Guns N' Roses/Metallica parallels

[Scone]

Disclaimer: This post contains a few parallels between Guns N' Roses and Metallica I've observed, I'm not making any comments, just pointing out what I've noticed.

Guns N' Roses contains 2 "original" members, Axl and Dizzy.

(Now I know we can debate whether Dizzy is actually an "original" member until the cows come home, he wasn't on Appetite For Destruction , but then again, he wasn't a replacement for a previous keyboardist and joined before any of the original members left)

Metallica contains 2 original members, James Hetfield and Lars Ulrich.

(The original Metallica lineup may be argued to be Hetfield, Ulrich and Lloyd Grant or Hetfield, Ulrich, Dave Mustaine and Ron McGovney)

Guns N' Roses have toured in the previous year, playing only a handful of tracks from their as yet unreleased album Chinese Democracy, including "The Blues", "Madagascar" and "Chinese Democracy" itself.

Metallica have toured in the previous year, playing only a handful of tracks from their recently released album St. Anger, including "Frantic" and "St. Anger" itself.

Guns N' Roses headlined Leeds Festival on August 23rd 2002 (they were unable to play Leeds' sister festival at Reading due to a previous commitment to play at Pukkelpop). I was there. They rocked.

Metallica headlined Leeds Festival on August 22nd 2003 as well as Leeds' sister Festival Reading on the 24th of August.

Guns N' Roses closed the 2002 MTV VMAs with the TV debut of the new band, they played a medly of 3 tracks, "Welcome To The Jungle", "Madagascar", and "Paradise City".

Metallica closed the 2003 MTV VMAs with the U.S. TV debut of their new bassist (I think this is correct, not living in the U.S. I'm not sure if their performance at Rock AM Ring was televised to the USA or not), they played an instrumental medly of well known songs from MTV's past including hits by Nirvana. They then finished with their latest offering, "Frantic".

Any thoughts? Discuss...

[R4tfink]

All good points.

And i also believe u are right with the last one as well, Trujillo appeared on The Metallica MTV Icons shoot but i dont think that was shot live.



E-Hogg

[axl_rose_700]

I was just thinkin the same thing today!!
All true and CD will be out soon #(I hope) but hopefully it's better than St.Anger!!    

[mortismurphy]

Metallica contains 2 original members, James Hetfield and Lars Ulrich.

(The original Metallica lineup may be argued to be Hetfield, Ulrich and Lloyd Grant or Hetfield, Ulrich, Dave Mustaine and Ron McGovney)

I have to disagree here.
I belive its far more appropiate to start from the 'recording lineup'. Most bands have hundreds of members before hitting the right formula and signing.
Kirk Hammet has played on every album therfore he has to be included.

And i wouldnt include Dizzy

btw Lloyd Grant was black apperntly

[estranged88]

Both released a cover album.....then went to shit.

[Booker Floyd]

That you include Dizzy Reed as more of an "original member" than Kirk Hammet is bewildering.

They were two of the biggest bands of their time.  Metallica lasted, GNR unfortunately didnt.

[mortismurphy]

I belive Metallica went to shit with st anger.
To slightly change the Churchill saying..never in the field of rock music has a band made a album soooo rancid.
It should come with a health warning.

There has never been such a artistic slump since Macca formed wings or elvis made movies.

[RZ4]

In my opinion, the original Metallica lineup consisted of: James Hetfield, Lars Ulrich, Dave Mustaine, and Cliff Burton. Kirk replaced Dave, when he was kicked out of the band, yet against Dave's final requests, they still used his lyrics and riffs on their debut album, Kill 'Em All.

[Layne420]

At the moment I can only think that they both use a symphony orchestra for  november  rain and no leaf clover.

[elikovich]

maybe they are both the same band  

ed

[crazycanadian]

Ya i would love to see GNR and Metallica tour together again

[mortismurphy]

In my opinion, the original Metallica lineup consisted of: James Hetfield, Lars Ulrich, Dave Mustaine, and Cliff Burton. Kirk replaced Dave, when he was kicked out of the band, yet against Dave's final requests, they still used his lyrics and riffs on their debut album, Kill 'Em All.

Kill em all
4/10 carry a (Hetfield/Mustaine/Ulrich)
RTL
2/8 are (Burton/Hetfield/Mustaine/Ulrich)

To compare with gn'r and go pre-recording you would have to include Chris Weber as a original gn'r member, he contributed to anything goes.
I find it far more convieniant to start from the recording line ups, or it gets too messy.

[The New Fiona Apple]

How about this, Their lead guitarists get more credit than they should for the songs and both frontmen (Axl and James) are extremely underated.

[Mattman]

Well, it's only appropriate that there should be so many parallels to Guns N' Roses and Metallica.  To me, they represent the two towering figures of 80s metal that were the two biggest acts the genre had to offer before their fortunes went their separate ways after around 1993.  Guns N' Roses represented the Sunset Strip, glam-auriented, sex 'n' drugs, Aerosmith-influenced hard rock version of metal that was more accepted by the mainstream during the 80s.  Metallica were the figureheads of the Bay Area, dark, jeans and t-shirt, intellectual, thrashy, Black Sabbath-and-Motorhead influenced HEAVY heavy metal.  At the dawn of the 90s, they were the two biggest acts in metal.  They both had huge-selling releases that represented a fitting end to the glory days of real metal, Use Your Illusion and the Black Album.  They even toured together.  But after they both spent a few years touring, the similarities began to end.  Metallica became the biggest-selling rock act of the 90s, whereas GN'R got stuck in a merry-go-round of lineup changes, ego clashes, neverending recording, and a takeover by General Rose.  While Metallica has always stayed around since then, GN'R has had to try to make a comeback, which failed miserably.

You could argue that both bands have had to deal with the plague of personnel changes and drug addiction that threatened to tear them apart - Guns N' Roses the entire time, and Metallica in the last few years when Jason Newsted quit and James Hetfield checked himself into rehab.  Maybe Metallica survived because they had to deal with it for a shorter time.  I think that there's another reason why Metallica were flying high throughout the entire decade of the 90s, while GN'R exploded shortly after takeoff.  As the dominance of metal waned and "alternative" took over, both bands felt that they had to adjust a bit in order to fit in with the new sound.  However, Metallica's current sound was altogether better-fitting towards alternative.  Their music was already dark, and they had alternative cred because they had had no mainstream success for all of the 80s, they became big through word of mouth.  But Guns N' Roses, on the other hand...even though their music was angrier than your average 80s glam-metal band, they were altogether too close to the whole Sunset Strip scene, and MTV had played such a big role in their success (through heavy rotation of "Sweet Child O' Mine") that they were looked upon as just another L.A. glam band that the grunge hordes had to destroy.  I mean, you could argue that GN'R could have stayed on the course they were headed and would still have been successful in the 90s.  Aerosmith, for example, were more successful than ever in the 90s, and they stayed with their original pop-metal sound.  

Still, I suppose it's really pointless to try to compare how GN'R and Metallica's music changed in the 90s when you consider this one basic fact.  Metallica released their music, Guns N' Roses didn't.  Comparing the two is moot when you try to get past that.  But not totally impossible.  With Load and Reload, Metallica didn't so much try to copy alternative as create an "alternative" to their own sound.  Those albums, really, were more influenced by country and blues than grunge.  Axl, though, tried to do what so many 80s hair metal bands tried to do, but were never really successful at - bring electronica and industrial influences into their sound.  Of course, we never heard the results officially, but they might never have been successful anyway.  I mean, any other 80s metal band that tried to become Nine Inch Nails - Warrant or M?tley Cr?e, for example - failed miserably.  Would it have been any different for Guns N' Roses?  Hard to say.

At any rate, it's clear at present who the survivor is.  Metallica is riding high with Rob Trujillo on bass and St. Anger sold well.  I personally think that that's a really good album, but to each his own, I guess.  Guns N' Roses, on the other hand, is doing what they spent most of the time after "The Spaghetti Incident?" doing - farting around in the recording studio.  I hope that Axl can get his act together, release the album, and ascend to the rock 'n' roll throne again, but I doubt it somehow.  History shows us that parallels between Metallica and Guns N' Roses dropped shortly after their respective early-90s world tours.  Their paths can either become parallel again, meaning that GN'R could become wildy successful again, OR their paths could diverge even further, driving Guns N' Roses into the realm of a successful cult band.  Things might be said to have come full circle at that point.  I mean, when Appetite For Destruction came out, Guns N' Roses was the most popular rock band in the world, and Metallica was just the most successful of the thrash bands, who at that point were still pretty much outside the mainstream.  Now, though, Metallica is arguably one of the most popular rock bands in the world, and Guns N' Roses, since their 2002 tour meltdown, is rapidly becoming an industry joke and more of a cult band for 80s metal holdouts.  Total switcharound.

And now a final word to end the history lesson.  I just saw the Metallica performance on the VMAs, and it was great.  They really kicked ass with "Frantic" - it's a great song, even if you don't like the lyrics - but the medley of old songs was great, too.  I was pleasantly surprised to find the White Stripes' "Seven Nation Army" in there, but the coolest thing was what Kirk Hammett did with "Beat It".  Awesome.  You could argue that Guns N' Roses did the same thing last year - a bunch of old songs and one new one.  The only difference was that the old songs were their own, which might be showing that despite Axl's attempts to stay relevant, the band is going to become a nostalgia act if it doesn't release some new tunes soon.  Comparing Metallica's 2003 amazing performance with the overblown 2002 new GN'R performance, it's obvious which band, 10 years later, have taken the Kings of Metal crown, formerly shared, and made it their own.

[metallex78]

I love both bands. I'm so disappointed that the GN'R/Metallica headline tour didn't make it to Australia, because like someone else mentioned here, it was the pinacle of real 80's rock/metal. Metallica with the amazing Black album & GN'R with their equally amazing (or even more!) UYI doubleset.
When I think of the best rock n' roll, the classic line-ups from that era are what come to mind.

Metallica have gone from strength to strength by releasing new music (IMO St. Anger is great) whereas GN'R disappeared into obscuirity through various line-up changes, failed tours and struggles to record/release new music.

I'm still hoping Axl releases CD because the guy made some truly amazing music and I'm sure he could still do so.

[D]

ive said it a million times in threads that guns n roses are just like aerosmith, very successful break up mediocre success on their own, get back together and rule the friggin world again! this is what i see happening by 2008!

[axl_rose_700]

ive said it a million times in threads that guns n roses are just like aerosmith, very successful break up mediocre success on their own, get back together and rule the friggin world again! this is what i see happening by 2008!

Yea, rock on fella!!  
That would be SWEEEEEETTTTTT!!!

[Layne420]

Yeah that could very much happen in 2008 but chinese democracy still out on shelves...

[5thofwhiskey]

Well, it's only appropriate that there should be so many parallels to Guns N' Roses and Metallica.  To me, they represent the two towering figures of 80s metal that were the two biggest acts the genre had to offer before their fortunes went their separate ways after around 1993.  Guns N' Roses represented the Sunset Strip, glam-auriented, sex 'n' drugs, Aerosmith-influenced hard rock version of metal that was more accepted by the mainstream during the 80s.  Metallica were the figureheads of the Bay Area, dark, jeans and t-shirt, intellectual, thrashy, Black Sabbath-and-Motorhead influenced HEAVY heavy metal.  At the dawn of the 90s, they were the two biggest acts in metal.  They both had huge-selling releases that represented a fitting end to the glory days of real metal, Use Your Illusion and the Black Album.  They even toured together.  But after they both spent a few years touring, the similarities began to end.  Metallica became the biggest-selling rock act of the 90s, whereas GN'R got stuck in a merry-go-round of lineup changes, ego clashes, neverending recording, and a takeover by General Rose.  While Metallica has always stayed around since then, GN'R has had to try to make a comeback, which failed miserably.

You could argue that both bands have had to deal with the plague of personnel changes and drug addiction that threatened to tear them apart - Guns N' Roses the entire time, and Metallica in the last few years when Jason Newsted quit and James Hetfield checked himself into rehab.  Maybe Metallica survived because they had to deal with it for a shorter time.  I think that there's another reason why Metallica were flying high throughout the entire decade of the 90s, while GN'R exploded shortly after takeoff.  As the dominance of metal waned and "alternative" took over, both bands felt that they had to adjust a bit in order to fit in with the new sound.  However, Metallica's current sound was altogether better-fitting towards alternative.  Their music was already dark, and they had alternative cred because they had had no mainstream success for all of the 80s, they became big through word of mouth.  But Guns N' Roses, on the other hand...even though their music was angrier than your average 80s glam-metal band, they were altogether too close to the whole Sunset Strip scene, and MTV had played such a big role in their success (through heavy rotation of "Sweet Child O' Mine") that they were looked upon as just another L.A. glam band that the grunge hordes had to destroy.  I mean, you could argue that GN'R could have stayed on the course they were headed and would still have been successful in the 90s.  Aerosmith, for example, were more successful than ever in the 90s, and they stayed with their original pop-metal sound.  

Still, I suppose it's really pointless to try to compare how GN'R and Metallica's music changed in the 90s when you consider this one basic fact.  Metallica released their music, Guns N' Roses didn't.  Comparing the two is moot when you try to get past that.  But not totally impossible.  With Load and Reload, Metallica didn't so much try to copy alternative as create an "alternative" to their own sound.  Those albums, really, were more influenced by country and blues than grunge.  Axl, though, tried to do what so many 80s hair metal bands tried to do, but were never really successful at - bring electronica and industrial influences into their sound.  Of course, we never heard the results officially, but they might never have been successful anyway.  I mean, any other 80s metal band that tried to become Nine Inch Nails - Warrant or M?tley Cr?e, for example - failed miserably.  Would it have been any different for Guns N' Roses?  Hard to say.

At any rate, it's clear at present who the survivor is.  Metallica is riding high with Rob Trujillo on bass and St. Anger sold well.  I personally think that that's a really good album, but to each his own, I guess.  Guns N' Roses, on the other hand, is doing what they spent most of the time after "The Spaghetti Incident?" doing - farting around in the recording studio.  I hope that Axl can get his act together, release the album, and ascend to the rock 'n' roll throne again, but I doubt it somehow.  History shows us that parallels between Metallica and Guns N' Roses dropped shortly after their respective early-90s world tours.  Their paths can either become parallel again, meaning that GN'R could become wildy successful again, OR their paths could diverge even further, driving Guns N' Roses into the realm of a successful cult band.  Things might be said to have come full circle at that point.  I mean, when Appetite For Destruction came out, Guns N' Roses was the most popular rock band in the world, and Metallica was just the most successful of the thrash bands, who at that point were still pretty much outside the mainstream.  Now, though, Metallica is arguably one of the most popular rock bands in the world, and Guns N' Roses, since their 2002 tour meltdown, is rapidly becoming an industry joke and more of a cult band for 80s metal holdouts.  Total switcharound.

And now a final word to end the history lesson.  I just saw the Metallica performance on the VMAs, and it was great.  They really kicked ass with "Frantic" - it's a great song, even if you don't like the lyrics - but the medley of old songs was great, too.  I was pleasantly surprised to find the White Stripes' "Seven Nation Army" in there, but the coolest thing was what Kirk Hammett did with "Beat It".  Awesome.  You could argue that Guns N' Roses did the same thing last year - a bunch of old songs and one new one.  The only difference was that the old songs were their own, which might be showing that despite Axl's attempts to stay relevant, the band is going to become a nostalgia act if it doesn't release some new tunes soon.  Comparing Metallica's 2003 amazing performance with the overblown 2002 new GN'R performance, it's obvious which band, 10 years later, have taken the Kings of Metal crown, formerly shared, and made it their own.

Most of this I agree too. But to say that Guns a re a industrial joke and the Metallica VMA performance was better than the Guns performance is a joke on your part. Fucking stupid.

Now for one I can understand how the haters are trying to spin Guns a a industry joke. But to the people that matter in industry Guns are not a joke and have the tools to make the miserable music industry money again. I do not think it is a mistake that Velvet Revolver and Guns are about to embark on the shift in the music scene. It is going to take more than one band to do it and two to lead the charge. A lot of people point to Nirvana as the band that shifted the current in the early nineties. Bullshit! The whole Seatle scene did not Nirvana by themselves. Pearl Jam was the number two. Axl needs a number two. Velvet Revolver can be that for Guns. I see band like the Strokes, Darkness, Audioslave, Chili Peppers joining in. But I am really wishing for a new band to come forward with similar sound and take there place. Obviously the music needs to be fresh and great to make the mark. something has to kill this nu-metal rap shit. Korn, biskit, park and kid rock are about dead. Britney sucks ass. Boy bands are in limbo. Metallica has sold about 1.5million albums that is way off there mark. And everyone that bought it was suprised and most were disappointed. That mostly include radio. And for the industrial shit. Well NIN, tool, PC, and the rest are fresh, but not reaching the mainstream at all.

I really do not want to comment on the VMA's other than Metallica beged to get on. MTV really did not want them. And the crowd response was that they were boring. It was just simply a boring performance and ending to a already sucky show. Watch both again a couple of times nd pay attention.

Last: Guns are going to be a underground band. They already are. There is stuff going on out there. The internet if full of Guns fans. In every poll I have seen Guns seem to come out on top. The most suprising poll that I was witness to was the Rolling Stone poll of greatest live acts to happen in the last 5 years. Guns placed 10th. What! 10th. That was great. And it was a phone poll of about 5000 people. Word got out on how good they were live. I was suprised they were even listed.

there is a lot of media out there trying to kill Guns. It has been 10 years and they are strong. they still have fans all over the world. Sure they are not as big as they were in 91-92. who cares. they are strong for a underground band. the strongest underground band out there. they have a aersonal on internet junkies.

bla bla metallica is big. I know this I am a fan too. big fan. I also am smart enough to know that with St. Anger and the load, reload, s&m, the napster case, etc. metallica fan base is eroding fast. 1.5 million is sad for such a heavily promoted album. Metallica and the record label is very disapointed. Plus the fact the summer tour was less than a winner for everybody involved. On a percentage crowd basis it did not much better than the Guns winter tour did. take a look.

5th

[Izzy]

In my opinion, the original Metallica lineup consisted of: James Hetfield, Lars Ulrich, Dave Mustaine, and Cliff Burton. Kirk replaced Dave, when he was kicked out of the band, yet against Dave's final requests, they still used his lyrics and riffs on their debut album, Kill 'Em All.

they also used mustaine's stuff on 'Ride the lightning'...damn those albums are good....where did good Metallica go??