Here Today... Gone To Hell!

MSNBC posted this story about "Chinese Democracy"...yes I know I work there and no I had nothing to do with this article.... :hihi:


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27681908/

You work for MSNBC?

Eww. I'm so sorry for you.

Anyway, the article was alright. Mostly just "LOL 1991 WAS SO LONG AGO" crap, but hey, not every journalist can be Kurt Loder.

MSNBC is great dip shit.

"And there sure hasn?t been another Axl Rose."

That's for damn sure!!    : ok:

agreed...but I thought the article was decent...

Love MSNBC.  Great article.  Would be nice to have an updated picture though...

Excellent articel..I checked outRegina Spektors On the Radio, not bad..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSJQ1St1OnQ

I LOVE THE WORLD AND EVERYONE IN IT!!!!! God Bless America!!!! :peace:  (is that better?)

That was some majestic writing!!!!  ;D

As much as I HATE MSNBC for BEING POLITICAL CHEERLEADERS AND USING YELLOW JOURNALISM it was a GOOD ARTICLE.

I thought it was a pretty good article too. Kurt Cobain got it all wrong, WOMEN WILL ALWAYS LOVE BAD BOYS! There has been a recent slew of articles about the popularity of Vampires from the book and new movie TWILIGHT and the HBO show Trueblood. Girls are going crazy in malls for the actor who plays Edward. And all because girls love bad boys!  Girls will soon be going crazy again for Uncle Axl! Some of us never stopped!

Not a bad article, really.  I only take umbrage with one part:


Perhaps I missed something but...what are they talking about?  Sure, replace "alternative bands" with "extreme metal" and I'm right there with ya.  But alternative bands?  I can't honestly think of any alternative band I'd call edgy.  Though, admittedly, "alternative" is incredibly vague...perhaps they mean grunge?  I'd give Alice in Chains "edgy" though not "edgier". 


If you don't mind my asking...why the fuck not?  I can't think of anyone better suited to have written it.  It needs more cursing, more use of words like "awesome" and "phenomenal"...I think the Shadows touch could have helped out quite a bit.     

They mean Grunge.  They mean Nirvana and Pearl Jam, if you wanted them to be specific, I'll bet.

Not that "edgy" is everything, but that's not the term I'd apply to either of those bands.  I don't mean that as a criticism...I just don't see that interpretation.  Eh.  Semantics.

I know, I know.   But when the descriptions of the history of GnR pop up, that is almost invariably what, and who, they mean when they say "alternative", "edgy" bands.  They mean Grunge, they mean the "seattle movement", and they mostly mean Nirvana and Pearl Jam.  Maybe with an afterthought lent to Soundgarden and STP.

Debate at your leaisure whether what they're saying and what they mean are the same....we all have, I think.

But when Guns came out...their darker style wasn't very mainstream.  GNR made that mainstream.  When Nirvana and PJ came out...GNR was the mainstream and they offered an alternative to the metal movement.  They weren't edgier...just different than the current norm. 

Why does everyone on this board get so bent out of shape when the "N" word (as in Nirvana) is mentioned or suggested?

MSNBC and Rachel Maddow rock!

I don't know that we're "bent out to shape".  "Nevermind" has it's rightful place in music history, and I think everyone recognizes that Nirvana had a huge impact on the music industry.  Ditto with Pearl Jam and 10 (and other material, too...just not their 2nd album).

Sometimes I think it's effect on GNR is a bit overstated...they had interpersonal issues LONG before Nevermind or Ten came out and THAT is what ultimately led to that incarnation of GnR not producing more material.  Not a change in the commercial tastes of the industry.  There's really no telling how successful, or unsuccessful, new GnR material would have been back THEN.  The supposition that GnR "ceased to be" because of alternative music is sort of baseless, to some extent.  YES, other "hair metal" bands went (and have come back), because they saw falling sales.  I would say they are bad litmus tests to judge what may (or may not) have happened had GnR been more productive back then.

But I think the REAL exception comes when they try to label bands like Nirvana and Pearl Jam as "pioneers" or as being "edgy".  They were simply the first (and most) successful, commercially, of the "grunge" bands.  They were the ones who brought it to national attention, but they weren't the first.  They weren't pioneers.  They were building off the backs of bands like Sonic Youth and the Pixies, to a large extent.   So many people feel Nirvana and Pearl Jam are given just a little bit more credit than they deserve.  Certainly, they deserve SOME credit, and some acclaim for being as successful as they were/are.  But to make them out to be the "fathers" of that genre....that IS overstating their place in history in many people's opinion.

I agree,unfortunately I have ZERO pull there whatsoever...if it were up me I would ditch a few episodes of Lockup and replace them with GNR specials all week..I was fortunate enough that a co-worker told me about this article...

I will tell you why.  God forbid anyone ever writes a story about Guns N' Roses without mentioning Nirvana..or the 1992 altercation at the VMA's...(yes lets not talk about how GNR and Elton John tore the roof off the place lets talk about Courtney Love being a moron)


I agree 100% with this.  There are very few writers who actually acknowledge those points...all of which are correct in my opinion.

Guns N Roses separated themselves from "Hair Metal" bands back when "Appetite" came out...they had nothing to do with bands like Poison or Warrant but did share a similar fan base and came from L.A so unfortunately they got lumped in with the rest of them sometimes.  But come on, Motley Crue and Poison were NOT writing songs like "Rocket Queen", "Civil War", "November Rain" and "Estranged," just to name a few...the only similarity between these bands is that they use guitars and came from L.A...that is it!

"Chinese Democracy" is actually the first release of Guns N Roses in the post-grunge era, and the post-grunge era has been over for over a decade....so we will never know what would have happened if GNR kept putting records out in 1994,1995 an so on..I do think that GNR still would have sold records and been successful...Aerosmith had great success during this time period so I figure GNR would have done the same...would they have been the biggest band in the world?  who knows?  But just because Motley Crue put out a dud with a new lead singer in 1994 doesnt mean that would have happened to GNR...actually if I recall correctly according to Slash the first "Snakepit" album went platinum...and that came out in 1995, I can only imagine that a GNR album would have exceeded that by far...

I like Nirvana, but I do have a problem when it is said that Nirvana revolutionized rock music, because as Pilferk said they are not the only band or even the first band to come from that genre.   But say they are the band responsible for "revolutionizing" rock music, what exactly did they accomplish?  Didn't rap and hip hop take over the charts for a full decade after Nirvana came out?  Where is the revolution in that?  Shouldn't a rock revolution lead to other great rock bands?  The grunge/alt rock fad fizzled out after a few years and thats being generous..  I was in middle school transitioning to high school in 1995 and 1996, nobody listened to rock music that I can remember, until Manson and Korn came along..Now grant it this is just what happened in my high school, I can't speak for people in their 20's at that time, but hip hop was IT when I was in high school...I was in the minority...