Jump to content

Are GNR the new Rolling stones?


Recommended Posts

On 16.7.2018 at 7:25 PM, adamsapple said:

The Rolling Stones are cultural icons with a shitload of great songs and albums and massive cultural impact over entire generations.

GNR is a nostalgia act based on mainly one album and a couple of music videos.

Mick Jagger is the best frontman in the world. Axl on a good day is the more impressive singer, but Jagger mops the floor with Axl when it comes to stage presence and connecting with an audience. GNR has better guitarists though.

Seems like Axl went from talking too much to talking too little. Like zero interaction with the audience some shows.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 198
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

One way to look at is the following, Guns N' Roses are in their 33rd year of existence (1985 - 2018) and have released six studio albums to date (and I'm being generous here by including Lies and

Imo, they could have been, but whit so many wasted years its to late now

The Rolling Stones have a vast album catalog with brilliant albums (sticky fingers, beggars banquet, let it bleed, exile on main street among others), cant compare the two.

Posted Images

33 minutes ago, RONIN said:

GnR is the Bobby Brown of rock. 1 classic debut stacked with hits - critics predict great things for the promising young bad boy act who arrived on the scene like a force of nature. Brown is seen as the next Michael Jackson. GnR is compared to the Stones. A hit single in '89 buys time while they scramble to get their shit together. An overproduced much too late 2nd album barely arrives in the early 90's after much behind the scenes drama. It ends up a solid albeit anticlimactic mixed bag that lets the air out of the phenomenon and halts the momentum of a once promising career.

A tidal wave of media and fan backlash arrives soon after due to the epic douchebaggery of the singer who had become an ego driven diva with waning credibility among his peers. Two posthumous releases in the 90's are belched out long after anyone cares - both are ignored by the world and massively undersell expectations. And then nothing for over a decade as the singer implodes personally and professionally - a punchline for late night comics. A travesty of what they once were.

A "comeback" album finally drops like a turd in the late 00's to deafening silence followed by years of embarrassing cash-grab touring of the "hits" with a bloated singer whose voice is a shell of what it once was. Brown and Axl seem to share a fondness for BBQ Ribs and a compulsive addiction to godawful stage costumes. Both could lay rightful claim to having one of the single worst wardrobes in music history - one that tests the very limits of bad taste. 

Nailed it !

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18. 7. 2018 at 3:04 PM, DieselDaisy said:

You look at the number of masterpieces the stones possess,

Aftermath

Beggars Banquet

Let it Bleed

Sticky Fingers

Exile

Some Girls

Those six all outright irrefutable masterpieces, flawless, iconic rock albums which shaped generations, dictated fashion, politics, iconography, etc. There are probably half a dozen near masterpieces also, your early (pre-Aftermath) albums, Tattoo You - I'd argue Goats Head Soup which is an album I adore.

To each his own - I would trade GNR Lies for an entire Stones catalogue without even blinking

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, kok said:

To each his own - I would trade GNR Lies for an entire Stones catalogue without even blinking

I do not think Guns N' Roses would consider themselves to be anywhere near The Rolling Stones's level, especially Izzy and Slash who both worshiped at the alter of Exile on Main St.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

I do not think Guns N' Roses would consider themselves to be anywhere near The Rolling Stones's level, especially Izzy and Slash who both worshiped at the alter of Exile on Main St.

That's true, the Stones were there first, so they are undoubtedly always going to be the better. The Guns followed bands like the Stones and then Aerosmith, so they can only be seen in that light. 

I followed Kerouac and Thompson in my writing, so I could only ever be a reflection of them. 

Guns could also be compared to Sabbath, although I wasn't around when they were at their peak either, and don't know if their impact was comparable to Guns. 

Guns had the advantage of MTV, and went mainstream off Sweet Child. While the rest of the band wanted to be like the more rocking Sabbath tunes, Axl wanted to be more like Led Zep: Stairway to Heaven and piano epic mellow tunes.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2018-07-16 at 1:43 PM, DieselDaisy said:

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.

The Stones also evolved from a blues band to an R&B band, to a pop band and then the band that released that great run of albums culminating with Exile. 

As a live band from 69-73 (The Taylor Years) they were untouchable. Brilliant energy and chemistry in the band, The  Brussels Affair and Ladies And Gentlemen albums are good documents of how they sounded. It was a stripped back band compared to what they are now.

I was at five gigs on the recent tour, overall there was twelve songs played outside the norm. The Screens were cool and added to the gig. 

I saw three shows on the NITL tour and it was the same fuckin show each time. The songs and setlist were played and on the same order each time. Maybe they threw in patience instead of don’t cry but that was about it. And I felt like I was in the cinema but too close to the screen... 😂

What the fuck was with the insane amount of background screens, videos, projections, lights, dumb fuckin skeleton videos. I’ve come to hear the band, not have an epileptic fit..... 

The Stones still have integrity as a band. Guns don’t feel like they do. 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Powderfinger said:

The Stones also evolved from a blues band to an R&B band, to a pop band and then the band that released that great run of albums culminating with Exile. 

As a live band from 69-73 (The Taylor Years) they were untouchable. Brilliant energy and chemistry in the band, The  Brussels Affair and Ladies And Gentlemen albums are good documents of how they sounded. It was a stripped back band compared to what they are now.

I was at five gigs on the recent tour, overall there was twelve songs played outside the norm. The Screens were cool and added to the gig. 

I saw three shows on the NITL tour and it was the same fuckin show each time. The songs and setlist were played and on the same order each time. Maybe they threw in patience instead of don’t cry but that was about it. And I felt like I was in the cinema but too close to the screen... 😂

What the fuck was with the insane amount of background screens, videos, projections, lights, dumb fuckin skeleton videos. I’ve come to hear the band, not have an epileptic fit..... 

The Stones still have integrity as a band. Guns don’t feel like they do. 

 

Come on, now the complaints are coming because of the screens, lights and projections? They're playing stadiums, not clubs. They can't walk on an empty stage in front of 60k people and not have screens and lights. My God, there are plenty of things people can complain about, but that's insanity.

I love the Stones, and have never had a bad time at any of their shows, but this last tour of theres was full of nothing but nostalgia. They switched some songs out, but they're all old songs. If anyone expected anything but what Gn'R has done on this tour, they were silly. This tour looks to be winding down, but it's still a 'reunion' tour and they're going to play the same songs. Axl did throw some of his stuff in, as well as some new covers, but they have added stuff for every leg, including 2 songs on this leg, and are playing 3 1/2 hours. They still put on a great show, and that's all ticket buyers can ask for. If they keep adding dates or start a new tour down the road  and play the same sets like Kiss, Motley and AC/DC did, then integrity can and should be questioned.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2018 at 2:10 AM, RONIN said:

GnR is the Bobby Brown of rock. 1 classic debut stacked with hits - critics predict great things for the promising young bad boy act who arrived on the scene like a force of nature. Brown is seen as the next Michael Jackson. GnR is compared to the Stones. A hit single in '89 buys time while they scramble to get their shit together. An overproduced much too late 2nd album barely arrives in the early 90's after much behind the scenes drama. It ends up a solid albeit anticlimactic mixed bag that lets the air out of the phenomenon and halts the momentum of a once promising career.

A tidal wave of media and fan backlash arrives soon after due to the epic douchebaggery of the singer who had become an ego driven diva with waning credibility among his peers. Two posthumous releases in the 90's are belched out long after anyone cares - both are ignored by the world and massively undersell expectations. And then nothing for over a decade as the singer implodes personally and professionally - a punchline for late night comics. A travesty of what they once were.

A "comeback" album finally drops like a turd in the late 00's to deafening silence followed by years of embarrassing cash-grab touring of the "hits" with a bloated singer whose voice is a shell of what it once was. Brown and Axl even seem to share a fondness for BBQ Ribs and a compulsive addiction to godawful stage costumes. Both could lay rightful claim to having the single worst wardrobes in music history - one that tests the very limits of bad taste. 

 

A bit of revisionist history there, their second peak of popularity came after the UYIs were released. The records themselves were commercially and critically successful and November Rain became their second highest charting single. It was the breakup of the band in the mid 90s and Slash trashing the records in the press that started this "UYIs sucked" revisionist crap.

If you wanna point to an album that halted the momentum of the band and let the air out of the bag, TSI is there.

8 hours ago, Powderfinger said:

The Stones also evolved from a blues band to an R&B band, to a pop band and then the band that released that great run of albums culminating with Exile. 

As a live band from 69-73 (The Taylor Years) they were untouchable. Brilliant energy and chemistry in the band, The  Brussels Affair and Ladies And Gentlemen albums are good documents of how they sounded. It was a stripped back band compared to what they are now.

I was at five gigs on the recent tour, overall there was twelve songs played outside the norm. The Screens were cool and added to the gig. 

I saw three shows on the NITL tour and it was the same fuckin show each time. The songs and setlist were played and on the same order each time. Maybe they threw in patience instead of don’t cry but that was about it. And I felt like I was in the cinema but too close to the screen... 😂

What the fuck was with the insane amount of background screens, videos, projections, lights, dumb fuckin skeleton videos. I’ve come to hear the band, not have an epileptic fit..... 

The Stones still have integrity as a band. Guns don’t feel like they do. 

 

The great run you speak of begins with Aftermath in 1966.

Edited by Fashionista
  • Like 3
  • GNFNR 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GoBucky said:

Come on, now the complaints are coming because of the screens, lights and projections? They're playing stadiums, not clubs. They can't walk on an empty stage in front of 60k people and not have screens and lights. My God, there are plenty of things people can complain about, but that's insanity.

I love the Stones, and have never had a bad time at any of their shows, but this last tour of theres was full of nothing but nostalgia. They switched some songs out, but they're all old songs. If anyone expected anything but what Gn'R has done on this tour, they were silly. This tour looks to be winding down, but it's still a 'reunion' tour and they're going to play the same songs. Axl did throw some of his stuff in, as well as some new covers, but they have added stuff for every leg, including 2 songs on this leg, and are playing 3 1/2 hours. They still put on a great show, and that's all ticket buyers can ask for. If they keep adding dates or start a new tour down the road  and play the same sets like Kiss, Motley and AC/DC did, then integrity can and should be questioned.

Guns never had integrity as a band. It’s been every man for himself since the start. 

Regarding the lighting and screens, they played in stadiums in the 90s. The simple illusions banners and 2 screens was enough. I know technology was different then, but they still kept it simpler than they could have. It was about the music. Today’s stage show seems like a gimmick to distract you from mickey & CD tunes. 

Nostalgia or not, The Stones sound great live still. Guns do not. Frank ain’t good, Axl ain’t good, the songs are not going to grow old the same way the stones songs have.

This band is a cash grab. $1000 box sets, $1500 vip tickets that do not include meeting the band, merch has rocketed in quantity and price on the online store compared to 5 years ago.  

I don’t think it’s silly to question why they did 8-10 covers every night instead of throwing in something off the illusions albums. I don’t need to hear 150 versions of the fucking seeker or witchita lineman.

Guns did 150 shows on this tour  and changed fuck all, The Stones did 14 shows and like I said over the 5 shows I saw changed up 12 songs. 

I don’t need 3.5 hour shows, I need 2 hours. Of the bands own material. Minus Glenn Fucking Campbell shite. 

Keef is the soul of the stones, he keeps them honest & the soul of Guns left in 1991 there’s been no intergrity since then. 

Times gone by and it’s become a joke... 😉

 

  • GNFNR 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Fashionista said:

 

A bit of revisionist history there, their second peak of popularity came after the UYIs were released. The records themselves were commercially and critically successful and November Rain became their second highest charting single. It was the breakup of the band in the mid 90s and Slash trashing the records in the press that started this "UYIs sucked" revisionist crap.

If you wanna point to an album that halted the momentum of the band and let the air out of the bag, TSI is there.

The great run you speak of begins with Aftermath in 1966.

December’s Children is the start for me, I love that record. I would also probably extend the great run to Goats Head. It’s no Exile, but has some great songs. 

Edited by Powderfinger
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Powderfinger said:

Guns never had integrity as a band. It’s been every man for himself since the start. 

Regarding the lighting and screens, they played in stadiums in the 90s. The simple illusions banners and 2 screens was enough. I know technology was different then, but they still kept it simpler than they could have. It was about the music. Today’s stage show seems like a gimmick to distract you from mickey & CD tunes. 

Nostalgia or not, The Stones sound great live still. Guns do not. Frank ain’t good, Axl ain’t good, the songs are not going to grow old the same way the stones songs have.

This band is a cash grab. $1000 box sets, $1500 vip tickets that do not include meeting the band, merch has rocketed in quantity and price on the online store compared to 5 years ago.  

I don’t think it’s silly to question why they did 8-10 covers every night instead of throwing in something off the illusions albums. I don’t need to hear 150 versions of the fucking seeker or witchita lineman.

Guns did 150 shows on this tour  and changed fuck all, The Stones did 14 shows and like I said over the 5 shows I saw changed up 12 songs. 

I don’t need 3.5 hour shows, I need 2 hours. Of the bands own material. Minus Glenn Fucking Campbell shite. 

Keef is the soul of the stones, he keeps them honest & the soul of Guns left in 1991 there’s been no intergrity since then. 

Times gone by and it’s become a joke... 😉

 

The complaints about the screens are ridiculous!!!! I'm glad GNR has huge screens. When I saw Bon Jovi in May at MSG, there was just one small monitor. It was very tough to  see the band from where I was sitting. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Draguns said:

The complaints about the screens are ridiculous!!!! I'm glad GNR has huge screens. When I saw Bon Jovi in May at MSG, there was just one small monitor. It was very tough to  see the band from where I was sitting. 

Ridiculous or not, they don’t make the band sound any better. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Powderfinger said:

Guns never had integrity as a band. It’s been every man for himself since the start. 

The Stones are the Stones, but I don't know if not giving Mick Taylor songwriting credits could be called band integrity. Maybe only Mick-Keef integrity.

At least GnR never did that.

4 hours ago, Fashionista said:

If you wanna point to an album that halted the momentum of the band and let the air out of the bag, TSI is there.

Why? It did well commercially for a covers only album. And, although some of the reviews saw it as an attempt on GnR's part to jump on the "punk revival" bandwagon (ignoring that most of it was recorded before Seattle/alternative broke into the mainstream), there were other reviews praising it, interestingly by writers who didn't like the band before.

The main problem with it was that Geffen didn't promote it because of the Manson song.

Edited by Blackstar
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Powderfinger said:

Ridiculous or not, they don’t make the band sound any better. 

When you are sitting far away from the stage, it helps to see the band. If they didn't have that, people would complain that they can't see the stage on here. It's really stupid complaints. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Blackstar said:

The Stones are the Stones, but I don't know if not giving Mick Taylor songwriting credits could be called band integrity. Maybe only Mick-Keef integrity.

At least GnR never did that.

Why? It did well commercially for a covers only album. And, although some of the reviews saw it as an attempt on GnR's part to jump on the "punk revival" bandwagon (ignoring that most of it was recorded before Seattle/alternative broke into the mainstream), there were other reviews praising it, interestingly by writers who didn't like the band before.

The main problem with it was that Geffen didn't promote it because of the Manson song.

 

I love TSI but it did do pretty poorly whereas the UYIs were critically acclaimed and massively successful. I resent the revisionist washing of the UYIs out of GnR's

history or painting them as some failure.

The high sales of the UYI records and massive success of NR as a single show that GNR was on a musical level and commercial level more than competitive with grunge. Axl's antics, the late starts, riots, and his alienating everyone from Nirvana to Faith No More to Metallica (who were friends with GNR before 92), and the band suddenly going dead quiet in 1995 and their gradual disintegration killed their momentum, not the UYIs.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Fashionista said:

I love TSI but it did do pretty poorly whereas the UYIs were critically acclaimed and massively successful.

TSI was a covers album though, so naturally it couldn't have been as successful as an album of original material.

Btw, if you haven't read the book on the Illusions I referenced on the previous page, I recommend it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Blackstar said:

TSI was a covers album though, so naturally it couldn't have been as successful as an album of original material.

Btw, if you haven't read the book on the Illusions I referenced on the previous page, I recommend it.

I did read the summary and I mainly feel that it was a combination of Slash trashing the records, Axl relying on AFD live with nuGNR and even saying he could hear the band dying on the UYIs, that started this revisionist "the UYIs sucked" thing. Basically, Axl and Slash let blurred memories of events surrounding the album's release, overshadow the material, so that for many casuals, it's the meh album that broke GN'R up. I don't even think in the public mind it as much to do with grunge as it does that since Axl came back out of hiding the focus has been on AFD.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2018 at 7:31 AM, DieselDaisy said:

I do not think Guns N' Roses would consider themselves to be anywhere near The Rolling Stones's level, especially Izzy and Slash who both worshiped at the alter of Exile on Main St.

 

That’s fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I love the music of both bands but prefer GN’R. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Fashionista said:

I did read the summary and I mainly feel that it was a combination of Slash trashing the records, Axl relying on AFD live with nuGNR and even saying he could hear the band dying on the UYIs, that started this revisionist "the UYIs sucked" thing. Basically, Axl and Slash let blurred memories of events surrounding the album's release, overshadow the material, so that for many casuals, it's the meh album that broke GN'R up. I don't even think in the public mind it as much to do with grunge as it does that since Axl came back out of hiding the focus has been on AFD.

I didn't mean it about the book only in relation to that, but as an interesting book in general. There are a few other things/views in it that couldn't be all included in a summary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rolling Stones released hit record after hit record through nearly 4 decades. Their continuously released new music from the 60's to the 90s crossed generations. The Stones have been 1 of the biggest touring acts since at least the 80s.

It's not even close.

Guns coulda woulda shoulda but they didn't. And with the music industry having changed so much, it will be nearly impossible for them to catch up. 

Without new hit albums (or music at all) released in a regular cycle, GnR will have a difficult time equaling the scale of the NIYL tour going forward. People just aren't going to continuously shell out 2 bills to hear the same 30 year old songs over again every few years. Bands like the Stones or U2 are able to fill out their set lists with music spanning decades. GnR has basically 5 years worth of music including a few covers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...