Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles

metallex78

Riad wrote:

There would be no boy bands.
No pop without the beatles.
There is not a single musician alive today from buckcherry to beieber who does not owe their career to the simple fact that the beatles did it first.

So I was right, the Beatles are to blame for shitty boy bands, and shitty pop music...

And they also had a hand in creating Justin Bieber too? I think my argument is validated.

Which band is better?

tejastech08

monkeychow wrote:

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.

Guns would probably be held in more similar regard to Nirvana, although what's funny to me is Nirvana influenced a bunch of absolute shit and the wasteland of modern rock radio we have today.

metallex78

tejastech08 wrote:

although what's funny to me is Nirvana influenced a bunch of absolute shit and the wasteland of modern rock radio we have today.

Yep, thank you Nirvana for all the shitty post grunge stuff we have now...

It's funny in that regard, as big as GN'R were, where are all the bands that were directly influenced by them?
More bands opted for the easy route of copying Nirvana's simple style than the complexity of GN'R's music. Modern rock vocalists all seem to be Eddie Vedder clones too, no one really sings in the range that Axl did either.

Only bands I can really think of are influenced by Guns are Buckcherry, and Avenged Sevenfold have claimed to be big GN'R fans.

tejastech08

metallex78 wrote:

tejastech08 wrote:
although what's funny to me is Nirvana influenced a bunch of absolute shit and the wasteland of modern rock radio we have today.
Yep, thank you Nirvana for all the shitty post grunge stuff we have now...
It's funny in that regard, as big as GN'R were, where are all the bands that were directly influenced by them?
More bands opted for the easy route of copying Nirvana's simple style than the complexity of GN'R's music. Modern rock vocalists all seem to be Eddie Vedder clones too, no one really sings in the range that Axl did either.
Only bands I can really think of are influenced by Guns are Buckcherry, and Avenged Sevenfold have claimed to be big GN'R fans.

And obviously neither of those bands have anywhere near the talent that GN'R did. GN'R was more of a revivalist band than anything. They were a 70's hard rock band trapped in the late 80's/early 90's.

metallex78

Buckcherry, I agree, but Avenged Sevenfold are talented. But they also take influence from Metallica and Pantera, and have a more metal approach. M Shadows seems to have taken some style from Axl in his vocal delivery too

monkeychow

I both agree and disagree.

There's an entire generation of guitarists that play guitar only because they saw/heard slash play in the 1980s and 1990s....it's literally thousands and thousands of musicians that would say that. You read any of his forums and there's dozens of posts along the lines of "started learning guitar because of you".

I'll grant there's not a lot of singers who copy Axl's model....but I think that's more because most people just plain don't have the six octave range or whatever Axl has...and additionally it's very hard to have a distinctive tone and rasp like that without sounding lame or like you want to be Axl.

monkeychow

Yeah..M Shaddows has said on a number of occasions he was highly influenced by GNR....and you can hear it in his vocal style and also in A7X's willingness to swap genres and do semi-epics....they clearly listened to UYI era GNR and then blended it with elements of Thrash Metal like Metallica and maybe Pantera...then added in the current (when they started) hardcore sound....

So it's not like it's a reboot of GNR but there's elements of GNR in their DNA.

Also the way the band is reminds of GNR - each member of A7X has a branded character much like the old AFD era GNR sort of was.

monkeychow

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....

tejastech08

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.

Bono

buzzsaw wrote:

Not looking for a meltdown, I just don't get the fascination with them. They have some catchy pop tunes but they all seem about the same to me since the late 80s. I don't hate U2, I just don't think they are special.

I'm not gonna meltdown but to say U2 has just done the same thing over and over since the 80's is ridiculous.

The Edge is an innovative guitar player whether people like his style or not. There's a reason why he was chosen to be inthe film It Might Get Loud.

U2 has evolved in trilogies really. the have eras of three albums that sound completely different to the next three.

1. Boy, October, War

2. Unforgettable Fire, Joshua Tree, Rattle & Hum

3. Achtung Baby. Zoororpa, Pop (Passengers if you conisder it a U2 album which many fans do)

4. All that You Can't Leave Behind, How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb, No Line on the Horizon.

the sounds of these eras are so completely different from each other era. There is no denying they have grown and evolved over the course of their career and thanks to The Edge they do have a distinct U2 sound in each era. And I'd argue the trasnformation fo the band from 1989- 1991 was the most daring evolution of a band ever. At least in terms of a massively popular band. They were arguable the biggest band on earth yet they overhaulded their entire sound and image and did so with huge success. You may not like the band or their music but that is irrelevant when talking about a band in terms of how some people have chose to talk about th Beatles for ths poll. I's not about personal taste it's about acknowldging what a band has accomplished and done.

Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles

Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles

Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles

Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles

Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles

Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles

Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles

Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles

Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles

Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles

Board footer