You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- Me_Wise_Magic
- Rep: 70
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
Riad wrote:I'd take buckcherry over Van Halen.
Van Halen - one of the greatest ever rock bands, featuring one of the world's greatest guitarists
vs
Buckcherry - a second rate 80's throwback / bland modern rock band
And you pick the latter...?
This board surely has gone insane...!
Glad I have another alley in here to defend the mighty Van Halen and to clear up some of this previous insanity! 
- Me_Wise_Magic
- Rep: 70
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
It's cool everyone has their own tastes and dislikes.
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
I should actually say I don't think Van Halen sucks. I get Eddie is a great guitarist an DLR was a great frontman but their music does absolutely nothing or me though I don't chnage the station when they come on the radio. I wouldn't rank them in my top 100 bands.
Rush on the other hand I do think suck. Great musicians sure but the music they make is really terrible in my opinion. They remind me of what Jack Black would be like if he weren't joking around and had their talent.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
I like EVH guitar solos but I don't like Dave's voice at all.
I liked Sammy's voice but by then the band was too synth focused.
So I'm not huge into VH...they have some ok tracks though.
Meanwhile, in terms of straight rock, Ac/Dc is one of the all time killer acts.
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
I never got the love for ac/dc. I guess they have a few catchy pop songs, but I don't really consider them all that talented and certainly not an all-time killer act. Their songs are basically all the same...doesn't mean I don't like some of them, but I've always thought of them as average at best.
- metallex78
- Rep: 194
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
I never got the love for ac/dc. I guess they have a few catchy pop songs, but I don't really consider them all that talented and certainly not an all-time killer act. Their songs are basically all the same...doesn't mean I don't like some of them, but I've always thought of them as average at best.
AC/DC were at their best from their debut, right up until Black In Black.
There is quite some variety within the rock they play on all those Bon Scott albums up until the excellent Brian Johnson debut (Back In Black).
I'd say it was only after that when they started to sound the same, with only a couple of stand out tracks on each album.
But in the 70's, Angus Young was riffing and soloing like his life depended on it, and they were a really fierce rock band with something to prove. 
And on solos like in Whole Lotta Rosie and Let There Be Rock you can really hear what inspired Slash in those notes Angus plays. 
Throughout the 80's they kinda settled into the samey blues-based mid-paced rock that all sounds the same, but I urge you to check out those early albums before dismissing them as "average".
And their live show is always amazing too, especially for the age they're at now.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
People say they sound the same - but it's like complaining that chocolate tastes like chocolate.
If you want another flavour there's all the other great bands around that specialise in other stuff - but Ac/Dc do what they do - that sound - stupidly well.
I like that it's consistent. You know what you are going to get. But it's done at a very high standard.
The drumming is simple but somehow always suits the songs, and the guy is like a metronome. Malcom on rhythm has a way of delivering simple riffs and chords in a way that's so fundamentally rock solid and exciting. Angus is a great lead player - unapologetic blues rock - sure he lakes the technique of modern shredders but he's still a showman and within their style he always plays something that suits - and Brian is one of the great frontmen - like Axl it's delivery that's often imitated but never matched. That voice. And while the songs are all simple rock stuff - he sings them with a passion that makes them go from cheese to sounding like real life stories of the working classes. On top of that they're one of the last true hard working entertainers. While they do a big stage show - it's not bullshit - they can actually play and they were always exciting and - much like slash - tended to do better live than in the studio. The age is catching them a little - but Even into their late 50s it's still sounding alright.
Truly one of the great rock acts. Yes their songs all have a certain flavour - so they're good to have as a favourite band along with other more varied bands - but when you want that flavour - no one else has nailed it like they do.
Also...cos they're from the old model...I'll grant most of their albums have a few good songs and a bit of filler amongst it...but damn - if you make a best of playlist it's a near untouchable hour or more of massive rock songs.
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
Isn't GN'R kind of the first world beating rock act from the USA? Me and a friend talked about it and discovered all our favorite bands before GN'R were British (or commonwealth). They certainly don't get much respect for that at home though, which is funny.
There's been a lot of good stuff since then though. Hmm...Maybe they've been more influential than we yet realize.
