Here Today... Gone To Hell!

I often here people say that such and such a band are ?not relevant.? What does that mean exactly? Some Van Halen or KISS fans will say VH or KISS isn?t relevant. But they still go to the shows when they tour. So what is it that people mean exactly when they say ?relevant?? Isn?t it kid of subjective?

And are GN?R relevant in 2005?

To individual people, they sure are. On a whole? No, I wouldn't say Guns are relvelant. Then again, it all depends on what you want them to be relevant to? Is Get In the Ring relevant to Martha Stewart's TV show? No.

GNR haven't been "relevant" since about late 1992. The downhill slide started in 1993, and continues today. But like Mama Kin said, if you're going by different people's opinions, they sure are. We're proof of that. But if you mean relevant in a pop culture sense, the answer is NO.

This is only my opinion, but how can you say that guns n roses are not relevant anymore? I can only speak for how it is here in England. But they are always on Music channels on television almost everyday, they crop up in film soundtracks, they get a headline article in music mags on an almost bi-monthly basis, they get on the soundtrack of some computer game, it amazes me how often they get songs played at sports events in England and across the world, there was the massive success of the greatest hits, they played their first concert in England for 8 years in 02 and got the headline act at the Leeds Festival in front of 50,000 people not bad eh, they closed the vma's in the same year and the buzz and excitment through that whole night from fans, celebs and the host himself showed in one fell swoop that they are still very relavent. There are probably many other incidents that have occured that I have forgotton about, that show how very relavent the band still are. Its almost like the world is just in hibernation waiting for the bomb to drop when the album comes and then the guns machine will crank up again with a different cast led by the man himself! Irrelavent dont make me laugh!

Than what rock band is relavant? And how are they more relavant than GN'R?

Is it important being "relevant"? I mean look at this:

"Simpson's I Am Me sold 220,000 copies for the week ended Sunday, while Stewart's Songbook moved 193,000, according to Nielsen SoundScan tracking. It's the sixth week in a row that a new album has debuted at number one on the Billboard 200. "

estranged33 and richardnixon, how can you consider those examples as being relevant? VMA's, a few soundtracks, grand theft auto, sporting events,etc. is a great way to keep the GNR name alive, but it does not make the band relevant. I think GNR can be relevant, but they aren't at this particular time. To be relevant is going to require new albums and Axl staying in the public eye longer than a few weeks. Right now, liking GNR isn't as uncool as it was back in the mid-late 90's, so relevancy may be close at hand. But we're not there yet. But 'soon' is the word on relevancy! :beer:

Gnr is a great nostalgia act right now-that is why it is cool to where their t-shirts, etc. SCOM came on my local station yesterday and at the end, both dj's went "wow" what a great band...."back in the day." To be relevant, I think you have to be releasing successful records and touring. Simple as that. Obviously, in 2005, "Gnr" is not doing that.

You are relevant with time. Maybe the new GN'R will be relevant in 10 years with songs like "the blues" and "madagascar". But the record needs to come out. For the moment they are at ground zero.

relevant means still popular, like U2 and Aerosmith have stayed relavent for 20-30 years. This means they have been able to stay relatively popular and are still significant forces in the music world.

Not having CD has become RELEVANT to the fans of GNR :crying:

How can you expect a band who don't do anything to be relevant?

The Beatles are probably the most important band ever... but you don't see them on the cover of Spin and and every other magazine out there.

And I wouldn't even go as far as saying Aerosmith or The Rolling Stones are relevant these days. They're just milking past fame. Neither one of the groups newest studio CDs made any kind of impact at all.
Yet, whenever U2 release a new CD, everyone wets themselves with excitement.

I think U2 and Aerosmith have "stayed relevant" at a great artistic cost.  Pre -1978 Aerosmith rocked, it has been a terrible decline since "Permanent Vacation". I could talk about this for hours. "Dude Looks Like a Lady", "Pink", "Living on the Edge" (a blatant Hendrix rip-off "Are you experienced" anyone! I can't believe Aerosmith have fooled so many.

I would rather GNR do nothing, then sell their souls for rock n' roll.

I think when it makes songs relevant to themselves and to you, and to the world today (to be relevant to the topic), then the band is relevant, no? ???

I thought the Bo Bo album, whatever it is called, was really good and I liked it a lot.

Madagascar makes many great points. I dont think Gn'R's legacy, and the impact they made in 1987-1992 is even remotely forgotten from any rock fan's mind, however in terms of modern day pop culture, GnR have unfortunately been burried in the undertow of mainstream music. The new lineup would have been highly relevant had the 2002 tour been completed without cancellation..even without an album the buzz was definately there for Axl to not just be relevant and the best in the buisness, but to also reclaim his throne. I remember buying a t-shirt at west 49 and getting a promo magazine and inside was a 2 page article on how despite the appearance of the lineup, they had been very impressive live thus far. Still with no album, you cant really expect GnR to be very high on the casual music listener's, but as you know that can all change... ;)