Due to the massive success of the NITLT tour, is the debate over?

[SkeletorSerpent]

Has "our band" GNR finally and irrevocably been vindicated and proven to be in the pantheon of rock gods? Isn't the debate over now?
Think of all the haters and doubters over the years. Those rock fans who tried so desperately to persuade us that our "GNR love" was misguided and overrated. The ignorant skeptics who tried so hard to re-write the historical narrative that Nirvana came along and magically obliterated GNR and silly and cheesy "Hair Band" rock. When we always knew the facts and real historical narrative regarding rock n roll, the late eighties, the early nineties, GNR's dominance, and the rise of alternative and underground music/indie rock and ultimately grunge. We knew the real story and how it worked. We lived through it and remembered clearly just how unbelievably big GNR were. Nirvana didn't kill GNR. Rock fans and pop culture weren't sick of GNR. GNR killed GNR at the top of their game. They were still selling out stadiums when they disappeared. The appetite and anticipation for new GNR music was insatiable from 94 - 96. Rock fans were never bored and tired of GNR's music and image when Nirvana arrived on the scene. They were bored and tired of WATING for new music from GNR. Grunge just filled a void. In fact, we all know that GNR were the first band to make "hair bands" look silly and cheesy. GNR pulled the plug on the hairspray party of the 80s. In fact, GNR wiped the smirk off of a lot of band's faces, made them wash off the makeup and take off the spandex, put their big boy pants on and get serious about rock n roll. GNR was the beginning of the revolution.
However, we were certain that their memories were flawed regarding GNR and the late eighties. We knew in our hearts they were much, much more than a re-hashed Aerosmith or a glorified Motley Crue. We knew they were set apart from Bon Jovi and Motley Crue. We knew they were revolutionary, they managed to be somewhat retro and throwback to Stones and Aerosmith, but somehow pushed rock n roll forward and saved it from the silly and cheesy spandex "hair band" rock of the 80s. They were a bit Stones and Zeppelin, a bit Beatles and Queen, a bit Sabbath and Pink Floyd, a bit Aerosmith and Ramones, a bit Willie Nelson and David Allan Coe, a bit The Who and Sex Pistols, a bit Motorhead and AC/DC, a bit Van Halen and a bit Motley Crue . . . BUT, somehow they still managed to sound new and fresh and original. They took the best of the past (glam, blues rock, metal, punk, souther rock, country) and mixed and molded it into something fresh and innovative.
Still, think about those fans who adamantly opposed us when we said that GNR were in the elite pantheon of rock gods- Stones, Zeppelin, Sabbath, Who, Pink Floyd, Doors, Hendrix, and maybe a few others . . .
We ALWAYS knew better.

Is there any room left for debate? In my mind, there is no doubt that they are rock n roll royalty. The massive success of this tour was the final nail in the coffin for all the haters, skeptics, and doubters. All those who "wanted GNR to fail" and did not want GNR to "be the band that all the fans believed them to be." But we knew. We always knew. So we never stopped believing and debating and discussing and arguing and defined their legacy and legitimacy. It seems most of the haters and doubters have been silenced by the mammoth success of this tour. Selling out stadiums around the world isn't something that a glorified hair band could ever achieve. It isn't something that a band with "one good album" could achieve.
I no longer know how any rock fan can say with a straight face that GNR are just a glorified hair band with one good album.

All the tired arguments and myths below have now been debunked:
"They only had one good album"
"They only had three good songs, SCOM, PC, and WTJ"
"They are just the best of the hair bands,  but they are not an all-time great rock n roll band"
"They could've been great, but they broke up" (they had six years of pop culture AND rock n roll dominance, 87 - 93, same as Beatles 64 - 70; they WERE GREAT, NOT COULD HAVE BEEN. True, they could have had longevity, but they were still great nonetheless)
"They had no longevity" (let's see . . . hmmm, neither did Hendrix, Cream, The Doors, Skynyrd, The Animals, CCR, and of course The Beatles. All all-time great musicians and rock n roll bands. In fact, sometimes too much longevity can work against a legacy, e.g. Aerosmith, Def Leppard, whereas AC/DC, Iron Maiden, and The Stones have made it work, but it isn't a guarantee of greatness) Longevity is only ONE aspect of a band's overall greatness. Longevity isn't always a good thing-- it can lead to prolonged mediocrity where bands just become stale and wear out their welcome) Therefore, GNR have proven that their "six years of dominance" like the Beatles is sufficient for all-time greatness.

Since all these myths are now proven to be false. How can anyone disagree with us??

Anyone disagree? I think the debate is over. It is a fact of rock n roll history. GNR are one of the all time greatest rock bands.

[Just_Me]

Is the debate over? No of course not.

You're talking as if all the people going to see these shows and coming away talking about how great it was weren't fans going in - like they got converted by seeing the show. The reality is the vast majority of people there already loved GnR. At most they may be sceptical that they could still pull off a great show (I've heard a lot of people say they weren't sure they wanted to go because it might ruin their memory of seeing them in the 80's/90s). Or there's the people who only know the hits who maybe discovered that their other songs are great too.

But for every person who was at one of those shows, and everyone who will be at the upcoming shows, there is someone who wouldn't give them the time of day because they're convinced GnR are over-blown cheesy hair metal, and one other person who has genuinely never even heard of them.

Sure some of them probably could be persuaded otherwise (I once unintentionally convinced a Nirvana fan to listen to GnR simply because I kept talking about how much I like both bands) but they're not going to be buying tickets to the show on the off-chance they find they like it (especially not at these prices).

But even then expecting everyone, even all rock fans, to agree on one favourite band is never going to work. It'd be like trying to get everyone to agree on the best make of car, or phone or the best food. There's too many people with too many different preferences and priorities.

More importantly though it doesn't fucking matter. Who gives a shit if some random prefers Nirvana or Bon Jovi or Radiohead or "oh, you won't know them since you like commercial music"? Using any reasonable measure Guns N' Roses are an incredibly popular and successful band. And more importantly you know you like them. Sod everyone else, they can sort themselves out.

[D-GenerationX]

I think is a far better final act to the band's career than the increasingly depressing track it was on.

Publically mocked, playing "up close and personal" venues, totally irrelevant, etc.

This is the movie ending.

[Bridge]

I honestly never knew there was a debate.  Guns N Roses has long been considered one of the greatest and most influential rock bands of all time.  And then you will have people that don't prefer their music, as with any band.  I've never encountered any kind of debate.

[Thorned Rose]

I honestly never knew there was a debate.  Guns N Roses has long been considered one of the greatest and most influential rock bands of all time.  And then you will have people that don't prefer their music, as with any band.  I've never encountered any kind of debate.

Whether you'd like to admit it or not, there's always been a "debate". It's been there. In general, over the years, through the press... through fans.. it definitely has been there.

The major issue with Guns N' Roses was how they just kind of vanished. They were the one of the top rock bands in the world, if not the biggest from 1991-1993 or so. Then they just kinda flamed out.

Last show played on July of 1993, released 1 song in December of 1994 I think it was... then they just kinda vanished. 1995 saw Slash's Snakepit, and 96 was a complete waste basically, Slash left etc...

To me Guns N' Roses were the last "great" rock band of their style. Edgy, hard and wild. The debate has always been on them just kinda falling apart, Axl taking the name and hiring all new guys and coming around in 2001ish.

The debate was always which Guns N' Roses lineup was better... were they just a 1 album band... were they overhyped... and mainly if anyone really cared.

The later lineup of Guns N' Roses were failing to sellout some crowds at times, and while they were a successful band/lineup and were really good, they clearly aren't close to the original lineup.

The debate on which lineup is better, more popular... who people really care about is over.

Not in this Lifetime Tour has proven, that people still care about Gn'R, and they "really" care. It is clear that the original lineup of guys (Slash and Duff added in) mixed with a couple newer guys has been the trick.

I mean no Izzy and Steven a handful of times and they are doing massive sales. If this is their final bow, then it was a mighty one.

[allwaystired]

I think is a far better final act to the band's career than the increasingly depressing track it was on.

Publically mocked, playing "up close and personal" venues, totally irrelevant, etc.

This is the movie ending.

It's a movie ending sure- if it is the end. What I don't want is for this to be the start of touring themselves into the ground over many years. I'd rather this was the end, and I'd seen them for the last time. Genuinely. I'm already concerned by the vast amount of dates they now have in the US lined up. It's going to really start to drag on their energy I think.

For me there are two scenarios I'd like:

1) New music, new era.
2) End it all with this tour.