Vincent Vega Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 HiBefore anyone responds, I mean this is in a comparative, hypothetical sort of way. I'm NOT trying to imply that the ''New'' GN'R will reach the popularity or impact of the Beatles. I'm talking from a musical standpoint. The old GN'R's sound has been described as mixing Punk with the Stones, Aerosmith and Queen. Listening to the Beatles music, and listening to the new GN'R album leaks, it sounds very Beatle-ish to me. And so does the lyrical content. Catcher in the Rye especially sounds like, with it's use of special effects and the mix of it, almost like a 21st century version of the Beatles. People have criticized the lyrics of songs such as ''Better'' for their simplicity and whatnot, but look at a song like Strawberry Fields Forever-- a song that is held as a classic by many...It's lyrics weren't precise, or all that sensible or connective.Your Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urlacher54 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 No. Not even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephenslashpetrucci Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 No. Not even close.+1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dobadog Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 "Your Thoughts?"..isn't it a nice sunny day today. I just love to be beside the seaside B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slääsh Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graemewark Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 i agree to a point have you ever heard of the bootleg beatles? best beatles cover band there is, they even supported oasis at knebworth years ago for 2 night which holds 125000 a night and it sold out within the hour, so yes i think this guns n roses covers band is the best out there, thats my comparison. and the bootleg beatles tour the states too, until tehy release the album they are just another cover band Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axl_rose_gnr Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 No. Not even close.+1+2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokingarthur Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 (edited) HiBefore anyone responds, I mean this is in a comparative, hypothetical sort of way. I'm NOT trying to imply that the ''New'' GN'R will reach the popularity or impact of the Beatles. I'm talking from a musical standpoint. The old GN'R's sound has been described as mixing Punk with the Stones, Aerosmith and Queen. Listening to the Beatles music, and listening to the new GN'R album leaks, it sounds very Beatle-ish to me. And so does the lyrical content. Catcher in the Rye especially sounds like, with it's use of special effects and the mix of it, almost like a 21st century version of the Beatles. People have criticized the lyrics of songs such as ''Better'' for their simplicity and whatnot, but look at a song like Strawberry Fields Forever-- a song that is held as a classic by many...It's lyrics weren't precise, or all that sensible or connective.Your Thoughts?The Beatles made A LOT of BAD music (and a lot of great music). But I guess they were the first to experiment with this style and set the stage for what was to come. I think the comparison is just not there. Edited November 8, 2006 by smokingarthur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blunoze Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 The most ridiculous comparison I have heard. Can you give some examples of how GNR compare to The Beatles? The beatles normally had just one DAY to produce some songs, yet GNR takes years to produce an Album. To even hint that Axl has anywhere near the same degree of musical prowess as John Lennon, is an insult and an insight into your own knowledge of music.The Beatles were way ahead of their time, using alien techniques such as unconventional mic positioning and alternative instruments (Sitars etc.) to produce the most original yet diverse sound that I have ever heard. The 'echoey' voices was truly awesome and fitted the music perfectly.GNR has by comparison taken 13 years to make one album, which is highly unlikely to contain any top ten hits, never mind number ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axlsend Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Matt13 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Okay, if anyone of you listening to CITR for the first time did not hear the similarity of the chorus of that song with the chorus of 'Hey Jude', you need to buy a few Beatles records.I can see where this dude's coming from... the sound he speaks of is VERY evident in CITR... and it's very refreshing.I'll buy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blunoze Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Okay, if anyone of you listening to CITR for the first time did not hear the similarity of the chorus of that song with the chorus of 'Hey Jude', you need to buy a few Beatles records.I can see where this dude's coming from... the sound he speaks of is VERY evident in CITR... and it's very refreshing.I'll buy it.What little credibility you had has just been quashed. 'CITR' compared with 'Hey Jude'? What a fucking joke. I suggest you go back to burger flipping Matt as you havent got a clue what your talking about.Are you real??? Comparing GNR to the The Beatles? I am all for optimism and support, but this takes the piss now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Lahey Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I think most of the new songs have more of a Zeppelin vibe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kollemann99 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snuffkult Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 the new beatles?what kind of kool-aid are some of you new gnr fans drinking my god Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Takeshi Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 They actually need to release an album, before they can be compared with anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stiff Competition Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Gnr is my favortie band ever(well, tied with cheap trick) but I have to say that no band will ever be able to be compared to the beatles really. I know what you mean in that maybe they draw influence, but in some way, somehow, most bands from the times of the beatles to now have been influenced by them in some way whther it be directly or indeirectly(took influence from a band the took influence from the beatles). Shit dude, without the beatles and the stones, who knows what rock music would be like today. I mean the beatles perfected the amazing harmonies and simplistic pop rock lyrics whereas the stones brought in the raw, dirty and anti-establishment side of rock to hte mainstream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petorr Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 (edited) the new beatles?what kind of kool-aid are some of you new gnr fans drinking my god Funny that that question came up. I saw Gnr back in may at the Hammerstien. I was entranced. I love gnr or rather Axl Ive been around for 45 years and am a huge beatles fan. I always said that GnR are comparable to the beatles and they are modern day Beatles. But that is the Old GnR , they had the potential to become just that. Axl was so hot, (i dont mean physically) that Mick, Tom petty , alice cooper, elton john...... all did duets with this man. What upstart gets to do that??? The new Gnr is great but i compare them to lets say Wings or the Lennon Plastic Ono band. One star and good support that will never match the original. Anyways that is MY opinion! pete Edited November 8, 2006 by Petorr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnrrulz Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 (edited) Even the old GnR were put to shame by the Beatles.(in every way shape or form)Trying to say that this new incarnation in anyway compares to them is insane.Sure you can say that they are influenced by the Beatles(who wasn't?) but saying New GNR=New Beatles isn't even close.(EVER)Whoever compared them to Wings is crazy too. There is a reason GnR were covering their songs and not the other way around. Edited November 8, 2006 by gnrrulz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Matt13 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Okay, if anyone of you listening to CITR for the first time did not hear the similarity of the chorus of that song with the chorus of 'Hey Jude', you need to buy a few Beatles records.I can see where this dude's coming from... the sound he speaks of is VERY evident in CITR... and it's very refreshing.I'll buy it.What little credibility you had has just been quashed. 'CITR' compared with 'Hey Jude'? What a fucking joke. I suggest you go back to burger flipping Matt as you havent got a clue what your talking about.Are you real??? Comparing GNR to the The Beatles? I am all for optimism and support, but this takes the piss now.Hey, McFly, this is an internet fan forum. Credibility only exists in the real world and ESPECIALLY if money is on the line. You, Blubalz, should disconnect from the internet and reconnect with the real world. Also, learn to read, Einstein. I think comparing GNR to the Beatles is laughable. I did not say that I agreed with the poster nor tried to elevate GNR to the level of the Beatles, shit-for-brains. HOWEVER, I do know a little about music. Hey Jude became so popular because 1. it was by the Beatles, I mean, c'mon and 2. the chorus... NAAA NAAA NAAAA NAAA NA NA NA NA. That's it, sing along....In CITR, the chorus has a similar effect... NA NA NA NA, NA NA NA... Funny, both groups even used the same word. NA. Haha. The first thing I thought was after hearing that in CITR is: "Whoa, they're ripping off Hey Jude!"So, the similarity IN THAT EXAMPLE, MUSICALLY, falls out of the sky, lands on your face, and starts to wiggle. Sorry your brain is incapable of understanding that.In other news.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
none Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Old GNR you might be on to something. AFD was a unique album but they went off course with the Illusions. More isnt always better. New GNR? no fucking way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeanGenie Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 seriously if you can't compare Guns N' Roses to any band than the fucking Beatles. The beatles released in their hey day up to 2 albums a year and some singles that weren't even on any album. and any of these albums are a thousand times better than any GN'R release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illusions Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 This is a joke of some sort, right ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grace Rose Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 The most ridiculous comparison I have heard. Can you give some examples of how GNR compare to The Beatles? The beatles normally had just one DAY to produce some songs, yet GNR takes years to produce an Album. To even hint that Axl has anywhere near the same degree of musical prowess as John Lennon, is an insult and an insight into your own knowledge of music.What??? I could discuss that statement to death!! That hairpeace guy is the most overrated person in history! Axl talent in singing and songwriting goes way beyond Lennon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
none Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 HOWEVER, I do know a little about music. Hey Jude became so popular because 1. it was by the Beatles, I mean, c'mon and 2. the chorus... NAAA NAAA NAAAA NAAA NA NA NA NA. That's it, sing along....In CITR, the chorus has a similar effect... NA NA NA NA, NA NA NA...Catcher in the Rye sounds like it took 5 years to put together musically and then lyrics were added on top. You can tell that song fragments are matched together over who knows how many years. The Na Na part at the end was probably put there to sound more like the beatles because the song is about Lennons killer. i dont think its as good as the beatles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts