You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- tejastech08
- Rep: 194
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.
I don't even feel TSI deserves to be included. Once Izzy left, that was all she wrote.
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.
yeah I hear that. the thing that works in Guns N' Rpses favour is people don't consider it Guns N' Roses anymore and haven't since Slash left. Maybe people here will argue that but let's be real. The vast majority of people just don't see it as Guns N' Roses and to be honest Axl never did a fucking thingt o change that perception. I think when it's all said and done f yu were to do a documentary on the Gn'R story the CD era would be relegated to words on the screen as the movie ended. They'd show each band meber and have a few words of what they went on to do afterwards.
CD in the grand scheme of things isn't part their legacy. It's their Yoko Ono and that's about it.
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
Bono wrote: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.
I don't even feel TSI deserves to be included. Once Izzy left, that was all she wrote.
I count TSI because it came shortly after the Skin & Bones tour and at that point it still seemed to be a fully functioning band with 3 of the major components left. It was the band that was on the Illusion tours so............
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
monkeychow wrote: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.
yeah I hear that. the thing that works in Guns N' Rpses favour is people don't consider it Guns N' Roses anymore and haven't since Slash left. Maybe people here will argue that but let's be real. The vast majority of people just don't see it as Guns N' Roses and to be honest Axl never did a fucking thingt o change that perception. I think when it's all said and done f yu were to do a documentary on the Gn'R story the CD era would be relegated to words on the screen as the movie ended. They'd show each band meber and have a few words of what they went on to do afterwards.
CD in the grand scheme of things isn't part their legacy. It's their Yoko Ono and that's about it.
Got this message from a chick i know the other day
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
That ^ is the overwhelming view that the general public has. I've argued that for years on these boards and there's people who deny it to the death. Fact is the general public doesn't give a shit about Gn'R without Slash and when they tour even people who know they broke up still aren't sure who's in the band that is toruing and people still ask if Slash is going to be with them.
Gn'R without Slash would be like Zeppelin without Page.
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
That ^ is the overwhelming view that the general public has. I've argued that for years on these boards and there's people who deny it to the death. Fact is the general public doesn't give a shit about Gn'R without Slash and when they tour even people who know they broke up still aren't sure who's in the band that is toruing and people still ask if Slash is going to be with them.
Gn'R without Slash would be like Zeppelin without Page.
Yeah even though i like CD none iv my mate think much iv it they all like better but thats about it and i push it on too them when im having a party or something but alway get told to turn this shit off same with all the live stuff they love all the old stuff but cant stand them live stream shows from 2011 forum, vegas and chicago havent been game to show them the rio show i cop enough shit about axl as it is 
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
The sad part is it's Axl people don't like. We've all grown with the changes in his voice but to a non diehard who doesn't pay attention daily the way we do his voice probably sound absolutely atrocious. I mean there are times when i think Axl sounds like absolute shit so I can't imagine what a person who hasn't been paying attention since 1995 thinks. Probably thinks he sounds like one of the worst singers of all time.
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
The sad part is it's Axl people don't like. We've all grown with the changes in his voice but to a non diehard who doesn't pay attention daily the way we do his voice probably sound absolutely atrocious. I mean there are times when i think Axl sounds like absolute shit so I can't imagine what a person who hasn't been paying attention since 1995 thinks. Probably thinks he sounds like one of the worst singers of all time.
Pretty much its like this paradise city 3D its not like all the suddlen he cant sing it he hasnt been able to sing it decent for years i just cant stand it to be honest and the band they are tight and all but it just sounds like poo am just not a fan of 
playing at all hes quick but that about it all the tapping show off bullshit. But a top bloke just not a good fit in the band but each to their own 
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
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.
See, to me everything after Rattle and Hum sounds about the same - I may be off on the years because I'm not enough of a fan to know when things were released. They don't suck and I like a few of the singles, but they don't srtike me as evolving in any way after that. Just my .02, wich isn't worth much considering I thought U2 had a rhythm guitar player.
