You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
Yeah, but that's just boring.
To me it's a matter of artistry combined with world wide popularity. Elvis and MJ have sold about as much, but they didn't write their own music by and large and I consider them mainly entertainers.
Innovation etc. counts for something, but it's usually a case of being first and shouldn't weigh too much if we are to try and "objectively" rank the quality of music. Either way Beatles wins.
GN'R could legitimately contend for the title of best hard rock band though, I think they and Zep are a notch above in that category.
Ok so do a U2 vs GnR poll. By these standards U2 should win easily. Innovation? The Edge basically created an entire style of guitar playing whereas Gn'R and Slash didn't really create anything. Artistry? U2 have stretched themselves more than Gn'R ever did. Longevity? U2. Grammys? U2. album sales? U2. world wide popularity?.... tour numbers say U2. #1 hits? U2. #1 albums? U2. Influence on new popular bands? U2. have contributed songs to other artists? U2.
Techical ability as musicians? Gn'R
Now I'm not saying anyone here needs to vote U2 over Guns N' Roses but going by the criteria some of you are going off u2 should be a landslide win over Gn'R as well but would people have the same issue with Gn'R winning the poll? No. Thing is when you simply ask "who's better" people tend to vote for who they persoanlly think is better.
I guess the problem with the poll is you've got people voting based on different criteria. Had it been worded different I'd vote or the Beatles for sure.
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
Interesting. I've never thought of U2 as innovative, but I'm not a fan either. I've always though of U2 as about as poppy as you can get. Maybe I missed something in their album cuts, but their stuff they've released as singles for at least the last 20 years is pretty bland to me.
Please don't use this as an opportunity to sell me on U2; I'm really not interested in being sold. I respect that you like them and I'm trying not to be trollish - I just never got U2 for whatever reason.
- tejastech08
- Rep: 194
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
Interesting. I've never thought of U2 as innovative, but I'm not a fan either. I've always though of U2 as about as poppy as you can get. Maybe I missed something in their album cuts, but their stuff they've released as singles for at least the last 20 years is pretty bland to me.
Please don't use this as an opportunity to sell me on U2; I'm really not interested in being sold. I respect that you like them and I'm trying not to be trollish - I just never got U2 for whatever reason.
Commencing Bono meltdown in 5...4...3......
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
It's partially about the target audience I think too though.
Like I see bands like U2 and the Beatles as purposely appealing to a wider demographic.
It's "I want to hold her hand" not "I want to gape her asshole while she cries".
GNR has some crossover songs too like NR and Don't Cry and SCOM....but in general it's hard living, drug using, with borderline masogonist/racist/homophobic leaning music with an apologetic twist of anger and mental illness.
Which isn't to say that's better or worse. GNR is not a band my sister wants to listen to and it never was intended to be.
- tejastech08
- Rep: 194
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
borderline masogonist/racist/homophobic leaning music
Only borderline? "Turn around bitch I got a use for you" seems pretty clear to me. Not sitting on the border at all with that one. 
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
I would take u2, zep, and the beatles over Gnr...hands down. The Beatles is an absolute no brainer. You can semi debate the other two if you only considered which band was the best in their prime. Could Gnr stand up to U2 and Zep in their prime? Yes
ps I consider U2's prime from 87-91, Gnr 87-91, and Zep 69-71.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
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.
