Here Today... Gone To Hell!

I know we need Axl back but there's probably reasons he's gone for? a while .Like picture in the mid 90's? , when he wanted to follow the techno direction but Slash left the band probably saving the band's reputation . Would you like to have seen Guns go through a 180 degree turn like Metallica , they changed their attitude , the image, most importantly the music which was stupid and pissed off all their fans . Axl probably didn't want to continue when all the fans were dissing metal/r n' r for alternitive and grunge junk .One of the reasons i bashed mtv on this board before was because mtv has to share the same fans for whatever is considered rock , if mtv played a real Rock n' Roll band or Metal instead of like nirvana Guns probably would of lasted longer because there would still be fans supporting them for playing the same type of genre . If you took a grunge rocker in the mid/early nineties and placed him? in a time machine to go back in the eighties, he would be banging his to Maiden, J. Priest or Ozzy. But now let's look at the seventies type of fans although they were rocking out to Black Sabbath , Areosmith or Kiss , it was still cool to listen to music from the last generation like the Stones, The Doors , Hendrix , Janis Joplin and so on ... But in this day in age would you want to see Axl like Metallica in that movie Some kind of Monster whining about his drinking problems and paying councelors . Or him being a dad on a reality show acting goofy yelling at his kids ( I love Ozzy but that show destroyed his image as the hellraising rockstar he once was ) Or what else that? stupid show Velvet Revolver said they weren't going to make but they did anyway on Vh1 when they were  trying  out leadsingers, didn't the end just piss you off when they're all happy like little girls after the first performance ( No disrespect to the man Slash : ok:)A lot of these old bands that have returned had acted like idiots. Maybe in late 2002, Axl said,"If this is the way the Music Industry is going to be, fuck this then.I'm not going to sell out like these other has-beens,when the time is right, I shall return." :peace:

Interesting post.  You know it's about what's in the mainstream and now reality shows are but I don't see how VR sold out by doing that show about getting a singer, in GNR they did 3 making ofs, VR show was more a documentary if you will than a reality show like Ozzy's. 
As far as Axl staying out of the industry because he doesn't like what's happening, it could be true but I feel he is hurting himself by staying away and he also hurting his fans.   He doesn't have to do those shows and probably won't cause as we all know Axl marches to his own tune and I do respect him for that but there has got to come a time when he finally shows himself.   Who knows he just might be doing a documentary about what has gone on since 1999.  I hope he does, I would love to see what has been going on all this time.

What he should do is release the friggin' album. ?That would give him plenty of exposure, and then he can show everybody how a real rock star is supposed to act. ?Instead of running away and hiding he should remind people what rock n' roll is all about.

Axl can still do his own thing. He doesnt have to follow trends or sellout just because it could be the best way to sell records. He could release CD and have it sell 2-M, but if the music and vocal melodies were truly great- not just above average, most GNR fans would consider it a success. Everyone knows the album is long overdue. Just make something that will stand the test of time. Not a couple cliche one-hit-wonder singles and some filler between a couple good songs.

I really don't think Axl has been waiting for any 'right time' or anything like that.
I think it's just taken this time to put the band together and write the music together as a band, gel as a band (the 01and02 shows)... and then record and then pick the right songs for their debut... then of course again after BH left... who knows... but I really seriously would dismiss the idea that it's been a matter of waiting for the right musical climate.

Regardless of the musical climate or their age or the age of the fans or any of that - they're just gonna "bring it"... um... when it's ready to be brought..! ?hehe ?;D



along the lines of if he's better off for not having done it earlier - who knows... had he put out what he had in mind back then with the players he had at the time - everything now.. the entire situation and what this band has in store for us could be completely different than what would have/could have evolved from that point...

I miss Axl - defintiely... hell, I only known the new band for 4 years after seeing them in 01 and 02 and I miss more than I would have imagined not having felt I would have become so attached to them so quickly....
so yeah I want them back as soon as possible... but, I'm really not gonna 2nd guess destiny... ?it's gotten us this far right? ;)

axl's to weird to figure out... It could just be he got stage fright, a little bumbed from the harsh critisism about the shows or songs or keeping the name..? It is true about timing, oh my god was a single from a band that once ruled the world but in 99 Korn and rap rock ruled so it went by quickly... This time now would be damn good because rock is doing good, vr, motley crue is having a great run sabbath back for a bit cream reunited for a few shows./ I don't think you will ever get something like 1988 again or 1991. I loved the vr thing it was great to see behind the scenes, gnr did their making of the videos which was great in it's day... Everyone has long been ready in axl's band, hopefully he will gt out there and get going.. Does a person that became a extra private recluse for so many years just come back out and tour for years and drop mutliple albums??? That's something I don't know about anymore...

 I didn't exactly say Velvet Revolver sold out by doing the Documentry. If you look on this site in 2003 news section i believe ,i forget which month but they said VR refused to film a reality show of? them trying out singers but they did , like 2 years later , it was aired thinking the fans probably forgot.I've seen on this board people saying VR lies and shit like that . I like VR ( Gnr a lot more though) but they are a little rated than they should be , in my book. Either hiding is right or Axl needs to find the confidence to come back ,seriously.
I almost think its impossible for a guy in his mid 40's to be famous again . I don't think a bunch of new guys with axl by himself can top old Guns n' Roses . It seems like everyone or Axl? is expecting Chinese Democracy to top ol' gnr after how big they were. I can't imagine a new song kicking WTTJ or P.City's ass without the original members . He should of turned new gnr into his solo project if he wants to make better music than he did earlier .When people hear the name Guns n' Roses , they not only think of axl's voice, also slash's riffs like the wttj intro or scom. The name,the sound,and the image all match together? .

Besides Axl has taken so much time to spend in the studio , so some kind of material is going to kick ass...

I didnt know Axl said those words... when did he say it?
Anyway Axl seemed to follow the "rare" mainstream like Grunge and and N.I.N. but you know you cant reach perfection without failure... so.... lets wait and see

He presumed Axl said it, "maybe".

He presumed it...  mmm

Ok I will presume I didnt read that...  8) ???

Nothing personal,it's a thought of a possibility why Axl's been  out of action .Aren't these boards  what they're  for, to express your opinion?

Mikegiuliana...thats a great point!

Does someone who has been so quiet for so many years all of a sudden break out with year long tours and 3 albums!
I think if anything it will be a slow buildup....but who knows?

I miss Axl!!!!!!!! >:(

Yeah Mike, you make some valid points. No way in hell is this comeback gonna be as grand as some people here believe. It will more than likely be a great album, sell millions of copies, but in no way does he reclaim the rock throne. Axl's days of being up on a pedestal are long gone, never to return.

With or without the original band GNR can easily write songs that are better than WTTJ and PC, but they will probably not be considered "classics".

Yes that is right Mike... But I would like to read some official stuff from Axl... anyway that wont happen soon  : ok:
ps: I dont know why axl had to be influenced by electronic music, nin and grunge... damn his music was so perfect  :-X
                                                         @;-,--.-----

of course this is all guess work.. Nothing can ever go around like afd n  illusions craze, that is once in a lifetime thing that few have ever had.. 15 million copies of afd, 1.6 of the ilusions first week.. That's crazed boyband numbers.. I have my theories but it all depends on how axl releases and sells the product.. Does he give mutliple videos, long tours, take over mtv with videos of gnr from back in the day like most big acts do before a major release..? If yes then it can be quite big again.. Does he show up to his gigs and last long enough??

it also matters how people view this version of gnr ,are people going to say it is, it's not ??

Gnr has always had a cult following, I belive an album would sell like 3.5 million in the states and all the arena venues would definetly sell out.. This isn't even based on their new material, just the idea this is GUNS n ROSES flashing in your face.. past people want to see gnr again, and new want to say they saw gnr.. Retro rock like gnr has also become quite trendy today so people might not even care who they saw as long as it says gnr on the ticket...
there are multiple roads axl and his band can take, and there is different ways people can react.. In the end it really depends on how much he is willing to put into it.. Will he take the time out like he did for the trilogy??

Whatever it is I'm sure it will be good, but I don't know if what we have looked forward to is going to happen with how axl has seemed to change.. 3 album ona dn off touring for several years?? We can't get a word out of him never mind 3 albums or showing up to years worth of gigs

Mike, you hit the nail on the head. The reaction to CD is the key. We're going to know a week or two before its release on how big of a monster the album is gonna be. I think it will have HUGE first week sales, but will it have staying power? You're also right about Axl's marketing playing a part. He probably wont do it well. I just cant picture him doing videos,SNL, Tonight Show, interviews,etc. You just dont go from being an agoraphobic to immediately being the life of the party. It doesn't work that way. And about Axl's 3 album statement: I never believed it. If you're having MAJOR difficulty doing one album, why are you concentrating on two more? The logic about 3 albums never made sense. Axl's intentions were good when he made that statement. But it was just mindless rambling. I cant believe he never received any follow up questions to the 3 albums statement.

I picture a one album release with a very tame kurt loder interview.. I don't know why but I can't see the entire band doing interviews like most groups do. Something like fuse uranium with the group or taking over the ball like gnr did for afd..  I just hope there's a good build up a while before not just some thing that springs up.. I really think they had a lot of material and narrowed 2-3 albums worth down to one...  if you have 2-3 complete albums you don't risk teh group breaking up by taking forever, it's just to costly and risky for someone trying to make an old great band something good today with new people.. To think each song we have heard was done by 1999 at least and we call it new.. :-\

Yeah, I've always seen the irony in calline those songs "new". They are not new in any sense of the word. I dont bring that up very often, cause it would piss alot of people off(LoL). And those "new" songs are definitely becoming "dated". There's a possibility that the songs we've heard will not even be on the album. I would be pissed if 3 of those songs are not on the album(CD, The Blues,Madagascar, maybe IRS). But if they aren't on the album, maybe they'll be on the phantom 2nd or 3rd album.

Well everyone has their own taste that's what makes the world go around.. I am glad a lot of people love the newer songs because it makes it easier to wait... For me though and i'm beign completly honest after hearing those songs for so long and having to wait a decade for new material I want ALL new material.. I am tired of the new tracks I am tired of hearing about them as well.. I want one album of all new material and maybe the bonus track of the old finished songs if he completed them more..
This is why you never sing new songs and tour without an album stupid shit like this happens.. For me the point of the new tour was also to promote the songs we were going to get ,would have been cool if it happened in 2002

Yeah, I agree. I would love to know the reason for the 2002 tour if there wasn't an imminent CD release. I think it was going to come out. Whether it was rejected by Interscope, or some other reason, only a few people know. There was no logic in spending the time, effort, and money on a tour that you knew would inevitably fail without a product to promote it. Various empty arenas and major disinterest in the band proves this point. I would love to know why he even chose to tour in the first place. It defies all logic. The VMA's comeback was perfect. The stage for CD was set. Hell, there was even gang bangers in my area talking about it! And of course, Axl fucked up that incredible buzz! It will be hard to align the GNR planets in the same way again. Another VMa's, or Grammys, Superbowl, or Rio performance wont work this time. The only thing that's gonna bring another explosive buzz is an absolutely "earth shattering" first single that takes people's breath away. I'm serious. Our planet will have to literally "skip a beat". He may not have a single of that stature, so the wait continues... Axl has truly dug himself into a hole the size of the Grand Canyon. It will take Divine Intervention to pull him out.

based on Axl's comments at the VMA's there indeed was not an 'imminent CD release' planned.
IMO they toured to gel as a band... and planned to take that back to the studio with them
(the VMA comment indicated the plan was indeed to go back to the studio)

and i think we call 'em "the new songs" only to differentiate from "the old songs". 

I have to agree here, we all know the famous "Soon isn't the word" interveiw with Loder so, I really don't think he planned on releasing CD during his tour and they did need to gel after I watched the Rio performance.  To their credit they did get tighter and Axl voice got warmed up, just as the tour was cancelled.  Shame!    Although you would have thought CD would have come out at least 2003.

I think they might have planned a cd release earlier like after the fall NA part of the tour,..

axl said you'll see it but I don't know if soon is the word.. That was aug 2002, the tour started in november 2002 so it was going to last at least until early 2003. From august to november beside some rehearsals there was time to create and finish.. The project had 4 years on it by then.. Also if you read an axl interview he said the plan was to tour the spring and be on and off touring like the illusions for 2-3 years.. That album was coming out and there was never any long lay offs included.. There was way to much buzz from closing the vmas to waste it to be gone for more years.. To do something like the vmas again would be idiotic, save that for if the gnr reunite..

  I didn't know his exact phrasing but same thing.  It wasn't going to be released in the remainder of 2002, who knows in Axl head what the definition of "soon" was going to be if his tour wasn't cancelled.  I agree, he shouldn't do the VMA's again, he had the thunder last time now I am afraid he has lost his credibility a bit and people might look at it as, here we go again.

thing is the VMA performance was not to showcase any material per se...
When there is a single released I don't think it would be a bad move to play it at the VMAs - when there is something to promote I think they should promote it like crazy!

I agree he should promote like crazy and I couldn't agree more, when a single is already released.  Axl shouldn't go out again without the album or a single out there.  The VMA's IMO are sketchy for him do right away with just a single out because of the hype and then "poof" Axl is gone.  He's better off doing shows like Uranium on Fuse and specials on VH1 and MTV.   Then when all that is accomplished come out and play an awards show again, well after he has officially established himself again.
JMO

MikeB,  You are right on.  I couldn't agree more.  The absence has helped Axl's mystique, and has given them a unique position compared to other bands.   :peace:

it only works for us, no one else is getting more excited and wondering year after year what mysterious comeback he will make.. It hurts him, he has more expactations to live up to, he wan'ts people to take this new version seriously.. The longer it takes the older he is getting, is he going to waste a decade or two and pray his guys stay...?

Outside of the hardcore GN'R fanatics like many of the people on this board Axl's mystique or whatever has been hurt.  Most people I talk to who aren't hardcore into GN'R think Axl's a joke at this point.  They don't take him seriously at all.  This isn't normal stuff he's doing.  This gap between new material has never been seen before.  There comes a point where it stops being interesting and becomes stupid and annoying.  Axl's reached that point.  People really don't care that much anymore.  Whenerver you hear an Axl reference on TV its not about how everyone can't wait for the album to come out.  Its always making fun of him about either his physical appearance or his lack of activity in recent years.  Axl's at the point where its not intruiging anymore, its just sad.

This gap has been seen before...and by another prolific writer, artist known as Brian Wilson. If you don't know the story here's a recap. The fuckin dude spent a couple decades (?!) writing this album that was supposed to be this masterpiece. Sound familiiar. Many said it was never going to be released, and that the project was too ambitious or some shit. Well, the good news is that it was released as an album titled "Smile," and the reviews have been steller.

All the fuck Axl has to do is release the album. Supposing the music is as great as we all think it will be. Personally, I don't think Axl cares. He is too busy going to events, Vegas, Yoda's hut, and getting his dick sucked while he is smoking the chronic. The 2002 concert, was about paying some bills like Tyson's last couple fights were for. I'm looking at this objectively. This isn't a dude who is spending much time in the studio and passionately wants his music heard. I don't think he gives a fuck. He never has. Its why we liked him in the past right. He never gave a fuck and did shit his way. So now, we all have a problem with him? He hasn't changed. Either respect that, or find another artist who plays by the rules.

If anything, his absence has been for the better, because when he isnt in the spotlight...nothing embarrasing can happen.

Good point.  That is one of the reasons GN'R is my favorite band.  They did it their own way and never gave a fuck what people thought.  That's one of the reasons Velvet Revolver isn't shit compared to GN'R.  You can tell Slash is changing to fit certain trends in music.  Probably so his album can outsell Axl's.  Wow, don't hear that from me much...Slash bashing in favor of Axl.

Just to clarify?
It took Brian Wilson about 1-2 years to write that album.

axl always has done things his was and on his time. I know many ave you have read the interview wit mick wall back in 1990, but i bought the book the most dangeroiuse band in the world and when he's ready he'll be ready and i know it will be something fresh and something that everyone will enjoy. i've been to the worst parts of nyc and iv'e chatted with the so called hoodlems and when i tell them gnr is my fav band they respect that and they all tell me they like welcome to the jungle and november rain. I'm confident that axl can do that again.

To Clarify your clarification:

" A conversation with him is usually quick and to the point, and he never hesitated when asked why he suddenly stopped work on SMiLE 37 years ago: "We were on some bad drugs, but we were also way ahead of our time."
http://www.eqmag.com/story.asp?sectioncode=36&storycode=4696

When I said a couple decades, I was off too. It was almost 4.

I hope Brian Wilson isn't one of Axl's inspirations. If so, I may not be hearing Chinese D before I'm 70.

i also agree that axl is extremely wierd but hey i still love him.. and i love the old GNR.
but i think it is a bit more than stage fright, i would have thought that axl would not care for what people say...   :P

Let's just hope to God he's not the next Howard Hughes. :-\

I couldnt disagree more. I see a tremendous amount of potential in this new band and the no doubt promising material Axl has crafted with them. Just the prospect of Tommy Stinson collaborating with Axl is amazing to me at least. My parents were huge Replacements fans in their day so therefore I grew up listening to some killer music..The rest of the band is very impressive too..studio musicians or not but with Axl's song writing abilities and a stellar band, I dont see the red head disappointing us.

Yawn, I am bored. Does anyone have anything interesting to say? Or intelligible? Axl 'gone for a while'? Get real.

to me too  : ok:
And i wasn't even a replacements fan....  it only took Village Gorilla Head to get me excited about that prospect.  Tommy showcased a hell of a lot of talent and style on VGH.  Great album.  And when we read about how collaborative an effort CD is...   I'm just really psyched to hear Tommy's sh*t on it.  :)

MikeB has his finger on the pulse of what's going on. A band like GN'R had two options for releasing an album in the post Nirvana era:

1) do a grunge-friendly album with toned down guitars and subdued vocals and get all the promotion in the world and a pass from the critics. That's what Metallica did.

OR

2) do a real rock record and receive shitty promotion from the record company and get ruthlessly savaged by music critics.

So it was a good thing to wait until the 90s passed to do a comeback. The grunge fad is becoming less and less relevant. Music critics are becoming irrelevant. So are MTV and Rolling Stone. The handful of people still stuck in 1993 don't matter anymore. Time is on our side. Most people no longer think that having talent is a bad thing. With new bands like the Darkness and S.O.D. breaking down barriers, the day is coming when GN'R can make a comeback and be huge.

I disagree...what about bands like Aerosmith and AC/DC.  They didn't change their sound at all and were still popular with the critics and the fans.  I think GN'R was on that level where they could do whatever they wanted and people would stick with them.  They were the biggest band in the world.  GN'R would still've got good promotion and fan support.  Some bands are bigger than trends and fads, and I think GN'R definitely were.

Well, I agree about GN'R being in the same league as Aerosmith and AC/DC, but you're obviously clueless because none of the albums they've released since 94 have sold well. Do you consider it a success for a band of GN'R, AC/DC, or Aerosmith's stature to merely sell 1 or 2 million while the Creeds and 7 mary 3 doors downs were selling upwards of 6 million? AC/DC's last one didn't even go platinum. Personally, I don't care how much it sells and I don't care what your measure of success is, but I can tell you this much: if all CD does is go double platinum, the music world would perceive it as a failure in times when crap like Coldplay sells that much in their first month out.

but ac/dc isn't out plugging their album away.. it could come and go and I would never know.. GNR is a comeback album, it's? project in the works for 7 years... Ac/dc isn't going to close the vmas..
gnr did amazing with afd then lies the illusions after that all downhill.. TSI, Live era and GH picked up..


Creed was a fav of the time they would have died off too, same with coldplay.. That is the music that everyone can get into adn say look at me I'm into rock.. Ac/dc back in black has sold the 5th most in history.. Every band has a time period where they are unstopable..

Aerosmtih have done so amazing, they made one of the most succesfull comebacks ever..pump permanet vacation big ones their duet with run dmc get a grip monster album in 1993 with many hits, living on the edge, crying, amazing their hit on armageddon.. All when grunge was king and rock was dying..

ac/dc is an example of an older established band.. They have a tremendous following and can sell out any venue but their album sales areno longer huge,, Only a few groups have longevity like say U-2 that could sell shit on a stick.. Most bands that stay around20-30 years don't have massive album sales all trhough out.. There's periods in time where they are hot and forever known..

AC/DC rock. I can't wait for the next album, its one of the few up and coming releases that make the wait for Chinese Democracy a little easier.

Yeah, AC/DC won't close the VMAs. But we all know how well that worked out for Guns N' Roses. Especially when the next day, the VMA recap on MTV's web site claimed that GN'R "took the audience back to their glory hair days." Maybe you need to wake up and smell the coffee, but that's a backhanded compliment. A hair band is about the worst thing possible for MTV's audience. I was in college (a big market for music) back then and I'd ask around people what they thought of Guns N' Roses at the VMAs and most of the responses were along the line of, 'oh I'm not really into that.' And what's up with Axl's earpiece not working during the performance? Has anyone ever seen such a malfunction at a big awards show before? Normally those things are tested to death and they have back ups for everything to ensure things go smoothly. I don't think there was a conspiracy by MTV to fuck GN'R over or anything. There are people at MTV like Kurt Loder who are really rooting for GN'R to come back in a big way, but there are also holdovers who still hate that kind of music and I wouldn't be surprised if someone behind the scenes "accidently" pulled a plug somewhere. If I was in GN'R management, I wouldn't rely much on MTV and I would try to cause a stir and promote CD by other means. It would be more effective anyway.

And you bring up Get A Grip as an example of a good rock record that's sold well while "Grunge was king." That's a terrible example because it came right in the middle of the transition period. How come it hasn't been done ever since then? The sad reality is that Get A Grip was that kind of music's dying gasp (at least as far as mainstream success is concerned). Chinese Democracy hadn't even been conceived in 93 and they were releasing TSI, so there was no chance of it coming out at the same time as Get A Grip. Do you think it would have been liekely for an album like Get A Grip to sell 7 mil if it came out in 98 or 2000 when music with guitar solos was shunned like the plague by MTV and radio?

Lastly, I don't think Axl would be satisfied with being a concert act with huge tours but low album sales like AC/DC. He strikes me as an all or nothing type of guy. Either he's gonna be one of those bands, like you mentioned U2, where they continue to sell a lot of new albums AND sell out big tours, or it's gonna be nothing. This has a lot to do with why we're still waiting for CD.

I am impressed..a person on this board actually used a word that I had to look up, and I have a Ph.D. from an Ivy league school. Cool. agoraphobic: a person who has a fear of being in an open or public place.

What?? Aerosmith became HUGE with their comeback in 98/99 and thereafer. I don't have the numbers, but I would bet they sold more after '99 than during '72-98. And if you notice, they tour mainly on the post-'99 music, with some (but marginal) attention to the "old" stuff.

Don't Wanna Miss A Thing was their only #1 single and it came out in the late 90's.  And while the albums they've released haven't sold huge amounts, they've still sold pretty well and they still play large sold out venues...as does AC/DC.  And the main thing you mentioned was getting slammed by music critics, and neither AC/DC or Aerosmith get slammed by critics.  Even Just Push Play got pretty favorable reviews, and that album isn't very good at all.

The only studio albums Aerosmith released since 98 are Just Push Play, which sold 1 million, and Honkin' On Bobo which only went Gold (500,000). They also had two new songs on the 1998 Armageddon movie soundtrack. The soundtrack had a diverse range of artists including ZZ Top, Better Than Ezra, Journey, Chantal Kreviazuk, Jon Bon Jovi, and Patty Smyth. Most of all, its sales were helped by the biggest summer blockbuster of that year. But even if you ignored that and gave Aerosmith all the credit for the 4 million it sold, that adds up to a total of 5.5 million albums since 1998. This is less than 1993's Get A Grip alone, which went 7 times platinum. 1989's Pump also sold 7 million and 1987's Permanent Vacation sold 5. This is not even counting their early albums, most of which are at least platinum. You can check it out for yourself at riaa.com

I don't know. I just don't see Axl Rose making his return by recording a Diane Warren pop song and riding the coattails of a big summer blockbuster. I Don't Wanna Miss a Thing is a good song, but it is without question a pure pop song, not a rock song. It was also radio safe for 1998 because it lacked a guitar solo. You don't get three guitarists in your band like Axl did to record songs with no guitars. It was a smart move for Aerosmith at the time and they could get away with it because Steven Tyler's daughter was in the movie, but it's hardly evidence that a Guns N' Roses rock song would be able to hit #1 in 1998. (Off topic, but I highly recommend the Armageddon soundtrack if you don't have it since the other new Aerosmith song on it, What Kinda Love Are You On, is one of their best ever!). And getting slammed by the critics was not the "main" thing I said, it was only one of the things I said and when it comes to the critics,? Guns N' Roses is not Aerosmith or AC/DC. I suspect you're unaware of GN'R's history with critics, but Chinese Democracy hasn't even come out and it has already been placed on "worst of" lists. Not that it really matters anymore, because, like I said before, they are becoming more and more irrelevant.

I have the near completed version of SMiLE from 1966 and its actually alot better than the 2004 version. The vocals were re-recorded with new bandmembers in 2004, but music and lyrics were 100% complete in 1966. The 1966 SMilE was a finished record.

You have to understand something, beside maybe the beatles and elvis when groups get older they still have huge followings if they were really big at one time like ac/dc or aerosmith but it's hard to keep every new generation buying millions of your albums.. Very few like say bon jovi ior u-2 have this kind of crossover power...

Honkin on bobo was a bluesy album not slammed into the public eye like a lot of their previous albums.. At times when Korn or Limp rule the charts Aeromsith seems obsolete to the current people buying all the albums.. it's like KISS they could sell out any venue but their album sales were tons of GOLD albums..

I know the bands I loved and ran out to buy albums for as a teen I don't do the same when these groups put music out now.. It's not because of their music, it's because I have only a few favs I still care about, but if they toured I'd buy a ticket in a second..

There's no album out there that is long awaited like CD and no album that has had so much money or time put into it either... Everyone has a lemon here n there, you just can't sell millions each time around..

  I said it because ac/dc can close the vmas but they chose not to.. GNR had always been mtv friendly and axl has always had the relationship with kurt loder... Closing the vmas is great to get publicity, you will be seen by millions for the next 4 months constantly.. Nobody I knew had a good word to say about the vmas, it was all who was that, what happened to axl, why is slash in a bucket costume, was it a bit with jimmy fallon??

GNr will never sell as many albums as old gnr and they will never be as popular as old gnr. There are many factors that go into that. But the album will sell and if its good GNr can be big again.

WHen/if they make a comeback it will not be like one of those old time bands who are putting out an album. It will be a completely different promotional and marketing strategy.

I'm plenty aware of GN'R's history with critics.  They received their share of shit from critics, but they've also enjoyed plenty of success with critics.  Appettite appears on countless top albums lists and you never hear anything negative about the album.  And even the UYIs received pretty favorable responses from most critics.  If your argument is that critics are very anit-GN'R, then they would have been slammed by critics no matter what they did.  Motley Crue put out a couple grunge friendly albums and they weren't given a pass by critics.  And exactly what period of time for Aerosmith are we debating here?  I was refering to anything during the grunge era or after that.  They still remained one of the more successful rock bands in the world.  Honkin' On Bobo wasn't supposed to sell millions of copies.  They, for the first time in a while, put out an album not to sell copies but to entertain their true fans.  Its the best material they've put out in years.  Bobo did exactly what it was supposed to do, and Aerosmith can afford to release albums like that because they remained so successful through the 90's.

I agree that a lot of the major bands have a big run and after that it's OK for them to become big touring acts without selling many albums. But I think Axl wants Guns N' Roses to be one of the select few, like the Beatles, Elvis or U2. He wants to come back with a bang like Aerosmith did in the 80s. Some of you think that because GN'R is considered in the same league as Aerosmith, all they have to do is put out a good album and they'll rocket to the top of the charts and sell millions like Aerosmith did with Permanent Vacation and Pump. But it's not as simple as that. When Aerosmith did their 80s comeback, the mainstream music scene was dominated by bands like Motley Crue who grew up on Aerosmith and were inspired by Aerosmith. Releasing Permanent Vacation in 86 was like homecoming for Aerosmith. The late 90s were a completely different deal. The mainstream music scene was not receptive to a band like GN'R. Bands like Green Day or Pearl Jam weren't gonna tour in support of GN'R like Motley did for Aerosmith in the 80s. On the contrary, they hated metal and what GN'R stood for. They've made a career out of bashing metal. They didn't grow up on GN'R, they were a part of the backlash against GN'R. Releasing a guitar driven album in the late 90s would not have been like homecoming, it would have been like entering hostile territory. The late 90s was a terrible time for releasing guitar driven rock music. GN'R could have recorded the best album ever made and it would have sold less if it was released in 98 than if the exact same thing was released in 93 or 2003. Timing matters! A lot!

I also agree that it's extremely difficult for a band like GN'R to make a comeback and be as big or bigger than before. But it's not impossible if the promoters are creative and dedicated enough. CD has a lot going for it. Look at us here. Our numbers may be small, but we have to be the most loyal and dedicated fans that any band has ever had! GN'R should take advantage of that and use us for a word of mouth guerilla marketing campaign. Also, if you think about it, the name CD is brilliant and can be used to cause a giant stir and bring a lot of attention to the new album. Late 2007/early 2008 just might be the ultimate time to unleash Chinese Democracy.

Yes, in general, most critics are very anti-GN'R. I'm sure someone as pedantic as yourself can scour the net and find some positive reviews, but anyone who knows GN'R, knows that the critics love to hate them, especially Axl. Personally, I see that as a badge of honor. I'm proud that those losers love to hate my favorite band. And AFD wasn't an album that was made successful because of positive reviews, it was embraced by the critics only after it became one of the most successful debuts in rock history.

I never said anything against Honkin' On Bobo, I love the album, so I don't know what your fuss is about.

But I'm glad you brought up Motley Crue. Motley Crue never did a grunge friendly album. Their 94 album with John Corabi basically spit in the face of the post Nirvana status quo. They gave a big middle finger to the entire industry and actually released their most heavy metal album in 1994. Generation Swine was really out there and while it wasn't guitar heavy or a metal album, it didn't have much to do with grunge either. Just because something is different and experimental, doesn't make it grunge friendly. It didn't even get chance at commercial success because the record company refused to release Glitter, the song with the most cross over potential, as a single. Elektra did more damage than help with their "promotion" of GS. A freakin indy label would have probably managed to push more coppies of that album. Getting out of their Elektra deal was probably the smartest move Motley Crue made in the late 90s.

Keep up the good work, all of the example you've brought up so far only make my case stronger: the late 90s was a bad time to release a rock record and waiting it out will only help make GN'Rs comeback bigger.

Generation Swine was not grunge friendly, but it was industrial friendly...which at the time it was released was pretty similar to being grunge friendly in '94.  The Corabi album is heavier than most Motley, but it definitely tries to bend a little to that era.  A true middle finger to the music industry would have been to release New Tatoo as the follow-up to Dr. Feelgood.  In The Dirt Nikki Sixx says that album should've been the follow up to Feelgood.  If you read The Dirt you'd realize how much the Crue were trying to sound like whatever the trend in rock was at the time...whether it be grunge or industrial.  But I do agree with you that its cool to have the critics hate GN'R.  It helps that us against the world mentality the band used to have.

Idiot fans are almost giving their lives just to see this album release. Get it through your head people, just because bands made great music dosen't mean they can reclaim their throne again. If you want Rock n' Roll to rule again, wish? for a new band to debut and start a new awesome generation. You know, sometimes I wonder ... When was the last time Axl talked to his current bandmates, two and a half years ago? Is there really an album called Chinese Democracy? 50 percent , I think CD is just some fake album for Axl to escape from the fame and showbiz to deal with his personal demons and the other half , yeah he does have faith for music and really misses being the biggest Rock n' Roll icon , so he's working in the studio working on some kind of new material. But a Rock n' Roll band only comes and goes.

In 97 Motley Crew got alot of exposure on MTV. At least during daytime hours...i remember cuz i watched MTV alot in those days but stopped when TRL took MTV over. MTV was not biased at all towards metal during that time. Before 96 its possible they were biased but not for long after.

Haven't read the dirt yet, but yeah, I see how they were trying to bend to that era. The problem with the 94 album was that they missed by a mile and inadvertently went against the flow anyway, which is still pretty cool :hihi: Swine was very industrial friendly. Industrial was never a big fake fad like grunge though. It broke through as an accident. It was metal in new clothes and MTV never really liked it. Then NIN caught everyone's attention with the mud at their Woodstock performance and exploded. Before that MTV rarely played that type of music except at 2am in the morning.? But it remained mostly an underground scene except for the occasional NIN or Manson (if you even count him as industrial) album that went platinum.

Are you talking MTV USA here. Cuz you weren't watching the MTV I was watching. Unless you call 2 MTV News stories "a lot of exposure." I was all about the Generation Swine album at the time and I was calling radio stations and writing to MTV to play the Afraid video, but I still never saw it until they released it on DVD 2 years ago.

In 97, MTV was all Sublime, Third Eye Blind, Sugar Ray, Smash Mouth and rap. There was not a single metal song in heavy rotation. If you ask me, it actually got better with TRL. That song Larger Than Life had more of a guitar solo (even though it was censored out for the MTV video) than any "rock" song that was popular in the late 90s. And at least Britney Spears you can look at and some of her songs were catchy. Also, while I don't much care for rap metal, Korn and Limp Bitzkit were still a thousand times better than Dave Matthews and The Verve Pipe. That 97/98 period was arguably the worst in all of mainstream rock history. Though it looks like the present is trying to give it a run for its money with Coldplay and Keane and all that shit.

Is there a diference between Motley Crue and Poisen?

Yes, there is a big difference between Motley Crue and PoisOn.  Instead of me explaining all the differences I recommend you listen to both bands cause they're both very good.

HAHAHAHA what? Did you just say they are good?? :rofl:

PoisOn (so fuckin not sorry for spelling these fags name wrong) suck dude. Their songs were for young chicks, pure and simple. Man, the VH1 special on them was so spot on. Their songs suck. The epitomy of gay. But its your opinion, and you are entitled to it I guess (damn I hate having to saying politically correct things so I don't get myself in trouble (like if I called you a fag)).

Anyfuckinways, glam was the worst thing to happen to rock music. Thank god GNR broke free and put an end to that embarrassment (and thank God Metallica moved to San Fran to escape the glam fag scene).

Whatever, the music back then kicked compared to today, at least the guitarists had some talent. GnR started as glam too, so WTF. I saw Poison a few years ago and they put on a really fucking good show, they have talent. Crue rules too although I have never seen them live.

Hahaha moving to San Fran to escape a "fag scene" :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: ROFLMAO ?That's classic dude, you made my day :beer:

Now, I take it your original question was supposed to be a slam at at poison and motley. But you ended up only making an ass out of yourself because you demonstrated that you base your musical taste on stereotypes and not music. Only someone who has never listened to their albums would ask such a dumb question and it makes you no different than the morons who ask "what's the difference between GN'R and Motley Crue?" Perhaps the best thing about the glam metal scene was that all the major bands had their own thing going. There was some influence, but if you listened to the music you could never mistake Motley for GN'R for Poison. There is a world of difference between Shout At Teh Devil and Flesh & Blood. Only a phony who based his views on dumb VH1 shows and hasn't listened to the music would disagree.

So, have you seen Metallica's Some Kind Of Monster? That is EXACTLY why they left L.A. In hindsight, that is funny sounding.

But do you know what gay people in San Francisco call Glam Rockers? Faggots.

Dude, again I will bring up the VH1 special on PoisOn. The guitarist said he had all the right influences to be a great guitarist. But admitted that he was anything but. They didnt care about there music. They didnt care about making good music. It was 100% done to get chicks. Yea, that is usually the main reason to be in a rock band, but they literally had no musical integrety.

Crue wass certaintly leaps and bounds more talented musically, and actually believed in the music they were making. Far cry from PoisOn. I knew making the comparison between them and PoisOn would piss some people off. But as a GNR fan, it is my godgiven right to bash Crue and Cobain, and posers like PoisOn. But really dude, you can't honestly believe that PoisOn was a good band though right?

You know what the difference is?

You have Zepplin as the control group that is the very definition of talent, who poured talent and musicianship out of every pore.? You honestly going to have the balls and tell us that PoisOn has any talent whatsoever? Compare them to a real Rock band that has talent like the big Z. GNR had talent. Metallica has talent. Jimi Hendrix had talent. The original Black Sabbath had talent. PoisOn sucks dude, and personally its insulting for you to be making the claims you are so carelessly making.

I'd be careful if I were you.

*and to the other dude above, I already talked about GNR, who were blessed with the godgiven ability to break free from that glam scene, and kill it off. Any traces of Glam ended with Appetite. And Glam music was NOT better then music today, or anyday in the history of Rock. It remains and embarrasing dark time in Rock history. To go from Hendrix to Zepplin, to Glam is a disgrace.

man I grew up with glam rock, I loved cinderella, poison, motley crue(very uinderrated band), ratt winger wasp, quiet riot twisted sister whitesnake (coverdale rocks) bad english, damy yankees, trixter bon jovi, great white, white lion, europe, lita ford, def lepp, scorpions (well not really glam) Queensryche, etc etc etc.. That's me though I enjoyed the image and the catchy tunes n the guitar rock

Mike, same with me. I loved those bands from late 80's/early 90's. Although I laughed when you mentioned Trixter. That was a great time to be alive. The music scene from that era will never be repeated again. Remember when several of those bands tried making comebacks in 94-96? The media ignored them and they fell flat on their faces. That was when I relized that the era of hair/glam bands, or what my Aunt likes to call "pussy bands", was really over.

To me, Poison's music is so cheezy and fake .Reminds me when you have a fake instead of a real christmas tree, sure it's green but just not the real thing.

Just going by what i saw. And i saw Crue on MTV. I remember hearing some Generation Swine song, maybe not regular airplay, but MTV gave them publicity. If you wanted the Crue to perform at awards ceromonys, have regular video rotation etc.etc. maybe the demand wasnt there, i wasnt a Crue fan at the time but they were on MTV.

Actually, a lot of gay people probably like glam rockers, especially the 70s glam rockers that were the roots of Poison, Hanoi Rocks, Motley, Guns N' Roses, and Def Leppard. There was a gay member on this board who said Axl had a following in the gay community because of his looks.


They were never meant to be a Led Zeppelin or a Hendrix. They were supposed to be a fun, party, rock n' roll band and they accomplished that. If that's not your type of thing, just ignore them. It's not like they are preventing you from listening to things you do like.


Behold the man who allegedly, according to Buddha_Master, killed glam.
(http://music.digitalglam.com/bands/gnr/gnr01.jpg)
By the way, if glam ended after AFD, why did Poison's Flesh N' Blood still sell 3 million two years later in 1989?
You're in denial and you're no better that the Cobain nut swingers who say that Nirvana killed Guns N' Roses. Bullshit! No band killed anything. You're giving them too much credit. The industry runs this show and most people wouldn't have heard neither Poison, nor GN'R, nor Nirvana if they weren't signed by big record companies and whored on MTV.

I see a trend of two types of people emerging: 1) people who liked the music for what it was or just don't like it 2) people who hate it because of the media. VH1 special said this and that, or they loved it before, but the media dropped it and then they had an epiphany realized it was 'pussy bands.'

I'm proud to not give a fuck about what the media thinks. In the 80s, while MTV was playing all those? cheesy glam videos and Rolling Stone had those bands on their covers, millions of people thought the image was the shit and were eating up the albums and going to concerts in droves. Then MTV, Rolling Stone, etc. decide to curse their name and sweep them under the rug and change formats, and all of the sudden people realize what pussies the metal bands were. Then they become better, enlightened human beings with "good" tastes because they now realized REM or Nirvana or whatever is what real music is supposed to be. Give me a fuckin' break. Talk about posers!

As for Some Kind of Monster, Axl has clearly displayed a tendency to "cry" in public about his own past child abuse (to Rolling Stone), unwarranted lawsuits (where to I begin?), members quitting the band (where do I begin? Is that a press release). The only difference between him and James Hetfield is that Axl didn't try to cash in on his narcisim and self-pity with a movie deal.

Buddha_Master I grew up with that shit (Poison, Warrant, Tesla, Skid Row, Motley Crue, Aerosmith, Ozzy, Def Leppard, etc) bt it's funny how ozzy went from Sabbath to glam, huh? Whatever, like Pop Metal said, in the '80 that look was cool and bad ass, and while I never like poison as much as some other bands they still have way more talent than the majority of the bands around today, I never compared them to zepplin, stone, sabbath or whatever you think I did. I just said musicians were more talanted then than they are today.

p.s. how the fuck can you say a band sucks if all you know is what you saw on a damn tv show? I'm telling you I saw Poison live and they were very fucking good performers.

And you also said any traces of glam ended with appetite, just curious what is your favorite GnR album?

I'd type a long winded response to you Buddha Master, but you're really not worth it.  Plus others have made some good posts in Poison's defense.  You should listen to bands before forming an opinion of them.  Getting your opinions from VH1 makes you the ultimate poser.  C.C. is a modest dude when it comes to talking about his skill.  He's not the greatest guitarist around, but he did have talent.  As did many of the guitarists from that era.  Also as I've said before grouping all glam bands into one musical genre is very ignorant.  Glam was about the look.  Glam bands ranged from Poison, to Hanoi Rocks, to even GN'R (see picture above).  Bret Michaels is a good song writer.  He always had a love for music, and he did not write songs just to get chicks...even if the Led Zeppelin's dicks sucking music critics say that's what they did.

There's a big difference between glam and hair metal, glam was the best thing to happen to rock

 :smoking: Izzy? :smoking:

You saying a hair band wasn't in the glam scene. One in the same.

From my perspective...I still don't know what the fact was going on in the 80's. I swear that decade was the fucking Twilight Zone. Im 31 now, if that helps paint the picture. I grew up with parents who raised me on the Beatles, and I never was much into them, until I started getting high and rediscovered them on my own. That's when I got educated and walked into this awakening, taking in the best of the best, that blew me away. Hendrix, Dylan, Floyd, Zepplin, Sabbath, Stones (though I don't like them now, and secretly wish they broke up years ago). Modern music, at the time, amazed me like Metallica. But I knew there was this other thing happening and to this day I explain what the fuck happened in the 80's. Shit maybe it was Bowie's fault (though at least he was musical), or the surviving remnants of Disco. But shit got gay and colorful, and cross gender shit, makeup and hairspray. And the ones doing this was saying they were Rock n' Roll. WTF?!

People were so happy and gay, with their "Obsession" music and an MTV that is only rivaled by the MTV of today. Yea Ozzy who was so fucking cool with Sabbath and everyfuckingbody got swept into this weird alternative dimension. I never got what the fuck was happening then, and I don't get it now. I will never understand how things got so fucked up in the 80's.

Listen just because PoisOn had a fanbase that still bought their shit, didn't mean shit once Appetite spread like the ebola virus. If you read what I wrote you wouldn't have felt inclined to post that pic of Axl. What happened to GNR was similar to what happened with the Beatles. The Beatles came from a scene? where you wore suits and looked clean, or wore nice leather jackets as it was in liverpool,lthough they were being more rebels having "mop tops," this is where they came from. But they grew out of that norm, and became who they really were, and created their own identity that didnt fall into that "trend."

The gay glam/hair whatever you want to call it, was a trend that over stayed its welcome. But they grew out of that, and dropped it creating their own thing, and because they were actually fucking talented, acknowledged by everyone in the business as being so, serious made a bigger impact on the rock scene. Genuine musicians no longer had to follow this fucked up trend, and could be more raw and real. Rock music could be dirty again and have the impact it used to before every went to hell. When backstreet boys made their comeback it sold to, so that means little that Poison sold as well to their um, fans. But they have no relevance in the industry. They are clown shoes.

History won't even remember that Crue is having a comeback, because they to are irrelevant today outside their hardcore fans. They never changed shit like GNR did, and that needs to be respected here. Going with the flow is something PoisOn lived by. GNR were meant to be the next Stones. There is a big difference. GNR came from L.A. and being caught in that fucked up warp was unnavoidable. Its how shit was. But they broke through the fog and will never be defined by it like PoisOn.

And bringing this back to topic, GNR lost their way too towards the end. And Axl leaving was a godsend. He can rise like the Pheonix now if he wants, because of it, and make an impact.

To say that GNR's glam era ended with AFD is a total short cut to thinking. ?The UYI years and tours, videos, etc. are some of the most glamour filled, self-indulgent, my cock is bigger than yours eras in music history. ?The goal was to out Stones the Stones. ?C'mon, horns, girls, 25 guys playing onstage. ?Pure and simple excess.

So I am a poser because I don't listen to the same music I did when I was 16. ?Gimme a break. ?Excuse me for not being stuck in my adolescence. ?I grew up listening to Poison, the Crue, Ratt, basically all the above mentioned bands. ?Now when I hear this stuff I first laugh or recall a memory and then listen in disbelief that I used to like this garbage. ?Most of the music from the 80s era has no soul, no heart. ?Say what you will about Nirvana but Cobain put his heart and bared his soul in his music, the pain was real. ?Layne Staley gave gut wrenching performances while fighting his addictions. ?Grunge did not kill Hair Metal, time did. ?Reality did too. ?Forgot the last time I was at the Dollhouse in Ft. Lauderdale....I guess I would rather be some Hipster/poser than the retarded kid who still wears his jean jacket with White Lion on the back and hass all the 80s greats on cassette.

Also, Izzy's correct.  Glam is David Bowie, New York Dolls, Lou Reed an earlier scene then the Hair Era.

Buddha_Master, I got one word for you: denial. GN'R was a glam band and there's no reason to fight that. It wasn't just during the AFD era. They always had a larger than life glam image. With UIY, they didn't kill glam, they redefined it.

And, once again, you demonstrate that you're not even paying attention to the music, but to insignificant side things like how the band dressed or what they wore. Personally, I think sometimes Poison took the makeup thing too far, but I don't care because it doesn't negate the fact that they recorded some kick ass rock n' roll songs.

Watch the infamous Ritz show and tell me thats glam. And yea GNR's demise waas the UYI tour when things got over bloated and gay with the horns and shit. Fuck, I totally agree with that. That is what I meant when I said they lost their way. But the GNR that that Ritz show captured, was the GNR that everyone fell in love with. The dirty talented not giving a piss Guns N' Roses, who thrived in controversary. The later GNR definitely was fucked.

Again while they were kicking ass and taking names riding the AFD Lightning, there was nothing Glam about them. The reviews for the Stoned in L.A. show cover that. GNR was a bare boned in your face dirty Rock group who kicked the shit out of the Stones and their million dollar stage show. It pains me that GNR became what they destroyed. But the time when GNR first caused earthquakes...Glam was no longer relevant in the world of Rock.

Just for the record, I grew up in the 90s, use an iPod, and own no cassettes. I started listening to metal when I got sick of all the boring post Nirvana crap MTV was ramming down my throat and realized what a fraud they were. There are 90s bands I still really like: AIC, Offspring, Candlebox. I am hardly stuck in my adolescence but I listen to whatever I like. Just because I don't like most of the mainstream stuff, I'm not gonna change my own taste to whatever the media says is now "in" so that others will approve of me and think that I'm not stuck in the past or whatever.

Now, in regards to your post, how do you qualify what having "soul" or "heart" is? And if someone defines them differently, why are you so much better than them?

Also, say someone does not care for "heart and soul" but likes virtuoso instrument playing and singing, what make you so much better that you should sneer at them simply because they have different tastes?

Lastly, I can't help but wonder again, why didn't the millions and millions of people who listened to it back then, like yourself, realize that those 80s bands lack heart and soul and were hence garbage until MTV changed formats and told you they lacked heart and soul and were garbage?

Buddha Master, you sound like every other no-nothing music critic that records sound bytes for VH1.  Do you formulate any opinions on your own.  Saying glam and hair metal are on in the same is idiotic.  Hanoi Rocks was glam but certainly not hair metal.  While many hair metal bands never dressed glam at all.  You judge musicians by their look rather than their music.  That amkes you as ignorant as you can get.  And finally to those who say hair metal bands didn't have any passion for the music is total bullshit.  I've seen bands like Poison, Motley Crue, Warrant, L.A. Guns and more put on amazing live shows titme after time, leaving everything they have on the stage.  That's passion.  Just cause a song is catchy and happy doesn't mean there's no passion and emotion involved.  And then when a "hair metal" band tries to get sentimental and serious its automatically labeled as another cheesy power ballad written to get airplay and chicks.  What makes you think Cobain didn't write shit just to get airplay or money.  What makes  him so fucking different than Nikki Sixx or Bret Michaels.  They wrote about what they loved and were interested in.  If that doesn't interest you then don't listen to it, but then also don't comment on it cause you don't know what you're talking about.  How many of these hair metal rants am I goona have to go on to educate you ignorant people?

How do you define "heart and soul"?  It's kind of like pornography, you know it when you see it.  Please don't confuse an energetic and choreographed stage show with passion.  Yeah, Warrent oozed soul didn't they?  Trixter sure had alot of passion.  Enuff Znuff sure had heartfelt performances!!  Perhaps an answer to this is the difference in production.  The Hair stuff was so overproduced which may have taken that heart out of it.  The Seattle scene music was raw, flawed, and rough around the edges as far as production goes.

As for MTV deciding my listening habits, I grew up in rural Indiana and did not have cable therefore, no MTV.  I have never been a big watcher of MTV, it's ruined music imo.  I grew out of the cheese metal stage when I went to college and got exposed to different underground groups.  Good marijuana and acid helped discover good tunes.  You don't here a cliche of people tripping to Poison for a reason! 

Dude, you are crazy if you think your opinion is anymore valid then my own. But make no mistake, what I say is my opinion and is just as valid as anyone else's critic or not. That is insulting for you to come at me like that. You want to tell me that Hair metal is different then glam, even though they are all glammed up wearing more makeup then chicks, then cool. I don't see the difference. They are glammed up. You want to seperate the too and convince me that you can be glammed up but you aren't glam, but you are hair metal, even though glam stars used a can of hair spray for every public outing, then cool. Hair metal is cooler, is that what your saying? If that helps you justify liking whatever subpar musicians gave you a boner because there lipstick was prettier then what glam musicians were wearing then good for you. Until GNR, came, you can't tell me that any glam/hair whatever the fuck fruitasses you had taped over your bed, were talented musicianship wise. They were like Kiss who put on big shows, that shrouded the fact that their music was generic and will only serve to define that specific period of time. In other words, there is nothing timeless about the music these cartoon charecters were creating.

Great, Im glad you enjoyed yourself at their shows. The only thing that music serves is to make you laugh when listening to one of the radio stations playing Vice City. The Beatles are arguably the greatest most prolific song writers in history. And they sure as shit aren't like that because of their shows. You want to talk catchy music, look no further. In the end it comes down to the music. And if we can talk about that specifically, it is ignorant to put anything PoisOn has ever done on the level as musicians like Zepplin. Yea great Glam/Hai whatever was only about the fun. I get thats what the 80's was. happy gay whatever.

This is my opinion and you sound like every 35+ year old whose best times were in high school during this time, and is too scared let that go. Like Al Bundy who only wanted to remember himself as the high school football star instead of the woman shoe salesman he became. When you step out of your timewarp bubble, you might find that great music exists outside that which defined you as a teen.

I am a fan of music. I love Classic Rock, Metal, and even Hip Hop. That being said, as a fan, I think saying PoisOn actually made good music, is a serious shortcome to thinking. They were a circus act. And not even the cool ones where there was freaks. They were like Poodles who rode the tricycles. Shit that is funny. But those poodles sure can't play the shit out their guitars. Go tell a Satriani fan how good they are. Better yet film it and send it to me. Would love to see you suddenly feeling like your corky, the class retard.

But what about the rest of my question? Why is your definition better than mine? For me, a song like Still Loving YOu, a hair power ballad by the Scorpions, has more passion, heart, and soul than anything Nirvana put out. What about a song like U2's Sometimes You can't Make It On your Own? It's produced to perfection, but are you gonna tell me Bono didn't pour his hart and soul into what's one of the most flawless and beautiful songs ever made?!?!? From my perspective, slandering talented bands as "overproduced" is nothing more than a way for no talent losers to promote their raw, flawed crap. What makes your view better than mine?

And again, since you neglected to answer this the first time around, say someone does not care for "heart and soul" but likes virtuoso instrument playing and singing, what makes you so much better that you should sneer at them simply because they have different tastes?


Here's another one. I listen to music for the music, not to trip on it, or to be considered hip or whatever. Maybe that's what happened to all the other tens of millions of fans also. They all went to college at the same time, got collectively stoned and were enlightened about what garbage metal was; MTV and the industry had nothing to do with it after all? :-\? ::)

Rob, it's probably best we start ignoring these clowns. Some people are gonna believe whatever they want to believe no matter what, and it's no use arguing with boneheads. Case in point: Buddha_Master still argues that AFD killed glam, ?even though Poison scored their second most successful album 2 years after AFD. He came up with the excuse that it was only because their old fan base stuck around and bought it. OK, then why did Warrant explode when their first album came out in ?1989? I can't wait to hear what tortured logic Buddha_Master will use now to justify why AFD killed glam in spite of that. Too bad he doesn't put as much effort into his logic as into his juvenile name calling.

Look, these people don't merely dislike glam/hair/whatever metal, they hate it! You know Poison have done at least something right if they arouse such an intense reaction from the self proclaimed non posers and "hipsters" ?: ok: ?And I love how Poison is now considered bad because, allegedly, they can't play their instruments, but Cobain is lauded as a hero for his imperfect, raw, flawed playing ?:rofl:

The Poison that still sold records after AFD, did they have the same image as the Poison that was around before AFD?

GN'R had a phase where they used make up, there's pics of that in the Photographic History book, but in my opinion that doesn't mean the band was a glam band or a hair metal band.




/jarmo

They changed their image somewhat for Flesh & Blood, but it was still undeniably blatant, shameless, over the top, glam.

There is no doubt that poison wasn't as talented as other bands, but they did have a few good tunes, "nothin but a good time", "Every Rose has it's thorn", "Fallen angel", aside from those songs I'm not much of a poison fan, although I do like to laugh at songs like "unskinny Bop" to me that song defines how fucked up music was in the '80's glam scene. and I do agree glam and hair metal are interchangable terms. But in around 88-89, images started to change for those bands, GnR included, they went to a more rugged image, jeans instead of striped spandex, unshaven faces, straight hair instead of teased, now i don't know if GnR brought that change or it just happened. Guns never really changed anything IMO, they were just the best band going.

with grunge, the wild screechy guitar solos became obsolete, don't get me wrong I was as big of a grunge fan as anyone but I do still like to hear the high pitched whiny solos once in a while.

I like gilld1's post "Grunge did not kill Hair Metal, time did." good assesment dude : ok: I totally agree, contrary to any prior posts I have made.

I still say you cant compare bands from the 60's and 70's to bands from the 80's & 90's, those guys back then were inventing new shit! but I think that it is undenyable that the majority of the musicians from the Classic, Hair and Grunge eras were just more talented than the shitty musicians we find today. We are in desperate need of a musical revolution, maybe our favorite redhead will rise and help deliver it to us. Maybe it was a good thing he's been absent from the public eye for so long, but I think now he should come out of seclusion and do what he was born to do, kick ass on the stage!!!!  Time to put-up or shut-up. It's time for Chinese Democracy! : ok:

Pop, what the fuck is your problem?  I've simply made the assessment that from my perspective a great deal of the Hair scene was heartless. I grew up during this time period, I was there, Iwent and saw some of the bands live, but even then after hearing Hendrix I knew that there was a key ingredient missing from the Hair scene. I never said that my opinion was better than yours, it is, but I never said it before now.  So flawed production means talentless players?  Say what you will about St. Anger, it's rough, raw, underproduced, so Metallica has no talent?  Then you get absurb and throw U2 into the mix.  So U2 is comparable to Poison, Warrent, etc?  Correct me if I'm wrong but we were talking about Hair Metal not one of the greatest bands ever, U2.  Also, you are a fool to think that a person who plays classical is not into the heart and soul aspect. All GREAT musicians have tremendous heart and soul.  Look at a band like Areosmith, they have heart and soul but their last couple of albums have lacked this and have been bland poppy soppy ballads.  That's why I back tracked and called into question the production of some of these bands. 

It's not my fault that there are so mant people out there that let's MTV and American Idol choose their music for them.  I don't know how Linkin Park sold a billion albums.  I do know that I have gone on to discover many other great bands out there without the help of MTV.  Your mother must be very proud of you that you listen to music not to trip, but to listen to the music!   

First of all Buddha I'm 20, not 35+.  Secondly my opinion on this issue is more valid than yours because I actually know what I'm talking about with these bands...you don't.  I'm not saying hair metal is better than glam.  I'm saying that calling a band glam is classifying them solely on looks, which I think is dumb.  Why should a band be classified on how they look rather than how they sound?  A band like Hanoi Rocks was glam as hell, but they certainly weren't hair metal.  And Popmetal is right on with the whole C.C. vs. Cobain thing.  People say Poison weren't any good because they were sloppy players, well it doesn't get any sloppier than Cobain.  But just because C.C. did it with a smile on his face instead of a gun to his head he gets slaughtered by critics while Cobain is worshiped.  Some of you guys are so hypocritical.  And if you don't think these bands have passion you don't know jack shit.  Passion is why bands like L.A. Guns or Faster Pussycat will still give their all at every performance...even if its in some dingy club where there's only 20 people there to see it.  They do it cause they love music, they love what they're doing.  They have passion.  Just cause they show some fucking life on stage doesn't mean they're not serious about what they do.  Music is supposed to fun right?  At least it used to be.

Dude, don't put words in my mouth, and watch that condescending tone. I never said a thing about passion. I like photoshop with a passion, but that doesn't mean Im good enough to be working for ILM. Chicks love chocolate with a passion. Maybe we should start strapping guitars on these stay at home oprah loving wives because they have a passion for bon bons.

I never said they were sloppy players. But not being sloppy doesn't mean you are a gifted player. There just isn't any depth to what they were doing musically. I'm saying a stage show doesn't translate to making good music. You seem to think because Bret can twirl while he flips on stage, and then land and click his heals together, means he is a better song writer then Dylan. Siegfried and Roy put on good shows.

But you have to understand the distinction musically. You can't argue about a stage show to someone who is a fan of music. They are not one in the same. Its great when a band can have their cake and eat it too (like with GN'R). To put on a great raw show (and yea, Im talking pre UYI), and have the talent to create great timeless music.

The stage show is bullshit when the music is sucks. Dude, you know who got it right? Pink Floyd. Hair/Glam, I don't give a shit what you want to call them, never got it right. Pink Floyd knew how to put on a show, that completely complemented their music. That was a show...but it was what it was because the music is so good.

So my friend and some others. Are you a fan of music, or are you a fan of the stage show? The stage show...that used as an argument to defend someones music is really lame. Think about it.

When you watch old videos and listen to some of the albums of the Hair scene often times their passion doesn't show, unless it's a live video.  It was overproduced and pigeonholed to try and fit the image that was popular at the time.  Some of the guys like LA Guns are probably doing it for part love and part what the fuck else are they going to do?

Rob, CC thought he was a great guitarist while Cobain played with in his limits, that's the difference, one of them anyway.

I saw Prodigy at Lollapalooza 97 and wow what a stage show, explosions, crazy lights, chaos.  But the music sure did suck.  I saw BB King once and he never stood from his stool the whole show and it was one of the most amazing shows I've ever witnessed.

That is a really good fucking point. BBKing fucking rules and is definitely a gift from the music gods. Sometimes when you are just in the presence of a music god, and they are demonstrating their godgiven abilities, that can easily blow you away more then any pyrotechnics could ever do. Shit Hendrix could have seriously just stood their, showed you why he is experienced, and you have walked away knowing you had the shit kicked out of you.

Hate to bring up Buckethead, as I know that is a sore spot, for me too, but I saw him live in Hollywood. Fucking awesome.

From what I saw of GNR 2002 tour, for me, kicked the shit out of the UYI stage show, because it got back to the bare boned dark gritty nature that Rock N' Roll feeds off of best. I think that is a direct reflection of Axl being absent from the bullshit and taking a step back and seeing shit as it was meant to be seen.

I think this debate has run its course.  Sorry if I came off as condescending Buddha.  I dissagree with your opnions on hair metal.  I think Bret Michaels is a good song writer, and I think their music is good.  I'm a Posion fan and nothing someone can say will change that just like nothing I can say will probably change your opinions.  One quick note for gilld, C. C. does not think he's a great guitarist.  He's very humble when it comes to his playing.  He once said, "I had all the influences to become a great guitarist, it just never happened."...or something along those lines.  I don't think Buddha was the one to bring up the passion issue, but someone definitely did.  I am a big fan of the hair metal era...not to say there weren't bad hair metal bands.  There were plenty of them, but I think there were also a lot of good bands to come out of that era that don't get the credit they deserve.  There were also a ton of very talented guitarists to play in hair metal bands.  Guys like Tracii Guns, George Lynch, Frank Hannon, Richie Sambora, Snake Sabo, and many more could all play the hell out of a guitar.  I just don't like bands being judged on their apperance, but if you're not a fan of their songs then that's cool with me.  To each their own.

I just wanted to say that this has been one of the coolest threads in a long time. I?m quite glad it hasn?t been locked or moved to a section where it would quickly be forgotten. I personally think that glam rock (i.e. T. Rex) is classic and pop metal (i.e. Skid Row) is great, but it?s hard for me to imagine anyone honestly liking the stereotypical hair metal bands (i.e. Poison). With that said, music?s subjective, and it?s not really worth arguing over. Unless you?re trying to keep bored insomniacs like me thoroughly entertained.

As you were?

It's funny, I started this thread to help people not to worry about Axl being missing, now its turn into the hair metal/glam rock thread . But thanks though. : ok:

Im actually feeling the love now. And shit its Friday. To the dudes in the debate, please have a shot or a hit for me tonight.

Strong vibes right now. I will have a rip for each and everyone of you tonight. Man, we even got some closure on this. Oh, its on tonight...