You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
Monk, when people start using the word "dated", I stop listening.....Nevermind and Bleach are just as awesome today as they were then. Hank Williams recordings in the early 50's are just as good now as they were then. The Carter Family songs from the 20's are incredible. A good song is a good song, no matter when it was recorded. To even say "dated" is actually really "dated"...it is an ignorant way to say you simply don't like the song or are just tired of the song. People get dated...a good song doesn't.
I disagree with this. Some bands do sound dated and Nirvana is one of them. the reason certain bands and artists sound as good years down the road is because their songs have aged well and have a timeless quality to them. Nirvana's songs do not in my opinion. They sound incredibly dated and not in a good nostalgic way either. Do they have good songs? Yes but they don't sound fresh anymore the way say AFD still does or hell the way the Stones and Beatles still do. Nirvana sounds like a fashion trend that's gone way out of style. Nirvana sounds dated the way Posion sounds dated.
- tejastech08
- Rep: 194
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
K, Beatles weren't hugely influenced by buddy holly
guess i made that shit up
You didn't, obviously. Beatles were hugely influenced by Buddy Holly, Elvis, Chuck Berry, and a ton of 50's rock and roll.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
^ Yeah but that's why it comes down to place in time.
As I said...if John grew up listening to Axl's songs, the way Axl grew up listening to john's then he'd be influenced by Axl.
They're a great band, but some of the "best ever" thing just amounts to earliest.
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
^ Yeah but that's why it comes down to place in time.
As I said...if John grew up listening to Axl's songs, the way Axl grew up listening to john's then he'd be influenced by Axl.
They're a great band, but some of the "best ever" thing just amounts to earliest.
They weren't the first. They were the first to make it because they were that good; that special. You can't say era caused it then turn around and use Slash being a better guitarist is a reason GnR is better.
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
K, Beatles weren't hugely influenced by buddy holly
guess i made that shit up
What Buddy Holly song sounds like Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds? Or Sgt. Pepper? You're acting like they stopped making music after they made "I Want To Hold Your Hand." They blazed their OWN amazing trail that's still felt today.
And what does influence have to do with anything? Like Buzz said, everyone is influenced by someone. Keith Richards and Eric Clapton were hugely influenced by Robert Johnson and Muddy Waters. You can hear it in their music. What does that matter?
And assuming John would be influenced by Axl... I just don't know where you can get that.
"Working Class Hero" and "Imagine" are still relevant today. Green Day had a big hit with the former.
And speaking of time... That's really a slap in the face to the artist to say it all had to do with time. Talent had more to do with it.
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
I think people under estimate the relevance of Gn'R's music. We may not be hearing Guns music in commercials the way we hear Imagine or Happy X-Mass by John Lennon but go to any live sporting event and guess what you're gonna hear every single time. Jungle. And more often than not PC, SCOM also get played. YCBM gets played all the time at NFL games. You can't say this for John Lennon or the Beatles. That's a entire avenue were Guns is WAY MORE relevant than they are and it isn't gonna change ay time soon. In fact Welcome to the Jungle is arguably the greatest sports anthem ever. It's the one song that gets played everywhere all the time. We Will Rock You sure doesn't and We are the Champions only gets played once a year. The Beatles don't get played ever at sporting events. Also Guns N' Roses get played way more often on modern rock radio and they are also starting to get played more on classic rock radio than the Beatles.
I'v always wondered why that is. Why is it that the "most influential band ever" is played on modern rock radio less than bands like the Stones, Zeppelin, AC/DC, Black Sabbth, U2, Guns, etc etc etc. Also you're not hearing the Beatles on classc rock stations as often as those bands either. AND you're not hearing the Beatles on soft rock stations as often as other bands.
People talk about the relevance of the Beatles in todays era but really where is it relevant? Not on radio. Not at live sportig events. A couple of John's solo songs are featured often in commercials but aside from that....
It's weird. It's like Michael Jackson. This massive artist that is all but non existant on radio anymore. I think you can make an argument that in today's age The Beatles influence on up and coming bands has waned considerably in compaison to other classic bands.
I'm not taking anything away from what the Beatles did for music during their time but I think there's some truth to what -D- says about people considering the Beatles the best just because it' an opinion that has been ingrained in people just because. Kinda like a religion tha one dare not question for fear of persecution 
I know a shit load of people who are into Zeppelin, Sabbath, Aerosmith, U2, AC/DC, The Stones, Hendrix etc tc etc but to be honest I don't know anyone who's really a Beatles fan. I don' know anyone who dislikes them but I certainly don't know anyone who's hardcore about them the way they are for the other bands I've mentioned.
- tejastech08
- Rep: 194
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
Welcome to the Jungle is arguably the greatest sports anthem ever. It's the one song that gets played everywhere all the time.
Hell, I don't even think it's arguable at this point. This season I even noticed it getting played like 3-4 times during a single NFL game.
Regarding your point about radio play, one thing I've noticed is that "oldies" stations have been transitioned into de facto classic rock stations. I guess that is because the 50's and early 60's generation is dying off, so they have a hard time getting ratings for that type of music.
I think it's sad though. Orbison, Holly, Berry, Elvis, Beatles. These are some of my favorite artists of all-time and you barely ever hear their music on FM radio anymore. The former "oldies" station where I live now plays pretty much nothing but 70's stuff.
