Here Today... Gone To Hell!

I may be wrong but I have notived that there alot of fans out there who are in their early twenties and even teenage years.  This goes to show me that GNR has stood the test of time as none of us were even out of grade school yet when GNR stopped touring yet we are all huge fans.

GnR's music speaks to all generations.

However, more importantly I feel that they are a success with the younger generation and that Interscope shouldn't worry about promoting the new record as that of a new band./  People know who GNR are.  No one has forgotten about them.  They have always been ere.  Their stuff sells even without promotion.

Does anybody else feel this way?

Hells yeah, man.  Let's not forget that Greatest Hits sold a ton with barely any promotion and no new tracks.  It even sold more than the Nirvana compilation, which had one new song.  I think Guns N' Roses are one of those bands like Led Zeppelin that are always popular just because the music is so good.  They're one of the few 80s hard rock acts that are still highly regarded by today's generation (unlike, say, Poison and Motley Crue).

yeah, gn'r outselling nirvana's is sort of compelling considering how much this generation seems to favor the latter. i'd like to thank the latter for all the bands we have to put up with today, though.  :confused:

The only reason teenies love nirvana and mtv immortalized them is because cobain blew his head off.
In 15 more years AFD will still be a classic album ala LV IV but nevermind will just be in the same vein as we view hair metal (poison, motley crue etc) today.

Not to get the whole thing started again, but you're obviously smoking crack. 

"Nevermind" it looked and will continue to be looked at just like The Pistols "Never Mind The Bollocks".

Seminal.  Ground breaking.  The voice of a generation.  The album that changed an entire industry and the culture around it.

The above is unarguable.

AFD elevated a scene for sure, Nevermind blew that scene of the musical landscape.

I think they need to promote the hell out of it. How many of those people from the younger generation know who Robin, Richard, Pittman, and Brain are? Im guessing the majority of them would be surprised to know that Slash isnt still in the band. Geffen needs to promote the all new super group. I think the greatest hits would of done even more of an impact on the charts if it was more hyped up. Yes Guns has made an hit in the rock scene but they have been gone from it for a long time now and sometimes people need a little refresher to remind them Guns N Roses are a kick ass band. I still think the promotion of Chinese will be like nothing else we have ever scene.

Of coarse it is.
First off, like I have said before, Pearl Jam was much BIGGER and BETTER than nirvana during the whole Grunge era, but like I said nirvana gets all the credit because he blew his head off.? Nirvana is what ruined music for the past 10 plus years.? Nirvana is the most overrated band of all time, and teen spirit is one of the worst songs ever.? Nirvana was not even the biggest band of early 90s, Guns n Roses were, and pearl Jam was second.

And if nirvana so called blew that landscape, how come AFD is a better album, sold more albums, and like I said gnr were bigger than nirvana in nirvanas so called hayday.

Guns n roses killed off the hair bands with AFD and the UYIs, pearl jam and nirvana with grunge just put the final nail in the coffin, but guns n roses was still the biggets and best band when grunge was at its height in 91-93

Um. I think Metallica was closer to GNR than Pearl Jam. I don't remember any one Pearl Jam video or song being played more than "Enter Sandman" was.

Metallica does not count since they are from the 80s like gnr.
I was talking about the biggest "grunge" bands in the world.
But you are right.
Gnr and metallica were the biggest bands in the world when grunge was so called killing off old school rock bands.

Its just not true but mtv changed history when cobain blew his head off and lied what really happened.

"Bigger" and "more influential" are 2 different things.

"Better", though arguable, is subjective.

Keep in mind, I'm not lessening the greatness of AFD, that's just crazy talk.

"Nevermind" is just thought of in entirely different light and has been since it broke, that fact will never change.  It is absolutely the most important record since "Never Mind The Bollocks". 

Flannel became a fashion statement, biker shorts didn't.

That says it all....

Although, look at MTV's most popular non-reality show of the 90s. It was about two teenage metalheads sitting around and mocking all videos that weren't metal. That has to mean something.

I never saw nirvana wear flannel, that was a pearl jam thing, and i didnt know a bands fashion had anything to do with their music.

And the bands that nirvana influenced are shit. Oh yeah the puddle of mudds of the world are amazing.?
And if nirvana were so mind blowing, why didnt their first album Bleach take off?? If nirvana was so great, you would think that album would have changed everything but it did not.
That is why pearl jam should get so much more credit and not nirvana.?

Nirvana taught bands, they can write shits lyrics that dont make sense, and just play a few chords and they can have a band.? Cobain was a phony, and his lyrics were horrible.? He is the most overrated singer/guitar player of all time.
Mags and the music industry rave about how great cobain was and I have seen so many lists rank cobain as one of the best guitarist of all time, that is just blasphomy, espeically when its about people like eddie van halen and slash.

MTV made nirvana big and immortialized a jerk that killed himself, what a great role model for young kids eh?

Btw B Spears and BSB influenced all the boy and girl bands that we have now, so does that mean they are some of the best artists of all time?

gn'r influenced alice in chains, and i'd much rather have more aic's in the industry than nirvana's. godsmack isn't influenced by aic, though; they just copy/pasted everything they ever did.

One more thing, motherlove bone and neil young (if you want to way back) really started the whole Alternative scene but nirvana just gets the unjust credit.

and that's exactly why they're more regarded for their singer than the band itself. there haven't been that many artists like cobain before, though, and you've got to realize that. there may have been those with his type of mentality, but never the skill he had in making his lyrics connect together so well while still in a rhyme. i at least acknowledge his potential, but what came next for music is not, um, commendable.

I always thought Pearl Jam was more overhyped. Their music since the mid-late 90s sounds like shit, at least the stuff i heard. Also check PJ's multimedia section on their website. They show no emotion when they play live. People were saying that in the early 90's, but its 10x more noticable now. Maybe they should retire. PJ "10" also sounds dated, more than Nirvana or any other grunge band from that era.

I agree Pearl Jam sucks now, but the same thing would have happened to nirvana if cobain didnt die.  And nevermind sounds just as dated as PJ ten and all the other grunge albums. 

I think it's fucking about we get back on topic again!!!

How is this off topic? Its about how gnr will stand the test of time but nirvana and the pearl jams of the world wont?
Is it wrong to compare gnr to other bands in the same era as gnr?

MUsical history backs my point of view to the nth degree, I'll leave it at that.

On topic, AFD era GNR era stands the test of time, all efforts post that do not IMO.  No purpose, no direction, no sense of urgency.  To their defense, the music they created post AFD reflected a fat band who's success had dimiished their purpose.

Nevermind became the face of an entire genre. I hate Nirvana but 50 years from now they will be remembered and revered....I am not sure the same will be said about Guns. Outside of Appetite I would argue they will go down as a band that never truly reached its potential before imploding.

The UYIs are two of the most underrated albums of all time. Just look at the songs that never get mentioned like nov rain does.  Estranged, coma and locomotive are are amazing songs yet never get their due credit at how great they are.
Also civil war is over looked a lot also.

Breakdown is probably the most underrated gnr song ever and its better than anything off of nevermind.

Exactly.

I think most of ardent Axl backers were more than likely 15-18 at he time of the UYI, were drawn to the big videos, the self indulgent songs and larger than life persona of the front man. They grabbed on a little late in the game, not realizing what the band had become was in fact a parody of themselves, no longer cool in the circles that mattered.  Mostly male for the most part, these fans just didn't realize (and still don't to a degree) that what happened in the fall of 91 was a in direct rebellion against the excess and bloated monstrosity that GNR had become.

I dont think so, I was drawn like others to axls deep meaningful lyrics, UYI is where gnr grew up and got away from the songs that were about getting drunk, high and laid.? That is fine if you are into those kind of songs but the UYI songs that axl wrote were much deeper, just like the ones on CD will be much deeper than the ones off the UYIs..


Chinese Democracy will be Axl Rose's legacy.? If its as great as dizzy, tommy and the few songs we have heard thus far, then Axl will be known as one of the best of all time, and gnr will be right up there with the beatles, stones and zepplin.

I think CD is going to be better than AFD and even if it is, there are certain people that wont admit it on this board.
But either way in 15years more people will be listening to AFD than nevermind.

Its been over over 15 years since AFD came out and over 10  since nevermind came out, and still more people are listening and buying AFD than nevermind.

So what makes you think 15 years from now that is going to change.
You hear gnr all over the place but not nirvana.
How many times at sporting events do you hear WTTJ playing? Atleast 5 times a game, maybe more?
How many nirvana songs do you hear playing? NONE

The thing is that every thread turns at one point or another into a Nirvana/GN'R when talking about if GN'R has stood the test of time.

And I guess if the discussion would be civilized I wouldn't say shit, but since you for example had to bring in your insight about how "...Teen Spirit is the worst song ever" which, as I'm pretty sure you know, has nothing to do with the fact that their music has influenced a lot of bands that were starting out and prolly didn't know how to play all that well. A lot of GN'R tunes use 3-5 chords.. They just added a few bells and whistles in there and it sounds more fresh, where Nirvana sounds really raw.. I don't care if people compare GN'R to other bands, but if people start AGAIN writing how Cobain was an idiot and couldn't play guitar and wrote crappy songs in someones opinion. Well.. Then I'll say that we're getting waaay off topic!

Ah since I think teen spirt is crap and cobain is overrated and that is why I dont think nirvana will stand the test of time that is wrong? You must be a nirvana fan eh? Like I said it does not matter they influenced a lot of bands, the bands they influenced are not very good, and those bands today are ruining music.? Its all on topic IMO, and saying something is not that great today, is? a legit reason why it wont stand the test of time. Is it not?  The reason gnr's music has lasted longer and will last longer than nirvanas is because gnr's music is better, its as simple as that.

No Dave! You got it all messed up.

a) I am not a Nirvana fan. I don't like their music all that much, and I too, think that Smells Like Teen Spirit is overrated....

b) The fact that you, or I or some other individual thinks that the song/band/Cobain/whatever the fuck is not good, or is overrated, has really absolutely nothing to do with the opinion of the public...

c) The fact that _you_ think that the bands they influenced are not good _also_ doesn't really mean shit when we're talking about things on a bigger scale. I for example will always be listening to Extreme, while I'm 95% sure that in a few years no one will even know "More than words".

d)
I really don't think that's a valid argument since either of them has really faded. People still listen to their music and as we've seen both bands continue to shine in the best rock song of all time countdowns that we have.

I think GNR will stand the test of time because they where so huge and cause their music was and is so good, there are many gnr fans that are young like myself who listen to gnr cause its good music.  as to GNR vs Nirvana, fuck that, GNR defined an age and so did nirvana no sense and in 50 years when people look back at late 80s early 90s they will see gnr as the dominant rock act then 93 on they will see nirvana and the nirvana inspired acts. and hopefully when they look back to 2004 and on they we will see the resurgance of gnr

Amen

What is with you and "the excess and bloated monstrosity that GNR had become" concept? Oh yeah the video for You Could Be Mine is bloated. I mean nothing can be more bloated than a live concert show video. ::) The Don't Cry video was barely bloated in my opinion. Don't Cry is a very simple song and in the video half of the time the band is seen performing the song. It's people like you that exagerate this whole 'bloated' idea. I bet you went to a 1992 show, I can see it clearly. The Guns N' Roses of 1991 was very different from the Guns N' Roses of 1992. In 1991 the stage was smaller and there were only 6 players on stage. There were no effects, but just pure instantaneous Rock N' Roll. I advise you to listen to the July;Dallas 1991' show of the band. The band was as raw as it was during the Appetite For Destruction days. Axl Rose was angry and his voice was braking down, making it it 'extra' raspy. (it added an angry effect to his voice) Besides you talk about how bloated GN'R looked to the public in the Fall of 1991. What are you talkin' about? In August 31st, 1991 GN'R performed Live and Let Die via satellite at the MTV VMAs. That performance looked as angry or even angrier than any Appetite For Destruction era performance. Have you even seen it? 1991 was basically the Use Your Illusion version of Guns N' Roses but with an Appetite vibe and spirit. But, then in 1992 it all changed; the stage set-up was made bigger, back up singers were added, along with a horn section and synthezisers.

I deeply dislike what Guns N' Roses did in 1992, but do take in count, that the horn sections and back up singers were used for less than 1/5 of the entire performance, but something was still missing, or added without need. Then came 1993, the era of the Skin N' Bones Tour. Guns N' Roses went back to 1988 basically during this year. There were no sound effects, no outfit changes, and the core 6 members of GN'R had returned. They even added an acoustic set in the middle of the show were the entire band just played the songs in a couch (just like the Patience video), how can that be bloated? Again only 1 year out of the 3 year reign of the Use Your Illusion albums was this so called 'bloated', but 1992 was infact GN'R's most popular year worldwide so a massive audience saw them in that state.

Now Falcon you speak of the so called 'larger than life videos' but clearly dismiss your so called 'cool Rock N' Roll videos'. How about the You Could Be Mine video, Don't Cry (Alternative Lyrics) video, the Garden of Eden video, the Yesterdays video, the Live and Let Die video, and the Dead Horse video. All of these videos held the 'vintage' GN'R quality and vibe, but you clearly dismiss them to make a point.

No matter what you say Guns N' Roses still sold 32 million copies of the Use Your Illusion albums worldwide from September of 1991 through July of 1993. (less than 2 years) That is still over triple the amount of album copies Nirvana sold worldwide of In Utero, Bleach, and Nevermind. Since then the Illusion albums have sold an additional 8 million copies worldwide so where does your "timeless-not the Illusion era" argument go? GN'R have sold 20 million albums in the U.S alone since 1991. Trust me, as I have proven, both the 'Appetite' and 'Illusion' eras can be considered "timeless".

Quality of music aside (as that is nothing more than subjectivity), Nirvana will always be remembered as the face of an entire movement and genre.....Guns will be remembered as nothing more than a really good band. It is kind of like comparing Apples to oranges in terms of their actual influence and impact on the industry. Appetite will continue to move a million copies a year, but music history will always look at Nirvana as the band that led the movement that killed of rock in the early 90's. Kurt's suicide does nothing but help the bands image as there is and always will be that what could have been with the. I'm not saying its fair but it is being awful naive to think that Socially Guns was more important and influencial than Nirvana. They were the face of that entire early 90's generation alternative movement. In the history of rock that is a big thing.

BTW.....Guns is, was, and always will be remembered for Appetite from now until eternity regardless of what Axl does at this point. He can release Mozart's 6th symphony and it will not surpass the Appetite Album as Jungle, SCOM and PC are classics and staples on every rock format in the country. That album was lightning in a bottle and you can't create that type of environment again no matter how long you're in the studio. There will be some good songs on the album I am sure, but in 10 years I doubt CD will still be getting the airplay or moving the copies Appetite does as we have heard the "10 minute, world hates, I am all alone string, orchestra filled symphony" that will most likely be this album. I like that stuff, but its not the kind of thing that will supplant the Jungle image that the world knows and loves GNR for.

I don't really agree. I was a fan of the band even before 1991 and it wasn't thanks to the videos, the image or anything. It was the music. Sure, being 16 in 1991, it was nice to see a band that wasn't like all the rest. But the music always came first.

And as IndiannaRose pointed out, GN'R in 1991 were still "cool". It was Metallica and GN'R. This was before the big videos, the horn section and the just before the band became a household name. 1992 was when GN'R became "uncool" and Nirvana became the band everybody should listen to.



/jarmo

I knew it would happen one day dave,,,we finally agree on something!!!!! :beer:

Very correct.

Gn'R were huge and almost mythical during 1990-1991.

It wasn't really apparant that Nirvana had hit until the end of 1992, really after the blown Gn'R/Metallica concerts and the MTV VMA's. By the end of 92' grunge had moved in. Gn'R were still on the charts and able to sell-out huge arenas till the end in 93'. Guns were huge all over the world by 93'. I still feel they could of kep going with a everywhere but the USA tour for another couple of years / recorded in Paris or something and released in 96' a great album. But obviously the band was not up to it. Sad :'(

AFD blows Nevermind away. Listen to them back to back. Nevermind sounds so used at this point in music. AFD is street / it is raw / .............Gn'R will stand the test of time ........so will Nirvana....but only because Kurt blew his head off........things would of been quite different if he had not.

What I promise you all is that something is happening in music.........it is here in the USA and in the UK. Kids are talking about 80's metal again. 80's metal is hip. 80's metal is catchy. By 2006 things are going to be very familiar for the 30 something crowd that grew up in the 80's diet.

Bands like the Crue and Gn'R better be gearing up to be the senior leaders of this. or they are going to miss their moment in time. Glam is going to make a huge return. Things cycle.

Something to watch: When "The Darkness" release their next album.

-5th

Falcon, you are way off on this one. You stand the test of time by continuing to sell records ala the Stones, Floyd, The Who and Zep. None of these bands were always cool but they were the biggest baddest bands of their generations-never declining in popularity through "trends". Gnr fits in their category. Just as The Pistols and Clash mocked the Goliaths of their day-Nirvana and "the alternative scene" mocked Gnr. Gnr still sells records-more than Nirvana and that is a fact. I would argue Nirvana's only masterpiece is Nevermind. In Utero (although my favorite Nirvana record) sold less than both Illusions and the Illusions were still being certified multi platinum in 1997-still just as popular as the grunge bands-maybe even more during grunge's prime! It is silly to say Gnr has not stood the test of time because they aleady have-all phases of Gnr. Nirvana's legacy will diminish with time-just like the Sex Pistols. In the 80's they were the greatest thing ever. In the year 2004 alot of people look at them as what they were-a one album wonder-kind of a novelty in a way. Influential yes-but with time their influence has diminshed. Nirvana will be the same way. Who today sounds like Nirvana? What good band today sounds like Nirvana? AFD was just as influential for a three year period as Nevermind. The grunge movement was much more than Nirvana but the politically correct Cobain loving media gave him all the credit. They were a great rock band-no doubt. But, I would not put their recorded legacy in any higher esteem than Gnr's. The ONLY reason the Illusion albums are not held in higher esteem is because they did not have the foresight to condense the album in to one record and leave the leftovers for a b-side compilation.? I consider the two bands equals. :peace: ps I liked the UYI albums because of Axl's lyrics and the epics-they really showed the diverse talent of the band veering from snarling punk rock to Aerosmith/Stones boogie to Zep epic classic rock numbers. The overall catelog is a very impressive mix of hard rock styles that few, if any, other bands could have pulled off. :peace:

Come on...It was promoted well.

Even if GNR doesn`t release CD, they will stand the test of time as one of the great bands of the lat`80s-early `90`s. If CD does well, financially and artistically, it will elevate Axl to a higher status.

Nirvana cemented their legacy when Cobain killed himself. They were a good band who changed the music scene and brought the snobby alternative genre to the mainstream. Kurt became a martyr. 

Maybe Axl should just shoot himself... :hihi:

Again, sales do not equate to impact..  Again, popularity does not equate to influence.  Again, songs played at sporting events do not equate how bands are viewed in musical history.

By no means should NIrvana's exitence diminish GNR's legacy, that again is goofy talk.  That said, GNR's popularity should not overshadow the impact Nevermind had on society, the industry, radio, MTV et al.

They changed everything within the business of music and their influence on the industry still exists to this very day.  They took modern/alternative rock to the mainstream, again, a genre that has never even recognized GNR is any form as a viable entity. 

I never said GNR's music didn't stand the test of time, (AFD era), it absolutely does.  AFD elevated a scene that already existed,  Nevermind defined a genre, spoke for a generation and will always be thought of in that light.

Country music doesn't recognize Gnr either. ;D You seem to place too much influence on modern rock/alternative rock-as if it is the only important musical genre. REM and U2 brought alternative to the radio and mainstream in the 80's. Nirvana did nothing that other bands had not already done. What exactly did Nirvana do to change the music industry as we know it today? You use these phrases with no substance to back them up. What quality band today is influenced by Nirvana or even remotely sounds like Nirvana? I don't see one-the music industry is simply awful now. I wish there was another Nirvana but nothing on the horizon is close and to me, I see no evidence that their influence has any impact on the industry as it stands today.

he's not twenty-seven anymore.

The UYIs are two of the most underrated albums of all time. Just look at the songs that never get mentioned like nov rain does.? Estranged, coma and locomotive are are amazing songs yet never get their due credit at how great they are.
Also civil war is over looked a lot also.

Breakdown is probably the most underrated gnr song ever and its better than anything off of nevermind.

Those songs don't get their due credit because of their length. Those songs aren't radio friendy. The 8-10 miniute epics are songs for the hard-core GnR fans.

Here's a little more substance for you..

As for basing too much emphasis on the modern rock genre, I don't think so.  The most powerful and influential station in the US (KROQ in LA) is of that ilk and doesn't even recognize GNR, never have.  That's a fact.
 
The emergence of grunge was the main factor in the division of radio classes in the early 90's.  The breakout of Teen Spirit drew battle lines between alternative rock and the stuff coming out of LA at the same time.  Radio stations in the US went through a dramatic change to define these lines and adopt to the new audience, the "modern rock station" was indeed born, breaking into the mainstream and taking the "college rock"  scene of the early to mid 80's (which featured the aforementioned U2 and REM) to even greater heights as well.  U2 and REM had definately already "arrived" I agree with you wholeheartedlly on that, but their arrival was nothing in comparison to the "big bang" of Nevermind. 

Given 1 choice, any record company A&R guy, music journalist or observer of music/pop culture will tell you
the most important/defining record in rock music of the last 25 years was "Nevermind".  Not "The Joshua Tree", not "AFD", not "Back in Black", not "Ten".



 

As a teenager during that time, I am a little offended by what you write. As if I am too stupid to appreciate the greatness of Nirvana and am too dumb to realize that GN'R became a "parody" of themselves. Not to pick a fight with you, but you need to get off your high horse.

I'll admit that GN'R became a little bloated in '91-'93, but I think your assessment is a little harsh and unfair. Yes, the band did become bloated with all the videos and supermodels, private jets, etc., but there music was still great. The UYI are two of the best albums ever released, IMHO. And no matter how bloated GN'R became, nothing Nirvana ever wrote could touch "Estranged."


And what do you mean by saying GN'R were not cool in "Circles that matter"? Why should you care what NME or alterna-snobs think? Who gives a fuck what some dork with a Sub-Pop t-shirt thinks.

Falcon, a better response. If it was such a positive event, this defining moment in rock history when modern rock radio was born, then how do you explain the massive deterioration in rock and roll as an art form? How do you explain bands such as Dashboard Confessional and Good Charlotte as being this all important modern rock? I take the position that putting bands in classifications and segmenting rock and roll in to categories is what has placed the industry in such a bind. The radio stations, programmers, and record companies have destroyed artistic creativity by trying to market it in such limiting ways. It's bullshit. Now, Nirvana did not intend for this to happen but it is an impact that they created-a negative one at that. Ultimately, artists want to sell records and sell records for an extended period of time. Record companies pay radio stations to help sell records. Gnr sells records and always will. They will live through trends just as Zep did etc. They don't need modern rock radio or any DJ to help them do that. All they need is their music. Fans buy records and that is the ultimate goal of all these artists-modern rock artists as well! As much as critics, industry types, pseudo intellectuals like yourself (and myself for that matter-I can be a musical snob as well), radio DJ'S, radio programmers etc like to think that they determine what is good and cool, ultimately, the people determine what they want.

What exactly is "Modern rock"? I don't pay attention to US radio.

What existed before Modern rock was invented? Was it called Alternative before? Is VR Modern Rock even thought they feature three ex-Gunners who are considered "uncool"?





/jarmo

Oh so the radio should dictate what is good music and what is not? Kinda like mtv does? Well right now the bands the radio loves is garbage like hoobastank, jet and good charotte, so what does that tell you? IF  you notice more and more radio stations are going away from just modern rock and going back to the mix of classic rock and newer rock.  WBCN one of the biggest rock stations in mass just changed format a few months ago from just modern rock to classic/modern rock because it was getting its ass kicked in the ratings by waaf who did classic/newer rock combo.  Face it, people still want to hear the guns n roses, the zepplins and the ozzys of the world over the modern rock crap that is on the radio.

Like  I said, you can give nevermind all the credit you want but nevermind like I said  before ruined music for the past 15 years, they are the reason music is so  bad today, most of the bands that were influenced by nirvana are pretty much crap.

Thank god you don't have to listen to modern rock radio in the US! :hihi: Yes, essentially alternative rock has morphed in to modern rock. The grunge bands were at first an extension of alternative rock. Then, they became their own being so to say. Now, it is modern rock and VR, amazingly enough, is considered modern rock. It is a complete joke.

Would a "Modern Rock" rock station play anything from Tommy's album but not play a song like Chinese Democracy because it's by GN'R?  ???

I really don't like labeling music and I guess this whole thing proves it's stupid.

I could understand the whole Alternative thing because it was basically bands that didn't sell that many records. But then the Alternative bands started selling...



/jarmo

First: Fuck labelling bands into categories.

Second: Nevermind should never be considered an important/defining moment musically. The whole idea is a crock of shit. I like the album and I'm not anti-Nirvana, but that album being so recognised is purely down to a scene and a sound which had been developing before then, leading to the MTV's of this world jumping on that bandwagon when this album was released and turning it into something bigger than it was.

Musically, Nevermind was not a defining moment
In terms of popular culture, it was turned into one

@#$%Funker

GN'R will always be remembered because they wrote one of THE best debut albums of all time (personally for me it fights with Nevermind the Bollocks) which is a huge.  And it's not just about sales.

Appetite earnt it's respect because it had fantastic songs on there "Welcome to the Jungle" where, when have you heard a song just fucking ferment and blow up with such intensity?  Fantastic music from the spine-chilling opening Guitar riff - to the pounding  drums and bass. Fantastic lyrics and sung  like no one else in the world.  And that's just the first song!

Then you get to Use Illusion's.  Such a huge body of work, you could say too much for the average music fan.  But for fans of it, its GN'R  at their peak of their careers. People will go back to it and change their opinions each time.

Their touring was also legendary.

 Rock history loves strong charactors and GN'R was THE biggest band on the planet.  And it's kind of hard to put across to people who weren't there How big that is. It was GN'R, U2 and Metallica they were the Mamouths in music.    NOTHING to do with MTV or Radio 1, NME bollocks nor even Kerrang! It was bigger than all those put together.
And of course Rock history loves a tragedy and the huge gap that continues to grow, will always be seen as such a waste of a band that should have done more together.

Appetite has proven to be up there with what's considered THE very BEST of records EVER made!  And it will hold that place up there for a very long time. People will remember Slash and Axl Rose as house hold names of rock and be interested in their careers when ever they pop up. And many millions will remember all five of them.   

GN'R doesn't need to do anything else now - as a name or band.  But everybody fans and the industry want a  new GREAT Guns record.

 

I really don't disagree with the above, good stuff and open minded ta' boot.

But..

I never distiguished the affect Nirvana had on the industry, good or bad.  The bottom line is there was an affect that resonates to this day.  The blind GNR fandom, not all mind you, are quick to dismiss Nirvana's impact when they have absolutely no basis for even an argument.  The fans I speak of usually do this in a manner to elevate GNR's status within the history/pantheon of influential rock.  GNR do have their place in that pantheon, no doubt about it.  They're just not looked at in the same light for whatever reasons, good or bad.  This segment of fans I speak of don't understand that (or refuse to) that GNR are much more closely associated with the liokes of Aerosmith, Motley Crue etc than they are with The Pistols, The Clash, Janes Addiction etc.,  that's just the way it is and forever will be.  Like I've said before, perception is reality.

And Jarmo, VR is considered modern for one reason and one alone, Scott Weiland, that's it.  Not sure about the Tommy question, his stuff will never make the airwaves stateside anyway so it's doubtful his inclusion in the brand name GNR will have any affect anyway.

As for the pseudo intellectual comment, I admit I'm a music elitist.  With that admiisson, I also have no problem acknowledging that I know my shit and strive to express it an objective manner.

In terms of Impact you are right...but in temrs of the actual music being played a decade form now...the jury is out...when cd is released ill let you know....

Probably the best post Ive ever read on this board.

Modern rock stations dont play Tommys songs because hes not being promoted as such. As for GNr, thats the million dollar question. Will GNr get shut out becuase they are GNr or will they be given a chance on the "Prestigious" modern rock stations.
Tommy gets played on the smaller indie rock type stations....

I asked Krock Ny's program director if new gnr will be given initiaa airplay when they come ut with their singles. His answer was absolutely. SO if the material on CD is modern and the fans want to hear it, GNR will be right next to all of the great bands that play on these "prestigious"modern/alternative/we are better than you/your not cool radio stations....


I wasnt around when GNr were huge but I undertsand the whole phase. Yea they changed after AFD. But how could you not. GNR wrote about their life. Their life went from grimy to extravagent. They didnt get caught up in the whole lets stay with how we got here, even if its not what we are now, in this point in time.

Yea things got bloated, but not to the effect of what a lot of peopel make it out to be.
That thing is overated imo anyways. SO the hell what if Axl and GNR thought they were larger than life and needed jets, horns, sneakers,etc. Thats what being an American rock star is all about. Thats why Axl is so cool and appealing. Hes this larger than life guy yet hes real. hard to explain ....

Ya know what's ironic?? Nirvana came onto the scene in 1991 at the vanguard of the "alternative" rock movement, which lambasted all the corporate rock of the 80s and attempted to restore rock to an earthier, more stripped-down, rawer form.? More artistically valid than the formulaic power ballads that were all over the radio at the time.? Funny thing is, after grunge died, we were left with a big hole that was filled in its wake by music that was more corporate than ever before - Mariah Carey, Backstreet Boys, Britney Spears, all that shit.? Rock bands that came after had "alternative" characteristics but did it in the context of a corporate environment.? Good Charlotte is a good example.? These guys are basically ripping off Green Day, they have a look and lyrics that harken back to the "embittered outsider" approach made famous by the original alternative groups, they eschew flashy solos for simple punk riffs.? But they do it in a lazy, formulaic way that makes countless rock fans hate them with a vengeance.? Same goes for modern rock groups like Creed and Nickelback.? They follow Pearl Jam's template of classic rock type instrumentation and alternative spirit, but they do it in a more controlled, commerical way (Creed basically brought back the power ballad with "With Arms Wide Open").

Call it the Wasted Promise of Alternative.? Alternative wanted to make rock music by the people, for the people.? Instead, we are now in exactly the same situation as the late 80s - rock is extremely corporate.? The main differences are that 1) I personally prefer corporate groups like Poison and Warrant to corporate groups like Good Charlotte and Creed; and 2) there's no equivalent of Guns N' Roses - a band that retains many of the characteristics of its corporate rock siblings, but does it in a much more emotional, powerful, raw way.? After all, Guns N' Roses were basically a glam metal band, but they did it in a stripped down fashion that was radically different from Poison and their ilk, and they are now remembered fondly by modern audiences.

People say we need a new Nirvana, but I guess the truth is that we need either a new Guns N' Roses or a new Nirvana.? GN'R revitalized a rock music scene that was already there (Sunset Strip hair metal), Nirvana blew it completely out of the water.? Both bands changed rock and made a lot of great songs.? So either of those would be fine.

One final note about "Smells Like Teen Spirit".? Whether or not you like Nirvana, I think that that song can be the only candidate for Anthem of My Generation.? No other song comes close.? I know just as many kids who like Guns N' Roses as like Nirvana.? But when I go to a dance, they don't play Guns N' Roses.? They always play "Smells Like Teen Spirit", and even today, that's the song that brings the whole house down.? You can say what you will about it, but it's a great song that can compete with almost anything in the GN'R catalogue, and will likely stay around for a long time.

i just wanted to include something.. i don't know what significance this might have, but four years after "smells like teen spirit" came out, another song became extremely popular and "groundbreaking", but this time in the christian community. it was for the title track off of dcTalk's jesus freak which was like a total quantum leap for them because they were basically a hip-hop/dance/gospel group. anyway, this particular song has almost the same exact formula as SLTS, or really.. any song in the nirvana catalogue. some even said it was like a song that would have existed if cobain was for jesus. the same exact drum intro/beats are introduced in it, and i just think that the SLTS had way more influence or like impact than just welcome in the alternative movement.

Falcon as always you are missing the point. Like I stated before, nirvana was just the poster child for the so called grunge era by mtv, they were not the first, like i said mother love bone was first, and if u want to go way back neil young, and they were not the best since pearl jam was much better, but mtv decided to thank probally nirvana's worst song on nevermind and run with it.

But again like i said, nirvana so called killed off guns n roses, when they did not, since gnr was still the biggest band in the world when grunge was at its apex, that is why gnr will stand the test of time much more so than nirvana.
Nirvana is lumped into the same catagory as new kids on the block.  New kids started that whole boy band thing and made it huge, yet today we look at and see how they ruined music and paved the way for talentless bands like BSB, O town and all those bands.

i wish you'd quit shoving your opinions into the subject, and instead provide facts.

It's official, you've reached an all time low for nonsensical analogies. :yes:

What, if little credible opinions you might have had in the past or may have in the future are now deemed forever goofy.

You're the exact person the likes of The Pistols and Nirvana made fun of.

Point proved.

I think it's a testament to overblown media perception of Nirvana and Kurt Cobain.  There's a ton of people that gravitate towards Nirvana because they want to like something "different"... yet the reason they stumble onto nirvana is because the press still covers Nirvana like Nirvana completely revolutionlized the music scene.  Yet Nirvana pulled one hell of a scam...as a reaction to overblown corporate rock bands (and yes even the beloved gnr) nirvana just became the corporate package of the "we don't want to be famous groups" They were marketed, covered, and sold as a subculture- and today they are still being sold the same way in the media.  It wasn't so much the selling of revolutionary music...as it was the selling of the whole grunge subculture to people that were being offended by the excesses of over-the-top rock. 
The event of time has help demonstrate this.  While I lumped guns into corporate rock...they can only be classifed as such because of pure sales.  Guns N' Roses has to exist on a major label...because the demand requires it.  Yet much public perception of Guns is very negative...AFD (which still outsells Nevermind) and the Greatest hits are successes because GnR is capable of selling itself.  On the other hand over time Nirvana will have trouble selling and their sales will decline because the only thing selling Nirvana is the over blown legacy of the band and Cobain...a legacy that is based on selling a subculture or a trend as a "industry changing record".  In short, people would rather like Nirvana than actually listen to Nirvana.  And somewhat the opposite can be said of Guns....that people will and can be highly critical of Axl....it's more trendy to talk shit about Axl...however the critcism of the lifestyle doesn't take anything away from the music...and that becomes evident in the long term sales. 

I think that sums up Nirvana pretty well.

Nice posts Mattman and Falcon. All the good points have been made. However, Mattman, I think Radiohead filled the alternative gap in 1998 after the end of grunge (Soundgarden breaking up and Layne and Kurt dying). OK Computer spawned a million Radiohead lites but that phase is gone and NOW we are left waiting on the new messiah. I would like the new Gnr to fill that gap but as always, it is going to take a young hungry band of upstarts to truly shake things up. From what Tommy is saying, Axl's album may be too complex and "mature" for a teen audience to grasp, just my opinion.  : ok:

I don't really think Guns have acheived the test of time, not like the beatles and zepplin anyway, first of all they only have 4 records!! then they imploded. It remains to be seen if Axl can stand the test of time. In time he may reach the level of Ozzy, then, like Black Sabbath, Guns will be remembered because it was Axl's first shot at fame, that's why I have always thought Axl should drop the G'n'R name.

As far as Nirvana is concerned, they did start a movement, Mother love bone sucked!! Nirvana sparked the interest and Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Screaming Trees, Sonic Youth, AIC, STP etc. etc. started getting contracts.  Whether or not Nirvana came up with the idea first is irrelevant the were recognized first, and as I recall no-one saw that change coming, from my perspective I identified with the grunge type of music more than the overblown Hair Metal (And Yes they Fucking Were HAIR MEtal!!! Look at some old pics if you doubt me), mind you I still love that type of music to this day, G'n'R included, they just were way to large to identify with any longer.  I don't think though that Nirvana started the one hit wonder thing (Cause they had alot more than One fucking hit!!!) That came later with bands like Live, The Breeders, Meat Puppets, etc. etc. coupled with the easy to duplicate sound of Green Day. I'm not saying Either that grunge is not easy to duplicate, but those bands had an aura or charisma about them that was specific to a couple of years and no-one has duplicated it since.

With Nirvana (or other Grunge Bands) not producing something like Estranged or November Rain, of course they didn't, it was everything they were against, grunge was always 3-4 guys with a raw sound of playing instruments and singing in a generic sort of way, gone were the days of high pitched screams, horn & string sections, and synth.

Haha...down here in australia, flannel was bigger in the 80's...flannel actually was part of the culture, never was inlfuenced by anyone. Grunge was an American thing. Same as Punk was English. Kurt and Nirvana were just media heroes. They always compared them to Guns N' Roses because Guns N' Roses were the Kings of music. Metallica were second but were never glorified by the media. They stayed with their underground tag. Pearl Jam were third. If ask most people their was more of an anti-nirvana sentiment than their was a pro-nirvana/fuck Guns N' Roses thing going round. Nirvana weren't even popular by late 93. When Kurt blew his head off, thats when their legendary status came with.

One more thing. If Kurt hadn't blown off his head, where would Nirvana have gone.? Done a Metallica and changed their style awfully and being judged uncool? If they had done that gone would have been the Nirvana that was anti-rock and all that they stood for. Yet they couldn't changed their style for 2 reasons.

A) They would lose their fanbase and their identity..which supposedly killed GN'R and their excess.

B) They can't. They simply weren't talented. They could never have expanded their music.

Or they could have done the same useless crap and become dead and buried(which they were by 94).

There's no doubt that Nevermind is a seminal album (although some of that grunge sound like In Bloom sounds dated and doesn't transcend that), but it's not any more than AFD is.  Tattoos and bandannas were as much fashion for the masses as flannel was a few years later.  Nirvana changed the movement's direction, but besides a few of their contemporaries (Alice, Soundgarden) it was still shit bands posing in what they thought was cool at the moment, same as the Strip.  And ultimately, it didn't change anything.  It was a great pop/rock album (I say that because the melodies are so infectious) , by a great songwriter, but let's not overstate it. 

AFD still sounds fresh as ever when you listen to it, it's always going to be at the top of the hard rock classics, unless someone tops it, which seems unlikely at this point, but we remain hopeful.  The Illusions are more dated, there are a few gems here and there, but too disjointed to be a classic really.  And the Illusion demos sound better than the over-produced album. 

Fuckin' Right!!! I, at least, still can't help but sing whenever I hear that album. And you can listen to that fucking cd front to back, I haven't seen shit like that happen in a while!! Virtually every song on nevermind could've been a hit.


Agreed, and lets not forget to get the whole UYI experience you have to listen to damn near 1.5 hours of music. and lets face it its hard to sit down and listen to anything for that length of time. As great as the UYI's are the 2 album thing is just too long, and personally I find I skip alot of the tracks anyway to get to the songs I'd rather hear than shit like "bad apples" or "locomotive" or "right next door to hell" or "so fine" etc, etc. I still think they should've condensed them fuckers down to one CD. it would've been better. IMHO

The point I tired to make while starting this thread was that kids know rock 'n' roll and GNR is it.  GnR has remained and I find the title of the upcoming book "The Band That Time Forgot" trully insulting as no one has forgot about them.

I am 20 years old and GnR came into my life when I was nine and I never forgot that first image of them in November Rain video when they performed on the stage.  I saw it and from then on I knew that that was what a rock band was.  I still feel that way today.

Gnr speaks to every generation unlike a lot of bands.  Their music transcends.  Music is a language and it is no surpirse that it is something that the youth and adults can understand.  All songs can tell a story of our lives.  I hear Jungle and get that feeling that I got when wrestling in high school.  November Rain tells the story of my first love.  And Don't cry is when i got my heart stepped on.  I wasn't around when these stories were written but I understand them even thoughI am younger to alot of the original fan base.

I guess what I am saying is that GnR is the real deal, the last great rock band.  And even the kids know it.  It's not about a generation's band.  we don't look at GNR and say "that's something my dad listens too" or "that's a band my babysitter was into, who cares about them?"  GnR continues because their music is great and is something that you don't have to be from a certain generation to get.

Nevermind did not change my life.  All of GnR's stuff did.  In reading the greatest GnR momeents of your life section on this board i saw that a lot of kids had the fav. moment of just hearing the tunes or seeing it on MTV on a "Best of the 90's" show.  No one else may have gotten it but we did.

I just wanted to know if others around my age felt the same way I did.

The beatles imploded also, they just put out more albums than guns n roses did.
I dont know how you can say gnr have not stood the test of time, AFD if im not mistaken is still on billboards top 200 list and that came out in 87, the GHs is still strong also, and I think its still in the top 50, not to bad for a band that has not put out a new album of original material since 1991. 


As for mother love bone suck, they were still way ahead of the curve before nirvana came along and like  I said before Neil Young really started it all but gets little to no credit.  The only reason they were recognized first was because of MTV.

About green day, green day came out before nirvana i hate to tell you.  Green day were just underground at first then got popular with the dookie album. 

Like I stated  before, nirvana and its clones set back music 20 years instead of music progressing it  got worse.

It doesn't matter where in the curve? motherlovebone was Nirvana brought that type of music to the forefront (whether or not it was because of MTV is irrelivant) Nevermind caught the public's eye and as a result the other bands became popular. and don't forget Nirvana was also "underground" at one time as well (AKA bleach). From what I understand Nevermind was a collection of the best songs Nirvana had. It was produced to be a huge success. Neil Young Blows he didn't start shit except use Pearl Jam to rejuvinate his career. I don't know how that asshole got involved with this conversation he's not even of the same genre as GnR, or Nirvana or Zepplin or anything He's a folk singer dude!

And about Billboard Music chart, how can you say radio and MTV don't mean shit but Billboards Top 200 List is the "be all, end all" of music!! fuck man its all from basically the same source (the media!!).

GnR;s name have kinda stood the test of time (18 years worth anyway) but you don't hear all that much on the radio except WTTJ (at least I don't in canada anyway) Nirvana is like 12 years or something they are definately not withstood the test of time like Queen, Zepplin, BEatles, WHo, Rolling Stones Blacksabbath, and those guys.

I don't know I grew up listening to G'n'R so to me they are just a band. the older bands are like timeless to me cause they were around and (basically) gone before I was born (or old enough to remember). Fuck ,the stones are still together and Blacksabbath has been doing reunion tours for years them guys are icons. Maybe to the younger crowd (who got into GnR after UYI's were out of the spotlight) G'nR has withstood the test of time, but not to me.

on a side note: does anyone know how long the beatles were together? and how many albums they made? and how many covers they recorded? How many singles?

G'n'R in its original form was together from afd to just before UYI's (86-90, maybe 5 years). they recorded 4 albums (one of which was all cover tunes) and 1 half-album (Lies). On those 5 albums they recorded a total of 16 cover tunes. According to this site G'n'R had 16 singles (4 were covers). Now don't get me wrong, G'n'R are one of my all-time favorite bands. But IMHO a band that lasted 5 years didn't withstand the test of time.

OK i Looked int o the Beatles thing, they were together 8 years, had 24 albums and 34 singles (27 of which went to #1) I don't think they recorded any cover songs.

I dont know what part of the country you are in, but here in boston ma, we have three station that play guns n roses.
one being classic rock and the other two are just rock, and they play these gnr songs and more but these are what i have heard over the past month, WTTJ, brownstone, pc, nov rain, my michelle, used to love her, patience, just to name a few.

As for mtv vs billboard, mtv just doesnt play music anymore so you cant count them, as for billboard it shows that AFD still sells over 15 years later, and that shows they have stood the test of time.  And gnr were not around for 5 years, it was 86-93 which is 7, it doesnt matter that they lost members because every band loses members.  Its not about quanity of work its about quality, a band can come up with just one album and that album can stand the test of time.

ps
The beatles were together for just about ten years.

I said the original lineup was together 5 years. Beatles were together 8  :)

Right but a lot of bands lost members, like the stones, aerosmith (for a few years), metallica etc etc.
Even nirvana lost members, they were a four piece band for bleach then dropped two guys and got dave.

So are you going to just say nirvana started in 91 with nevermind?

In the form in which they got famous, yeah. Or as the general public know, whatever.

Besides when they lost Izzy it was the beginning of the end. I think Izzy & Duff were the mediators between Slash and Axl.

Sorry but from the worldwide point of view, I think Who or Blacksabbath is not so well known anymore.
Actually none of my friends knows them. Conversely Nirvana, GNR or even the Smiths is still getting new fans.
Personally I don't see Nirvana in 10 yrs time tho.

I know Zep experts say that Zep made only 4 superb albums. Also I hear most excellent bands tend to stay excellent musically only for several years. I conjecture the band chemistry has its best before date and when it expires the band has a few options left. Beatles was exceptional. And perhaps the one GNR has taken is the first ever. What do you guys think?

You cant have it both ways.
You cant say it doesnt matter for nirvana but does for guns n roses.
You have to remain consistant.

Guns N' Roses are legends and they will be legends forever(duuuh) because they sold albums without compromising their artistic integrity. They sang and wrote from the heart.Songs like SCOM,WTTJ,NR or Estranged weren't written to make money or make them popular or sell albums.They were written because that's how Axl felt at the moments he wrote them.


No matter what people say,it's not a matter of taste,it's a fact: Kurt Cobain had mediocre voice,guitar skills and songwriting abbilities. Nirvana is the most overrated band ever,fucking up music for 10 years.I say that because every crap rock band these days has a little bit of Nirvana in their sound.

When things get rough,blow your fuckin' head off!!! Hey kids,don't you wanna grow up to be just like me??

 It's a bit harsh joking about something as serious as suicide.  I personally think it is selfish when you have family and you leave them with all that confusion and hurt. But you know it must have been 
I'm not a big Nirvana fan, i never thought a great deal of them, but they are ok.  I can listen to them once and a while and it's a reminder .. yeh don't mind that.  I think "In Utero" and "Unplugged"  was the best work they did.  Nevermind wore out quite quickly but still has some classic songs on there. If you're a fan of music then you can't denie that "Lithium" and "Come as you are" are good songs and there are a couple more on there that i can't remember, but yeh Nirvana changed millions of peoples lives just like GN'R did.

 They inspired kids to buy guitars and try and write songs.  Even if they were/are crap it doesn't matter, it makes people appriciate the good stuff.  GNR's recent comeback in sales is because people realise just how  fucking good they were. And because since GNR most of whats being passed as rock is shit lol 


Nevermind will always be rememberd - it was a huge album.  Not for me personally but for millions it's true. 

Appetite though is just in a different world completely.

I think some kids might find the Axl style epics refreshing...Hell I was in junior high when the UYI came out and I was blown away by estranged, Civil War, Coma, etc...not that I fully understood those songs (and I'm not sure if I even do now) but maybe some kids are looking for something a little more challenging...of course maybe I putting too much faith in today's youth....

 Look at the music scene now, kids don`t have any real good bands out there to pick from unless they look into the older stuff.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Nirvana's "original" lineup was how it was when Curt died. I say original because Curt, Krist and Dave were Nirvana when they made it big.

When G'n'R made it big it was Axl, Slash, Duff, Izzy and Steven (How come he was the only guy without a nickname? I always wondered that  :) ) in 89 or 90 (it doesn't matter) steven was fired then shortly afterwards Izzy quit. IMO that was the beginning of the end, because Izzy was a huge songwriting presence (they still haven't officially released anything he didn't help write btw)

Your original lineup is the one that releases your first lp or even an ep. Dave is right, Nirvana's first LP is Bleach-it is a full length record and Grohl  (I believe) is only on one track. Nevermind was their second full length. This thing needs to head to the dead horse section. ;D

Maybe today G'n'R's music is refreshing, cause now the music scene blows, but back in '91 it was time for a change and Nirvana helped usher it in.  Curt never wanted to become an icon, and yeah their music was simple (thats what was refreshing about it). they always said themselves that they were'nt really talented musicians, AIC guys were the same way. But that's what was so appealing, they seemed normal down to earth kind of people. You coudn't touch Guns or other bands at the time, you couldn't identify because they 'WERE' rock music and they all had the egos to go with it, not just Axl, but the rest of the band, the Black Crowes, Poison, Warrant, Skid row, Tesla, all of them had the high and mighty, "we're better than everyone" attitude. And people just got sick of the bloated juggernaut rock had become. (IMO)  Thats a good point to St.heathen, before Grunge, not many people played guitar, now guitar players are a dime a dozen (I'm a guitar plyer myself). I still fail to see why people think the "One hit Wonders" of today are all because of Nirvana, they had way more than one hit and Curt's "mediocre" singing and writing are way better than almost any band around today. (Again IMO)

But to get back on topic, I don't think Guns have really stood the test of time yet because it hasn't even been one generation since they burst onto the scene. If the our kids start to listen to G'n'R then we can start to say they have withstood the test of time but to say that they already have is a bit premature. Definately Grunge bands have not yet withstood the test of time. Bands from the 70's, yes, they have so far withstood the test of time.

Madagas,

Bleach didn't make them famous, Nevermind did. But I will agree that this has become a dead horse. : ok:

GnR is the definitive band of the 80s.  When people think 80s rock, they think GnR end of story.  This isn't going to change.