ASLayerAODsk Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 you know..any REAL artist isnt gonna care what anyone thinks about them...its not about popularity..its not about money..its about the artform..who cares if you get on a cover of a magazine? who cares if you make a million dollars..if you truely are in it for the art...nothing else is going to matter....and thats the truth.Axl took 10+ years cause he needed to. end of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hudder Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neatd99 Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 No, the media doesn't care because GNR doesn't really matter when it comes to culture. It didn't start any movements or anything like that. Just because GNR was once popular does not mean it has the same legacy as an influential band. Nirvana changed a lot of things, so Nirvana is more important in the eyes of the media. I love Guns N' Roses, I think the songs are fun to listen to, but the band was not really influential at all. What bands that came after GNR copied GNR? A lot of bands copied Nirvana, that's for sure. I don't even like Nirvana and I understand this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NiGhTrAiN® Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Reading those threads about the brazilian and swedish journalist ripping Axl and Guns got me thinking about something.I always felt that the impact of Guns N Roses and Axl Rose as a frontman/artist were severely underrated by the media outlets like Rolling Stone. Guns N Roses gave one of the all time greatest rock albums in AFD, a near perfect album, a seminal debut for a grimy rock band. They weren't posers, they weren't intentionally being subversive, they were just real and raw. But they get written off as some flash in the pan band with a couple good songs who were sort of popular in their day but are a relic of the past with outdated music.Lord knows I'm no Axl-lite, but Axl Rose's talents and his abilities as a songwriter and artist are completely ignored and mired under his lesser traits (homophobia, purported racism, being an asshole,etc). Axl has ofcourse made it worse by continuing to use the GnR name without the other members to the ire of the music industry and media. But aside from all his controversial aspects and areas where obviously he deserves some of the shit he gets, the guy was an immensely talented frontman. You don't write songs like Estranged and November Rain and lyrics to songs like Coma and be considered "that red haired asshole from guns n roses you know that 80's hair metal band, yeah they had a few good songs, Appetite was their only good album everything else afterwards was shit"...bet everyone has heard that line before in everything you read about Guns N Roses....Now Guns in their day were a phenomenally talented band with worldwide popularity, they were the biggest band in the world. Their original material (AFD, Lies, UYI) are exceptionally strong albums with material that is holding up well over time. This isn't dated shit like stuff you find in the later Van Halen albums, Skid Row,etc....people are still listening to Paradise City and November Rain....Guns N Roses took risks whether they were successfull or not is subjective but they were not a one-dimensional band. Yet many say they were corporate rock, even with 10 minute art rock epics with f-bombs littered throughout....So what do you guys think is the reason this band and Axl are so underrated? They were the last big band to make waves in America, not a single band has taken the mantle and become huge in America. Not one. For all the shit Axl gets, is there a single frontman who comes close to what he did in the 80's and 90's? Nope. In an era of posers (Eminem), you have a truly controversial band with a great frontman who really has not delivered a subpar record of original material. As the VH1 biography of Guns says, Axl's image has been frozen in time because he left the industry on such a strong note. Yet his legacy is still a big question mark, he still has not cemented it like Slash....will he do it with Chinese Democracy? Get the rightful praise he deserves?FYI: This is not a thread to fawn over Axl Rose (sorry Axllites)Very nice post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTHAFA Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 You got that right. GNR was great at their time, one of the best bands ever. But there's two problems... they were basically only together for a short time, and as the guy above me said, they didn't influence other bands that come after them. Shit, Axl is changing his music now to styles of bands that came AFTER him, that is just ridiculous. GNR should not be changing their style for other bands, it should be the other way around.Plus, they were only in the mainstream for what, a 4 year period? Only 2 studio albums (if you count UYI as one big album), one big tour...it's like they were all over the place, then just disappeared.. like literally disappeared, you can count on one hand the number of public appearences Axl has made after the band broke up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hudder Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 No, the media doesn't care because GNR doesn't really matter when it comes to culture. It didn't start any movements or anything like that. Just because GNR was once popular does not mean it has the same legacy as an influential band. Nirvana changed a lot of things, so Nirvana is more important in the eyes of the media. I love Guns N' Roses, I think the songs are fun to listen to, but the band was not really influential at all. What bands that came after GNR copied GNR? A lot of bands copied Nirvana, that's for sure. I don't even like Nirvana and I understand this.I live in a city that has a lot of rock bands swimming around the undergrounds scene, and have gotten to know a lot of them quite well. One thing that they all have in common? GNR as an influence. Every member of that band has influenced so many musicians, but who could aspire to actually be like them? It's a fool's mission, you'd end up with dirt on your face. Nirvana, on the other hand, is a lot easier to emulate, but they were the groundbreakers in the direction music took for sure. But who can sing like Axl or play like Slash? As far as the media, all they need is a moment of weakness and they encourage the public to jump on the bashing bandwagon, which all too often, people do. Then they change their minds, once the media does of course. It's all about the story, and a negative one causes more contraversy and talk than a complementary one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lukin Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 (edited) I think it´s harder for bands today to reach the heights and hugeness that bands like bands from the late 80´s and early 90´s did (GNR, Nirvana etc). With the impact of filesharing people get in touch with way more music than we had ever imagined possible and get a wider aspect on what music is. I think the time of giants is over. I think it was easier to stick to fewer favourite bands before this musical revoclution that is modern filesharing. Of course the GNR impact will be huge with Chinese Democracy, but that´s because of all of us who wehere there (and some newcomers of course).But I agree that GNR´s impact on music is somewhat understated in the media. But I dont think it will be forever. Just look how late The Ramones got recognized. Edited February 24, 2006 by Lukin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetness Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 I live in a city that has a lot of rock bands swimming around the undergrounds scene, and have gotten to know a lot of them quite well. One thing that they all have in common? GNR as an influence. Every member of that band has influenced so many musicians, but who could aspire to actually be like them? It's a fool's mission, you'd end up with dirt on your face. Nirvana, on the other hand, is a lot easier to emulate, but they were the groundbreakers in the direction music took for sure. But who can sing like Axl or play like Slash?I hear that, but good record companies dont sign bands like that anymore. To them its an outdated style, and to me thats bullshit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marino95 Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 I couldn't agree more. GNR killed the hair bands - not Nirvana. Alot of people don't remember, but the Illusion albums (and Metallica's black album) came out in 1991. This was just before the Seattle grunge scene broke. Plus, groups like Soundgarden and Alice - part of the Seattle scene - were also a part of the "metal" world at the time. GNR, Metallica and those 2 bands were VERY different than the rest of hair metal - which I consider to be Poison, Bon Jovi, Skid Row, etc. They were REAL. Yet many people consider GNR to be a PART of the hair band scene which really bothers me. In my opinion, what Nirvana did was make the over-the-top sensationalism and showmanship of Guns N Roses seem silly -(multi-million dollar videos with aircraft carriers and helicopters, stage shows with backup singers and horn sections, Axl backstage in his bathrobe, boxing gloves and filtered cigarette, for instance)People responded to the stripped-down everyday PAIN that Pearl Jam and Nirvana helped convey.But it was GNR that really set the tone for this - making balls-out fantastic music that spoke deeply to everyone between the age of 13 and 30 at the time.I do disagree with one thing in your post. I don't think Eminem should be called a poser. I think he is the closest thing to Axl Rose in modern music today actually. He came from a crazy background and is admittedly f'ed up because of it. He's very clever and honest and emotional lyrically - and doesn't seem to give a crap about who he might piss off. Some of his tirades against people like Justin Timberlake, ICP and the media in general remind me quite a bit of Axl's old rants against people like Warren Beatty, Bob Guccione and others. Somebody like 50 Cent might be a bit of a poser - but I don't see how you can call Eminem that. He's as real as it gets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Manson Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 I do disagree with one thing in your post. I don't think Eminem should be called a poser. I think he is the closest thing to Axl Rose in modern music today actually. He came from a crazy background and is admittedly f'ed up because of it. He's very clever and honest and emotional lyrically - and doesn't seem to give a crap about who he might piss off. Some of his tirades against people like Justin Timberlake, ICP and the media in general remind me quite a bit of Axl's old rants against people like Warren Beatty, Bob Guccione and others. Somebody like 50 Cent might be a bit of a poser - but I don't see how you can call Eminem that. He's as real as it gets.Eminem is the modern day version of Axl Rose, in everyway...they are both amazing writers, they both just reek of controversy, and thats awesome!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Appetite For Waiting Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 (edited) If Kurt Cobain hadn't died, Nirvana would now be playing to a hundred half-interested drunks in some seedy Seattle Club. They were a flash in the band with a flash in the pan music style. It was ephemeral and is now dead and buried. The reason Cobain and the band are "legendary" is because both were killed by an old shotgun.It's the old adage: "Die young, live forever". Edited February 25, 2006 by Appetite For Waiting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDeeds Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 While I may agree with large parts of this, at the end of the day, GNR is overrated if anything.This is a band with 2 proper albums. This is why I have to chuckle when some of you talk about them for the Hall Of Fame. No shot. Not a long enough career. If this was a nother band with such a short time at the top and such a shortage of material, you would not give them a second thought.Objectivity has never been the GNR fanbase's strong suit.Cream, Jimi Hendrix Experience, Janis Joplin.My arguement is over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sautedman Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 No, the media doesn't care because GNR doesn't really matter when it comes to culture. It didn't start any movements or anything like that. Just because GNR was once popular does not mean it has the same legacy as an influential band. Nirvana changed a lot of things, so Nirvana is more important in the eyes of the media. I love Guns N' Roses, I think the songs are fun to listen to, but the band was not really influential at all. What bands that came after GNR copied GNR? A lot of bands copied Nirvana, that's for sure. I don't even like Nirvana and I understand this.I live in a city that has a lot of rock bands swimming around the undergrounds scene, and have gotten to know a lot of them quite well. One thing that they all have in common? GNR as an influence. Every member of that band has influenced so many musicians, but who could aspire to actually be like them? It's a fool's mission, you'd end up with dirt on your face. Nirvana, on the other hand, is a lot easier to emulate, but they were the groundbreakers in the direction music took for sure. But who can sing like Axl or play like Slash? As far as the media, all they need is a moment of weakness and they encourage the public to jump on the bashing bandwagon, which all too often, people do. Then they change their minds, once the media does of course. It's all about the story, and a negative one causes more contraversy and talk than a complementary one.So long as we are talking about influence, I think it is important to remember the effect GNR has had in people's lives. I find GNR to be exciting, honest and intense. No band really compares to them in that spectrum for me. So, if GNR has brought something to you, then it really does have an appreciable influence in this world.Just a thought... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSoxNation Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 (edited) good post. GN'R and Axl, himself, are/is underrated in the music industry and their accomplishments are much the same. However, Axl's waited so long to make GN'R relevant that everyone's pretty muh forgotten about the band and other types of music have prevailed in the meanwhile. Edited February 25, 2006 by RedSoxNation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts