You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Guns N Roses OFFICIALLY inducted into Rock n Roll Hall of Fame
I do think he's right about them owing it to the fans. I don't buy the argument that they don't owe us a damn thing. They wouldn't be millionaires without the fans buying their music in huge numbers over the years.
Well, I'd say that a bit of a two-edged sword.
Without people investing good money on Guns albums, shows and merch, there wouldn't be capita to share amongst the band members. Without a maintained popularity, there wouldn't be any public interest in a reunion. Their relevance and bankability are directly related to their legacy. But is the legacy the work of a band or an audience?
Surely, many good bands have their moment and 20 years later, have gone the way of the dodo, with some one-time fans scratching their heads at the name before finally placing it and digging up a worn copy of their debut album, which may or may not showcase a fledgling group about to peak. And it may still sound absolutely stonking.
Legacies are therefore created only partially by the artistic endeavor, although it certainly helps in the long run. An equally important aspect is exposure. People need to know who they are applauding, they need to have the idol doing rounds. They want to see and hear someone they can wholly relate, impressing millions while expressing singular sentiments. Slash doing his SCOM solos, Axl bellowing his screams.
However, simple marketing doesn't cut it. To create some to endure the test of time, one needs a myth with solid content one can go back to. Guns' discography is riddled with lesser-known gems aside rock radio mainstays. There's a surprisingly fair representation of varying influences in their work (compared to the overall number of releases) for a casual fan to sink their teeth into.
In regards to the myth, one could say Axl wrote the book. His rock n' roll bad boy behavior was legendary at its prime, the tantrums, the riots, the works. Looking back, I've come to think we did indeed witness a mental deterioration over the UYI tour, which the press reported in gusto and those close to him grieved to no end. Overall, Axl wasn't well as a human being, even if he put everything he had to every show he pulled off.
And there was always the album. That bloody album, which was said to have cast Slash out, took years upon years with nothing to show for, was the butt-end to every industry joke - and only after that did we actually start to hear some tracks off it.
CD never got a fair trial, simply because what was released in 2008 is hardly the exact same thing the band started working on in 1994. The great tragedy there is that the music on CD is inconsequential in regards to the status The Album had already achieved. I wager any another album with a different track listing would've been equally vilified simply because it would've been The Album.
Because with a band like Guns, The Album is an enormous deal. You have something to go in line with AFD, Lies and the UYIs. Great tunes, controversy, indulgence, exprimentation... The main discography has it all. Anything to be presented next to it has to have that same gestalt working for it, the all or anything attitude of boundless energy.
Without Slash, Duff or Izzy, CD does good as a Guns album. As The Album, it fails to deliver on the rockier aspects, but it does wax poetic very matter o' factly with TWAT, not to mention an overall strong early middle section from Better to CITR. When it comes to songwriting and lyrics, I maintain at least half the album is a kissing cousin to any previous Guns release.
The Album would've required an equivalent to YCBM, WTTJ, or whatever. Better needs a Slither to do rounds with. The Album would need a Slash to elevate itself to what public originally defined as Guns. It needs that bona fide guitar hero with a top hat to fully embrace the masses.
With The Album finally out there, Guns have a legacy immense. A RRHOF reunion is definitely expected and desired, and from the legacy viewpoint, Guns do owe the fans that. From an artistic standpoint, not as much. I can't see an album or a tour with the original lineup happening as anything beyond that last payday.
An individual track on the next release with guest appearances would be nice and would absolve Axl a whole lot in the public perspective. Moreso, a RRHOF reunion would be a pivotal step in the right direction and Guns' stock would soar because of it.
Axl completed The Album rigorously on his own terms, for better or for worse. He's got nothing to lose to take the stage with Slash and co in April, if he so chooses. In my mind, Guns do not particularly owe that to anyone but themselves.
It would be a great way to move beyond The Album, and pave the road for the release of an eponymous album, as I feel Guns are still to arrive to their ultimate peak.
Will it happen? We'll be a whole lot wiser in April.
- tejastech08
- Rep: 194
Re: Guns N Roses OFFICIALLY inducted into Rock n Roll Hall of Fame
Good stuff Apex. I don't really want an album. I would like a tour because I was not old enough to see them when they were in their prime. I wasn't even 2 when AFD came out. Thank goodness for YouTube. Hands down the best website ever IMHO. It's great to be able to watch old concert footage of my favorite artists, all of which were before my time so to speak. Zeppelin, Floyd, GN'R, Dylan, Doors, Hendrix, Orbison, Queen, etc. If a reunited GN'R tour won't happen, then I would at least like to see them all accept their award together and maybe perform a few songs in a one-off scenario.
Re: Guns N Roses OFFICIALLY inducted into Rock n Roll Hall of Fame
26? Jesus H Christ....I wouldn't have pegged that...almost 20 years older than you. I was 20 in 1987. Man, I am really quite happy right now. A lot of old school feelings coming up....could be the wine! Regardless of my feelings about everything post 91, that original lineup and the years from 87-91 will always be top dog to me. So exciting at a time when I really needed something to latch on to. Good stuff. I am actually a very proud Gunner tonight. If you were around back then, you would know the constant bashing they took even in their prime from the press. It was always a love/hate thing. However, the years burned off and the trends came and went. Old school Gnr, like ZEP-STONES-THE WHO before them, persevered and the music stuck...stuck like glue to old school rockers, youngsters, chicks, the whole tamale. They did it...raise a glass!
Re: Guns N Roses OFFICIALLY inducted into Rock n Roll Hall of Fame
Well, for me a band is like a Traded stock
We are the investors therefore we have a stake in the band
we are a band's lifeblood
without us they would seize to exist
so yeah, i think they owe us big time
we allow Axl to realize his vision and to tour the world and do great things as GNR. If we didn't he would be sitting at home with nothing but a worthless name.
- tejastech08
- Rep: 194
Re: Guns N Roses OFFICIALLY inducted into Rock n Roll Hall of Fame
26? Jesus H Christ....I wouldn't have pegged that...almost 20 years older than you.
Yep, turned 26 on November 26th. It's all downhill from here. 
Re: Guns N Roses OFFICIALLY inducted into Rock n Roll Hall of Fame
Gilby, Matt and Dizzy are debateable so that in itself makes the notion that anyone in post Illusions era should get in absolutely absurd. The CD era members have done nothing to carry on the name. The Guns N' Roses name has survived and thrived in the eyes of the public in spite of Axl's version of the band. Yes this era has fans but not such a significant amount that it's allowed Guns N' Roses to survive. It's about as ridiculous as saying the Foo Fighters have kept the Nirvana name alive and there for all members of the Foo shoud be inducted when Nirvana gets inducted. Dont' laugh cause it's not that different other than the fact Foo Fighters are much more successful than Guns in 2011 so had they been using the name Nirvana the arguement for them is much mroe plausible and yet still incredible absurd. If it were not for Axl owning the rights to use the Gn'R name this band would not have a sniff of the RRHOF. They are hired hands fortunate enough to fly under the Gn'R banner.
With or without the new band the classic Gn'R songs are plastered all over rock and classic rock radio all the time. The only way the new era has "helped" is by inadvertently reminding the general public how fucking awesome the old Gun N' Roses were. To think the new band has kept the name alive and well to the point they deserve recognition inot the RRHOF is completely ridiculous and it's only an opinion you'd hear on a Guns N' Roses forum. Ask Joe blow on the street what he thinks and he'd laugh at the idea of Robin Finck etc. being inducted as Guns N' Roses. And they'd be right in doing so.
There really is nothing to be said for the new guys when it comes to Guns N' Roses and it's induction into the RRHOF. Yes they are an amazing bunch of muscians but unfortunately they have done nothing under the Gn'R banner to deserve RRHOF status. The one album since the Illusion era went basically unnoticed and the rest has been nostalgia cover tours. That's basically it. That is their contribution and to think they've carried the Guns N' Roses torch and allowed the bannd to survive is really epitomy of wearing Rose coloured shades. Sorry but it's true. It would be like Bono replacing Larry, Adam and The Edge then proceeding to tour once in a while and then replace two more members then finally release one album that nobody cared about all over a 16 year span and then indicuting the the five new members along with the original band members as U2. Aboslute blapshemy.
And what this all boils down to whether people like it or not is the era from 1987-1993. CD era has NOTHING to do with their induction. It wasn't considered in the slightest. It had ZERO impact on this.
