Here Today... Gone To Hell!

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

(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Music/Pix/pictures/2010/2/15/1266227953229/Axl-Rose-of-Guns-N-Roses--001.jpg)

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 Is 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 2003 ? 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 the modern hard-rock bands on the bill: who made the genre so boring?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2010/aug/26/guns-n-roses


Awesome article.

Nice article.

Somebody gets it.

What other people whine about, this guy points out that it's what makes GN'R different. Which is absolutely true.

Obviously most fans know that GN'R are different. That's why we all like GN'R!

But there's a big group of people who have no fucking clue and assume all the bands are the same..... That everybody has read and lives by the "Rock N' Roll rulebook for the 2000s".




/jarmo

Haha, that was a good read. Even if he's not so kind about TIL, he sure points out how the band isnt a nostalgia act for the mid-30's or above. That's rock n' roll indeed.

You know, that's not really a big deal.

I mean, the whole basis of the article is that GN'R went from cool to uncool and back to cool.

We all know how people work.

Does anybody honestly think that all the great classic rock songs from back in the day were immediately loved by everybody?





/jarmo

I read that sentence about TIL (a 'gleefully lunatic six-minute pseudo rock-opera') a little differently:  i.e. the author is British, and as far as I could tell, this was a compliment.

Overall, a really positive article I think.

Yeah I think he was being complimentary about TIL as well.

Great article.  Perfectly explains things.

Well, still, my point was how the author was spot on about the band.

When they were about to tour Brazil, I suddenly see lots of people claiming to be a fan. And I sure remember when the same people thought it was uncool when I was downloading boots in 2002.

Great rock n roll is built on danger, unpredictability, and immense passion. If those things do not describe Guns then I don't know what does. It is refreshing to see that someone in the press actually gets that!

It wasn't cool to like GNR from about 93 - 99ish (grunge and alternative coffee house rock era), but Gnr's legacy was clearly renewed by the late 90s early 2000s. I liked the article, but the author forgot that in their peak (88 - 92) many, many people did like Gnr. They were the biggest, baddest, most dangerous band in the world. They personified the rock star lifestyle and had the music to set them apart from everything else at the time. People only stopped admitting they liked Gnr post Nirvana/alternative era. That's when being a big, bad ass rock star wasn't cool anymore.

Gnr's legacy was renewed once all the young people realized how boring and depressing 90s rock was; it became so stripped down and raw, that it started to become talentless. I think the turning point was the arrival of Kid Rock and Britney Spears. clearly they brought sleeze, attitude, and self destruction back to rock. Although I hate all the heavy rap metal, I think they were more Gnr influenced and helped eradicate boring Nu Metal. Bands like Limp Bizkit, LP, Rage Against the Machine, had a dangerous, sleezy vibe like Gnr. Now all the major acts love Gnr and the wild 80s. They either view Gnr as a classic rock band (a zeppelin or Aerosmith of their era) or  a really fun party rock band. Either way they love the 80s retro thing, e.g. Carrie Underwood, Jason Aldean (cover Gnr at their shows), Kesha, Lady GaGa, Kid Rock,
All these young people run around wearing aviators and bandanas and brag about how much whiskey they drink and how reckless they are. It is obviously a throwback to Gnr and the 80s.

Regarding Kid Rock, I'm not saying I like him or his music, nor am I comparing his talent to Axl, I just think he is a key figure in pulling rock n roll out of the boring 90s rut. He brought the "rock star" persona back to mainstream culture (not necessarily the rock world). He became an iconic image and a household name (like Axl). Kid Rock made strippers, private jets, cocaine, aviators, long hair, big productions, partying, blues-based rock, etc all cool again. Whiny, sensitive, alternative music was boring, grunge was depressing and weird, Nu Metal was too bland; Kid Rock realized that rock n roll needed some danger and more anthemic songs (and more drugs and strippers). This occurred in the late 90s, and I noticed that after this point, it was cool to like Gnr again. Enough time had passed where rock fans started to either miss Axl or realize the absence of a true American Rock Star. Teens viewed them as classic rock on par with Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Stones, etc. Enough time had also passed where they acquired legendary status (VH1's Behind the Music I think solidified their rock star legacy to a younger generation). You could go to a high school party in 2010 and still find kids doing keg stands and singing along to Paradise City and Sweet Child O Mine right after an Eminem or 50 cent song.

Regarding Britney Spears, I am NOT saying she is on par with Gnr. She, of course, even dated a boy band member. But, she did bring back danger, sleeze, and dirty music. She was like a Madonna. She made it cool to be slutty, party, and drink. After her, we see the rise of Lohan, Paris Hilton, Shakira, etc. They drove fast cars, partied and did drugs. They sleezed up the mainstream culture in the same way that Gnr did, just not as authentic and pure. Gnr were the real deal whereas the new generation were posers and throwbacks, but they still brought back sleeze.

Positive press?! What next? Axl on time at Reading and Leeds!  :hihi:

Seriously cannot wait till fucking Sunday. Just found out the Mrs is Pregnant with what will be our first child, so we're going to Leeds late just to see GNR, then off to manchester on 18th, seated but great seats, when my child is older I can let them know they saw/heard GnR twice before they were even born!!

I keep posting random bull shit posts at the moment because I can't beleive that I'm finally going to get to see the band I have loved since 1993!

When DJ starts CD I think I will either cum in my pants or start to cry, not both though that would just be weird!

Good article.

Someone finally gets it. Yes, Gn'R can't be bargained with and yes, they can't be reasoned with. They bring the excitement and they bring the danger by not striving for it - but by simply being a genuine rock n' roll band. In these these times (practically the last 15 years) of goretex sock rock... Gn'R are a lighthouse in a dull, grey storm still.



 

Cool article. I bet if they tour the States, the media will come around and say how great Gun's is again and how they have been missed. The media loves to hype, tear down, then hype again. It's the American way!

Congratulations on the great news about your wife!!! Hope you two enjoy the shows.

Crying would be a lot easier to clean up though- :)

So very true. Too bad (for them) that Axl isn't exactly known for giving second chances. And I immensely respect him for that attitude. And i mean respecting everyone by default but having zero tolerance for bullshit and lies.

Congratulations on the great news about your wife!!! Hope you two enjoy the shows.

Crying would be a lot easier to clean up though- :)
[/quote]

Cheers man, really appreciate that. Ha yes, maybe my lass might prefer the tears too!

Great article, particularly about the set list. Quite surprised really coming from a major newspaper. Although I'd argue there is nothing 'dangerous' at paying ?85 for a ticket to see your favourite band and not having them turn up or turning up late and the plug being pulled 3 songs in. Having said that I'm looking forward to seeing them tomorrow night!

SkeletorSerpent you made interesting points but, rage against the machine released their debut in 1991. you can't really put them into a group alongside limp bizkit kid rock and linkin park, they were around a good 5/6 years prior.

they were almost split up by the time nu metal really came to the front and became majorly popular.

Good point, you're right, Alan. My mistake in clumping them together. I remember listening to their debut in my buddy's basement in 91. I knew their was something special about the album. I liked the aggression, political lyrics, classic riffs, and catchy vibe.

I forgot to add that the EMO, Screamo, and hardcore bands of the 2000s all seem to admire Gnr too.

This also reminds me of the difference between concerts.

It seems like when you go see certain artists, you get a show. And the music is not the main focus.

All these "great live shows" where you basically are watching video screens while the band/artist stand in one spot performing.

That can be great too.

But the difference is that a GN'R show is essentially a classic rock n' roll show with the added bonus of video/pyro.

The focus is still on the music and the performance.


I think that might "confuse" some people.




/jarmo

Good point, the "anti-corporate," "anti-rock star," "anti-commercial," "anti-label," "anti-glam," "anti-ego," "anti-hair band," mentality permeated the rock scene for so long that people were focused on just "the music." So, an entire generation of rock fans lost the whole rock n roll experience and the emotional journey of listening to an album. The over the top theatrics and productions, the larger than life egos were not considered "cool." Instead of an escape, rock music became a mirror that reflected back the pitiful lives of the average, disgruntled teenager. They didn't turn to rock n roll to dream of being big shots with hot girls, they turned to rock n roll to find a reflection of their own pathetic lives. It was so boring.  It wasn't cool to be a cultural icon. Every up and coming "rocker" just pretended to be an underground indie band that just happened to "make it big." They wanted to be the hero to the underdog, the losers, the skaters, the punks, the outcasts. "I'm a musician, not an arrogant rock star" they will tell the press. They wanted to be garage bands that preached to all of their fans "this could have just as easily been you." Bull shit. I don't want my rock n roll to be just another band from the streets or garages, average Joes like me. I want it to be big, full of pomp and spectacle  with complex song arrangements and eternal riffs that the average guitar joe and his buddies in the basement are incapable of composing. Good thing that whole era is over and people just like to rock now days. "Alternative" and "Modern" rock stations play AC/DC and Motley Crue right along with Radio Head and Pearl Jam. Rock in roll has become less judgmental and focused on labels and cliques.
The world will always need Guns N Roses.

Rammstein. Impossible not to enjoy a Rammstein show. Although I like their music too!

Yeah, it's kind of tongue-in-cheek British sense of humour in that trademark self-deprecating style of ours.

How can u compare Rammstein to GNR? The Germans make a great visual show indeed, but I can only watch it without sound

I prefer music to special effects. It is a rock concert not fireworks display

When did Axl call himself a prick for the homo statements?

I don't think it was meant as a word for word quote.

He's explained himself since the song was released. I believe that's the point the journalist is trying to make.




/jarmo

Great article!  Like Jarmo said -- "somebody gets it".  That's good to see from the media. Anyone goin to the shows, have a great fuckin time. Don't throw any shit at the helicopter when it drops them off!

GnFnR forever!!!  They'll never go out of style for me! : ok:

That article is still very inaccurate.... people didn't hate GNR in the early 90's and Kurt Cobain had NOTHING to do with GNR being "Unfashionable"

How do you know?

Because that's how it was in your world?


As soon as Nirvana and "alternative music" became popular and got heavy rotation on MTV, all those other bands become "uncool".

And yes, some people who care about such things would "hate" those bands.

It's always been like that.

That's what made GN'R cool back in the day. They were the opposite of all the crappy hair metal bands.

That's what made the Sex Pistols popular. And so on and so on.... History repeats.



/jarmo

How does that person know?

they are writing from their own point of view, so im sure the writer didn't poll the universe.

I'd say sold out STADIUMS, not arenas but STADIUMS, mixed with top 10 singles and November Rain consistently voted as a top 3 video of all time *which came out during the boom of grunge* on MTV would point to them not being "hated" at all.

that writer speaks as if they were some "guilty pleasure" i call bullshit on that.

Don't know about "hated", but from my point of view GN'R's general popularity started to fade in 94-95.

I can still remember New Year's Eve 2001... People definately felt their GN'R fix was long overdue. I guess that's the testament of a legend type artist.

I think the band was still popular, but not hyped anymore by the media or whoever used to follow the trend back in the early 90's.

reporter specifically said EARLY 90's.

Interesting you have to hate on the first 100% positive article in recent memory.


Great job, Buddy  : ok:

so a dude slagging off the early 90's band is positive?

I defend all eras of GNR. What the dude reported was bullshit. I call that out. Nirvana didn't make GNR uncool, GNR were never unpopular or a guilty pleasure.

Last i checked this is a Guns N Roses forum, not a 2002 and beyond only Guns N Roses message forum.

Sure, November Rain has been named one of the greatest videos of all time. Sure they sold out huge venues all over the worlds in the 1990s. But do you remember the 1990s?

I'm not saying anything bad about GN'R here. Just so those of you who like to twist shit don't get any ideas.

Just my perspective of how others viewed GN'R while I was still a fan and many others were busy trying to be "cool"...

Back then the music press were all about alternative music, Oasis (here in Europe), electronica and so on.

GN'R weren't "cool".

Then after a while people realize what's genuine and that usually becomes "ok to like" again.



Hell, back when I started this site you could see what the popular bands were. They had way more fan sites than GN'R!

That's one of the reasons I even started this. Because I thought there wasn't enough GN'R stuff on the Internet. I had a bunch of stuff that wasn't available back then.... I typed out articles and added them to my site because nobody else had. Things like that.




For fuck's sake. We all know you hate the present band.

So when you see a positive article about GN'R today, you have to jump in and make it into something else?




Exactly.

Too bad D can't tell the difference.


If you paid any attention to how the music media works, this is another example of how things go in cycles.

You're cool, you're uncool, you suck, we laugh at you, you're cool, we always knew you were great.




/jarmo

I don't hate the present band. hate is a strong word.

Where did i say anything bad about the positive parts of the interview?

Did I say the guy is full of shit and GNR aren't a great spontaneous,exciting live band? NO


The part about the new band is great. kudos to the reporter, that however doesn't erase the fact he is full of shit dissing not only the early 90's band but all versions of the band up until now.

Just a weird dichotomy how on one hand u guys can applaud a guy for praising GNR,but not care on the other hand that he is full of crap..... i know it was the much hated "original" band, but last i checked ,Axl was still in that band.

He also didn't single out "journalist" were ones who hated GNR, he basically meant everybody as in those who listen to boy bands and don't admit it etc.  U guys can't rewrite the dudes article to have it fit your argument.

now around Spaghetti Incident and right after, sure, ill give u they may were a bit uncool.. but early 90's? thats height of UYI.No way were they unpopular.

We get it. You got upset because you see this as an attack on an old line up.... Which isn't cool with you at all!

So you have to defend it.


Even though he's not attacking GN'R at all. Just saying how things were.

GN'R weren't "the cool band to like".


I'm sure you must be able to relate to that being a Bon Jovi fan. Nobody admits to liking them but they sell out stadiums (including the seats!).  :hihi:




/jarmo

 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

ok u got me on the Bon Jovi thing but still defending the old band doesn't slag off the new one.... the part about the new band is spot on and i applaud the guy for knowing and giving it the proper due.

doesn't mean im gonna support what i feel is erroneous.

GNR were NEVER looked at like Bon Jovi.

He's not saying anything bad about GN'R!

When will you get it?

He's even pointing out how popular they were back then!


He only says people were more comfortable mentioning others bands as their favorites because those bands were considered cooler, more exciting, more interesting etc.

And that's how it is.


It's like fucking high school. Everybody wants to blend in and be accepted so everybody tries to look, act and say the same things. Nobody wants to stand out and be the weirdo!  :P


From what I've noticed, you're more likely to see a teenager wearing a GN'R t-shirt today than you were in the late 1990s...

That's just another example... Now it's ok, GN'R is cool.




/jarmo

ok ok, i get what u are saying there

like how all the douches went from wanting to be axl to wearing flannel?

yeah i hate people like that.

i agree that describing gn'r at any point in the bands career as uncool is utter bollocks. and to use bon jovi as a comparison is plain stupid. the article is positive which is good, but the stance or hook line of 'when did they become cool?' is bull shit. i think alot of people on this forum missed out on the 80's and 90's and feel the need to prove that gn'r is as important/worthy now as back then. don't worry it's all good, then and now! jarmo it's a great site you have here but leave people to express themselves. try getting laid, i think it might help!

If you only come here to try to insult me, you're on the wrong fucking site.  : ok:


Another clever person who adds a personal attack to his post. So if i remove his/her post, it'll be followed by "My post was removed because I disagreed".

Morons...




/jarmo

Despite a few factual errors, I enjoyed the article.  A pretty honest summing up of public perception of GNR from the early 90's to today.  I got me thinking to 1992/93 when I would often see GNR being voted ' the worst band', 'worst album', in public magazine polls, despite then selling out Milton Keynes 2 nights running.  Always made me laugh.

I think Jarmo covered it quite well but the writer clearly gives props to the old lineup.  He's not slagging them at all.

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).

^
Faldor stop selectively reading

read what it says AFTERRRRRRRRRRRRR that.

Jesus Christ.

Amazes me how even GNR fans hate on a certain era of the band which without we  wouldn't be on here even talking today.

It isn't about new vs old, its Guns N Roses and Axl regardless of the year.

Why is everyone getting so wound up about this.

The article is a positive one, its much better than the usual Axl bashing that goes on in the press.

Back in the early to mid nineties lots of people loved GnR and lots didn't. Like now, hands up if you think Glee is cool? Some people do some don't big deal.

The main thing that stopped making GnR cool was that they stopped releasing music, they faded from peoples minds and people moved on to Oasis or whatever. Nirvana broke through in 1991 GnR were still one of the biggest bands in the world at that time. For the masses most started to want to be Kurt rather than Axl but for the millions of GnR fans around the world it was business as usual and fuck me, some people even liked both bands!

Iagree. This writer gets what a rock band is.  They show up late? So what? This is a rock band, rock bands don't follow the rules all the time.  You should expect the unexpected when going to a rock concert.

Awesome, its all set for GnR to make a huge statement in England that they are back and ready to rule again, lets hope they dont manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory like they sometimes do

Because when a curfew is imposed and the band has to stop or can't play then the fans miss out. Its not so bad when the venue is open all night, but thats rarely the case these days. I'm sure on the Hollywood strip or whatever it was diffrent.

Based on my personal perception GNR were not only immensely popular but also rather cool until about 1991/92. Of course there are always those who like to dislike a band precisely because they are so popular and most likely this crowd too was rather numerous at the time. Then the tastes in music changed, GNR stopped giving out music and their popularity faded due to lack of new material plus that people probably would have grown tired anyway and started to look for something new, people always do. The band was really uncool for the rest of the nineties but started gaining on popularity and coolness as one of the classic bands throughout the 2000s. Time's a great healer...  ::) And I'm referring to the general public now, not the sworn fans.

ahhh....the coolness factor!
i've been around with GN'R all the very late 80s and whole 90s and IMO the coolness factor went down in steps more and more with the UYI releases: loosing Izzy, loosing the hard rock element with UYI music a lot, releasing all the softer songs/ballads as video singles like Dont Cry, November Rain(, Estranged) which then would be shown on MTV all over. adding horn sections and a 2nd keyboard player isnt "that cool" either, many metal fans took off their GN'R patches. nevertheless that all helped getting much more popular winning the "softer" audience more and more. by the end after the Freddie Mercury Tribute in 4/1992 they were as big as the Rolling Stones worldwide, the media was all over them aswell until 1993. then after the poor TSI release it all went down for years and sorry for newer line-up fans but many many people consider(ed) Slash being cool on and off stage.....so loosing Slash was definately uncool for the general public.
in 2000+ probably the aging, long years of silence and still wanted absence of media helped to concentrate on the music mostly only more and more. all the line-up changes might have helped in this case, too - even if they mostly always are considered uncool.

oh, and GN'R didnt play Leeds in 2003  ;)

Love the article! It was about time GNR got some good media praise.

Regarding the other discussion going - whether GNR was popular or not back then - It's not just about stadiums filled, records sold and videos made. Fact of the matter is, for those of us who were fans then, we know how the general perception of GNR was in 92.

GNR had become so big, that it was not cool to be a fan anymore. For those of us who once lived that time, GNR was the most successful musical act in the planet; bigger than U2, bigger than Metallica, bigger than Madonna and bigger than Michael Jackson. They just became very mainstream for the cool people to follow. All I could hear about GNR back then from those trendy music fans was "they are a bunch of sellouts".

So Nirvana came along in 91-92 and all those trendy people, started to praise Nirvana like it was the new, coolest thing. It was not just the music, but the clothes, the attitute...everything changed. That became the cool thing. The Media got the message and started to praise all these new bands from Seattle...up until they became the next HUGE thing. However, if you were around in 93, when "In Utero" came out, it was totally outsold by Pearl Jam's "Vs". That to me meant people had gotten tired of Nirvana and were ready to move on to the next big thing (Pearl Jam). PJ had released Ten in 1991 and sold a bunch of records, but didnt' quite received as  much media coverage as Nirvana's. So, In utero came out, and didnt sell well. We witnessed a shift (again) from a massive successful band Nirvana to a not as successful band (Pearl Jam).  Then PJ put at a new record in 94 (Vitalogy) which didnt' sell as good as Vs because people were again shifting to the next cool thing; The Offspring and Green day.


What I'm trying to say is, people tend to like what's cool to like. Huge successful bands that everybody likes, tend to fade away quickly at some point or another. Had GNR released an studio album in 95-96 with the old line up, it would've been the biggest failure in music history. See what happened in 99 when Live ERA and Oh my God were released, nobody gave a fuck!

However, things swift again. Younger generations got to listen to GNR records and the perception changes, and older people get to listen to the music now with an open mind. To put you an example, a friend of mine (44 years old) is coming with me to the GNR show in Madrid in october. He always made fun of me 10-15 years ago cause he HATED the band. He was one of those cool people who diss the band cause they were sellouts, but, the minute I told him GNR were touring again, he was dying to come along. Nowadays, on his books, GNR are a respected band, a band who gets thumbs up because they are not a commercial act, the media does not really say much about them so his opinion is  NOT biased anymore. Now he can listen to the  music with no interferance.

I just wish more people just listen to the music. They'd be pleasently surprised.

I can't believe I will be attending another GNR show in a little bit over a month  : ok:

yes, people like to get "new kicks" by new bands and music (styles) after some years.
but cant agree on your studio album mid 90s, if they would have had released great timeless songs it would have worked out absolutley fine. live albums in general dont sell that much (and in this case after years of silence and being an "live" album full of re-recorded vocals, ouch!). and lets face it: ther version we know from "oh my god" isnt really a great song for the general public and fans.

I dont agree, I think a new album in mid-90's with the old lineup wouldnt ve a huge sucess. Bluesy hard rock wasnt exactly a trend. I think it would sell well, but it would be more like Bon Jovi's These Days album (IMO, one of their best). I dont know if it sold well enough, but it wasnt the cool/trending thing to follow in that year.

SFTD and the Live Era both had part of the classic line-up and it didnt sell too well either.

Anyways, one thing that also comes to mind was also the band's sex appeal in the early 90's. The girls were all over Axl, Gilby or whoever back then and it made some people to label the band as somewhat "for girls". At least here in Brazil.

Again: that didnt stop the band for being popular. But thats way different from being cool. This STILL happens with the current band, but it seems things are slowly changing.

if the songs would have been great then it most likely would have be near as big as before, its about the quality of the songs and if they are able to stand up the test of time i think.

SFTD is only a cover and even a bad one as band members themselves agreed about. Live Era.....again its only a "live" album (live albums in general dont sell as much as studio albums most of the time), add that it is far away from being live and has been released after many silent years. also the few live parts on there could have picked much better from other circulating shows IMO.

hope Axl and his musicians are doing well this weekend live. setlist change please  ;)

Yeah well it didn't happen like that... The article just points out what actually happened and some have issues with it because they take it as "bashing the old band".  ::)

It focuses on the present and is positive. But some have to try to make it to be about something else.




This isn't anything GN'R specific. This happens to most artists/bands who keep going.

Some examples: Look at AC/DC. Same band been pretty much together for decades (different drummers) doing the same thing. Yet their popularity has gone up and down over the years.

U2. They've experimented with their sounds. Some tours were hugely popular and others weren't (remember Popmart?).





/jarmo

Well its just a damn good thing Chinese Democracy was released. That took care of the main ammo motherfuckers were using at Axl, and now they don't have that. So what's left? Judging the "new" band on its own merits. The fact that Axl doesn't really do interviews and there aren't and videos or any real promotion at all for CD is kind of a wash. Album sales still don't reflect that GN'R are "fashionable" but they were good enough to show there is some interest. It looks pretty cool to have a Rock Star not whoring himself. Axl is total fucking Rock N' Roll which that reflects. Its still done how the fuck he wants it. Nothing pissed me off more then following stories about the "Classic" band and Axl being pissed that things were being taken away from him, or he was being forced to do something. In a way that too is a wash. Its great seeing Axl happy but, few things are as cool and Rock N' Roll as a pissed off Axl Rose. Axl's rants were so fucking Rock N' Roll and pure balls. I kind of miss that. In the end though nothing is more important then the music and Chinese Democracy is a masterpiece and was pretty highly acclaimed which is just great. There is no band as cool today as the "new" GN'R. In a lot of ways, I like this band better then the classic one. I certainly have enjoyed their new album more then I have any GN'R album since Appetite (in my heart of hearts I like Chinese Democracy much more).

Anyway you want to look at it, Guns N' Roses today represents real resilience and triumph. I would love nothing more then to hear that others are figuring that shit out for themselves.

How so much can be taken from one small article amazes me, Read though good article, no slaging off end of......

Anyway regarding the article (i may as well have my two cents) I think GNR have always maintained popularity in the UK hence there been at least 3 full time cover bands roaming the uk at once. Cant really comment on the early 90s as im not old enough to remember them. As for increased popularity sure why not, anybody watch arctic monkeys headline last year? 2 hours of the front-man rooted to the spot. Bands today just dont have the stage presence and with ever increasing ticket prices who wants to pay to see a band stood still?
Also working in GNR favour is the trend, anyone who listens to mainstream  radio all day will have noticed a lot more heavier riffs, 'pop' bands starting to go more rock and generally a swing back to guitar based tracks . Which can ony be good :yes:

Anyway all that been said i think a lot more younger people are getting a taste for something other that the garbage on the top 40. Something raw and not mass produced. 
 

Just because I don't agree with the first half, doesn't mean i don't like the last half and am glad at least one reporter gets it.

I still think some of that could be construed as back handed compliments but i digress.

I just don't think u have to shit on the old GNR to support the new or shit on the new to support the old. I feel that is  Message Forums in general's M.O. and I don't like it.

I didn't see any of that in the article.



/jarmo

well saying how the old band were hated,unpopular and a guilty pleasure u wouldn't admit to liking and then having "Fans" on here agree just because he later praises the new band... seems pretty accurate to me.

I've tried explaining this to you so many times and you seem to either not get it or just ignore it.


Yes, there was a moment when certain people would rather wear a Nirvana t-shirt than be seen in public with a GN'R shirt.

Does that mean GN'R sucks? No.

Yes, there was a time when people wouldn't mention GN'R as their favorite band because other genres were more "hip".

Does that mean GN'R sucks? No.



Get it now?

I was there.

So were many others.





/jarmo

Give me a break D, you're doing the same exact thing.  You're putting emphasis on ONE statement and taking that as a bash to the original and UYI lineups.  I don't agree that GNR were never popular and that people were always afraid to admit they were a fan, but if that's the guys opinion, then so be it.  Nobody's taking anything away from any era of GNR, despite what you want to believe.

On the subject of good press coverage for G n R, there's a positive article about Axl in this weeks NME (yes, you read correctly, the NME).

It's not online (and I don't have any scans - I'm not actually going to pay to read the NME), but the article basically dispels all the myths about Axl being some insane diva who doesn't care about his fans. It shows that he has actually put forward a decent account of how the old band split up and why CD took so long, and also has plenty of quotes from people who know him, and know that he's actually super-cool in reall life. (A lot of quotes from his webchats with us and his interview with Spinner are in there too). They finish up by giving props to the new line up as a relaevant, legit band, rather than being just a heirtage act.

I still can't believe the NME gave over three pages to being nice about Axl. They might be back to slagging him off next week (they are notoriously fickle like that), so lets enjoy while we can.

I wasn't judging the entire article on that one statement. I gave kudos for the rest of the article.. although I wanna see this guy's follow up piece after tonight.... I wasn't slagging the entire article. I was pointing out that one part and condemning it. Rest of the article was great.

I'm kinda surprised so many on here think this is a 100% positive article. I really see both sides. The first half seems to kinda diss GnR, while the second half seems to praise it.
The overall message is positive, but the first time I read it, halfway through, it didn't seem very positive.
I liked the ending, but it was a little rough getting there.

Good article! I think that it shows how GNR is popular again. I do have to agree with D on his point though. For those that lived through that era of music like myself, it was Pearl Jam that got big first BEFORE Nirvana.  It's true that after the Spaghetti Incident GNR's popularity and coolness declined.  However, when Kurt Cobain decided to kill himself in April 1994, that's when MTV rewrote history and decided to make Nirvana "their" band. Don't get me wrong. Nirvana was big but NOT as big until Cobain committed suicide It changed everything in music..  Additionally, people still wanted to hear GNR when "Sympathy of the Devil" was released. We all know that was the death knell of old GNR.

plus im not sure the music was ever uncool... i think they got maybe unpopular and disliked due to alot of how the media portrayed Axl and their hatred for him. So he got painted in such a negative light etc

D-

I think the writer was just being a little "free and loose" with precise dates rather than intentionally trying to insult the early 90's band. Had he simply said "GN'R's fortunes or 'coolness' began to fade in late 1993..." or whatever instead of the more general "early 90's"- I doubt there's any argument here at all.

Frankly- I think it's probably just more a function of a guy going back through his cd collection and recognizing that Nevermind and Ten both came out in 1991 and sloppily "assuming" or "misremembering" that therefore meant that GN'R was no longer cool immediately thereafter. We ALL know that was clearly not the case though... GN'R were absolutely massive world-wide well into 1993. They had begun to draw a lot of flak for some of their antics on tour and the Guns v. Nirvana and Guns v. Metallica feuds were in full force- but there was NO embarrassment whatsoever in declaring yourself a Guns N' Roses fan until maybe 1994 (beginning of the mid 90's). At least where I lived (two fairly "trendy" places in Connecticut and Toronto, Canada).

Personally, I think the problem here is that GN'R was much more of a "transitional" band between the late 80's to the early 90's than an "80's band" and I think that frequently confounds music critics and writers when writing about the band from a historical perspective. It just doesn't fit tightly into the neat little music history narrative they want. The fact of the matter was that Guns had all the bombast, danger and decadence of 70's and 80's rock AND the sincerity and dedication to craft that was to become the reputational hallmarks of 90's grunge music. Arguably Guns "opened the door" or "foreshadowed" the rise of grunge in many respects. I think that really twists people up sometime (regardless of whether they're pro-Guns or pro-grunge or whatever)...

At any rate- no real crime or foul (it's not something we haven't seen already a million times) here- and this is definitely a kick ass and accurate article in nearly every other respect. :beer:

Let's be honest. There was a time GNR was absolutely not cool. I think it occurred to me that the train was derailing when I was watching this behind the scenes thing, and backstage Duff was talking about how import his hair dryer was. Between that, and those fucking dumb bitches dancing and playing their flutes and shit on stage. My god (well, you know, if I actually believed there was one) I hated that. Even Axl and his bike shorts... well, actually it is funny as shit he wore shit like that. Axl today is a billion times cooler looking then bike shorts Axl.

I remember thinking what the fuck is going on here. Here were my heroes who single handily killed Glam Rock, and they are suddenly concerned with blow dryers and wearing bike shorts, and have dumb bitches playing wind instruments in the band. Not surprising at at these fucking grunge bands took over. "Classic" GNR lost there way and let it happen.


Today though, things are definitely better and Uncle Axl is getting the last laugh. Redemption is a motherfucker.

Well said MaoAxl, "I think the problem here is that GN'R was much more of a "transitional" band between the late 80's to the early 90's than an "80's band" and I think that frequently confounds music critics and writers when writing about the band from a historical perspective. It just doesn't fit tightly into the neat little music history narrative they want. The fact of the matter was that Guns had all the bombast, danger and decadence of 70's and 80's rock AND the sincerity and dedication to craft that was to become the reputational hallmarks of 90's grunge music. Arguably Guns "opened the door" or "foreshadowed" the rise of grunge in many respects. I think that really twists people up sometime (regardless of whether they're pro-Guns or pro-grunge or whatever)..."

You are spot-on with your historical assessment of Gnr, the late 80s, and early 90s hard rock scene, again, well said.

For me, all of the singing and dancing bitches with flutes and wind instruments was reminiscent of a Rolling Stones concert, so I loved the grandiose, classic rock direction of the Illusion era (horns, back-up fly girls, grand pianos, epic videos, etc.) They were a bunch of red neck punks who were really fucking talented. For me, I thought Gnr could do it all. They were clearly the perfect mix of metal, classic rock, blues, southern rock, heavy metal, punk, honky tonk, and even a bit of jive and groove from hip hop). Gnr had a flow and groove unlike any of the other 80s bands; they weren't just another heavy party band. They were a conglomeration of all my favorite bands, yet they still managed to be fresh, original, and unlike any other band before or during their time. I liked their raw, bluesy stripped down Appetite days that were clearly the death blow to hairspray and leopard spandex rock. They also opened the doors for the darker, underground music of the 90s, definitely a transition band but also their own "era" or genre. When rock historians talk about this time period, it should go 80s Hairbands > Guns N Roses > Pearl Jam (grunge/alternative), not 80s Hairbands > Nirvana
I think the reason for their phenomenal success and global appeal was that they were so eclectic and drew from so many different sources and bands for inspiration. Their music was unbelievably catchy, poppy, and melodic while still remaining sleezy, heavy, and brutal. I remember being mesmerized by the SCOM video and the imagery of the band. I knew immediately that they were something special and different. They had a retro vibe while still appearing original and groundbreaking. It was like taking a blender and mixing The Rolling Stones with the Sex Pistols, AC/DC with the Ramones, Led Zeppelin with Willie Nelson, Aerosmith with David Allan Coe, Pink Floyd with Creedence Clearwater Revival, Lynyrd Skynyrd with Black Sabbath. They had the pure rage of punk but the complexity of 70s prog and glam rock. They had the bluesy riffs and groovy jives and the heavy licks. They just kicked the shit out of everything. They could produce ballads and hard rock anthems, so their appeal was so broad.

It wasn't so much Pearl Jam, Nirvana, or grunge music in general that led to Gnr's demise. It was really a shift to alternative, indie rock in popular culture. I remember hearing people saying "Gnr are too mainstream," or "too corporate." It was never "Pearl Jam is cool, Gnr suck." Rock fans distanced themselves from popular music and established labels. Big American rock bands and rock starts weren't cool anymore. Underground bands from the 80s exploded in the early 90s (REM, RHCP, Green Day, NIN, Henry Rollins, Dead Kennedys, Skinny Puppy, Sonic Youth,) Many of the early 90s bands were just 80s punk and alternative bands rising to the surface from the anti-corporate underground.

Great post and yeah nice points. :peace:

Great post SkeletorSerpent. I don't think I've seen the unique GN'R "sound" or "aura" described in such a detailed and accurate fashion. Really well done. The amazing thing was (and still a part of the GN'R "experience" even today) that they had all those incredible music bona fides you described and combined it with a "Mike Tyson Fight" type of primal energy or flat out "fear" in a live setting and just how they went about their business generally. They were the "white" NWA. On any given night you didn't know if the whole arena would burn down, they would deliver the greatest live performance since Zeppelin prowled the stage, if the band would break-up, or if you would pick up the paper the next morning and read that one of them had od'd or had been killed while resisting arrest or something... Most of all it was REAL. 1,000 successful bands couldn't recreate it if they tried- and for that reason alone- despite a relatively brief "uncool" period (94-99)- GN'R will always have a place in rock history as a "legendary" band best representing true rock n' roll rebelliousness and chaos...



Want to touch on this b/c I think you're particularly right on here. The nature of the flak Guns took during the 93/94-99 years (i.e. right up until the "What the World Needs Now is Axl Rose" Spin article in '99) was really more that they had "sold out", "gone corporate" or "were too mainstream". In particular I remember a good friend of mine who was a big Pearl Jam fan (and decent GN'R fan too) rubbing the "The Spaghetti Incident?" booklet in my face in 1994 or so and criticizing GN'R for thanking all their "corporate sponsors and promoters world-wide" or whatever. GN'R was "a joke" and "finished" for thanking "a bunch of suits".

At any rate IMHO it was really a case where the industry realized how great GN'R was from a music perspective and was banking on them as the "American Rolling Stones" or whatever and afforded them every opportunity- such as it was available in the early 90's- (double album, extravagent videos, tours, pay-per view concerts, lawyers, etc.)- to get their name and music out there- and GN'R were happy to lap it all up in true decadent 70's style. GN'R was basically just being like their heroes times 10. They were being ridiculously decadent- but it was what they wanted to do so they did it- consequences be damned.

Anyway, by late '93 or so- all the special treatment resulted in a TON of jealousy amongst their peers (some of which still persists today) and left GN'R particularly vulnerable to criticism and hatred when the stripped down grunge revolution (as stated- ironically coming in through the door GN'R had opened for legitimate music) arrived and took hold during the same time period. The "soft underbelly" of GN'R come late '93 was definitely that they were "too corporate" and "sellouts" though (as well as the fact that the band was literally splintering apart at the time)- NOT that the music sucked. No matter what ultimately happened to the band- anyone with any sort of rock music knowledge knew that tracks like "WWTJ", "SCOM", "PC", "Patience", "KOHD", "YCBM", "Don't Cry", "NR" were here to stay. A million Kurt Cobains could not legislate GREAT music like that out of music history- no matter what. Time has definitely borne that out... :beer:

 

Great post, Skeletor! 

I've talked music with friends and been asked the question of "What is it about Gn'R that you love so much?"  Your post illustrates that perfectly. 

Thanks, brotha

Great posts guys,

Not being around in the 'glory years' puts me at a disadvantage but the history speaks for itself...... Being brutishly honest GNR had what 3 albums of which 1 single the next a double.  In only 3 albums the band is ranked alongside all the greats mentioned above who had many more albums and many more years together and a band. This alone shows how massive GNR were at the time so obviously it couldn't be maintained hence the GNR unpopular period but sometimes it takes a few 'decades' for people to realize that. 

Here in the UK, Gn'R have been panned in the media almost constantly since 1987 (albeit with the odd bit of grudging praise). And do you know what... they're still doing sold out shows.

So let's not get too hung up on the idea of whether they (and we) are fashionable or not. Let's see how today's crop of 'fashionable' bands are doing in 20 years time...

The last laugh will be ours.

In my defense  i saw a Beavis and Butthead episode and they were rocking out and loving PC. guess it was early/mid 90's right?

GNR were Beavis and Butthead's type of music.  They liked rock, not grunge.

Beavis and Butthead were always pro-Gnr. I think once they made a comment about Axl wearing a kilt, but never mocked or dissed Gnr or Axl.

yes, early/mid 90s when GN'R have been about the biggest band in the world.


yes, they also talked bad about Axl at points but mostly they rocked them. this doesnt mean shit though as they often rocked and bashed for the same bands, similar to Blabbermouth posters. i've always liked the GN'R references!