gd99 Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 if anyone doubts Crue and Tommy Lee's drumming ability, just slip in Dr. Feelgood...amazing...I do prefer GNR music, but only slightly....but, a crue show is miles ahead of GNR....I've never gone to a GNR show, and right after say "I just HAVE to see that again"...I've only ever done that with Crue, and the Foos.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kick13 Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 (edited) gnrfan2008,ok... that's cool, if you truly feel that way, then what can I say? I just happen to think Motley Crue is a lot better than you say they are...... Even though I think their music is slightly worse than GNR's, they put on the better show overall. Edited November 13, 2006 by Kick13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsnaxls Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 I have seen Motley Crue twice in the last year and a half (the first show I attended was likely the show that you guys recently saw on TV, as that was the show they released on DVD). They put on a truly kickass show, and with the exception of the sound problems in the second show, they were outstanding. I was truly blown away after seeing them the first time, even though I didn't know a lot of the obscure songs they wound up playing. As for Guns, I will be seeing them in less than two weeks, so I can make a comparison then. Both bands rock, and I assume both band's shows will be nothing less than brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GNRfan2008 Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 (edited) ok... that's cool, if you truly feel that way, then what can I say? I just happen to think Motley Crue is a lot better than you say they are...... Even though I think their music is slightly worse than GNR's, they put on the better show overall.I'm fine with that. I'm the type who cares way more about music than the theatrical side of a live show. Question for you. The rule for the RN'R Hall of Fame is 25 years after your first album. That means Motley was technically eligible for induction this year. They didn't even get nominated. What do you think that says about the quality of their music? GN'R will go in on the first ballot in 2012 (and hopefully there will be a reunion). All I'm saying is that GN'R is one of the few bands of the 1980s that was even worthy of being mentioned in the same breath with the likes of Led Zeppelin or the Rolling Stones. A couple others would be U2 and Metallica. Edited November 13, 2006 by GNRfan2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dobadog Posted November 13, 2006 Author Share Posted November 13, 2006 I watched it last night too but i thought Vince's singing was kinda weakHe's no Axl that's for sure. But at the same time, the lead singer of Mötley Crüe opposed to being the centre of attention appears to be equal to the rest of the band. The drummer was doing a great job, the guitarists too were doing their thing, and blended in, just like the lead singer blended in. I guess that's what makes Gn'R different, as while Axl is taking alot of the attention, Slash/Robin also take the attention away from Axl from time to time, there's a swapping action going on which works well. Tommy Lee the drummer, i thought he was impressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outtagetme Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 I went to see the Crue the other night in Nashville. Backstage passes and everything. They still rock, but I'm not really tied to their songs, so I enjoyed the GNR shows more. Seeing Axl live is like seeing someone legendary to me. When Axl takes the stage, people go nuts because he is almost mythical to people. Vince is everywhere- getting makeovers on MTV, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kick13 Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 (edited) gnrfan2008,yeah, like I said. I don't really listen to what other people say or review on music and I definitely don't care who gets into the Hall of Fame or not. I just listen to what I like..... To me, something like the Hall Of Fame is just strangers telling me what they think is good, not what I think is good.... Edited November 13, 2006 by Kick13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddha Master Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 Listen, I like Sci Fi movies like Aliens and Terminator but, that doesn't mean I like lame C movies just because they are Sci Fi. So because I think GNR are the fucking greatest doesn't mean I have to like 2nd rate RNR groups like Motley Crue. MC are tinsletown. Powder Puffs. They are nothing like GNR and I think its offensive even mentioning them in the same breath as GNR. Look maybe Tommy is a better drummer then Adler "I suck dick for coke." But dude, Tommy is a pimple on Brain and Franks ass. That maybe is the only ammo a MC fan has though. That Tommy is better then Adler. Woopdeefuckindoo. Compared to GNR they are court jesters. They suck. Deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kick13 Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 ^ wow... such anger.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GNRfan2008 Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 (edited) gnrfan2008,yeah, like I said. I don't really listen to what other people say or review on music and I definitely don't care who gets into the Hall of Fame or not. I just listen to what I like..... To me, something like the Hall Of Fame is just strangers telling me what they think is good, not what I think is good....Oh I would agree to an extent. It pisses me off to no end that it took until 1995 for Zeppelin to get in. That was a complete load of BS, although I guess that goes along with their 25 year rule or whatever since Zeppelin's 1st two albums came out in 1969. They shoulda been inducted in 1994 then, so the HOF was a year late on that one for sure. Edited November 13, 2006 by GNRfan2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gd99 Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 ok... that's cool, if you truly feel that way, then what can I say? I just happen to think Motley Crue is a lot better than you say they are...... Even though I think their music is slightly worse than GNR's, they put on the better show overall.I'm fine with that. I'm the type who cares way more about music than the theatrical side of a live show. Question for you. The rule for the RN'R Hall of Fame is 25 years after your first album. That means Motley was technically eligible for induction this year. They didn't even get nominated. What do you think that says about the quality of their music? GN'R will go in on the first ballot in 2012 (and hopefully there will be a reunion). All I'm saying is that GN'R is one of the few bands of the 1980s that was even worthy of being mentioned in the same breath with the likes of Led Zeppelin or the Rolling Stones. A couple others would be U2 and Metallica.I don't think that it really matters that Crue where not on the ballot this year. Look at Sabbath. They are in this year, and they should have been in years ago..and look at how great that band was, and the music, and the influence...I honestly don't know if GNR will be first ballot. The reason why I say this, is that the people who choose the band/performer are a bunch of idiots... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GNRfan2008 Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 (edited) I watched it last night too but i thought Vince's singing was kinda weakHe's no Axl that's for sure. But at the same time, the lead singer of Mötley Crüe opposed to being the centre of attention appears to be equal to the rest of the band. The drummer was doing a great job, the guitarists too were doing their thing, and blended in, just like the lead singer blended in. I guess that's what makes Gn'R different, as while Axl is taking alot of the attention, Slash/Robin also take the attention away from Axl from time to time, there's a swapping action going on which works well. Tommy Lee the drummer, i thought he was impressive.That's probably because Nikki Sixx is credited as the principal songwriter of the band's heyday. Vince Neil was/is essentially Mark Wahlberg's character from the movie "Rock Star," whereby he gets to pretend to be the frontman, but behind the scenes he's at least an equal, if not the other guys' little bitch. When Wahlberg's character tries to give them some lyrics, they laugh at him and tell him that only 2 guys are songwriters in the band and he isn't one of them. Basically, by not being the main songwriter (a stereotype of the lead singer), Vince Neil is held in check from becoming an egomaniac (cough...AXL ROSE...cough). Edited November 13, 2006 by GNRfan2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dobadog Posted November 13, 2006 Author Share Posted November 13, 2006 ok... that's cool, if you truly feel that way, then what can I say? I just happen to think Motley Crue is a lot better than you say they are...... Even though I think their music is slightly worse than GNR's, they put on the better show overall.I'm fine with that. I'm the type who cares way more about music than the theatrical side of a live show. Question for you. The rule for the RN'R Hall of Fame is 25 years after your first album. That means Motley was technically eligible for induction this year. They didn't even get nominated. What do you think that says about the quality of their music? GN'R will go in on the first ballot in 2012 (and hopefully there will be a reunion). All I'm saying is that GN'R is one of the few bands of the 1980s that was even worthy of being mentioned in the same breath with the likes of Led Zeppelin or the Rolling Stones. A couple others would be U2 and Metallica.I don't think that it really matters that Crue where not on the ballot this year. Look at Sabbath. They are in this year, and they should have been in years ago..and look at how great that band was, and the music, and the influence...I honestly don't know if GNR will be first ballot. The reason why I say this, is that the people who choose the band/performer are a bunch of idiots...Speaking on awards, Kerrang! magazine has a special magazine out at the moment Top 100 Greatest Rock ablums (of all time) and Appetite for Destruction is at No.1 - Kerrang! really are trying their hardest to get into GnR's good books at the moment (like they have been doing over the past few months) probably trying to secure either an interview with the band or an early copy of CD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GNRfan2008 Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 ok... that's cool, if you truly feel that way, then what can I say? I just happen to think Motley Crue is a lot better than you say they are...... Even though I think their music is slightly worse than GNR's, they put on the better show overall.I'm fine with that. I'm the type who cares way more about music than the theatrical side of a live show. Question for you. The rule for the RN'R Hall of Fame is 25 years after your first album. That means Motley was technically eligible for induction this year. They didn't even get nominated. What do you think that says about the quality of their music? GN'R will go in on the first ballot in 2012 (and hopefully there will be a reunion). All I'm saying is that GN'R is one of the few bands of the 1980s that was even worthy of being mentioned in the same breath with the likes of Led Zeppelin or the Rolling Stones. A couple others would be U2 and Metallica.I don't think that it really matters that Crue where not on the ballot this year. Look at Sabbath. They are in this year, and they should have been in years ago..and look at how great that band was, and the music, and the influence...I honestly don't know if GNR will be first ballot. The reason why I say this, is that the people who choose the band/performer are a bunch of idiots...Yeah I would agree completely about that one man. But if it takes a while for GN'R to get in, that to me indicates that Motley Crue might NEVER get in. There's still a lot of great bands that haven't gotten in yet like Van Halen, the Cars, Judas Priest, etc. Crue isn't even in the same league as those bands, but GN'R definitely is (in my opinion at least). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sjakalen Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 a motely show is like a teather...but if you like that its better then Guns shows! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Lahey Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 Style over Substance? Motley Crue is alright if you get really really drunk so you don't notice how shitty they sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen8R Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 Wow...I find this thread offensive as shit. Motley really is just common tripe. Wheas GNR was/is very real.Just kick back and find some inner peace dude. Motley Crue was a combinations of a hair band and a metal band, which is exactly what Guns started out as, whethar ya like it or not. M C had a better stage show and drummer, GNR had better music and guitarsit...not to mention motley crue stayed together and made a fuckoad more albums, but hey, we can ignore that because alot of them sucked and had lots of fillers on them.A8RSomeone hasn't listened to AFD lately apparently. Adler on that album is better than anything Tommy Lee has ever done. And the other musicians in GN'R at the time of AFD and UYI were all better than Motley's musicians as well. And Axl is obviously a better singer than Vince Neil (both now and back then).you're right that Axl is and always was better than vince and the guitars were way better in GNR but Stephen Adler doesn't compare to Tommy Lee. I lost alpot of respect for Tommy for selling out pretty bad in the last few years, but when it comes to Tommy and Stephen, there isn't even a comparison. Adler would have shit his pants and had a cocain and heroin induced heart attack if he tried to play a drum set that lifted up over the audience and surned upside down.A8R Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tat2d1 Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 The Crue was my no.1 band until 87 when i discovered Guns N Roses.I've seen both in concert, and to me personally, i think musically GnR is the winner, but as far as a kickass stage show goes, The Crue has it, IMO.Yeah, alot of MC's music does sound pretty similar, but the same can be said of AC/DC, Rob Zombie, Kiss, and a few others.I think both bands will be future RnR hall of famers.Just because the crue wasn't nominated this year doesn't mean shit. Don't be so sure that GnR will be inducted in 2012, the first year they're eligible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonaldDuck7677 Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 (edited) Motley vs. GNR....the motherfucking saga continues...Never seen GNR live....they don't seem to tour a whole lot, and the chance I had to see them it was iced. I have no bones on them for that though. Motley Crue is killer live, and perhaps GNR could be...I think they are both different musically, and some music does it for some of us, and doesn't for others. Motley is more straight up, party-your-ass off, let's get loaded and have a good time music. GNR can be that way, but also can deliver a lot of teen angst and introspection on love etc. Sometimes you just don't want that....other times maybe you do. Motley doesn't seem to be going for the introspective, angst, relflective music. Talent-wise...hey, when Axl has 'hired' some of the best of who's around...of course GNR may have more talent, although it may not transfer to soul in the music. Time will tell. The old GNR were as much cocaine and whiskey as the Crue I think. More about party rock n' roll, 'we're young famous and want to party til we drop'. We can see some of that straight ahead rock style on VR's album...the slower stuff I think is more from Weiland. Axl wanted to go down a different road and has.Any-fucking-ways....it's all bitching tunes....let's rock! rock1 Edited November 13, 2006 by DonaldDuck7677 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raw Power Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 This is probably the thoughest question I have ever had to answer. I gotta say Mötley. First of all, Appetite vs Too Fast for Love. Its draw. No chance in HELL I can choose between those to albums. It's just too damn difficult, they are so damn good both. From after the first record and out its all Mötley. Shout at the devil, Dr Feelgood, Girls Girls Girls is in fact muchbetter talbums than UYI I & II. Especially Dr Feelgood and Shout at the devil. Another important point is that Mötley is still kicking ass. Vince is not as his best but he still sounds great. Axls sounds poorly. I don't even have to mention the rest of the band! Mötley fucking Crüe! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainman Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 All I have to say is that AXL would have KICKED Vince's A$$ !!!!!!!Rainman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vicious Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 i prefer GnRbut motley are a close second i think vince would have beaten axl though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*ParadiseCityGirl* Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 I love crue but they are nothing like GnR..they've got amazing hits...amazing..(kickstart...HSH..Dr.Feelgood etc.) but those songs are going against ALL of GnR's material because to me, pretty much every single guns' song is a masterpiece.I really love the glam though. Motley Crue is probably my second or third favorite band... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaypayton Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 Axl sounds poorly? 2006 Axl kills 2002 Axl.....as for the Crue, the problem with them is from 1992-2004 they were regarded as a joke..They were looked at liek Poison or Whitesnake..It wasnt until they reunited they regained their street cred......Be honest anyone who went to high school in the USA from 1992-2004 would have been laughed at for wearing a Crue shirt...Now they are cool again but they had a long phase when bands liek Nirvana, Faith No More, Pantera, etc kinda killed them off...Whereas GNR never lost their street cred even after all the shit that has gone on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Lahey Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 You guys should be using Zep and The Stones as the benchmark to compare GnR with. I like Motley Crue but they are not in the same league as GnR. Motley Crue is like Kiss... only with better songs. In a way I wish GnR had started out in the 70's or even the 90's so they wouldn't get lumped in with bands like the Crue and Def Leppard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts