You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- tejastech08
- Rep: 194
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
This is an embarrassingly pointless argument
Isn't that true for pretty much every debate regarding GN'R? I mean it's a band that has been dead for over 20 years.
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
Axl is greater singer than Paul/John
Slash is a far superior guitarist To Harrison and Lennon
Ive never been a Beatles fan.. Falls into that, They are the greatest because its been repeated over generations and people are too afraid to say otherwise.
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
Axl is greater singer than Paul/John
Slash is a far superior guitarist To Harrison and Lennon
Ive never been a Beatles fan.. Falls into that, They are the greatest because its been repeated over generations and people are too afraid to say otherwise.
That is true! I mean, look what's happening here to those who bash The Beatles. It just seems wrong not to like them. I don't like them, so what? It's not a crime.
They had also the benefit of being the "firsts".
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
Axl is greater singer than Paul/John
Slash is a far superior guitarist To Harrison and Lennon
Ive never been a Beatles fan.. Falls into that, They are the greatest because its been repeated over generations and people are too afraid to say otherwise.
That is literally one of the most ignorant comments of all time but then it is par for the course with you. My fuckin God. 
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
-D- wrote:Axl is greater singer than Paul/John
Slash is a far superior guitarist To Harrison and Lennon
Ive never been a Beatles fan.. Falls into that, They are the greatest because its been repeated over generations and people are too afraid to say otherwise.
That is literally one of the most ignorant comments of all time but then it is par for the course with you. My fuckin God.
Nice insult btw.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
hehe. I do agree though he doesn't seem to be as haggard as the rest.
It's probably from less drugs.
I mean Duff drank to the point where organs in his body exploded...should have died...has to take a toll.
Slash is clean now, but even when he quit junk for VR he was still heavily drinking and smoking, he's been properly clean now for about 5 years or something...but that means he's been abusing his liver for basically his whole life (considering how young he started).
Adler has had a stroke from drug abuse and is only recently sober.
But Izzy quit back in the 1991 or whenever it was - he's got like 10 years more clean living than the others.
Except for Axl...but you don't know what medication he's on, and the level of stress he lives with all the time probably doesn't age you well either.
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
Sky Dog wrote:-D- wrote:Axl is greater singer than Paul/John
Slash is a far superior guitarist To Harrison and Lennon
Ive never been a Beatles fan.. Falls into that, They are the greatest because its been repeated over generations and people are too afraid to say otherwise.
That is literally one of the most ignorant comments of all time but then it is par for the course with you. My fuckin God.
Nice insult btw.
it is not being a music snob...they are the most popular, the most influential, the most critically acclaimed, very artistically talented despite what you say as Lennon/McCartney are two of the top 5 songwriters of all time....they write about EVERYTHING...drugs, chicks, day to day life, pop songs, rock songs, experimental stuff, funny stuff. They did it all and the entire PLANET recognizes that. Gnr has done literally a fraction of what the Beatles did. You can like what you like, but the EXTREMELY large portion of the music industry and record buying public would strongly disagree.
The father, son and holy spirit of rock and roll are Elvis, Dylan, and The Beatles....everybody else is a pawn in their game.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
And I just mentioned I see some hypocrisy between how Axl is treated and Izzy is treated. You identified with that yourself. And to me Izzy decided to leave because he couldn't handle the pressure and his lifestyle depicts that. I think he's a weird cat. That's all.
I don't think he's weirder than Axl but I do agree that there's a bit of a double standard.
A good example is the rock and roll hall of fame.
Axl didn't go - but has a business reason not to go - his shows with DJ are billed as GNR and playing with Slash undermines that.
Izzy didn't go - but the reason seemed to be limited to "can't deal with it, especially if Axl doesn't go"
Aside from me and 1 or 2 others cracking the shits....general fanbase response seemed to be "fuck you Axl, once again you ruined what could be an epic moment" and "Ahh..that Izzy...always so cool and collected...he don't need no praise..he cool".
Does seem a bit unfair.
But then again....I made that horrible list earlier in the thread of reasons Axl is considered odd...(hated doing that on one level and as I love his music) and with Izzy it amounts to pretty much not liking fame and attention, and having a bit of teenage style laziness about anything that seems too hard. Hardly surprising for someone that's lived most of their lives rich and famous and went through extreme media attention as a young man.
And that's where I think the test is. The things Axl is accused of are usually either nasty (spousal abuse etc) or really unexpected from a person in his situation (Spends $15m on a new album for his vision, fights the world to get it to happen, then doesn't promote it for a couple of years). Izzy's weird traits are a little eccentric but they're also sort of easily explainable and not really surprising.
