You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Great article on Guns N' Roses
Saw this posted over at HTGTH. I think it spells things out quite clearly. This guy defends what lots of people like to bitch about this band.
When did Guns N' Roses become so fashionable?
It used to be that you'd never admit to liking Axl Rose's gang. But their appearance at this weekend's Reading and Leeds festival proves they stand alone as hard-rock hellraisers.
There was a time in the early 90s when nobody liked Guns N' Roses. Well, obviously some people did, on account of the millions of records they sold and hundreds of arenas they filled, but it was a bit like weeing in the shower; no one ever admitted to it (aside from Manic Street Preachers, but let's face it, back then they'd have admitted to shooting JFK if it put them on the front of music papers).
So what changed? Perhaps it's the absence of St Cobain, Axl Rose's greatest sparring partner (sorry Slash), and the void created by the demise of the heavy-rock template which saw Nirvana demonstrate that the genre could be visceral and dangerous without having to write a song slagging off "immigrants and faggots".
Perhaps time is a great healer '“ it's easy to forget Bowie's Nazi salute, Eminem's Tom and Jerry take on domestic violence and Macca's The Frog Song as the decades roll by '“ especially when Axl Rose has spent the last 15 years essentially saying, "about that homophobic stuff? I was a prick".
But I'd hazard it's more to do with contemporary hard rock being so insipid and mumsy '“ a place that is significantly more boring without an insane ginger tyrant screeching about snakes and guns and making clumsy metaphors for heroin use. In such company, Foo Fighters don't really cut it.
The recent internet hoax that appeared to suggest Guns N' Roses would not be appearing at Leeds and Reading festival this coming weekend was an effective gauge in measuring the change in attitude towards the band. Many friends I wouldn't have thought of as metal fans seemed genuinely upset they might not get to see them play; when festivals offer the opportunity to see a zillion bands you've seen a zillion times before, a Guns N' Roses headline set is the sole moment of risky programming within a format that so rarely books anything that isn't Kasabian or Kings of Leon.
There are plenty of reasons to celebrate the modern Guns N' Roses ("modern", because one look at the lineup will tell you this is not "the classic" GN'R). Firstly, they're not a nostalgia act '“ if you've got a ticket, you're going to get Welcome to the Jungle, yes, but you're probably going to get Chinese Democracy's gleefully lunatic six-minute pseudo rock-opera This I Love too. And anything that reinstates proper rock shows to festival headline slots (not two hours of getting foot rot in a grassy puddle while listening to a Greatest Hits CD) is just fine with me.
Secondly, there's a chance they may not even turn up, or at the very least go onstage late, like they did at Leeds in 2002 '“ which is disrespectful to fans, sure, but it approaches the thrills and chaos you should demand from rock'n'roll bands (besides, what kind of person complains about going to bed late at a festival?). But it's not even that they may not turn up. It's that they may turn up and machine-gun everyone in the first 100 rows! Or set themselves on fire and play Chas and Dave songs! Or arrive via helicopter, descend to the stage on a rope ladder and just stand there sucking mints for two hours! They probably won't, but they could, and in a world where even the Libertines play a comeback show and turn up on time, I can't think of another touring band with such potential to surprise.
So if you're wondering why you're so excited about seeing Guns N' Roses play Reading and Leeds, try asking all the modern hard-rock bands who made the genre so boring.
Re: Great article on Guns N' Roses
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicbl … ns-n-roses
just so people don't think Del James wrote it....
- Precious time...
- Rep: 2
Re: Great article on Guns N' Roses
Nicely written article....hits the nail on the head. Blame modern insipid rock!
Re: Great article on Guns N' Roses
I will agree that Axl seems to be the last of his kind when it comes to the traditional rock star/frontman/showman type of thing.
Even the best modern rock bands, just phone it in like robots.
Maybe one of the Evo members here can break in to the biz one day, and carry on Axl-inspired antics for another three decades. 
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Great article on Guns N' Roses
^^^ nice one monkey 
.
Great article, these things come in cycles, good press for a decade bad press for the next, looks like were in a good press decade for GNR.
reading this review just reminded me, I have a lot of friends who Detest Appetite they think its chessy and camp, I got friends who hate the illusions just as much too. But funnily enough, all those guys love CD, they think its got a modern post industrial/grunge sound to it rather than being an album of classic rock knock offs
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Great article on Guns N' Roses
^ wow that's facinating.
To me I love ALL of the albums, in fact I think they're all masterpieces, but if i was to look for faults, to me they each have a different weakness:
AFD: Suffers from the recording technology of the day. I'd be interested to hear it remastered or something. Don't change the peformances as they are absolute gold - but just from an audio POV - when it comes on after a modern record post the loudness war on my ipod it sounds quiet and thin. You know what I mean? In real life the band was fucking loud and would blow your balls clean off, and I'm not sure that power is captured on the tape.
UYI: There's a lot of production on them. It's cool but it can border in cheesy when there's too many sound effects added over the riffs and stuff. It's an album of musical epics too. It's like seeing an epic movie like Braveheart - awesome - but it's such a journey you have to be ready for it mentally.
CD: There's just so many layers. It's what's good and bad about the record. But you need about 15 people to replicate one of the songs. Sometimes I'd love to hear those melodies in a more intimate setting musically.
Don't get me wrong though they're all great.
Re: Great article on Guns N' Roses
Don't get me wrong though they're all great.
I agree. And as the OP said, Guns seem to have some full Circle. And I got a theory(surprise surprise) as to why.
Before they Released Chinese Democracy. They were just a band of random musicians playing the odd new song here and there in their sporadic concerts. No one took them seriously, they were in fact a tribute band to the Old Gnr.
But then CD dropped. And it was Good. All of a sudden the moved from being a vanity project into being a band more a kin to Yes, LCD Soundsystem, NIN even the Foo Fighters earlier in their career in that they had a revolving door line-up built around one main contributor.
I also think the fact that CD had ZERO promotion, was endearing to indy fans who would have looked down on old GNR for being media Whores.
When you take a look at that line-up for reading, you got QOTSA, Biffy Clyro, Lost Prophets LCD Soundsystem Paramore, Dizzy Rascal(who s worth a look if your into Brittish rap) The Libertines(the darlings of the British Rock Scene).
These are bands that could easily headline, but GNR are picked before them. They are headlining before Weezer for fuck sake!! And what is even MORE amazing is there is no Backlash from the public over here.
There are no Media people saying "It's not GNR. these hacks shouldn't be headlining. etc" quite the opposite. There is huge HUGE anticipation.
And whats more amazing, is that people anticipating the CD material more than the old shit.
I had a chat with a couple of friends going to the show not long ago and all they talked of was how they wanted to see better or street of dreams live and how amazing it would be to finally her Axl sing Chinese Democracy live.
GNR seem to be getting huge acceptance over here. The hardcore Stuck in the Mud metal fans, who still pine for the 80's will not buy into a slashless gnr. Fact. But it don't matter anymore.
Gnr's new fanbase (over here anyway) are an ALT crowd more interested in CD than Appetite.
Let's be honest here. CD was a very good album. Especially in the context of todays music scene. I hear people bashing because they preferred the leaks, when in fact, the only reason you prefer the leaks are because of the huge positive emotional rush you got when you listened to them for the first time, that rush is remembered on each successive listen. Musicians know this and so try to keep demos from leaking.
The mindset seems to be summed up by the following points.
1. CD was a great album.
2. This is a great band.
3. the past should stay in the Past.
4. This man has unshakeable Integrity
in a soulless industry,
and deserves our respect.
Axl has worked hard over the last 14 years to get to where he is today.
Sporadically? Maybe. But would you have done any better? You can't say you were not in his shoes.
I log on here to see bitches whining over a fucking twitter account.
Measuring dicks in arguments over set-lists.
Grown men taking a pop at each other over the internet over the whimsical goings on of a major rockband.
Meanwhile Axl and his band are travelling the world, living a life of integrity and accomplishment and delivering value for money to their fans.
I look around this board and see some of the smartest well thought out debates I have ever seen, over some of the stupidest shit believable.
And the funny thing is when Axl is dead and gone these are the same people who will be logging onto message boards singing his praises.
