Media war for the final GNR reunion narrative?

[SkeletorSerpent]

Is it just me, or is there a "media war" for who (which side of the Gnr debate) will get to tell the final historical GNR narrative? And how that narrative gets written? On one hand, GNR comes out as comeback hero, vindicated rock icons who are back to dominate rock and reclaim their throne as one of rock's all time greats. On the contrary, there seems to be some voices in media who want to extinguish the fire. They want to paint the narrative of a washed up, disgraced eighties has been band whose chances at a successful reunion are now at least ten years too late, and even if the reunion happened ten years ago, GNR were never really that great any way. This negative side seems terrified by all the positive press from Vegas and Coachella, and are trying to write a narrative that GNR are a "one great album" band, with just a few hits. It's as if all the haters from the 80s and 90s are crawling out of the woodwork to construct their image of the band before the facts can speak for themselves.

There seems to be "two tales" emerging regarding this reunion and the "negative" side is definitely in the minority. The same old GNR media enemies seem to have held a grudge and still have an axe to grind with the band. In other words, they desperately want GNR to fail. Yet, the facts are showing that they on fire and are doing anything but failing. Many current bands and celebrities are showing their support. Mainstream radio is finally on board. They are on the cups of cementing their legacy. It's as if they have proven they are the "great, classic, bad ass rock band" that we have all said they are, and the negative media doesn't like that we are being proven right. They are beloved by millions. They are on par with Zep, Stones, and AC/DC. Axl is an amazing vocalist. And they don't like seeing GNR vindicated as an amazing rock band. The negative side will say and do anything to stop Axl. They want to focus on Axl's body, or their ages, or the fact that it isn't 1992, or the fact that GNR used to not show up on time, or the fact that they are now too professional and clean and not "dangerous" enough, or  . . . . . and the list goes on. Anything to stop Axl. It bothers them that "we" (the masses of GNR adorers and legions of fans) are right about our assessment of GNR's legacy, and they were wrong. Some are desperately trying to remind the rock world that GNR were racist, misogynistic, drug addicts who were the antithesis of Nirvana and real, raw rock. Some have tried to convince us that GNR are the main reason why we needed Nirvana.
Yet, the facts remain. GNR are close to selling 100 million records world wide and are in a very elite class of rockers. GNR can still sell out stadiums. GNR have some of the most recognizable and beloved rock anthems of all time.


There seems to be a big discrepancy between media outlets and varying rock critics. MOST media sources and critics have been very favorable and supportive of the GNR reunion thus far-- yet, some seem to want to halt the momentum, thwart their positive energy, and sabotage the reunion. They can't stand Axl and can't stand to see him in the lime light and be revered by rock fans and critics and mainstream media is clearly on the side of history that paints GNR as a rock icon and the verge of an epic comeback! They don't want to see him vindicated as a rock legend.

[Axlfreek]

the 20 years i've been a fan it seems the media has never liked gn'r nor have they supported axl rose the past 15 years. based on the lyrics of the song "get in the ring", i don't think gn'r and the media have ever gotten along.

[Whigged]

Dude...we're four shows in. There's no "media war." How do you even begin to speculate on a so called "final narrative" when the narrative itself is shifting almost daily? It's impossible. As a media member, I  can say for certain that makes zero sense.

[SkeletorSerpent]

I agree. Historically, they have never been darlings of the critics and media. Their anti-hero status was part of what made them luring, refreshing, and cool. However, many said they had talent, but wasted it on arrogance, excess, egos, drugs, bloated productions, commercialized videos, and a lifestyle of Spinal Tap proportions. etc.

But, now that some time has passed and the dust is settling, I think most media and rock critics are acknowledging the GNR legacy for what it is.

However, there seems to be a diehard core of anti- Axl, anti-GNR critics out there who are determined to derail GNR. They are doing everything in their power to prevent GNR from being mythologized by rock history. They DO NOT want this reunion tour to "cement GNR's reputation and legacy" as one of the all time greatest hard rock n roll bands. They hate the fact that "GNR has turned out to be everything their fans always thought them to be"  . . . that is, a legendary rock band in the same pantheon as Zep, Stones, AC/DC, etc. They hate that we (the fans) are turning out to be on the "right side of rock history." If evaluated and observed neutrally and objectively, the facts are very clear- GNR has a huge fan base, GNR appeals to teenagers and middle agers, GNR can still fill stadiums, GNR is a staple of rock radio, GNR have some of the biggest and most played rock anthems of all time, GNR are a globally recognized band, GNR members are known around the world on a "first name basis" like Elvis, Madonna, etc, GNR revolutionized MTV videos for rock bands, GNR dominated an entire era of rock, GNR were far more than a "one album wonder," etc. The nay sayers keep trying to re-write the narrative, though.
The nay sayers are desperately screaming at rock fans to "buy their GNR narrative" as the "final word" on the band's place in rock history. According to their narrative, the band is just a glorified hair band, GNR is washed up, GNR were the reason for Nirvana, GNR has only "one great album," and all the old cliches we've all heard a million times, yet know aren't true. Yet, the facts clearly prove their narrative to be false. On the contrary, GNR have sold almost 100 million records, GNR are instantly recognized around the world. GNR can create a mass Internet buzz off of reputation alone-- no other band from the eighties can do that.

[SkeletorSerpent]

Dude...we're four shows in. There's no "media war." How do you even begin to speculate on a so called "final narrative" when the narrative itself is shifting almost daily? It's impossible. As a media member, I  can say for certain that makes zero sense.

I disagree. I think the hatred of Axl is so vehement that there is some movement to "bring down this band." Some mainstream rock stations are ignoring the GNR reunion. There is a cultural movement to "move beyond" the "80s retro thing" that has actually been going on for awhile now and push "Kurt Cobain," "grunge," and Nirvana back on the public. Go to a high school, teens are starting to wear Nirvana T shirts and flannels now more than wearing Motley Crue, AC/DC, and GNR T shirts. They are still there, but the tide is definitely shifting towards grunge as the next cool "retro trend."
The powers that be who come of age in the grunge movement are coming of age and have powers of influence and they will try to resurrect the GNR vs Nirvana war (commercial rock vs. alternative/indie/underground rock). These people "grew up hating" GNR and Axl. They really do NOT want to see him glorified and vindicated. I'm telling you-- the hatred is real. And it runs DEEP.
Just saying . . . .

[D-GenerationX]

I see nothing but love, honestly.  All the shows so far have gotten great reviews.

The only thing that would mess that up is if Axl pulls any of his old bullshit.  And so far, so good, on that front.

[gnr1967]

I'm not sure if it's a "movement" to bring down GNR.  I tend not to believe in conspiracy theories.  Although it's just pure speculation on my part, I think for many writers in the media, GNR is simply an easy band to target.  It's simply easier for them to write something negative than something positive.

And yes, there are already negative articles out there about Cochella.  But I don't attribute it to an organized movement to bring down the band. That doesn't make sense to me.

[SkeletorSerpent]

D-GenerationX,
I agree, for the most part. There has been a lot of love. Look at the many, many positive reviews that members have been posting under the Coachella thread! But that is my point. Even USAToday had a very positive review. Rolling Stone, Spin, and many other outlets who were hard on GNR under the old line-up are coming out with very positive reviews. This is an "epic" comeback according to the vast majority of reviews.
That's why when the Daily Beast or the Guardian come out with negative reviews it just seems so out of place. Only a deep rooted hatred for GNR can justify such fallacious views. It is clear that these reviewers didn't even watch or listen to the show. They were just waiting to spew negativity and spin their narrative of GNR's comeback.
But to any objective observer, it is false.

[SkeletorSerpent]

I'm not sure if it's a "movement" to bring down GNR.  I tend not to believe in conspiracy theories.  Although it's just pure speculation on my part, I think for many writers in the media, GNR is simply an easy band to target.  It's simply easier for them to write something negative than something positive.

And yes, there are already negative articles out there about Cochella.  But I don't attribute it to an organized movement to bring down the band. That doesn't make sense to me.

"Organized movement" is too strong. I don't mean a clandestine, surreptitiously coordinated plot to destroy the band. I'm talking about all the alternative/underground/punk rock fans of the early 90s who "grew up hating" GNR and Axl are now in positions of power and influence and they are the ones writing the few negative reviews. Back int he day, "alternative" rock kids hated GNR and they disliked fans of GNR. They truly thought the grunge movement was a rock n roll enema to flush GNR into the toilet of rock history. They loathed and despised Axl and everything he stood for -  private jets, strippers, extended guitar solos, stadium shows, drinking/party songs, etc.
All I'm saying is that these people think GNR are an "overrated" band who left a big stain on rock history. They hate almost everything about the eighties except Metallica and Megadeth and Slayer and underground punk bands. The last thing in the world they want to see is GNR mythologized in rock history as one of the greatest acts of all time. They loath all the positive reviews and powerful "comeback" energy.
That's what I mean about a war. These Axl haters will say and write anything to discredit Axl. That is why we are starting to get "two tales" on the reunion. But to the objective observer, it is clear that the negative reviews are very bias and rooted in a personal dislike of the band.

[Virolec]

Guns N' Roses is not really music for Guardian readers... I wouldn't be surprised if they got a bad review there.

[Tyson]

Is there a widespread perception that Coachella was a big disappointment and embarrassment for Guns n Roses?  The most positive reviews seemed to be the less popular publications.  Check this out: 
http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/music/news/a44110/axl-rose-guns-n-roses-coachella/

[johnreed3344]

I don't even bother with reviews anymore most of the negative ones just seem like no matter what happens they will give GNR a bad one. so fuck them and keep this magical GNR time rolling!

[Factory Girl]

Is there a widespread perception that Coachella was a big disappointment and embarrassment for Guns n Roses?  The most positive reviews seemed to be the less popular publications.  Check this out: 
http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/music/news/a44110/axl-rose-guns-n-roses-coachella/

I saw that earlier today. Did not get it.
Rolling Stone, Spin they've said nice things. I'm sure I saw a few more positive...it was not my perception at all.

[Tyson]

Is there a widespread perception that Coachella was a big disappointment and embarrassment for Guns n Roses?  The most positive reviews seemed to be the less popular publications.  Check this out: 
http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/music/news/a44110/axl-rose-guns-n-roses-coachella/

I saw that earlier today. Did not get it.
Rolling Stone, Spin they've said nice things. I'm sure I saw a few more positive...it was not my perception at all.

Were you there?  And yes, I did read lots of very good reviews as well. 

[Factory Girl]

Is there a widespread perception that Coachella was a big disappointment and embarrassment for Guns n Roses?  The most positive reviews seemed to be the less popular publications.  Check this out: 
http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/music/news/a44110/axl-rose-guns-n-roses-coachella/

I saw that earlier today. Did not get it.
Rolling Stone, Spin they've said nice things. I'm sure I saw a few more positive...it was not my perception at all.

Were you there?  And yes, I did read lots of very good reviews as well. 

No, I wasn't. I mean it was not my perception that they had no many bad reviews.

[SkeletorSerpent]

No, there isn't a widespread consensus that the Coachella show sucked. Unfortunately, these sparse negative reviews are an anomaly that reflect a GNR narrative "media war" that I posted about in Dead Horse. I'm telling you all, go read my comment about a "media war" that I posted in Dead Horse, I think I'm on to something. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am. It's the only theory that can explain such a vast discrepancy in the reviews. It is irrational to think that rock critics at Rolling Stone, Spin, Kerrang, Billboard, and Classic Rock magazine don't know what the fuck they are talking about, but some left wing geek at Daily Beast, Telegraph, or Esquire does. That's fucking crazy. The left wing hippy alternative geeks have always had an agenda to "tear down Axl." In their minds, he personifies everything that is wrong with rock music-- misogynistic, racists, macho, loud, masculine, testosterone driven, strippers, private jets, stadiums, Budweiser sponsorships, towering, monolithic walls of Marshall amps, pyrotechnics, and all the Spinal Tap pomp and circumstance that come with kick ass rock n roll.

Spirit has been doing an excellent job tracking the many positive reviews. See below. The only negative reviews I can find come from Esquire, Guardian, Telegraph, San Diego Tribune, and the Daily Beast. These are modern liberal publications run by former alternative music fans. The journalists writing these reviews are the same critics who have been blasting Axl for the last 15 years. Esquire, Daily Beast, and Guardian were always trashing GNR. As youth, these "journalists" were the kids who "hated Axl Rose" when we were growing up. While the rest of the world was listening to GNR, they were sipping expressos in coffee shops and listening to Weezer and whining about how much "corporate rock sucks." Whiny little bitches . . . . thinking they were too sophisticated for GNR. These are the same arrogant mother fuckers who only listen to Radiohead, U2, and Coldplay and think Nirvana are the "saviors of rock." Fuck em all. They don't know shit about rock n roll. Positive reviews are all over the Internet. Spin, Rolling Stone, Billboard . . .  these are music publications. Daily Beast and Esquire are Leftist publications with a political agenda. Leftists and liberals and underground alternative geeks have always had an axe to grind with GNR. Radiohead listening, coffee sipping, hippies who hate "jock rock." But rock journalists looking at this objectively and neutrally are saying very positive things.

Positive Reviews:
http://www.spin.com/2016/04/guns-n-roses-coachella-live-review/

http://hollywoodlife.com/2016/04/17/guns-n-roses-coachella-performance-angus-young-weekend-one-video-watch/

http://music.mxdwn.com/2016/04/17/reviews/coachella-2016-day-2-review-excellence-vs-energy-with-guns-n-roses-run-the-jewels-and-chvrches/

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/music-festivals/7334123/coachella-2016-guns-n-roses-acdc-angus-young

http://www.fuse.tv/2016/04/guns-n-roses-coachella-axl-rose

http://www.laweekly.com/music/its-so-sleazy-guns-n-roses-gave-coachella-its-most-epic-rock-set-ever-6837392

http://www.pe.com/articles/gnr-800219-band-axl.html

http://lasvegasweekly.com/ae/music/2016/apr/17/coachella-day-2-guns-n-roses-/

http://www.tmz.com/2016/04/17/guns-n-roses-coachella-performance-video/

http://theinterrobang.com/guns-n-roses-kills-coachella/

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/day-712432-run-stage.html

http://www.etonline.com/news/186910_guns_n_roses_rock_day_two_of_coachella_with_surprise_appearance_by_acdc_guitarist_angus_young/

[Tyson]

You're def onto something.  Good response. 

[jc_seven]

I blame Cobain.  His obsession and hatred of Guns/Axl possessed the minds of people who believed if they just followed him, they too would have some kind of knowledgable inside track on life.  To say that GnR is a band "that says and is about nothing" paintbrushes all of the people who like/love the music and find meaning in it.  I found it ridiculous that Rolling Stone released an article the day of the first Vegas show outlining the GnR-Nirvana feud.  Not that it was anything too bad but just a reminder.  If you like/love Kurt and Nirvana, GnR are the bad guys. 

[ice cream sand pig]

I get the vibe alot, mostly from pseudo intellectuals, social justice warriros, and intelligentsia, that it's not cool to like gnr. It sucks, but mostly just for them and anyone gullible enough to trail behind them or stubborn enough to play along. It was even worse during the pre reuinion period. People parrotted the anti gnr stuff like it was the thing to do. You could rarely mention the band to someone without them spiting out some uninformed one sided gobbledy gook that made you want to backhand them. It at least seems to be getting better now that Slash is back.

[SkeletorSerpent]

I get the vibe alot, mostly from pseudo intellectuals, social justice warriros, and intelligentsia, that it's not cool to like gnr. It sucks, but mostly just for them and anyone gullible enough to trail behind them or stubborn enough to play along. It was even worse during the pre reuinion period. People parrotted the anti gnr stuff like it was the thing to do. You could rarely mention the band to someone without them spiting out some uninformed one sided gobbledy gook that made you want to backhand them. It at least seems to be getting better now that Slash is back.

rj seitz,
Spot on! You get it. I agree 100% the "intelligentsia" have always hated GNR.

[SkeletorSerpent]

Kurt Cobain was a typical punk, and punks had always hated mainstream rock. Nothing new there. Kurt Cobain's hatred of GNR just brought the general sentiment of underground punk music to the surface, but that attitude had always existed within rock. Just like punk rock fans in the late 70s hated the bombastic grandiosity of Pink Floyd, Sabbath, Rush, and Zeppelin. BUT it wasn't Cobain's public hatred in and of itself that killed GNR. Rather, it was the leftist geeks that I've been talking about who painted this "rock history narrative" and then pushed it on the public as Gospel truth. But any rock fan who was alive during that time KNOWS that Nirvana, Pearl Jam, and grunge did NOT wipe out and destroy GNR. Those bands hit in 91 and GNR were still the biggest, most relevant band in the world right up through their demise in 93; they were already surviving the revolution. Nirvana/Pearl Jam/grunge were the final blow to the "hair band era," but not GNR. True, the newer, underground bands were on the rise and the tide was turning toward a reform in rock n roll. A reform by the way, that was much needed. A reform that was already underway by GNR. But, GNR had enough edge, attitude, punk-sensibility, and enough "anti-establish" aura  to navigate this musical revolution. They were talented and versatile enough as a band to successfully adapt to and navigate the "grunge" revolution that had already been going on for a couple of years. In fact, they were already acclimating to the revolution. The fact is that GNR imploded and destroyed themselves. Not Nirvana. Not grunge. True, GNR were no longer going to be "the band of the kids." But that eventually happens to all bands. Kids are always looking for something newer, edgier, refreshing, etc. That's nothing new in rock either. Most bands, regardless of their longevity, only have a short window where they are at their peak "as the band and voice of a generation" before they become a staple and established act. But GNR were still cool enough to remain as an established, relevant band just like the Rolling Stones were eclectic and talented enough to survive the rise of heavy metal, prog rock, disco, country rock, punk, and new wave. GNR could have done it, too. And for the most part, were doing just that from 91 - 93.

Contrary to the myth that "Grunge/Nirvana destroyed GNR," GNR were the initial catalyst that ignited the cultural and musical revolution against "hair bands." They are the true transition band that had one foot in the 80s and one foot in the 90s/grunge era. They were the "bridge" that prepared the way. Yes, they had some "remnants" of the 80s hair bands. But to all true rock fans, we know that GNR were the band that first "sobered" up rock music and got people's attention. They, not Nirvana, pulled the plug on 80s hair bands. Nirvana just struck the final blow. But GNR were the band that made all the other 80s rockers look and feel silly. They made them wake up, wipe the smirk off their make-up plastered faces, go home ashamed, take off their mascara and leopard print spandex and retire or start getting serious about making pure rock n fucking roll. It was GNR who did this, not Nirvana. Nirvana and the rise of the purer underground rock music is the natural outcome and inevitable consequence of the revolution that GNR started.

BUT, the same arrogant mother fuckers who painted the "Nirvana and real, raw underground rock music" killed GNR are the same people bashing GNR today. The hippy, "intelligentsia" and cultural critics at The Guardian, Telegraph, and Daily Beast are the same breed of mother fuckers who preferred the Sex Pistols and Ramones to Pink Floyd, Sabbath and Zeppelin.
These leftist geek critics, who are former anti-establishment punks, are the same critics that have always hated the "big bands." They are trying desperately to portray GNR has just a glorified hair band, nothing more than Cinderella, Poison, Ratt, or Firehouse, but with a few more hits.
So, I firmly believe that their is a movement out there that will do and say anything to discredit GNR and try to re-write rock n roll history. But to those of us who lived through it, we know the facts. And apparently all the crazy mother fuckers who are spending big bucks to see GNR and are filling up stadiums across the U.S., they know the facts, too.
Oh, and Kurt Cobain is still dead.

[Thorned Rose]

This is a different era of Gn'R. The shows are on time, and they are going great.

Axl can't even run around and they are going great. Their will always be a slightly bad taste in people's mouths about Gn'R from the last 20 years.

Everyone left but Axl from the original 5 and a lot of people soured on that. Then the massive delays with CD just put a lot of casual fans and even newer fans out. It simply isn't fun waiting for your favorite band to re-re-record things.

I think if they put out a new album, and it does at least "good" then a lot of that feeling will get kinda left behind. Or even if this tour goes on clean and well as it has started. For now though, Gn'R are doing all the right things.

[kaasupoltin]

Contrary to the myth that "Grunge/Nirvana destroyed GNR," GNR were the initial catalyst that ignited the cultural and musical revolution against "hair bands." They are the true transition band that had one foot in the 80s and one foot in the 90s/grunge era. They were the "bridge" that prepared the way. Yes, they had some "remnants" of the 80s hair bands. But to all true rock fans, we know that GNR were the band that first "sobered" up rock music and got people's attention. They, not Nirvana, pulled the plug on 80s hair bands. Nirvana just struck the final blow. But GNR were the band that made all the other 80s rockers look and feel silly. They made them wake up, wipe the smirk off their make-up plastered faces, go home ashamed, take off their mascara and leopard print spandex and retire or start getting serious about making pure rock n fucking roll. It was GNR who did this, not Nirvana. Nirvana and the rise of the purer underground rock music is the natural outcome and inevitable consequence of the revolution that GNR started.

This is a very good point. I'd give anything to see something like GN'R and Nirvana come out and destroy everything that's going on in the music business today.

It's a shame these two bands never got along though, as they had very much in common. Even though they never seemed to realize it.

[Voodoochild]

Ok, as much as I agree that the background of these journalists have a big impact on what they write about GNR, this is not an agenda. People are entitled to have their opinions. And GNR have always been way too abrasive with the media, so there you have it.

Also, you brought as much prejudice as those journalists. I like alternative music, I like Weezer and Radiohead and even Nirvana. But I can still love GNR.

[jc_seven]

Kurt Cobain was a typical punk, and punks had always hated mainstream rock. Nothing new there. Kurt Cobain's hatred of GNR just brought the general sentiment of underground punk music to the surface, but that attitude had always existed within rock. Just like punk rock fans in the late 70s hated the bombastic grandiosity of Pink Floyd, Sabbath, Rush, and Zeppelin. BUT it wasn't Cobain's public hatred in and of itself that killed GNR. Rather, it was the leftist geeks that I've been talking about who painted this "rock history narrative" and then pushed it on the public as Gospel truth. But any rock fan who was alive during that time KNOWS that Nirvana, Pearl Jam, and grunge did NOT wipe out and destroy GNR. Those bands hit in 91 and GNR were still the biggest, most relevant band in the world right up through their demise in 93; they were already surviving the revolution. Nirvana/Pearl Jam/grunge were the final blow to the "hair band era," but not GNR. True, the newer, underground bands were on the rise and the tide was turning toward a reform in rock n roll. A reform by the way, that was much needed. A reform that was already underway by GNR. But, GNR had enough edge, attitude, punk-sensibility, and enough "anti-establish" aura  to navigate this musical revolution. They were talented and versatile enough as a band to successfully adapt to and navigate the "grunge" revolution that had already been going on for a couple of years. In fact, they were already acclimating to the revolution. The fact is that GNR imploded and destroyed themselves. Not Nirvana. Not grunge. True, GNR were no longer going to be "the band of the kids." But that eventually happens to all bands. Kids are always looking for something newer, edgier, refreshing, etc. That's nothing new in rock either. Most bands, regardless of their longevity, only have a short window where they are at their peak "as the band and voice of a generation" before they become a staple and established act. But GNR were still cool enough to remain as an established, relevant band just like the Rolling Stones were eclectic and talented enough to survive the rise of heavy metal, prog rock, disco, country rock, punk, and new wave. GNR could have done it, too. And for the most part, were doing just that from 91 - 93.

Contrary to the myth that "Grunge/Nirvana destroyed GNR," GNR were the initial catalyst that ignited the cultural and musical revolution against "hair bands." They are the true transition band that had one foot in the 80s and one foot in the 90s/grunge era. They were the "bridge" that prepared the way. Yes, they had some "remnants" of the 80s hair bands. But to all true rock fans, we know that GNR were the band that first "sobered" up rock music and got people's attention. They, not Nirvana, pulled the plug on 80s hair bands. Nirvana just struck the final blow. But GNR were the band that made all the other 80s rockers look and feel silly. They made them wake up, wipe the smirk off their make-up plastered faces, go home ashamed, take off their mascara and leopard print spandex and retire or start getting serious about making pure rock n fucking roll. It was GNR who did this, not Nirvana. Nirvana and the rise of the purer underground rock music is the natural outcome and inevitable consequence of the revolution that GNR started.

BUT, the same arrogant mother fuckers who painted the "Nirvana and real, raw underground rock music" killed GNR are the same people bashing GNR today. The hippy, "intelligentsia" and cultural critics at The Guardian, Telegraph, and Daily Beast are the same breed of mother fuckers who preferred the Sex Pistols and Ramones to Pink Floyd, Sabbath and Zeppelin.
These leftist geek critics, who are former anti-establishment punks, are the same critics that have always hated the "big bands." They are trying desperately to portray GNR has just a glorified hair band, nothing more than Cinderella, Poison, Ratt, or Firehouse, but with a few more hits.
So, I firmly believe that their is a movement out there that will do and say anything to discredit GNR and try to re-write rock n roll history. But to those of us who lived through it, we know the facts. And apparently all the crazy mother fuckers who are spending big bucks to see GNR and are filling up stadiums across the U.S., they know the facts, too.
Oh, and Kurt Cobain is still dead.

If this was in response to me, I never mentioned that Cobain and Nirvana ended Guns.  I thought we were talking about the media narrative.  IMHO, his bringing those sentiments to the mainstream made it some kind of gospel.  Those leftist, elitist geeks are children of that religion.

Ok, as much as I agree that the background of these journalists have a big impact on what they write about GNR, this is not an agenda. People are entitled to have their opinions. And GNR have always been way too abrasive with the media, so there you have it.

Also, you brought as much prejudice as those journalists. I like alternative music, I like Weezer and Radiohead and even Nirvana. But I can still love GNR.

Also, to the above post, it is difficult to see it as just an opinion when certain reviews focus less on the music and more on Axl's weight, the fact that he is in a chair and immobile, and even something as stupid as the fact that they show up on time now.  It is not a broad statement (elitist geeks).  I like Radiohead and Nirvana.  I used to love Weezer (until they started to believe their own hype).  I never understood those people who felt if you like one type of rock you could not like others.  I love Guns most of all, though.

[Bodhi]

Ok, a few things, first off Nirvana did not end Guns in 94, Guns ended Guns.  Despite what most millennial bloggers for media outlets like Pitchfork or The Guardian want you to think, there wasn't nearly the musical shift they want you to believe there was when Nirvana came out.  Yes  a lot of the 80's bands drifted away, but they were on the way out anyway.  In the mid 90's Aerosmith and Metallica had some of the biggest rock records of their career.  Huge commercial success, with videos that played on MTV in non stop rotation.  Had Guns N Roses put ANYTHING out in that time, they would have had the same success.  The only reason they dropped off the radar of the public in the mid 90's was because they did it themselves, it had nothing to do with Nirvana.  The last classic GNR gig was in a sold out stadium in July of 93, when Nirvana was at the end of their run.

Here is the thing.  A lot of music journalists think alike.  They have the same political views, and if you don't think there are politics involved in some of their reviews you are crazy.   No matter what GNR do, the labels of being misogynist, homophobic and racist hard rock are going to follow them forever.   It is completely off base and inaccurate, but it doesn't matter. There are certain reviewers and journalists that are going to hammer those points home and even if they don't say it in their reviews, they will give them bad reviews because they think that the band represents some of those things.

"One in a Million" went over a bunch of peoples heads, including Kurt Cobain.  Nothing is going to change that, so when you see a review saying they gave a bad performance you have to read between the lines as to why the reviewer has such a hard on for the band, in most cases it has nothing to do with the performance.

Last thing, who cares what some critics have to say.  Guns N Roses have gotten PLENTY of critical acclaim in their career.  First ballot hall of famers (which is voted on mostly by critics) and have music that is highly regarded as some of the most influential of all time.  They literally have heaps of critical acclaim and respect, so if that is something that you want them to have more of, I already think they have plenty.  Nirvana has been gone for over 20 years, and GNR are doing a stadium tour with no new music and  little promotion..  I think their legacy speaks for itself.

[FreddieJames]

Kurt Cobain was a typical punk, and punks had always hated mainstream rock. Nothing new there. Kurt Cobain's hatred of GNR just brought the general sentiment of underground punk music to the surface, but that attitude had always existed within rock. Just like punk rock fans in the late 70s hated the bombastic grandiosity of Pink Floyd, Sabbath, Rush, and Zeppelin. BUT it wasn't Cobain's public hatred in and of itself that killed GNR. Rather, it was the leftist geeks that I've been talking about who painted this "rock history narrative" and then pushed it on the public as Gospel truth. But any rock fan who was alive during that time KNOWS that Nirvana, Pearl Jam, and grunge did NOT wipe out and destroy GNR. Those bands hit in 91 and GNR were still the biggest, most relevant band in the world right up through their demise in 93; they were already surviving the revolution. Nirvana/Pearl Jam/grunge were the final blow to the "hair band era," but not GNR. True, the newer, underground bands were on the rise and the tide was turning toward a reform in rock n roll. A reform by the way, that was much needed. A reform that was already underway by GNR. But, GNR had enough edge, attitude, punk-sensibility, and enough "anti-establish" aura  to navigate this musical revolution. They were talented and versatile enough as a band to successfully adapt to and navigate the "grunge" revolution that had already been going on for a couple of years. In fact, they were already acclimating to the revolution. The fact is that GNR imploded and destroyed themselves. Not Nirvana. Not grunge. True, GNR were no longer going to be "the band of the kids." But that eventually happens to all bands. Kids are always looking for something newer, edgier, refreshing, etc. That's nothing new in rock either. Most bands, regardless of their longevity, only have a short window where they are at their peak "as the band and voice of a generation" before they become a staple and established act. But GNR were still cool enough to remain as an established, relevant band just like the Rolling Stones were eclectic and talented enough to survive the rise of heavy metal, prog rock, disco, country rock, punk, and new wave. GNR could have done it, too. And for the most part, were doing just that from 91 - 93.

Contrary to the myth that "Grunge/Nirvana destroyed GNR," GNR were the initial catalyst that ignited the cultural and musical revolution against "hair bands." They are the true transition band that had one foot in the 80s and one foot in the 90s/grunge era. They were the "bridge" that prepared the way. Yes, they had some "remnants" of the 80s hair bands. But to all true rock fans, we know that GNR were the band that first "sobered" up rock music and got people's attention. They, not Nirvana, pulled the plug on 80s hair bands. Nirvana just struck the final blow. But GNR were the band that made all the other 80s rockers look and feel silly. They made them wake up, wipe the smirk off their make-up plastered faces, go home ashamed, take off their mascara and leopard print spandex and retire or start getting serious about making pure rock n fucking roll. It was GNR who did this, not Nirvana. Nirvana and the rise of the purer underground rock music is the natural outcome and inevitable consequence of the revolution that GNR started.

BUT, the same arrogant mother fuckers who painted the "Nirvana and real, raw underground rock music" killed GNR are the same people bashing GNR today. The hippy, "intelligentsia" and cultural critics at The Guardian, Telegraph, and Daily Beast are the same breed of mother fuckers who preferred the Sex Pistols and Ramones to Pink Floyd, Sabbath and Zeppelin.
These leftist geek critics, who are former anti-establishment punks, are the same critics that have always hated the "big bands." They are trying desperately to portray GNR has just a glorified hair band, nothing more than Cinderella, Poison, Ratt, or Firehouse, but with a few more hits.
So, I firmly believe that their is a movement out there that will do and say anything to discredit GNR and try to re-write rock n roll history. But to those of us who lived through it, we know the facts. And apparently all the crazy mother fuckers who are spending big bucks to see GNR and are filling up stadiums across the U.S., they know the facts, too.
Oh, and Kurt Cobain is still dead.

Hear hear! You very well worded how I have always viewed things. It's these Kurt Cobain fan boys who have now grown up that are still trying to get over their insecurities by bashing anything that is remotely masculine, since it's masculinity that confused Kurt and his fanboys. It made them insecure. They were anti-establishment (they think) and are now establishment. The irony.

Anyway, Kurt's dead and for a reason. He could not deal with life. He chose the easy way out with drugs and eventually suicide. Not really one to admire or look up to. Axl is a survivor. Has always been one and will always be one. And that stings with these journalist beta boys. I think you can simply narrow it down to that.

Their passive aggressiveness is quite obvious, and I therefore do not care about their opinions. Sure, it sucks to see your favorite band being torn down over some of their best performances in years. But who cares when they sell out stadiums. Media has always been over rated, and in these times they have less and less power. So let them write about GnR. They only advertise them.

[SkeletorSerpent]

Ok, a few things, first off Nirvana did not end Guns in 94, Guns ended Guns.  Despite what most millennial bloggers for media outlets like Pitchfork or The Guardian want you to think, there wasn't nearly the musical shift they want you to believe there was when Nirvana came out.  Yes  a lot of the 80's bands drifted away, but they were on the way out anyway.  In the mid 90's Aerosmith and Metallica had some of the biggest rock records of their career.  Huge commercial success, with videos that played on MTV in non stop rotation.  Had Guns N Roses put ANYTHING out in that time, they would have had the same success.  The only reason they dropped off the radar of the public in the mid 90's was because they did it themselves, it had nothing to do with Nirvana.  The last classic GNR gig was in a sold out stadium in July of 93, when Nirvana was at the end of their run.

Here is the thing.  A lot of music journalists think alike.  They have the same political views, and if you don't think there are politics involved in some of their reviews you are crazy.   No matter what GNR do, the labels of being misogynist, homophobic and racist hard rock are going to follow them forever.   It is completely off base and inaccurate, but it doesn't matter. There are certain reviewers and journalists that are going to hammer those points home and even if they don't say it in their reviews, they will give them bad reviews because they think that the band represents some of those things.

"One in a Million" went over a bunch of peoples heads, including Kurt Cobain.  Nothing is going to change that, so when you see a review saying they gave a bad performance you have to read between the lines as to why the reviewer has such a hard on for the band, in most cases it has nothing to do with the performance.

Last thing, who cares what some critics have to say.  Guns N Roses have gotten PLENTY of critical acclaim in their career.  First ballot hall of famers (which is voted on mostly by critics) and have music that is highly regarded as some of the most influential of all time.  They literally have heaps of critical acclaim and respect, so if that is something that you want them to have more of, I already think they have plenty.  Nirvana has been gone for over 20 years, and GNR are doing a stadium tour with no new music and  little promotion..  I think their legacy speaks for itself.

Bodhi
Great points!
Good, clear thinking!
GNR destroyed themselves. You're right- they ended at a point where they could have easily put out music and remained on top as an established act. The casual fan didn't even give up hope for new music and a reunion until the late 90s. And by the time NU GNR re-emerged in Rio in 2001, the average, casual fan shrugged or didn't even know about it.
As you said, the current success is showing their legacy in spite of the politics of some critics.

[SkeletorSerpent]

Kurt Cobain was a typical punk, and punks had always hated mainstream rock. Nothing new there. Kurt Cobain's hatred of GNR just brought the general sentiment of underground punk music to the surface, but that attitude had always existed within rock. Just like punk rock fans in the late 70s hated the bombastic grandiosity of Pink Floyd, Sabbath, Rush, and Zeppelin. BUT it wasn't Cobain's public hatred in and of itself that killed GNR. Rather, it was the leftist geeks that I've been talking about who painted this "rock history narrative" and then pushed it on the public as Gospel truth. But any rock fan who was alive during that time KNOWS that Nirvana, Pearl Jam, and grunge did NOT wipe out and destroy GNR. Those bands hit in 91 and GNR were still the biggest, most relevant band in the world right up through their demise in 93; they were already surviving the revolution. Nirvana/Pearl Jam/grunge were the final blow to the "hair band era," but not GNR. True, the newer, underground bands were on the rise and the tide was turning toward a reform in rock n roll. A reform by the way, that was much needed. A reform that was already underway by GNR. But, GNR had enough edge, attitude, punk-sensibility, and enough "anti-establish" aura  to navigate this musical revolution. They were talented and versatile enough as a band to successfully adapt to and navigate the "grunge" revolution that had already been going on for a couple of years. In fact, they were already acclimating to the revolution. The fact is that GNR imploded and destroyed themselves. Not Nirvana. Not grunge. True, GNR were no longer going to be "the band of the kids." But that eventually happens to all bands. Kids are always looking for something newer, edgier, refreshing, etc. That's nothing new in rock either. Most bands, regardless of their longevity, only have a short window where they are at their peak "as the band and voice of a generation" before they become a staple and established act. But GNR were still cool enough to remain as an established, relevant band just like the Rolling Stones were eclectic and talented enough to survive the rise of heavy metal, prog rock, disco, country rock, punk, and new wave. GNR could have done it, too. And for the most part, were doing just that from 91 - 93.

Contrary to the myth that "Grunge/Nirvana destroyed GNR," GNR were the initial catalyst that ignited the cultural and musical revolution against "hair bands." They are the true transition band that had one foot in the 80s and one foot in the 90s/grunge era. They were the "bridge" that prepared the way. Yes, they had some "remnants" of the 80s hair bands. But to all true rock fans, we know that GNR were the band that first "sobered" up rock music and got people's attention. They, not Nirvana, pulled the plug on 80s hair bands. Nirvana just struck the final blow. But GNR were the band that made all the other 80s rockers look and feel silly. They made them wake up, wipe the smirk off their make-up plastered faces, go home ashamed, take off their mascara and leopard print spandex and retire or start getting serious about making pure rock n fucking roll. It was GNR who did this, not Nirvana. Nirvana and the rise of the purer underground rock music is the natural outcome and inevitable consequence of the revolution that GNR started.

BUT, the same arrogant mother fuckers who painted the "Nirvana and real, raw underground rock music" killed GNR are the same people bashing GNR today. The hippy, "intelligentsia" and cultural critics at The Guardian, Telegraph, and Daily Beast are the same breed of mother fuckers who preferred the Sex Pistols and Ramones to Pink Floyd, Sabbath and Zeppelin.
These leftist geek critics, who are former anti-establishment punks, are the same critics that have always hated the "big bands." They are trying desperately to portray GNR has just a glorified hair band, nothing more than Cinderella, Poison, Ratt, or Firehouse, but with a few more hits.
So, I firmly believe that their is a movement out there that will do and say anything to discredit GNR and try to re-write rock n roll history. But to those of us who lived through it, we know the facts. And apparently all the crazy mother fuckers who are spending big bucks to see GNR and are filling up stadiums across the U.S., they know the facts, too.
Oh, and Kurt Cobain is still dead.

Hear hear! You very well worded how I have always viewed things. It's these Kurt Cobain fan boys who have now grown up that are still trying to get over their insecurities by bashing anything that is remotely masculine, since it's masculinity that confused Kurt and his fanboys. It made them insecure. They were anti-establishment (they think) and are now establishment. The irony.

Anyway, Kurt's dead and for a reason. He could not deal with life. He chose the easy way out with drugs and eventually suicide. Not really one to admire or look up to. Axl is a survivor. Has always been one and will always be one. And that stings with these journalist beta boys. I think you can simply narrow it down to that.

Their passive aggressiveness is quite obvious, and I therefore do not care about their opinions. Sure, it sucks to see your favorite band being torn down over some of their best performances in years. But who cares when they sell out stadiums. Media has always been over rated, and in these times they have less and less power. So let them write about GnR. They only advertise them.

Well said FreddieJames!
They've grown up but are still threatened by Axl. GNR fans are being vindicated and they hate it!
But some others have made some good points- GNR had a lot of critical acclaim and insult. Loved and hated. That's always been the story. In fact, that's one of the reasons that made them so luring. We can't forget that GNR did a lot and said a lot to deserve a lot of the criticism they had thrown at them. They were never rock n roll and media darlings like Rafiohead and FooFightets/David Grohl. We can't pretend like all the wounds have healed and that gnus reunion should be like The Eagles New Kids, or Beach Boys or something. As fans, I think we sometimes forget how fucking brutally reckless, vulgar, shocking, destructive, imprudent, offensive, and notorious GNR were. They pissed off a lot of people long before the 2001 - 2014 run.

[HBK]

No, there isn't a widespread consensus that the Coachella show sucked. Unfortunately, these sparse negative reviews are an anomaly that reflect a GNR narrative "media war" that I posted about in Dead Horse. I'm telling you all, go read my comment about a "media war" that I posted in Dead Horse, I think I'm on to something. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am. It's the only theory that can explain such a vast discrepancy in the reviews. It is irrational to think that rock critics at Rolling Stone, Spin, Kerrang, Billboard, and Classic Rock magazine don't know what the fuck they are talking about, but some left wing geek at Daily Beast, Telegraph, or Esquire does. That's fucking crazy. The left wing hippy alternative geeks have always had an agenda to "tear down Axl." In their minds, he personifies everything that is wrong with rock music-- misogynistic, racists, macho, loud, masculine, testosterone driven, strippers, private jets, stadiums, Budweiser sponsorships, towering, monolithic walls of Marshall amps, pyrotechnics, and all the Spinal Tap pomp and circumstance that come with kick ass rock n roll.

Spirit has been doing an excellent job tracking the many positive reviews. See below. The only negative reviews I can find come from Esquire, Guardian, Telegraph, San Diego Tribune, and the Daily Beast. These are modern liberal publications run by former alternative music fans. The journalists writing these reviews are the same critics who have been blasting Axl for the last 15 years. Esquire, Daily Beast, and Guardian were always trashing GNR. As youth, these "journalists" were the kids who "hated Axl Rose" when we were growing up. While the rest of the world was listening to GNR, they were sipping expressos in coffee shops and listening to Weezer and whining about how much "corporate rock sucks." Whiny little bitches . . . . thinking they were too sophisticated for GNR. These are the same arrogant mother fuckers who only listen to Radiohead, U2, and Coldplay and think Nirvana are the "saviors of rock." Fuck em all. They don't know shit about rock n roll. Positive reviews are all over the Internet. Spin, Rolling Stone, Billboard . . .  these are music publications. Daily Beast and Esquire are Leftist publications with a political agenda. Leftists and liberals and underground alternative geeks have always had an axe to grind with GNR. Radiohead listening, coffee sipping, hippies who hate "jock rock." But rock journalists looking at this objectively and neutrally are saying very positive things.

Positive Reviews:
http://www.spin.com/2016/04/guns-n-roses-coachella-live-review/

http://hollywoodlife.com/2016/04/17/guns-n-roses-coachella-performance-angus-young-weekend-one-video-watch/

http://music.mxdwn.com/2016/04/17/reviews/coachella-2016-day-2-review-excellence-vs-energy-with-guns-n-roses-run-the-jewels-and-chvrches/

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/music-festivals/7334123/coachella-2016-guns-n-roses-acdc-angus-young

http://www.fuse.tv/2016/04/guns-n-roses-coachella-axl-rose

http://www.laweekly.com/music/its-so-sleazy-guns-n-roses-gave-coachella-its-most-epic-rock-set-ever-6837392

http://www.pe.com/articles/gnr-800219-band-axl.html

http://lasvegasweekly.com/ae/music/2016/apr/17/coachella-day-2-guns-n-roses-/

http://www.tmz.com/2016/04/17/guns-n-roses-coachella-performance-video/

http://theinterrobang.com/guns-n-roses-kills-coachella/

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/day-712432-run-stage.html

http://www.etonline.com/news/186910_guns_n_roses_rock_day_two_of_coachella_with_surprise_appearance_by_acdc_guitarist_angus_young/

It's So Easy:

GUNS N' ROSES KICK ASS TROLLS

 

[FreddieJames]

Well said FreddieJames!
They've grown up but are still threatened by Axl. GNR fans are being vindicated and they hate it!
But some others have made some good points- GNR had a lot of critical acclaim and insult. Loved and hated. That's always been the story. In fact, that's one of the reasons that made them so luring. We can't forget that GNR did a lot and said a lot to deserve a lot of the criticism they had thrown at them. They were never rock n roll and media darlings like Rafiohead and FooFightets/David Grohl. We can't pretend like all the wounds have healed and that gnus reunion should be like The Eagles New Kids, or Beach Boys or something. As fans, I think we sometimes forget how fucking brutally reckless, vulgar, shocking, destructive, imprudent, offensive, and notorious GNR were. They pissed off a lot of people long before the 2001 - 2014 run.

What's not to love? Seriously.

Actually, I am kind of glad that Guns is annoying all those people again 

[SkeletorSerpent]

Well said FreddieJames!
They've grown up but are still threatened by Axl. GNR fans are being vindicated and they hate it!
But some others have made some good points- GNR had a lot of critical acclaim and insult. Loved and hated. That's always been the story. In fact, that's one of the reasons that made them so luring. We can't forget that GNR did a lot and said a lot to deserve a lot of the criticism they had thrown at them. They were never rock n roll and media darlings like Rafiohead and FooFightets/David Grohl. We can't pretend like all the wounds have healed and that gnus reunion should be like The Eagles New Kids, or Beach Boys or something. As fans, I think we sometimes forget how fucking brutally reckless, vulgar, shocking, destructive, imprudent, offensive, and notorious GNR were. They pissed off a lot of people long before the 2001 - 2014 run.

What's not to love? Seriously.

Actually, I am kind of glad that Guns is annoying all those people again 

Absolutely! I couldn't agree more! I loved the fact that GNR pissed people off. I loved their notoriety. And they weren't just "shock rock," they could really play. It was one of the aspects that drew me to them.
I was just saying that as fans, we can't act "surprised" when the bad reviews gush in because we knew they would. It's part of GNR. But, just like in the past, for every bad review there are 2 or 3 positive reviews.
In some ways, it is like the old war has been resumed. Courtney Love was kicked out of the GNR after party for being too drunk . . . . the war continues.
Although, David Grohl lending his throne and attending the GNR concert could be viewed as a sort of symbolic "olive branch" so to speak. A signal to all the Nirvana fans that they shouldn't hold a grudge and remain open minded. It's as if he gave his stamp of approval to "back off" on any hatred or old feelings. Let it go . . .  GNR rock and we all know it now.

[jc_seven]

Well said FreddieJames!
They've grown up but are still threatened by Axl. GNR fans are being vindicated and they hate it!
But some others have made some good points- GNR had a lot of critical acclaim and insult. Loved and hated. That's always been the story. In fact, that's one of the reasons that made them so luring. We can't forget that GNR did a lot and said a lot to deserve a lot of the criticism they had thrown at them. They were never rock n roll and media darlings like Rafiohead and FooFightets/David Grohl. We can't pretend like all the wounds have healed and that gnus reunion should be like The Eagles New Kids, or Beach Boys or something. As fans, I think we sometimes forget how fucking brutally reckless, vulgar, shocking, destructive, imprudent, offensive, and notorious GNR were. They pissed off a lot of people long before the 2001 - 2014 run.

What's not to love? Seriously.

Actually, I am kind of glad that Guns is annoying all those people again 

Absolutely! I couldn't agree more! I loved the fact that GNR pissed people off. I loved their notoriety. And they weren't just "shock rock," they could really play. It was one of the aspects that drew me to them.
I was just saying that as fans, we can't act "surprised" when the bad reviews gush in because we knew they would. It's part of GNR. But, just like in the past, for every bad review there are 2 or 3 positive reviews.
In some ways, it is like the old war has been resumed. Courtney Love was kicked out of the GNR after party for being too drunk . . . . the war continues.
Although, David Grohl lending his throne and attending the GNR concert could be viewed as a sort of symbolic "olive branch" so to speak. A signal to all the Nirvana fans that they shouldn't hold a grudge and remain open minded. It's as if he gave his stamp of approval to "back off" on any hatred or old feelings. Let it go . . .  GNR rock and we all know it now.

When was Courtney thrown out?  Was this at Coachella?  Because from what I have read, she was also there this past weekend.

Dave Grohl was on his way to getting tossed out of Nirvana.  The Kurt acolyte was the bass player.  The less said of him, the better.  lol

[slashsbaconpit]

Ok, a few things, first off Nirvana did not end Guns in 94, Guns ended Guns.  Despite what most millennial bloggers for media outlets like Pitchfork or The Guardian want you to think, there wasn't nearly the musical shift they want you to believe there was when Nirvana came out.  Yes  a lot of the 80's bands drifted away, but they were on the way out anyway.  In the mid 90's Aerosmith and Metallica had some of the biggest rock records of their career.  Huge commercial success, with videos that played on MTV in non stop rotation.  Had Guns N Roses put ANYTHING out in that time, they would have had the same success.  The only reason they dropped off the radar of the public in the mid 90's was because they did it themselves, it had nothing to do with Nirvana.  The last classic GNR gig was in a sold out stadium in July of 93, when Nirvana was at the end of their run.

Here is the thing.  A lot of music journalists think alike.  They have the same political views, and if you don't think there are politics involved in some of their reviews you are crazy.   No matter what GNR do, the labels of being misogynist, homophobic and racist hard rock are going to follow them forever.   It is completely off base and inaccurate, but it doesn't matter. There are certain reviewers and journalists that are going to hammer those points home and even if they don't say it in their reviews, they will give them bad reviews because they think that the band represents some of those things.

"One in a Million" went over a bunch of peoples heads, including Kurt Cobain.  Nothing is going to change that, so when you see a review saying they gave a bad performance you have to read between the lines as to why the reviewer has such a hard on for the band, in most cases it has nothing to do with the performance.

Last thing, who cares what some critics have to say.  Guns N Roses have gotten PLENTY of critical acclaim in their career.  First ballot hall of famers (which is voted on mostly by critics) and have music that is highly regarded as some of the most influential of all time.  They literally have heaps of critical acclaim and respect, so if that is something that you want them to have more of, I already think they have plenty.  Nirvana has been gone for over 20 years, and GNR are doing a stadium tour with no new music and  little promotion..  I think their legacy speaks for itself.

This, so much this.

I think that One in a Million continues to haunt GNR and gives the press a motivation to say negative shit at any opportunity, about anything. Let's face it, if Bono had broken his foot and performed from a chair, they'd be talking about what a heroic effort it was. But since it's Axl, they're going to talk about how old he is, or how much weight he's gained or that he doesn't do this or that.

The thing is, Nirvana never produced anything as thought provoking and challenging as One in a Million. That song eloquently expresses the frustrations felt by many white males, who just want to go to work, have a home and provide for their families, and are continually assaulted by a barrage from the media and on the street about how bad they are. And it's gotten worse since 1988, a lot worse. You get called a racist if you point out facts or experiences that don't jive with the adopted narrative of the major mass media outlets. You're a bigot if you get frustrated with the fact that people from other countries refuse to learn the language, fly their native country's flag and treat you like crap because you're not one of them in the land where you were born.

That's what happened to Axl because of One in a Million. He pointed out his experience, and I'm here to tell you, it's wasn't unique. There are places in Los Angeles you didn't want to go if you're white unless you wanted to be robbed or killed. Homosexuals aren't all like the guys on Modern Family. Some of them are like Jared from Subway, predators who want kids. I fought off advances from really aggressive guys in the 90s on two occasions, and it scared me. Those experiences, yeah, they helped me relate to One in a Million. But those types of homosexuals are never talked about in the media, because that doesn't fit the image of homosexuals as harmless guys that go shopping with your girlfriend, have highly developed fashion sense and little dogs they carry around.

And the thing is, in the same song, Axl said he's no racist, and he's proven time and again he's no homophobe (Elton John, tribute to Freddy M, ect.), but those allegations follow him because he used terms that were harsh and challenging. One in a Million is a very challenging song, but sometimes isn't that the job of art ? to challenge you? Unfortunately, people can't get past the words "faggot" and "nigger." That's all they see, they don't actually listen to what the song is saying. It says bad words, so it's bad and Axl's bad and now 30 years later, the press is going to write negative shit about Axl because he's an easy target because of that song.

The thing is, Nirvana never challenged people's perception. Kurt followed the established media agenda to a T, and railed on GNR because it was a popular thing to do in the press. He was also a big phony. He was on MTV every opportunity he had talking about how he didn't want fortune and fame. He talked about how Nirvana was basically just a little indy band and wasn't interested in the money or mass exposure, yet he still made music videos and talked to Kurt Loader at every opportunity. I remember an interview right before their last album came out where he said something to the effect of  "we're really not rich, we don't have any money." He played the role of the poor tortured artist kid from Seattle to the end. He had millions of dollars, but was still on MTV saying that success hadn't reached him or changed him in any way.

At least when GNR became successful, they embraced it. It wouldn't have made sense for them to continue to act like they lived in a shithole, drank cheap wine and shoplifted just to eat when they very clearly didn't. GNR was a lot more real than Nirvana.

[Voodoochild]

Let's face it, if Bono had broken his foot and performed from a chair, they'd be talking about what a heroic effort it was. But since it's Axl, they're going to talk about how old he is, or how much weight he's gained or that he doesn't do this or that.

Yes.

The thing is, Nirvana never produced anything as thought provoking and challenging as One in a Million. That song eloquently expresses the frustrations felt by many white males, who just want to go to work, have a home and provide for their families, and are continually assaulted by a barrage from the media and on the street about how bad they are. And it's gotten worse since 1988, a lot worse. You get called a racist if you point out facts or experiences that don't jive with the adopted narrative of the major mass media outlets. You're a bigot if you get frustrated with the fact that people from other countries refuse to learn the language, fly their native country's flag and treat you like crap because you're not one of them in the land where you were born.

That's what happened to Axl because of One in a Million. He pointed out his experience, and I'm here to tell you, it's wasn't unique. There are places in Los Angeles you didn't want to go if you're white unless you wanted to be robbed or killed. Homosexuals aren't all like the guys on Modern Family. Some of them are like Jared from Subway, predators who want kids. I fought off advances from really aggressive guys in the 90s on two occasions, and it scared me. Those experiences, yeah, they helped me relate to One in a Million. But those types of homosexuals are never talked about in the media, because that doesn't fit the image of homosexuals as harmless guys that go shopping with your girlfriend, have highly developed fashion sense and little dogs they carry around.

And the thing is, in the same song, Axl said he's no racist, and he's proven time and again he's no homophobe (Elton John, tribute to Freddy M, ect.), but those allegations follow him because he used terms that were harsh and challenging. One in a Million is a very challenging song, but sometimes isn't that the job of art ? to challenge you? Unfortunately, people can't get past the words "faggot" and "nigger." That's all they see, they don't actually listen to what the song is saying. It says bad words, so it's bad and Axl's bad and now 30 years later, the press is going to write negative shit about Axl because he's an easy target because of that song.

No.

[Bodhi]

Kurt Cobain was a typical punk, and punks had always hated mainstream rock.

Kurt Cobain was not punk and neither was Nirvana.  They were the definition of mainstream rock.

 They were on a major label, were on the cover of corporate magazines and shot music videos for  MTV.  Just because Kurt would say how much he "hated" those things doesn't change the fact that he did them.  There is nothing wrong with doing those things, but people act like he sold 10 million copies of "Nevermind" out of the back of a van by himself, he didn't.  If I can buy a t-shirt of yours at Walmart you are mainstream rock.


All of these alleged differences between GNR and Nirvana are bullshit.  Not only were they both major label rock bands, they were actually label mates!!!  Yet somehow Nirvana is immune to all the criticisms that GNR get from these so called journalists.  Amazing.
 

[NickNasty]

Kurt Cobain was a typical punk, and punks had always hated mainstream rock.

Kurt Cobain was not punk and neither was Nirvana.  They were the definition of mainstream rock.

 They were on a major label, were on the cover of corporate magazines and shot music videos for  MTV.  Just because Kurt would say how much he "hated" those things doesn't change the fact that he did them.  There is nothing wrong with doing those things, but people act like he sold 10 million copies of "Nevermind" out of the back of a van by himself, he didn't.  If I can buy a t-shirt of yours at Walmart you are mainstream rock.


All of these alleged differences between GNR and Nirvana are bullshit.  Not only were they both major label rock bands, they were actually label mates!!!  Yet somehow Nirvana is immune to all the criticisms that GNR get from these so called journalists.  Amazing.
 

i guess somethings never change..never change.

[Bodhi]

i guess somethings never change..never change.

HA!  very true, discussion belongs in another section for sure.  Not sure how it all got started a few pages back, just giving my 2 cents.