987-1993 was pretty much within the standards of the era and even surpassed them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donny Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 the only thing the 2 bands have in common is they both had a long period of downtime where the singer and lead guitarist couldn't get on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
username Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 Let's look at 1997--present, pretty much the whole nu-GnR period. The Stones did Bridges To Babylon, A Bigger Bang, Blue & Lonesome and the 2 new songs on Grrr in the same period Axl put out Chinese Democracy. The last Stones album, even if it's a cover album, is 2 years old whereas Chinese Democracy was released 10 years ago. Add to that the Stones' vast set of live releases over the past years. And all that while they have a much bigger back catalogue to lean on. It's safe to say the GnR is far less productive as a band than the Stones are. Despite the Stones all being in their 70's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 48 minutes ago, username said: Let's look at 1997--present, pretty much the whole nu-GnR period. The Stones did Bridges To Babylon, A Bigger Bang, Blue & Lonesome and the 2 new songs on Grrr in the same period Axl put out Chinese Democracy. The last Stones album, even if it's a cover album, is 2 years old whereas Chinese Democracy was released 10 years ago. Add to that the Stones' vast set of live releases over the past years. And all that while they have a much bigger back catalogue to lean on. It's safe to say the GnR is far less productive as a band than the Stones are. Despite the Stones all being in their 70's. And the four songs on Forty Licks (2002), ''Don't Stop'', etc. The Stones, new/studio only, have essentially released three albums and six songs since (old) Guns departed in 1993. But there is also the Exile bonus disc which I'm not sure where to place as it claims to be spruced-up Exile outtakes, but to me a lot of it sounds like new material. Nobody would claim The Stones have been Neil Young since the '90s as their last original album was 2005. They have certainly slowed down creatively. But they already had nineteen albums under their belt before slowing down and were amazing prolific until 1989, (UK discography) '60s: eight albums '70s: 6 albums '80s: 5 '90s: 2 '00s: 1, and four new songs on a hits set 10s: no new albums, but one covers album and two new songs on a hits set Guns N' Roses's main problem is they ceased to operate as a functional band after 1993. This whole period, 1994-2018 is a wildness period. When W. Axl Rose should have been at the height of his powers, he basically disappeared, resurfacing for one song (''Oh My God'') in 1999, then again for one album in 2008, before disappearing again. Guns were only in their tenth year when they departed, at the precise time The Stones were peaking creatively, Sticky Fingers/Exile era. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
username Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 25 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said: And the four songs on Forty Licks (2002), ''Don't Stop'', etc. Forgot about those. And yeah, the bonus releases of Exile, Some Girls and Sticky Fingers offer a lot of interesting stuff too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
username Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, acor said: Led Zeppelin were bigger band than Stones... Also, Rolling Stones at no point of their career were considered biggest/most popular band in the world. GnR were, in 88-91... The Stones probably are the biggest band in the world and have been for a long time. Edited July 17, 2018 by username Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvanG Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 4 hours ago, acor said: Led Zeppelin were bigger band than Stones. I believe they were considered cooler back in the day. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 8 minutes ago, EvanG said: I believe they were considered cooler back in the day. What Zep cooler than The Stones or the other way round? i hope you mean the fuckin' other way round! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.