Here Today... Gone To Hell!

i got argentina 1993 dvd,and i'm very very impresed by it.
I don't know why gnr didn't realise it,but this show was amazing!!!
gnr were amazing,especialy Axl and crowd was different story.I have never seen something like that,80000 people was there and every man was jumping and singing with Axl and gnr!!!
But very sad thing is that it was a last gnr show!!!they were on the top then,and subject of my topic is ironic!!!

That was a gnr year

Even though the band was still touring in 1993, it was not a good year for the band. They were still milking UYI for all it was worth. In 1993, the band put out an album they didn't really care about. And not many people bought it. The promotion for TSI is the absolute worst effort I've ever seen at marketing an album. And the contrived effort at controversy with 'Look at your Game, Girl' was pathetic. The band had become a trainwreck, and everyone knew it. This is also the year Axl went into seclusion, to be seen only once in the next year at the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame. He wasn't seen again until his arrest in Phoenix in 1998. Also in 1993, Duff did his solo album. An awesome but very underrated record. He did little promotion for his album, and that effort shows in the record sales. You see 1993 as a great year for GNR. I disagree. It was the year that the band derailed. GNR made many mistakes that year, and the band(Axl and ex-members) still hasn't recovered from it.

Don't know if it was recorded just for publicity's sake, but I actually like that song. Both the original and the GNR version.

that was very very good year for a band(in europe they had one of the biggest tour ever),and they had a great tour all over the world.TSI were the album for hardcore fans,that wasn't imagine as commercial success album.It was cover album for hardcore fans!!!For me skin and bones part of uyi tour was the best!!!Just look at hartford or argentina shows.
And who cares what mtv or stupid commercial criticals said about "gnr in 1993".Years after 1993 said that they were wrong(mtv and criticals),because in years after that rnr were almost died!!!

Guns n roses were still the biggest band in the world in 1993. TSI was just a fun album for the band to play covers they always wanted to put out.  Just look at some of the shows around the world gnr sold out.

I never was into Nirvana. They are very overrated and they didn't sell that much records in fact. For me when Oasis came out in the mid-90's, they blew Nirvana away. Nirvana was just a small transition between the 2 biggest Rock phenomenon in the 90's: Guns N' Roses and Oasis.

i don`t think 93 was a bad year for gnr. the spaghetti incident sucked, but it was only a fun album and the concerts were the coolest of the tour imo.

why does TSI have to be put down like that all the time?? >:(

Look At Your Game Girl is a track i love listening to man, you can slag it but dont say it was pathetic. Your just being rude man, what is so wrong with that song and the album???

it was a fun album for them to do after years of touring, well timed and cool, its not the worst thing ever to be released but.

I injoy TSI,  fuckin' cool shit!! : ok:

Axls version of since I dont have you is better than the orginal. Also too bad slash was soo fucked up on that song he forgot to do a part thus that is why axl says well we're fucked.  They had to slice that part in from anohter part of the song.

Regardless, in 1993 GNR became a self parody. And it pains me to say it but, I have come to accept this. GNR started to become the very thing they destroyed. They started blow drying their hair. They started performing the same routine and moves. They became caricatures and forgot to keep their ear to the very street that spawned them. Nirvana in a sense, did to GNR what GNR did to the lame gay ass colorful glam fake bullshit music that infested the music scene in the 80's (Metallica excluded).

I felt the change before Nirvana brought the grundge army. It hit me like a fist when I first saw the Tokyo Concert on video tape. It felt wrong. This was no longer my GNR. It was something else entirely and I didnt like it then, and I don't like it now. I knew things were getting bad when I saw them at the Colliseum and at the Rose bowl, and they had those dumb bitches playing flutes and shit on the stage. Or the insulting reggae shit they started doing during KOHD. But the Tokyo concert, things became clear. And honestly I am glad they broke up.

Yea I said it. I am glad happy smiling motherfucker. It ended before things got even more embarrassing. We were spared, and I appreciate that. The new GNR seems ,as crazy as is sounds, more real. I mean Buckethead, mask, KFC Bucket, and Herbie are more real to me then the sugar coated immitation that we were made to suffer through (and still do) to this day.

There was a shift n Rock music in '93, from fake to real. And Nirvana (love them or hate them) were on the front lines as GNR was in '87/'88.

GNR were on there way out and Nirvana on top in `93 as far as the fickle mainstream was concerned.

Nice post Buddha, it was an interesting time to be a music fan for sure. 

 

In 1993 GN'R played the largest concert ever staged in Australia, so I'd hardly call 1993 a bad year for them. And TSI sold ok here too considering it wasn't meant to be taken seriously anyway.

I agree that GnR were behind the new wave, but I disagree that Nirvana was the main band of that new wave.  By 1993, it was undeniably Pearl Jam.  In Utero didn't sell over a million until Cobain shot himself.  Everybody was buying Vs by Pearl Jam in 1993, not In Utero.

Are we also talking worldwide influence?  Because I don't think Nirvana EVER captured more of the worldwide influence than GnR did.

If you were a fan of Guns than 93 was a great year; awesome shows, a completely underrated album, and Being able to see Slash, Axl, and Duff together. For the rest of the music world it was not a great year for Guns. The all covers album gave them a bad rap then. Guns has and always will be better live than Nirvana. I like both bands but I love GNR because of their diversity. So for us 93 was the year of the Gunners. :peace:

'93 was NOT the year of the Gunners. How can you even say that? Dude listen. Take the biggest fan of GNR. I want Chinese Democracy more then they do.

So let's be honest. This was the year that the classic GNR died, and "jumped the shark." Reflecting back clearly, the last great showing of GNR and Axl, was the Freddy Mercury concert. But things were already turning for the worse by this point. Opinions are opinions, but I can't for the life of me, see any real and honest fan in here thinking any different. There were great shows in 1993. But again, if we are being honest, none of them can compare to the now classic GNR Ritz show. By 1993, GNR already were becoming the pretty band. Not the dirty fuck you talented Rockers that made us dig them in the first place. The blow drying feathered hair and biker shorts are only mere examples of the hell that started to manifest. This was fucked up. 1993 sucks as a GNR fan. Its the year, for all intents and purposes, classic GNR died.

"ecause I don't think Nirvana EVER captured more of the worldwide influence than GnR did."

Of course not dude. But Nirvana captured the "Cool" that once belonged to GNR.

For some reason I can make a direct comparison to what has happened in the videogame world. Once upon a time, the definition of a Videogame, was Nintendo. Nintendo was the top of the console food chain. If you played videogames, you played Nintendo. A couple mistakes and side steps and this punkass kid came into the neighborhood, and convinced gamers that if they were "cool" they had to have a Playstation. See were I'm getting at? Fucking Nintendo can actually make among the best games in the market (shit, there new Zelda game won best game of E3 this year), and Sony doesn't really make games at all. But the Playstaion is for "Cool people." Nitendo got into a little pigeon hole they have been trying to get out of now for years.

Nirvana became the Playstation to GNR's Nintendo. Nintendo wants to be the "cool" thing again as I would have to think Axl wants  GNR to be.

I gotta agree that 1993 was the beginning of the end for GNR.  Their monsterous run was coming to a painful close with line up changes, turmoil, riots, drug use, and Axl losing his grip on sanity.  GNR came on the scene and grabbed up the whole market but they were pushed aside by several bands like Pearl Jam, Nirvana, AIC, NIN, Soundgarden, etc.

To take it one step further, their impact literally made things uncool overnight, stateside at least.

That sort of thing happens in cycles, same thing happened in '77 in England with the Pistols, 14 years later in the fall of '91 when "Smells Like Teen Spirit" broke.

It'll be interesting to see what young band has that sort impact next..

whats your source on this Dave as Ive never heard that said before?

absolutley spot on  : ok:

In all fairness, GN'R in '93 were a band fulfilling touring commitments. Filled to the brim with session musicians, ego ramps and bloated self-indulgence. The classic GN'R were a bunch of unpredictable, rabble-rousing outlaws. GN'R in 93 (although they played some big shows) were desperately out of touch when compared to the likes of Nirvana, Soundgarden and Pearl Jam.

Never going to happen again.  Rock has been marginalized by splitting up into ever changing genres, hip hop, r and b, and something called MTV, which doesn't play music anymore.  There may be great young bands that have an impact.  But on that level, never again.  Not to mention huge demographic changes that are taking place in the states.  The deck is sure stacked against this next great band.

1992-1993 gnr were clasic huge rock band like zepellin,rollingstones,aerosmith!!!
Nirvana were cool,yea right,you want to say "drogs and suicide were cool"
Nirvana were cool on mtv and vh1 and usa and europe radio stations,but gnr had a true glory!!!
1993 gnr could made a sold out stadium show everywhere in the world,they were very very huge then

You could argue that GN'R went into self-parody in '92, with all those back-up singers and the horn section, costume changes and so on. But by 1993, the shows were far more stripped down, to just a six piece. GN'R big mistake was not releasing a new studio album in '94/95, they could have shared the spotilight with the alt/grunge bands, much like Aerosmith and Van Halen (before the singer fiasco).

If anything, GN'R kept it more real in '93 than they did in '92.

The whole Nirvana/GN'R thing is really a dead horse topic, but since it was brought up, I'll throw in my two cents.

I'll state the obvious. By the end of the old school GN'R's run, althought they were still very popular, GN'R weren't "cool." Nirvana was "cool." And thoughout the 1990s, Nirvana=cool, GN'R=not cool, at least among the hipsters.

But the 1990s are long, long over, and the dust has settled. In 2005, Nirvana is cool, GN'R is cool, and only the good things are remembered and the bad things are glossed over.

Here is some food for thought:

It was inevitable that GN'R, or any huge band would be challenged by a younger band.

Nirvana was only an active band with massive popularity for about 18 months or so. Say that Kurt Cobain hadn't killed himself, I'm sure he would have been challenged by a younger band--it's the law of the jungle. If Cobain hadn't killed himself, probably Eminem would have been dissing him left and right in the late 90s, and Eminem would be cool among high-school kids, and Cobain wouldn't be cool.

In the final analysis, don't let MTV, the radio, or any tendy hipster, or "people that matter" tell you what is cool, and what you should or shouldn't listen to.

In Europe, Oasis stopped the "Nirvanamania" around 1995/96. It was a new wave for a new generation. And Oasis went HUGE In 1997 here. I think between 1994 and 1998 they sold almost 25 million records just in Europe. Too bad America never really got into them. In France, I have the impression Guns N' Roses music is very appreciated, but most of pople don't like their image. One of the most repetitive critiscism I heard about GN'R in France is that people still remember them a huge "American business" band. The "yankee"s band", with Axl wearing american flag and supporting USA (it's normal this is HIS Country!) etc...that kind of criticism has always annoyed me. Guns N' Roses have been seen as an arrogant American big-budget band here. France has always prefered "alternative" bands like Nirvana (smaller ambition) because it's a shame here to be successfull and ambitious. Anything "big budget Star-System" thing coming from America in general gets a bad reputation . As well in the society (food, cinema, television etc...) that in the music. It may be due to the legendary anti-american french vibe, you know, nobody will never change that here, it's full of "clich?s" on the "Yankees"... ::)

And London Calling - The Clash "Ha! You think it's funny? Turning rebellion into money?"

The Pistols is remarkable chiefly for the marketing and imagery, designed by Vivienne Westwood and Malcolm McLaren. "and Now, drop your money!"

The following might reinforce your point.

Punk rock was also a reaction against certain tendencies that had overtaken popular music in the 1970s, including what the punks saw as superficial "disco" music and grandiose forms of heavy metal, progressive rock and "arena rock." Punk also rejected the remnants of the hippie counterculture of the 1960s. Most punks as having become fatuous and an embarrassment to their former claims of radicality regarded bands such as Jefferson Airplane, which had survived the 1960s. Eric Clapton's appearance in television beer ads in the mid-1970s was often cited as an example of how the icons of 1960s rock had literally sold themselves to the system they once opposed.


It's coming sometime or other from nowhere maybe beyond the seas
Maybe it will be something beyond your grasp or you wish never to see.

It's the world of art where cruel god rules. Constant shake-ups are essential to the life of the art which would otherwise get stuck like classical stuffs. It's like the vicissitudes of the plants world. All that bloom must decline. However perennials such as roses flower again when the season comes unlike annuals. 8)

O.K someone said that blowdrying your hair made them a worse band! Who cares! The biker shorts? He certainly wasnt wearing them to be cool or not himself, that was him he wanted to wear them. I dont think it would matter if he wore tight leather pants or his biker shorts. Chinses Democracy is the only thing that has made them a "Parody" and I cant wait for it

StoneTempleRoses

When Kurt shot himself, Nirvana had already been surpassed by Pearl Jam.

Funny though, Eminem did diss Cobain on his first major release.  Made fun of him shooting himself actually. 

So by your logic Axl could have taken one step further and started wearing makeup again then too right? GNR could have gone back and be completely glam in '93 and you would be one happy motherfucker huh? Explain your logic about CD being a parody? The new band seems very original and different, even Axl himself. Certaintly tracks like Madagascar aren't very old school GNR either. I dig that shit by the way. Mad kicks ass. You seem to be like Willy Wonka here, and are just twisting things around to be funny. So, you trying to be funny?

Not hardly.

Though PJ had it moments, their lmpact can best be described as the second man on the moon.

That said, PJ's cool factor had also far surpassed GNR's...

well unfortunately, Nirvana started taking over in 1993.  But GNR was still the biggest band on the planet. i know that might not make alot of sense.,, but its true...you see the Nirvana thing,,,i just dont get it,,, i mean i like them, but i didnt see what they were so special for.  I honestly believe if Kurt never killed himself they never would be held in such high regard as they are now.  For the record,, Oasis was 10 times bigger than Nirvana on a world wide scale.

Nirvana had trouble selling out there '93 tour in the states, while Pearl Jam's "vs." sold 1.5 million the week it was released. PJ was the big band in '93, not Nirvana. And "cool factor"? Who gives a fuck what some dorky college flannel wearing kid, or some snooty, ivory tower critic thinks is cool.

Nirvana may have been the first alt. band to make it though, opening the doors for others, but by 1993, Pearl Jam was the biggest band in the States, if not the world, not Nirvana, or GN'R.

And you can go on about Nirvana changing pop culture all you want, I don't care. I liked Nirvana, but Guns will always be a better band, IMHO, which means as much as anyone elses.

'93 was a pretty good year for GN'R.  Unfortuately it was their last good year.  It was pretty much the beginning of the end.

pearl jam was very big band but never something like guns n roses!!!
They have never had tour (in usa and the res of he world) like uyi tour!!!

i think hat 1993 was great year for gnr,and my favorites shows were from 1993(argentina,hartford...0

I never liked nirvana I'll try to explain.......the album nevermind   it was like they made a cliche out of their own songs within that single album.....right that's what it was same fuckin formula over and over and over................

Chinese Democracy is a joke it should have been out at least 5 years ago, Axl has braids, Buckethead was in the band, to you thats original to most people its weird and not Guns N Roses. No I wouldnt care if they went back to glam its still Axl, He's wearing oversize jerseys now!

StoneTempleRoses

Nice comparison between music and videogames Buddha! I always loved Nintendo games, and yea, although PlayStation games rock, Nintendo is the King of Games!! Come on! Who doesn't love MarioKart 64? Fucking classic game! :hihi:
But yea... I'll turn off my geek mode now.
Nirvana will never be as big as Guns were, and seriously... Nirvana only got insanely popular after Kurt died. I went through a Nirvana phase a couple of years ago, and I still like them, but not like I love Gn'R. Gn'R will always be the first band I listen to when I feel either insanely down, or insanely happy. Gn'R are like my best friend. Nirvana are more like a friend I used to be close with, but have lost touch.
Obviously my real best friend is my boyfriend, and its the same the other way around, but... because we both need to do our own thing, we're going through a rough patch, and it'll probably end soon, and it fucking hurts, but hopefully in the future we'll get back together when we've gotten our shit sorted out.

And... "cool factor"??? WTF? Who gives two shits about what someone else thinks is cool?! Hell, someone could like a band or musician who isn't "cool", thinks its cool, not give a fuck about what anyone else thinks, and that would make that person the "coolest" dude ever! Reason: Because he/she doesn't give a fuck about what anyone else thinks is cool!

Fuck the word "cool". It ACTUALLY means "not hot, slightly cold" so... how does it mean "awesome"?
The world of entertainment is fucked. It started to be fucked when nu-metal and emo came along. Maaan... what a sad world its become.
I wish I lived in the 80s. It would have been way better. Grrr....

Gnr, even in 1993, was a bigger band than Nirvana and Pearl Jam on a worldwide scale. I'll bet anyone any amount of money that they sold more concert tickets and albums from 1991 to 1994 than both Pearl Jam and Nirvana. Now being cool is another story and is certainly debatable. As far as another 1991 Nirvana or an 1987 Gnr emerging to clean the slate, I don't see it on the immediate horizon. It will happen but it could be another 10 years. This is a pretty long drought without a revolutionary rock trend happening. My theory is that everything has been done in the traditional rock format-Bass, guitar, drums, keys. I only hope for a return of quality-because everything in rock is retro now. :'( :'(

Hey that was me!!!  What did I ever do to you?  ;D

Yep, although the perception of them had diminished greatly in industry circles and other bands were considered drastically ahead of the game in comparison.


Very debateable for sure, although time has been very kind to the band from Seattle and their perception in rock history is definitely on a different level, for whatever reasons.


OK, gotta call you on this one, GNR's impact in '87 was not even close to that of Nirvana in '91.? They did no "slate cleaning" by any means.? Bands like The Crue, Skid Row, Poison etc thrived long after AFD's slow burn reached it's peak.? GNR elevated the scene for sure, but they sure as hell didn't put anybody outta business.? Nevermind changed the way the industry thought, changed the way bands were perceived and had a major impact on radio playlists and station formats that is still being felt to this day in the states.

Falcon, I agree....however, Gnr was a significant event, one of the last big ones along with Ok Computer in 1997/1998. Neither were as dramatic and influential as Nevermind.  As far as today goes, Nirvana still holds an edge on reputation as a band over the original Gnr. But, the gap has begun to close and will close even more over time. Nirvana's affect will dilute as did the Sex Pistols. Finally, industry people don't buy records and tickets. I just watched Pink Floyd live from Pompeii and Waters was ripping the media and industry and their perception of Floyd. Basically, he was saying your relevant until people stop coming to your shows and stop buying your records. :beer:

if Nirvana really ?changed the music industry, why do they have weak record sales? 35 million records sold worldwide for a so-called "revolutuionary" band is pretty weak. Guns N' Roses it's 85 million records, and today, Oasis are close to 50 million records.? It shows Nirvana didn't hit people as much as the media wants to claim...overrated. definitely overrated.

Dude, you really serious? You wouldn't mind if Axl went Glam? How about rock in general? You really liked that glam period? Man, Im 31 now, so unfortunately I remember that time all too well, and I'm not going to get on you about your opinion, but I can't imagine you are thinking clearly when you say that. I respect you, but its not possible you mean that. That had to be the most ludicrous, embarrasing, and ridiculous time in music. Absolutely the most embarrassing period in Rock history. I am happy that Metallica moved to San Fran to get away from that L.A. glam scene. Just utterly gay. There is nothing Axl could do (wear jerseys and braids, or whatever else), would possibly be as bad as that. Guys earing makeup...jesus christ. I always wondered how did rock go from Jimi Hendrix, Doors, Black Sabbath, and Zepplin....to the gay ass glam shit. Rock is always better when the artist is more grounded. Not when they try to become pretty. And in '93 GNR started getting dangerously close to trying to be pretty.

Rock can and should be weird. Know your history. When the Beatles arrived here, they were fucking weird. There longer hair wwas weird and grew a lot of criticism because of it. You think they gave a fuck. Their music was the top of the game at that time. Later Beatles grew and develloped the psychedilc 60's and certaintly got stranger and stranger. Again, you think Lennon gave a shit. There music they created is some of the most timeless music there is. They sure as shit weren't the pretty boys in the late 60's. Thank fucking god GNR broke free of the Glam confines in the late 80's. But I think at some point they lost there way. And the Seattle scene seemed a lot more real and grounded. The new GNR seems to me, a band that doesn't give a fuck. That is being the real GNR.

Very simple. It was the creation of Metal music. It wasn't Rock music, but rather the start of the whole Metal thing. It had nothing to do with the Classic-Rock thing.

You're kidding right?

Sales and impact/influence/perception are hardly synonymous...

EDIT: This horse is dead...

Nesquick, you can't be serious?  Nirvana ran those shitty 80s bands and all their bad songs about the Sunset Strip  out of town.  Nirvana absolutely changed music, after Nevermind radio changed, videos changed and most importantly the lyrical content of songs grew.  Oasis sure has changed music, haven't they?  Oh yeah, they are still ripping off the Beatles with nothing original to say. 

What? Metallica was Metal. Name one "Metal" band that was as good as Metallica that looked liked glammed up faggots. And they were called "Glam Rock" right? I would also argue that Metal really started with bands like Black Sabbath and Deep Purple. They didnt look like faggots either.

Motley Crue, Van Halen

So, you're saying Motley Crue and Van Halen (when the fuck did these clowns become Metal?) looked like Glammed up faggots? Read what I wrote. Shit maybe your right.

But talent wise, both of them are a pimple on Metallica and Black Sabbaths (The original Ozzy years) ass.

white lions, wasp etc... even the boys-band erea was more real than that kind of bands...

There is little help for you if you think White Lion and wasp are as good as Metallica. Bless your soul, you poor poor boy.

Look at the closthes Van Halen used to where in David Lee Roth era....
Look at Shout at the Devil Crue....

Early guns dressed as "Faggots!!!" too and that's when they wrote all the stuff for AFD so who gives a shit what someone looks like if their music is good?!!!

Iron Maiden dressed pretty gay too

What about Ozzy after he left Sabbath? he was pretty stylin'

Metallica wasn't really the same style of music as Glam Rock or Hair Metal or whatever IMO. In fact they were almost underground until "the Black Album".  The only reason Metallica is compared to GnR is because they toured together. Besides metallica is Shit now. Go listen to Megadeth if you wanna hear what Metallica should've evolved into.  Dave Mustaine Kicks!!!!

I didn't say they were as good as metallica, I just named some metal bands of that erea. But to tell you the truth, Metallica is not the kind of band I listen to. I recognize they are very talented, but it's not my musical taste at all. I'm not a metal head. Never was and never will be.
It's not my style at all.

That's fine. But your comment that Glam came from Metal is as ridiculous as it is innacurate. And I gave specific reasons why. You chose to name other bands that didnt help your argument in the slightest.

Eddie Van halen is only a pimple on Metallica's ass? ?wow that's a bold statement.

Listen to Feelgood or Shout at the Devil or some of Crue's heavier tunes and tell me they are not even a bit metal

Falcon, I am gonna have to call you out.  Sure, album sales aren't everything.  But this is telling, In Utero had sold as many albums as The Speghetti Incident right before Cobain Shot himself.  That would be 1 million.  Don't even try to tell me that Nirvana was still the number one rock band right before the shotgun blast.

You can't go around boasting yourself as the number one band when your major release only sells a million copies, especially at that time.  If a punk covers album with terrible promotion by GnR can sell as many albums as a major Nirvana release, people have just as much claim to saying that GnR were bigger than Nirvana in 1993. 

alright. glam, metal, name it whatever you want, it's just not my taste: 666, the devil, satan, the make-up, the cult of death and blablabla... I have nothing to do with that. Hopefully for me...THANKS GOD.

The Crue were metal, but they were hair metal.  Metallica was a thrash metal band.  BIG difference.

Tell me about it!!! Here's an old picture of Motley Crue btw. they look awesome!!!!

(http://tinypic.com/5ph3ma)

here's a couple "cool" shots of axl too from the "rare pics" thread.

(http://www.splagge.de/img/axl.jpg)
(http://www.splagge.de/img/axl_2.jpg)

You are tripping too. I garauntee you that if GNR released videos for Appetite with them all glammed up (WTTJ Axl was suppose to look insane so that doesn't count IMO), GNR would not be the GNR we all know and love. Image is very import for a rock band. So a bands image goes hand in hand with their music. You cant seperate the two.

Metallica is shit now? Do me a favor and pick up the DVD of S&M and listen to it proper like (a good 5.1 settup) and then come back here. Metallica was Metal, but then created there own genre sometime during Ride the Lightning. They really just play Metallica music. That's the genre they are in. I have always felt sorry for Dave Mustaine and if you watch im in Metallica's Some Kind of Monster Documentary you will too. When you feel sorry for a Rock musician, they are no longer cool, and are quite pathetic. That coupled with his annoying voice makes Mustaine a very unenjoyable musician. Im glad someone out there likes Megadeth though. I guess its cool he has a fan in you brother.

Goddamn I hate Glam. I cant even look at those pics...I wouldnt want someone to walk into my office and see old pics of Crue and Axl on my comp. Theyd get the wrong idea. That was too wrong.

And Metallica never was devil shit. And Metallica was Metal (hence the name).

To tell you the truth I haven't seen Some kind of Monster. but the St. Anger album blew tremendous chunks!!! And don't deny it!! The S&M Cd rules though you are correct, but, that was then. ?Megadeth are still going strong though. He is a fucking brilliant guitarist and his two newest albums "the world needs a hero" and "The System has Failed" are amazing. Do Yourself a favour and listen to them badboys. and about his singing. he sings with his teeth clenched you try to play guitar like that and sing ?;D . besides he writes EVERYTHING for megadeth and almost half of the tunes on Metallica's first 2 albums. "Mechanix" compared to "horsemen" is no comparison "Mechanix" is waayyyyyyyyyyyyy faster.

EDIT:? I have the Cliff's first show when Metallica is Hetfield, Ulrich, Burton and Mustaine. It rules!!

Just what are you calling me out on? 

Bigger, #1, etc. are all relative, who the hell cares? 

I'm talking about impact, perception and influence.

Madagas gets it, you obviously don't.

Even though Megadeth kick tremendous ass they will be probably done by the end of the year so Dave can go solo, well it is basically Dave Mustaine plus three other (very talented) musicians playing Megadeth songs.

It is better to burn out than fade away.

By 1994, Nirvana was fading pretty fast.  Kurt also talked about doing more of a folk thing in the future.  He realized his influence on the genre was never going to be near what it was just a year before.  He made his impact in 91/92.  But his influence had dwindled by 1993/94.  He realized it, you don't.

Do you remember who was on the cover of Time magazine in 1993 as the leader of this rock movement, that was Eddie Vedder.  Time magazine's only prerogative was to take the biggest act in the genre and put them on the cover, it was Pearl Jam.

Whatever, if Nirvana hadn't gotten the exposure they did I doubt the other "seattle" bands would broke either. Nirvana started "Grunge" so there :P

Nirvana did not start grunge, they were simply the first ones to hit it big.  Alice in Chains had an album out, Soundgarden, the Screaming Trees, Mudoney, etc.  were all out before Nevermind. 

On topic, how about 1993 being the year for Alice in Chains?  Dirt was released in fall of 1992, they did Lollapalooza in 1993 and Jar of Flies came out to debut at #1.

Whatever, to the public eye they were first.  "Smells like teen spirit" started the movement.

Nirvana may get the credit but it is undeserved.  The public is always right, huh?  The public elected Bush, empowered Hitler, accepted slavery, it must be OK because veryone says it's so.

Actually, he spoke of joining Hole, but that's neither here nor there...


Their impact was still the most prevelent force in the entire music business in '93-94. ?Hell, most of the modern rock stations still here today in the US made the official change to that format in the fall of '94, ommitting bands like GNR, The Crue, Skid Row and the like from their playlists.



Again, not talking about "biggest"..

Not diminishing PJ by any means, nor GNR for that matter, but just like Rotten/The Sex Pistols were the face of punk, Cobain/NIrvana will always be perceived as the leaders of the movement, the focus of the change from excess to angst.

Dude if Nirvana became popular first then why is it wrong to give them credit for getting noticed first? ?If Nirvana didn't get noticed then AIC Soundgarden and PearlJam likely wouldn't have made it because there would've been no media interest in Seattle. Get what I'm saying?

the Screaming Trees and Mudoney just suck IMHO

1993 was the year of Pearl Jam "VS" was released on October 19, 1993 debuted at number 1 with 995.000 units sold in it's first week.Without having a video on mtv .

 

Pearl Jam were huge alright, they fizzled as well and the "cool factor" abandoned them long ago

Nirvana have been immortalised as the very defintion of "cool"

You people are lumping "glam" bands all together like they're all the same.  Being glam is about the look of a band.  Galm bands ranged from Poison, to Motley Crue (for one album), to Hanoi Rocks, to the New York Dolls.  These bands looked similar, but none of them sound real similar.  Even in the genre of hair metal, bands sounded way different.  Listen to Poison, Motley Crue, and Cinderella.  If you think that they sound the same then either A. You weren't really listening, or B. You're a frigging moron.  Lumping bands into one classification based on their looks is totally stupid.  Also about White Lion, of course they're not as good as Metallica was back in the day, but if you don't think Vito Bratta was an excellent guitarist then you don't know what you're talking about.  Some of the metalest people I know, people who love Metallica, Megadeth, Death, Testament, and really heavy stuff like that have tons of respect for Bratta and own White Lion albums.  I've said it on this board tons of times, to dismiss all hair metal as talentless crap is totally wrong.  Some of the most talented musicians in rock have come out of hair metal.  I'll take it over grunge any day of the fucking week, and twice on Sunday.

Hell. Fuckin. Yea!!!!!!
Ha, I used to think exactly the opposite of what you said, but that died a long time ago. Now, I find grunge kinda boring and angsty, although I will listen to it if I feel like it, but I WAY prefer hair metal and glam... only bands I completely fucking hate in those genres are Poison and Bon Jovi... *shudders* although Blaze of Glory was... halfish decent I guess, but... MOTLEY CRUE FUCKIN' ROCK!!! Just because they wore makeup does NOT make them a shit band! Actually... it makes them better because they're going against the grain and doing something thats considered "weird". SO FUCKING WHAT!!!! METAL IS SUPPOSED TO BE WEIRD!!!! (as someone pointed out before... can't remember who... sorry!).
Its bloody annoying when people say "This band's just selling out because they're trying to look "pretty"!" Motley Crue never sold out except for that crappy grungey album they put out when grunge was all the rage,. THAT'S selling out. (Well... trying to, that album didn't do very well at all!).
And I happen to LOVE the way Gn'R looked in the 80s! Fucking sexy! And sure, for a while they did wear makeup... but it was different to how Motley Crue wore makeup! Gn'R did it DIRTILY (although that pic of Axl in gothy makeup is HILARIOUS!) and yea, they stopped wearing makeup after a while, but everyone has to experiment right? Its a part of life! If someone told me I couldn't dye my hair blue because I would be doing just what everyone else was doing, I'd still do it, not because I wanted to be like everyone else, but because I'd be interested to see what I'd look like with blue hair!
What I say is this: If you want to do something, DO IT! So fucking what if someone else has already done it, if YOU want to do it, then YOU do it! Fuck what everyone else thinks, just DO IT for YOURSELF!
There, I'll shut up now.

I know none of them sounded similar but they were all grouped together. Some of the bands I like:

GnR, Aerosmith, Ozzy, Crue, Poison, Warrant, Tesla, Skid Row and VanHalen

They were/are all considered Hair bands, whether you like it or not, but they sound nothing alike.

Other bands I realy like:

Metallica, Megadeth, Pantera
STP, PJ, AIC, Nirvana

White Snake had 1 good tune IMO. As to comparing these bands to metallica, You just can't. totally different style, sound, feel.

Like, fuck man, try to compare the "Master of Puppets" song by metallica to "unskinny Bop" by poison, and then to "Rooster" by AIC :hihi: :rofl: , you just can't

By is CC Deville a good Guitarist? I think so
Is Kirk Hammet? Yeah!
Is Jerry cantrell? Fuckin' Right.

Now where was I going with this?

Oh yeah..btw sorry for rambling.. but AIC also sounds nothing like Nirvana, who don't sound like PJ who don't sound like Soundgarden
Pantera doesn't sound like metallica.  Get what I'm sayin'? these bands are grouped together all the time but none of them really have the same sound. Well nowadays, everything sounds like Nickleback, but before that bands usually had a unique sound. and they were still grouped together.