You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
^ I personally don't believe that.
Nirvana to me is just like a punk act - simple songs done well through honest delivery - some nice drumming added in - and a few nifty presentation ideas - like swapping from quiet to very loud dynamics using distortion pedals.
It's like punk in that the mood is captured by something other than technical excellence - Kurt isn't a very good guitarist chops wise...and the records are full of mistakes, coughs and noises...but there's an honesty to that sound.
Nirvana marked the end of the mass-public's fleeting fascination with stadium rock of the 1980s...but trends like that were always bound to evolve....and nirvana itself has not dated well.....here in 2013..afd is starting to sound a lot more timeless than Bleach...IMO....
I think the modern age will see EVERY genre flourishing at once. We won't move as a public consciousness from disco to pop to rock to rap the way we did - but rather everything will have it's niche market.
I think the success of piss-take rock like Steel Panther is showing that fundamentally people still enjoy that sound...even though parts of that scene were tragic in terms of modern fashion....i'm not saying we're headed back to 1985....but at the same time...I'd believe that future writers will keep using guitars and the rock of the past will keep being a strong influence on modern music....
- metallex78
- Rep: 194
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
Agreed, U2 have definitely covered a lot of ground within their sound and style. Achtung Baby and Zooropa sound quite different than the albums that preceded them, especially Zooropa.
- Me_Wise_Magic
- Rep: 70
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
Not really. That's just your own opinion. I've seen alot of great bands coming out of the wood work in the past few years. You just got to look. I'm a big fan of what Nirvana did in terms of music and Kurt's songwriting. I don't think he's that great of a guitar player and why alot of guitar magazines rank him in the leagues of David Gilmour and EVH. I can agree that these so called post grunge bands like Nickelback and others see them as an influence which is nuts. Not from what my ears have heard of that crap.
Forgot to add a quote and made a better post below. Please delete this..thanks!
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
I do wonder how the drama effects it though.
Like if GNR ended in 199% with TSI.
Never had CD sessions, Axl never did a show with Robin or without rasp, Slash never played Neutered in VR, if all 5 of them (god forbid) had died or something back then...then I'd be curious to see how you guys would rate them then.
it's noticable bands like Zep and Beatles never really had that slow decline in the same way - they just ended and I think it adds to the mystique.
The only thing I consider when I consider Guns N' Roses is 87-94. I don't rate the CD sessions or anyting post TSI as Guns N' Roses. In name sure but I don't consider it at all when talking about Gn'R's Legacy. When comparing Gn'R to toher abnds liek Zeppelin, Beatles, Stones, I don't for one second eneter CD into the equation.
- Me_Wise_Magic
- Rep: 70
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
monkeychow wrote:In general though I think it's one of the telling things about how amazing GNR was that no one has really done the same thing successfully yet in that genre since.
There was like Stones, then Aerosmith, Then GNR.....world is waiting for the next incarnation....
Rock is dead. That is Nirvana's ultimate legacy. They fucking killed rock.
Not really. That's just your own opinion. I've seen alot of great bands coming out of the wood work in the past few years. You just got to look. I'm a big fan of what Nirvana did in terms of music and Kurt's songwriting. I don't think he's that great of a guitar player and why alot of guitar magazines rank him in the leagues of David Gilmour and EVH. I can agree that these so called post grunge bands like Nickelback and others see them as an influence which is nuts. Not from what my ears have heard of that crap.
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
Nirvana marked the end of the mass-public's fleeting fascination with stadium rock of the 1980s...but trends like that were always bound to evolve....and nirvana itself has not dated well.....here in 2013..afd is starting to sound a lot more timeless than Bleach...IMO....
I agree with this. It's not limited to Nirvana either. My least favourite Pear Jam album has always been TEN and to me it's the most dated of all their albums. Nirvana definitely has a very dated 90s sound to them. I've never been into Nirvana but when they first broke onto the scene they sounded fresh. Now they sound incredibly dated. Nirvana's music though classic is just as dated as MC Hammer and Vanilla Ice in my opinion and again this isn't limited to Nirvana. It applies to a lot of those early 90's "grunge" bands. AFD on the other hand sounds incredibly fresh in the year 2013. The Illusion albums sound awfully dated in comparison. That's another thing that makes AFD one of the greatest albums of all time. It has a timeless quality to it. It sounds as good today as the day it was released.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
The only thing I consider when I consider Guns N' Roses is 87-94. I don't rate the CD sessions or anyting post TSI as Guns N' Roses. In name sure but I don't consider it at all when talking about Gn'R's Legacy. When comparing Gn'R to toher abnds liek Zeppelin, Beatles, Stones, I don't for one second eneter CD into the equation.
Yeah I feel that but I mean like psychologically.....
It's hard to rate Axl as the best singer of all time when you can recall the shock of the 2000 helium voice - even if it's not GNR.
Rationally we can go "I don't see that as GNR" but it's surely got to be in your head someplace when asking yourself if you think Axl's a better singer than Plant or Freddy or whomever....
I mean like if GNR had ended then....what's the WORST you ever saw those guys? A bad night was like the Tokyo shows! Where Axl screams his lungs out causing internal bleeding to japanese patrons during "sail away sweet sister" and Slash brings half the room to tears with "The Godfather" - and that's an off night....except for when there's a riot or something too...
But they'd be judged only on their prime performances....which is the luxury afforded to The Beatles and Led Zep and Jimi Hendrix and these kind of legends just through circumstances.....I wonder if at 50 Hendrix would be playing as well as slash does? Who knows what he would have done after being 27. Maybe something better, maybe burnt out. There's an enigma to bands of this nature....and GNR doesn't experience it because they stayed alive and because they developed highly publicised follow up projects of lesser importance.
- tejastech08
- Rep: 194
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
monkeychow wrote:Nirvana marked the end of the mass-public's fleeting fascination with stadium rock of the 1980s...but trends like that were always bound to evolve....and nirvana itself has not dated well.....here in 2013..afd is starting to sound a lot more timeless than Bleach...IMO....
I agree with this. It's not limited to Nirvana either. My least favourite Pear Jam album has always been TEN and to me it's the most dated of all their albums. Nirvana definitely has a very dated 90s sound to them. I've never been into Nirvana but when they first broke onto the scene they sounded fresh. Now they sound incredibly dated. Nirvana's music though classic is just as dated as MC Hammer and Vanilla Ice in my opinion and again this isn't limited to Nirvana. It applies to a lot of those early 90's "grunge" bands. AFD on the other hand sounds incredibly fresh in the year 2013. The Illusion albums sound awfully dated in comparison. That's another thing that makes AFD one of the greatest albums of all time. It has a timeless quality to it. It sounds as good today as the day it was released.
Combo of Adler instead of Sorum, Gibson guitars instead of whatever the hell they were using on UYI, and Clink striving as hard as he could to capture them as a live band in the studio. The only regret about AFD to me is the damn synth that Axl slathered onto PC. Makes it sound like a Van Halen moment, which is not a good thing since VH's music sounds very dated today.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
Don't get me wrong, I've very thankful Axl is alive and I enjoy Chinese Democracy....i'm just talking music history....and the general public perception of him.....if he'd murdered himself on the alter of rock Kurt style...right at the end of the tour....think of what we'd have to go on...there would never have been a Slash/Duff leaving falling out, we would never have known there would have been a 15 year wait for a new album, and the helium/raspless era's wouldn't have occurred along with the fashion opinions of people.....
Without almost any of his bad moments he'd easily be the best of all time (to my taste he is anyway)
but that's what guys like John Lennon and Jimi through tragic circumstances enjoy in terms of public opinion....if all members of the beatles had stayed alive maybe they'd have regrouped and released a bad album...or maybe Jimi would become a bloated bum...I love all these guys..I'm just saying...there is a legends effect afforded to these bands that GNR doesn't get because we watched GNR evolve and burn out in a way that most bands don't do.
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
No really when these types of comparisons come up nothing post TSI enters into it for me in terms of who i like better and who i consider to be the greatest frontman ever. Now if we complicate things and enter in a bunch of criteria including longevity and how well a performer has aged then sure Axl's stock falls big time but not when it comes to these classic band showdowns.
