"The Spaghetti Incident?".. your thoughts on this album?

[The Legend]

All the songs are good.? The album gets a bad rap because it came out when everyone was hungry for new GnR stuff and then never got it.

I don't know why in 1993 so many were hungry for a new album. They just got done releasing a double-album with 30 songs only two years before.

Quality over quantity. Although I will agree that 15 years for CD is a pretty long wait.

in 1993 the gnr-hype was over...

From UYI I & II or in-general?

i'd say in general... the grunge movement certainly had something to do with it... lots of "rock"-kids had turned to something else at that time... "nevermind" had been nr. 1 (beating michael jackson); stadion rock or 80's hardrock was getting out of style... so a punk-cover album by a (now) mainstream-act that people were slowly getting bored of was quite a strange idea... but the release certainly shows the i don't give a fuck attitude of gnr.

I was around in 1993, and I disagree with you.

What I remember from that year was...

1. Metallica
2. Guns N' Roses
3. Nirvana

Not the other way around. So I don't see your point. TSI was a flop because word spread that it was a cover album, with nothing but punk covers, and seeing how the casual fan didn't know half of the fuckin songs on there, I can see why it was a flop.

It didn't fail because people were tired of GN'R, it failed because it wasn't original.

[metallex78]

All the songs are good.? The album gets a bad rap because it came out when everyone was hungry for new GnR stuff and then never got it.

I don't know why in 1993 so many were hungry for a new album. They just got done releasing a double-album with 30 songs only two years before.

Quality over quantity. Although I will agree that 15 years for CD is a pretty long wait.

in 1993 the gnr-hype was over...

From UYI I & II or in-general?

i'd say in general... the grunge movement certainly had something to do with it... lots of "rock"-kids had turned to something else at that time... "nevermind" had been nr. 1 (beating michael jackson); stadion rock or 80's hardrock was getting out of style... so a punk-cover album by a (now) mainstream-act that people were slowly getting bored of was quite a strange idea... but the release certainly shows the i don't give a fuck attitude of gnr.

I was around in 1993, and I disagree with you.

What I remember from that year was...

1. Metallica
2. Guns N' Roses
3. Nirvana

Not the other way around. So I don't see your point. TSI was a flop because word spread that it was a cover album, with nothing but punk covers, and seeing how the casual fan didn't know half of the fuckin songs on there, I can see why it was a flop.

It didn't fail because people were tired of GN'R, it failed because it wasn't original.

Exactly - in 1993 GN'R staged (at the time) the LARGEST ever outdoor concert held in Australia, and Metallica played 2 sold out shows at Sydney Entertainment Centre when they toured as well. I think it's easy to dismiss GN'R as being passe, but really they were still pretty fuckin huge and TSI was a big deal when it was released. The only thing it had going against it was like you said - the fact that it wasn't original GN'R songs, but it was still a new GN'R album!

[whiny]

All the songs are good.? The album gets a bad rap because it came out when everyone was hungry for new GnR stuff and then never got it.

I don't know why in 1993 so many were hungry for a new album. They just got done releasing a double-album with 30 songs only two years before.

Quality over quantity. Although I will agree that 15 years for CD is a pretty long wait.

in 1993 the gnr-hype was over...

From UYI I & II or in-general?

i'd say in general... the grunge movement certainly had something to do with it... lots of "rock"-kids had turned to something else at that time... "nevermind" had been nr. 1 (beating michael jackson); stadion rock or 80's hardrock was getting out of style... so a punk-cover album by a (now) mainstream-act that people were slowly getting bored of was quite a strange idea... but the release certainly shows the i don't give a fuck attitude of gnr.

I was around in 1993, and I disagree with you.

What I remember from that year was...

1. Metallica
2. Guns N' Roses
3. Nirvana

Not the other way around. So I don't see your point. TSI was a flop because word spread that it was a cover album, with nothing but punk covers, and seeing how the casual fan didn't know half of the fuckin songs on there, I can see why it was a flop.

It didn't fail because people were tired of GN'R, it failed because it wasn't original.

ok, here we go again:

people noticed that gnr were back with a new album, some bought it (among them lots of people disliked it), but many had simply turned to something else...and didn't care...
i think it's a simple thesis that in late 1993 gnr were not so important as they were some time earlier... yeah, they may have been nr. 2 behind metallica (as you said), but not number one anymore...
i tell you, many people that still bought gnr records had become bored with axl and co after a 2,5 year worldtour and lots of charttopping hits...

[The Legend]

All the songs are good.? The album gets a bad rap because it came out when everyone was hungry for new GnR stuff and then never got it.

I don't know why in 1993 so many were hungry for a new album. They just got done releasing a double-album with 30 songs only two years before.

Quality over quantity. Although I will agree that 15 years for CD is a pretty long wait.

in 1993 the gnr-hype was over...

From UYI I & II or in-general?

i'd say in general... the grunge movement certainly had something to do with it... lots of "rock"-kids had turned to something else at that time... "nevermind" had been nr. 1 (beating michael jackson); stadion rock or 80's hardrock was getting out of style... so a punk-cover album by a (now) mainstream-act that people were slowly getting bored of was quite a strange idea... but the release certainly shows the i don't give a fuck attitude of gnr.

I was around in 1993, and I disagree with you.

What I remember from that year was...

1. Metallica
2. Guns N' Roses
3. Nirvana

Not the other way around. So I don't see your point. TSI was a flop because word spread that it was a cover album, with nothing but punk covers, and seeing how the casual fan didn't know half of the fuckin songs on there, I can see why it was a flop.

It didn't fail because people were tired of GN'R, it failed because it wasn't original.

Exactly - in 1993 GN'R staged (at the time) the LARGEST ever outdoor concert held in Australia, and Metallica played 2 sold out shows at Sydney Entertainment Centre when they toured as well. I think it's easy to dismiss GN'R as being passe, but really they were still pretty fuckin huge and TSI was a big deal when it was released. The only thing it had going against it was like you said - the fact that it wasn't original GN'R songs, but it was still a new GN'R album!

I think what happened was a reversing of popularity, just like it is in 2006. It became cool, to 'not like' GN'R. Because of where the music world was going in rock with bands like Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Alice In Chains, Soundgarden, Nine Inch Nails, etc. Interest & popularity were still there, probably not as much as they were a year and a half before, but it was still there none the less.

Things like the Estranged video (released in 1993), didn't help matters. The song, a masterpiece, the video, a travesty. It was WAY over the top and WAY overdone, and that epic, bigger than life, hard rock band thing seemed 80's at that point.

I'm not disagreeing with that fact interest was starting to slip, but TSI was not a failure because of this. It was a failure because it was a cover album. Had it been all new material and marketed as such, the album would've been another platinum record for GN'R.

All the songs are good.  The album gets a bad rap because it came out when everyone was hungry for new GnR stuff and then never got it.

I don't know why in 1993 so many were hungry for a new album. They just got done releasing a double-album with 30 songs only two years before.

Quality over quantity. Although I will agree that 15 years for CD is a pretty long wait.

in 1993 the gnr-hype was over...

From UYI I & II or in-general?

i'd say in general... the grunge movement certainly had something to do with it... lots of "rock"-kids had turned to something else at that time... "nevermind" had been nr. 1 (beating michael jackson); stadion rock or 80's hardrock was getting out of style... so a punk-cover album by a (now) mainstream-act that people were slowly getting bored of was quite a strange idea... but the release certainly shows the i don't give a fuck attitude of gnr.

I was around in 1993, and I disagree with you.

What I remember from that year was...

1. Metallica
2. Guns N' Roses
3. Nirvana

Not the other way around. So I don't see your point. TSI was a flop because word spread that it was a cover album, with nothing but punk covers, and seeing how the casual fan didn't know half of the fuckin songs on there, I can see why it was a flop.

It didn't fail because people were tired of GN'R, it failed because it wasn't original.

ok, here we go again:

people noticed that gnr were back with a new album, some bought it (among them lots of people disliked it), but many had simply turned to something else...and didn't care...
i think it's a simple thesis that in late 1993 gnr were not so important as they were some time earlier... yeah, they may have been nr. 2 behind metallica (as you said), but not number one anymore...
i tell you, many people that still bought gnr records had become bored with axl and co after a 2,5 year worldtour and lots of charttopping hits...

How can you have hits, if people are bored with you? Somebody's requesting them on the radio.

I'm not saying interest didn't slightly wain in GN'R, and also Metallica on top of that. Their act seemed aged at that point, compared to the others.

But i'm saying that TSI was not a flop because of this. It was a flop, because it wasn't new material. Had it been, it'd been another hit record. At that point it was 1993, and although people weren't 'as' interested, Metallica & GN'R had obviously survived the bloodbath in modern-rock music, that killed many bands.

[whiny]

I was around in 1993, and I disagree with you.

What I remember from that year was...

1. Metallica
2. Guns N' Roses
3. Nirvana

Not the other way around. So I don't see your point. TSI was a flop because word spread that it was a cover album, with nothing but punk covers, and seeing how the casual fan didn't know half of the fuckin songs on there, I can see why it was a flop.

It didn't fail because people were tired of GN'R, it failed because it wasn't original.

i think it's this AND that way: interrest started to decrease and the no-new-material status was not helping either; also gnr didn't have a video (for "ain't it fun" as the first single) till "since i don't have you" (far away from being a punk-song) came along... which was NO hit, by the way...

[Wooody]

I think its funny to see a bunch of teenagers discussing what happened in 1993... by what they read?? 

GNR. Nirvana.Metallica


OK, to answer the question, its a great album, just not very accessible to the masses.

[whiny]

I think its funny to see a bunch of teenagers discussing what happened in 1993... by what they read???

how do you know?

[metallex78]

I think its funny to see a bunch of teenagers discussing what happened in 1993... by what they read???

Um, I was a teenager in 1993, and still remember those days well.

[whiny]

I think its funny to see a bunch of teenagers discussing what happened in 1993... by what they read???

Um, I was a teenager in 1993, and still remember those days well.

me too

[Slashead]

If at the end of 1993, GNR had released an original album instead of TSI, it would have sold more copies but it wouldn't have reached the sales numbers of UYI by far. Not to mention the sales of AFD...

Someone mentioned the video for 'Estranged'. I think 'November Rain' was already problematic...

[The Legend]

I think its funny to see a bunch of teenagers discussing what happened in 1993... by what they read???

Um, I was a teenager in 1993, and still remember those days well.

me too

Me too. We are just debating the slide.

How do we not remember those days?

[Continental Drift]

First off- I absolutely LOVE TSI?. 45 minutes of a great rock band just having a blast in the studio playing songs they love. It's also cool in that it's the only album with Gilby.

As far as GN'R's place in the world in late '93... they still had plenty of fans... but Metallica, Nirvana, PJ, STP, etc. were the new flavors of the day. GN'R needed to come up with something fresh and exciting to compete with those guys... instead they put out a covers album... followed a year later by yet another cover (SFTD)... soon the perception grew that they couldn't "hang" with the grunge bands and could only record other artists' music... GN'R became "uncool" and basically dead.

They only slowly started getting back some of their "legendary" status in '99 with the Spin article about Axl and when grunge itself had gotten lame and played out...

[kaasupoltin]

I think it's a great album.. Just an album they wanted to release after the tour because they just wanted to.. filled with band members favourite tracks and great attitude. And it was well produced too.. and I like the fact that it was made during the Illusion-sessions and -tour, so they couldn't put that much energy into it, and I think that's why it sounds so great.

[whiny]

If at the end of 1993, GNR had released an original album instead of TSI, it would have sold more copies but it wouldn't have reached the sales numbers of UYI by far. Not to mention the sales of AFD...

Someone mentioned the video for 'Estranged'. I think 'November Rain' was already problematic...

that's what i think...

[Continental Drift]

If at the end of 1993, GNR had released an original album instead of TSI, it would have sold more copies but it wouldn't have reached the sales numbers of UYI by far. Not to mention the sales of AFD...

Someone mentioned the video for 'Estranged'. I think 'November Rain' was already problematic...

that's what i think...

Agreed. I think the reality also was... irregardless of grunge... GN'R in late '93 was a spent force. Exhausted from touring, videos, etc. saddled with lawsuits, major personal problems (Axl-Stephanie, Slash and Duff with marriages falling apart), and tired of each other. I'm not sure they could have just sat down in a studio at that time and come up with the next great rock masterpiece or whatever. It would been an album just for the sake of putting out an album and would likely have been an inferior product.

There was an interesting time a little later on in the mid 90's, after they had all had a break- when Zakk Wylde was jamming with them... Gilby was penning some great music that turned up on Pawnshop- which could have been used for GN'R etc.. that they probably could have come up something pretty cool to weather the grunge storm... but Axl veered industrial while Slash and Duff wanted AFD redux- the rest is history.