|
Title: Relevance of Guns N' Roses Post by: Randy Jesus on October 28, 2006, 11:11:38 PM Today we are living in a society that music is disposable. There hasn't been an album that will stand the test of time in the past ten years. Things that we thought were great are really nothing at all. Last night I went through my music collect for the past ten years. Not a single one stands out: Smashing Pumpkins, Stone Temple Pilots, The Offspring just to name a few.
There were only two bands that survived my personal cut from bands that put out music in the last 15 years: Metallica and Guns N' Roses. I know that this is my personal opinion, but I believe that many others would come to similar conclusions. The one thing that this two bands have over the others is Relevance. They do not pretend to be what they are not. They kept everything in perspective unlike the bands that were around them over the years. They relate to the real person inside each and everyone of us. You can go to any neighborhood no matter wealth or race and you will find that just about everyone gets pumped to Welcome to the Jungle. The rest of the songs tend to transcend across most imaginable gaps in society. In recent times, music has an expiration date of two years. The reason is that music has become nothing but catchy jingles with hot bodies. Those jingles have nothing to say but look at me, I am hot and rich. For example; Justin Timberlake, bringing sexy back. That isn't music! Axl Rose would never lower himself to release music that will be just a flash in a pan. Rap music was great! It was something real. However its time has come because no one has nothing to say besides look I am getting laid by this gold-diggers and you wish you hot and rich like me. The average white kid wouldn't even understand were the rap came from because they think rap is just dance music. Rap needs to go underground for awhile and resurface with some honesty. Weird Al's White N Nerdy is just proof. In fact it is a statement about the majority of people listening to rap. Axl has really never got caught up in trends. He is an artist, not a sheep. He isn't a cookie cutter pretty boy. His perfectionism has become legendary. When he puts out music, it means something. Thats why people still go to his shows and are intrigued about him. Timing is everything and right now the music scene is extremely weak. There is no good music out there. It is time for a new musical revolution. Who better to kick it off than Guns N' Roses?! Now the line up is different. Some people just can't see past that. But when they here the music, they love it. It took many years for Axl to find guys that work well with each other and to actually become a band. Every live performance shows that this is a band, not hired guns. This band is bring a fresh sound to music. Something the world has never heard before, a new Unique style. After Chinese Democracy is released, other bands will try to emulate the New Guns N' Roses. The Music world is begging for Axl and the New Guns N' Roses. MTV is waiting for Mr. Rose to do something spectacular because every time they get a chance to see him, they focus all of their attention on him. Rolling Stone Magazine is showing excitement with every little tidbit they get. It just proves how relevant Guns N' Roses are. Hell even Slash seems highly excited/interested over the new music. Axl isn't just a musician, he is an artist, poet, and icon. Like Michaelangelo and De Vinci, his work will live on forever. He has the ability and the following of John Lennon. He is what we are missing in todays music scene. Guns N' Roses has become a brotherhood. Something we can't take away from current and former members. Each leaves a legacy. It is time for the legacy to continue. The world is crying for it! We need it! We need real music, a revolution. At the end of the day Guns N' Roses is still relevant. Mr. Rose and/or associates, if you read this. Thank You for everything. Title: Re: Relevance of Guns N' Roses Post by: Axl4Prez2004 on October 28, 2006, 11:18:43 PM :beer: I agree Mr. Hellhole. The question is...how does the message get out to the masses? ???
Title: Re: Relevance of Guns N' Roses Post by: Randy Jesus on October 28, 2006, 11:20:52 PM :beer: I agree Mr. Hellhole. The question is...how does the message get out to the masses? ??? Easy, we bring it to them... The media is willing to push it because its something different... The Label must push it due to its costs... Title: Re: Relevance of Guns N' Roses Post by: scar2d2w on October 28, 2006, 11:24:19 PM well, i think the da vinci thing was a little extreme, but yes, i think you hit on some good points...music, like almost everything else these days, is superficial and disposable. if you listen to AFD or the illusions, however, those are albums that sound like something special every single time they're played. and for all the goofing on axl the press has done over the past few years--he's fat, he's washed up, he's a hermit, blah blah blah--the guy is still getting mentions after not releasing an album in like 13 years. obviously there's something intriguing to people about him.
when i listen to gnr songs, i feel like that is how music should sound. it should get you going and really move you. i agree with you that so little has come out recently that has that kind of weight...that's why fans are still anticipating chinese democracy after all this time. Title: Re: Relevance of Guns N' Roses Post by: scar2d2w on October 28, 2006, 11:28:01 PM :beer: I agree Mr. Hellhole. The question is...how does the message get out to the masses? ??? Easy, we bring it to them... The media is willing to push it because its something different... The Label must push it due to its costs... some part of me worries that most "music" lovers want nothing but more half-naked plastic-surgeried 13-year-old pop princesses and rappers in fur coats and 2.3 lb diamonds on their fingers...i do feel a little nervous about how the album will be received, not cuz i care about them being number 1 but cuz if it doesn't do well i feel like axl might kind of drop out again. Title: Re: Relevance of Guns N' Roses Post by: Randy Jesus on October 28, 2006, 11:28:36 PM well, i think the da vinci thing was a little extreme, but yes, i think you hit on some good points...music, like almost everything else these days, is superficial and disposable. if you listen to AFD or the illusions, however, those are albums that sound like something special every single time they're played. and for all the goofing on axl the press has done over the past few years--he's fat, he's washed up, he's a hermit, blah blah blah--the guy is still getting mentions after not releasing an album in like 13 years. obviously there's something intriguing to people about him. when i listen to gnr songs, i feel like that is how music should sound. it should get you going and really move you. i agree with you that so little has come out recently that has that kind of weight...that's why fans are still anticipating chinese democracy after all this time. The music is still relevant. It is special. Once Axl hits New York, the media will be all over him about the album. Title: Re: Relevance of Guns N' Roses Post by: Randy Jesus on October 28, 2006, 11:31:49 PM :beer: I agree Mr. Hellhole. The question is...how does the message get out to the masses? ??? Easy, we bring it to them... The media is willing to push it because its something different... The Label must push it due to its costs... some part of me worries that most "music" lovers want nothing but more half-naked plastic-surgeried 13-year-old pop princesses and rappers in fur coats and 2.3 lb diamonds on their fingers...i do feel a little nervous about how the album will be received, not cuz i care about them being number 1 but cuz if it doesn't do well i feel like axl might kind of drop out again. Girls that age love emotional stuff... they like catchy stuff... they will like better... Title: Re: Relevance of Guns N' Roses Post by: scar2d2w on October 28, 2006, 11:32:50 PM well, i think the da vinci thing was a little extreme, but yes, i think you hit on some good points...music, like almost everything else these days, is superficial and disposable. if you listen to AFD or the illusions, however, those are albums that sound like something special every single time they're played. and for all the goofing on axl the press has done over the past few years--he's fat, he's washed up, he's a hermit, blah blah blah--the guy is still getting mentions after not releasing an album in like 13 years. obviously there's something intriguing to people about him. when i listen to gnr songs, i feel like that is how music should sound. it should get you going and really move you. i agree with you that so little has come out recently that has that kind of weight...that's why fans are still anticipating chinese democracy after all this time. i think they'll be all over him too, but since that will most likely be the case i really wish there were some indication of a firm release date, a single, anything, so the media couldn't keep saying how there's still no sign of a release. The music is still relevant. It is special. Once Axl hits New York, the media will be all over him about the album. Title: Re: Relevance of Guns N' Roses Post by: scar2d2w on October 28, 2006, 11:33:52 PM :beer: I agree Mr. Hellhole. The question is...how does the message get out to the masses? ??? Easy, we bring it to them... The media is willing to push it because its something different... The Label must push it due to its costs... some part of me worries that most "music" lovers want nothing but more half-naked plastic-surgeried 13-year-old pop princesses and rappers in fur coats and 2.3 lb diamonds on their fingers...i do feel a little nervous about how the album will be received, not cuz i care about them being number 1 but cuz if it doesn't do well i feel like axl might kind of drop out again. Girls that age love emotional stuff... they like catchy stuff... they will like better... really? :P i would think they'd prefer hit me baby or whatever it is :drool: Title: Re: Relevance of Guns N' Roses Post by: Ax on October 28, 2006, 11:39:11 PM :beer:? I agree Mr. Hellhole.? The question is...how does the message get out to the masses?? ???? Easy, we bring it to them... The media is willing to push it because its something different... The Label must push it due to its costs...? some part of me worries that most "music" lovers want nothing but more half-naked plastic-surgeried 13-year-old pop princesses and rappers in fur coats and 2.3 lb diamonds on their fingers...i do feel a little nervous about how the album will be received, not cuz i care about them being number 1 but cuz if it doesn't do well i feel like axl might kind of drop out again. You are forgeting that the only reason most "music" lovers buy the crap music that is played on the radio is because they are told to buy it by smart marketing and the like. As soon as Guns N' Roses becomes "cool" to like, then those people will be all over it saying how they have always loved gn'r. Title: Re: Relevance of Guns N' Roses Post by: Randy Jesus on October 28, 2006, 11:39:51 PM :beer: I agree Mr. Hellhole. The question is...how does the message get out to the masses? ??? Easy, we bring it to them... The media is willing to push it because its something different... The Label must push it due to its costs... some part of me worries that most "music" lovers want nothing but more half-naked plastic-surgeried 13-year-old pop princesses and rappers in fur coats and 2.3 lb diamonds on their fingers...i do feel a little nervous about how the album will be received, not cuz i care about them being number 1 but cuz if it doesn't do well i feel like axl might kind of drop out again. Girls that age love emotional stuff... they like catchy stuff... they will like better... really? :P i would think they'd prefer hit me baby or whatever it is :drool: I am sure that there is going to be groups of young girls singing along to better in the back of their moms minivan... Title: Re: Relevance of Guns N' Roses Post by: scar2d2w on October 28, 2006, 11:42:48 PM :beer: I agree Mr. Hellhole. The question is...how does the message get out to the masses? ??? Easy, we bring it to them... The media is willing to push it because its something different... The Label must push it due to its costs... some part of me worries that most "music" lovers want nothing but more half-naked plastic-surgeried 13-year-old pop princesses and rappers in fur coats and 2.3 lb diamonds on their fingers...i do feel a little nervous about how the album will be received, not cuz i care about them being number 1 but cuz if it doesn't do well i feel like axl might kind of drop out again. You are forgeting that the only reason most "music" lovers buy the crap music that is played on the radio is because they are told to buy it by smart marketing and the like. As soon as Guns N' Roses becomes "cool" to like, then those people will be all over it saying how they have always loved gn'r. but who is gonna help them get "cool"? i'm just getting pissy cuz i would like to see some promotion of this thing really fucking soon. i'm not as patient as most people on the board ;) Title: Re: Relevance of Guns N' Roses Post by: dave-gnfnr2k on October 28, 2006, 11:43:48 PM u2s last few albums were good. BUt you are right the really great albums are few and far between
Title: Re: Relevance of Guns N' Roses Post by: Randy Jesus on October 28, 2006, 11:49:26 PM u2s last few albums were good. BUt you are right the really great albums are few and far between Yeah but it seems like Bono is mainly relaying on his humanitarian efforts to sell albums now days... I think it is wearing a little thin because he has his nose in everything... But U2 has put out good music... but they are no guns n roses... Title: Re: Relevance of Guns N' Roses Post by: scar2d2w on October 28, 2006, 11:52:27 PM u2s last few albums were good. BUt you are right the really great albums are few and far between Yeah but it seems like Bono is mainly relaying on his humanitarian efforts to sell albums now days... I think it is wearing a little thin because he has his nose in everything... But U2 has put out good music... but they are no guns n roses... don't think that's really a fair statement, since u2 don't really need any help selling albums. i can forgive him for being on oprah (not literaly ON oprah!) because i think he's genuine...as genuine as a rock superstar can be anyway. Title: Re: Relevance of Guns N' Roses Post by: Randy Jesus on October 28, 2006, 11:53:11 PM :beer: I agree Mr. Hellhole. The question is...how does the message get out to the masses? ??? Easy, we bring it to them... The media is willing to push it because its something different... The Label must push it due to its costs... some part of me worries that most "music" lovers want nothing but more half-naked plastic-surgeried 13-year-old pop princesses and rappers in fur coats and 2.3 lb diamonds on their fingers...i do feel a little nervous about how the album will be received, not cuz i care about them being number 1 but cuz if it doesn't do well i feel like axl might kind of drop out again. You are forgeting that the only reason most "music" lovers buy the crap music that is played on the radio is because they are told to buy it by smart marketing and the like. As soon as Guns N' Roses becomes "cool" to like, then those people will be all over it saying how they have always loved gn'r. but who is gonna help them get "cool"? i'm just getting pissy cuz i would like to see some promotion of this thing really fucking soon. i'm not as patient as most people on the board ;) Its going to happen over night ala Nirvana... BTW MTV loves AXL... Title: Re: Relevance of Guns N' Roses Post by: Minneapolisnewsman on October 28, 2006, 11:55:07 PM Radiohead's OK Computer, will stand the test of time--in fact, Axl is a huge fan of that album, which he said has inspired his writing. I really, think though, your thesis is correct: there are not many artists putting out memorable music. Half of the problem is the record labels themselves, not being patient enough to sign bands to four or five album deals and allowing them to grow as songwriters, and the other problem is Clear Channel. To get a hit, the labels must pay Clear Channel to push the single (we also, with IPods, and what not, are in a singles era again like the 56-65 era of rock n' roll--Beatles Rubber Soul and BBoys Pet Sounds changed that), and we are left with a bunch of garbage that is, well here today and gone to hell the next. Payola, although recently outlawed after Eliot Spencer took the practice on in NY, is alive and well. It's the reason we get thirty R&B and rap songs that are indistinguishable from each other, to go along with the three chord EMO bands that are nameless. None of the new artists are stars, and figureheads like the guy's from GNR or Metallica were.
I do think, that the timing of GNR's album could not be better, though, as My Chemical Romance's The Black Parade is a concept album that is heavily influenced the The Illusions, Radiohead, and Queen. It is a record built to last, and seems to be possibly changing the game a little. I also, must say, that Green Day's An American Idiot was a fine album. Overall, though, there are only a few bands in the last fifteen that will stand the test of time. Unlike, many of our parents generation, that saw from 65-75, Hendrix, Janis, The Doors, The Beatles, Grateful Dead, The Stones, The Who, Zeppelin, Alman Bros, Queen, Pink Floyd, New York Dolls, and Cream just to name a few. Title: Re: Relevance of Guns N' Roses Post by: scar2d2w on October 29, 2006, 12:00:49 AM Radiohead's OK Computer, will stand the test of time--in fact, Axl is a huge fan of that album, which he said has inspired his writing. I really, think though, your thesis is correct: there are not many artists putting out memorable music. Half of the problem is the record labels themselves, not being patient enough to sign bands to four or five album deals and allowing them to grow as songwriters, and the other problem is Clear Channel. To get a hit, the labels must pay Clear Channel to push the single (we also, with IPods, and what not, are in a singles era again like the 56-65 era of rock n' roll--Beatles Rubber Soul and BBoys Pet Sounds changed that), and we are left with a bunch of garbage that is, well here today and gone to hell the next. Payola, although recently outlawed after Eliot Spencer took the practice on in NY, is alive and well. It's the reason we get thirty R&B and rap songs that are indistinguishable from each other, to go along with the three chord EMO bands that are nameless. None of the new artists are stars, and figureheads like the guy's from GNR or Metallica were. I do think, that the timing of GNR's album could not be better, though, as My Chemical Romance's The Black Parade is a concept album that is heavily influenced the The Illusions, Radiohead, and Queen. It is a record built to last, and seems to be possibly changing the game a little. I also, must say, that Green Day's An American Idiot was a fine album. Overall, though, there are only a few bands in the last fifteen that will stand the test of time. Unlike, many of our parents generation, that saw from 65-75, Hendrix, Janis, The Doors, The Beatles, Grateful Dead, The Stones, The Who, Zeppelin, Alman Bros, Queen, Pink Floyd, New York Dolls, and Cream just to name a few. totally true. clear channel and the labels. also, i think ok computer definitely will stand the test of time... gnr still rule though Title: Re: Relevance of Guns N' Roses Post by: Randy Jesus on October 29, 2006, 12:02:41 AM Radiohead's OK Computer, will stand the test of time--in fact, Axl is a huge fan of that album, which he said has inspired his writing. I really, think though, your thesis is correct: there are not many artists putting out memorable music. Half of the problem is the record labels themselves, not being patient enough to sign bands to four or five album deals and allowing them to grow as songwriters, and the other problem is Clear Channel. To get a hit, the labels must pay Clear Channel to push the single (we also, with IPods, and what not, are in a singles era again like the 56-65 era of rock n' roll--Beatles Rubber Soul and BBoys Pet Sounds changed that), and we are left with a bunch of garbage that is, well here today and gone to hell the next. Payola, although recently outlawed after Eliot Spencer took the practice on in NY, is alive and well. It's the reason we get thirty R&B and rap songs that are indistinguishable from each other, to go along with the three chord EMO bands that are nameless. None of the new artists are stars, and figureheads like the guy's from GNR or Metallica were. I do think, that the timing of GNR's album could not be better, though, as My Chemical Romance's The Black Parade is a concept album that is heavily influenced the The Illusions, Radiohead, and Queen. It is a record built to last, and seems to be possibly changing the game a little. I also, must say, that Green Day's An American Idiot was a fine album. Overall, though, there are only a few bands in the last fifteen that will stand the test of time. Unlike, many of our parents generation, that saw from 65-75, Hendrix, Janis, The Doors, The Beatles, Grateful Dead, The Stones, The Who, Zeppelin, Alman Bros, Queen, Pink Floyd, New York Dolls, and Cream just to name a few. I do hear a lot of UYI style on the beginning verse of Black Parade... Its almost like Axl wrote it for them, then let them do the rest... but we all know that didn't happen... I really don't care for MCR but maybe they have put together something decent with that first single... Title: Re: Relevance of Guns N' Roses Post by: Krispy Kreme on October 29, 2006, 01:25:14 AM Today we are living in a society that music is disposable. There hasn't been an album that will stand the test of time in the past ten years. Things that we thought were great are really nothing at all. Last night I went through my music collect for the past ten years. Not a single one stands out: Smashing Pumpkins, Stone Temple Pilots, The Offspring just to name a few. There were only two bands that survived my personal cut from bands that put out music in the last 15 years: Metallica and Guns N' Roses. I know that this is my personal opinion, but I believe that many others would come to similar conclusions. The one thing that this two bands have over the others is Relevance. They do not pretend to be what they are not. They kept everything in perspective unlike the bands that were around them over the years. They relate to the real person inside each and everyone of us. You can go to any neighborhood no matter wealth or race and you will find that just about everyone gets pumped to Welcome to the Jungle. The rest of the songs tend to transcend across most imaginable gaps in society. In recent times, music has an expiration date of two years. The reason is that music has become nothing but catchy jingles with hot bodies. Those jingles have nothing to say but look at me, I am hot and rich. For example; Justin Timberlake, bringing sexy back. That isn't music! Axl Rose would never lower himself to release music that will be just a flash in a pan. Rap music was great! It was something real. However its time has come because no one has nothing to say besides look I am getting laid by this gold-diggers and you wish you hot and rich like me. The average white kid wouldn't even understand were the rap came from because they think rap is just dance music. Rap needs to go underground for awhile and resurface with some honesty. Weird Al's White N Nerdy is just proof. In fact it is a statement about the majority of people listening to rap. Axl has really never got caught up in trends. He is an artist, not a sheep. He isn't a cookie cutter pretty boy. His perfectionism has become legendary. When he puts out music, it means something. Thats why people still go to his shows and are intrigued about him. Timing is everything and right now the music scene is extremely weak. There is no good music out there. It is time for a new musical revolution. Who better to kick it off than Guns N' Roses?! Now the line up is different. Some people just can't see past that. But when they here the music, they love it. It took many years for Axl to find guys that work well with each other and to actually become a band. Every live performance shows that this is a band, not hired guns. This band is bring a fresh sound to music. Something the world has never heard before, a new Unique style. After Chinese Democracy is released, other bands will try to emulate the New Guns N' Roses. The Music world is begging for Axl and the New Guns N' Roses. MTV is waiting for Mr. Rose to do something spectacular because every time they get a chance to see him, they focus all of their attention on him. Rolling Stone Magazine is showing excitement with every little tidbit they get. It just proves how relevant Guns N' Roses are. Hell even Slash seems highly excited/interested over the new music. Axl isn't just a musician, he is an artist, poet, and icon. Like Michaelangelo and De Vinci, his work will live on forever. He has the ability and the following of John Lennon. He is what we are missing in todays music scene. Guns N' Roses has become a brotherhood. Something we can't take away from current and former members. Each leaves a legacy. It is time for the legacy to continue. The world is crying for it! We need it! We need real music, a revolution. At the end of the day Guns N' Roses is still relevant. Mr. Rose and/or associates, if you read this. Thank You for everything. My general impression is that I agree and this is an intelligent post with a lot good points. The question I have is how can a band that has released nothing original in 15 years be considered relevant? I love GNR, new and old, but I am not sure it is relevant until it makes itself relevant, and that requires the release of an album that will decide the question. Title: Re: Relevance of Guns N' Roses Post by: Disco Volante on October 29, 2006, 01:59:36 AM There IS good music out there...you just have to do a little digging. Mainstream music is at it's all time worst.
Title: Re: Relevance of Guns N' Roses Post by: Dr. Blutarsky on October 29, 2006, 01:24:18 AM Great post hellhole. You touched on a lot of points I agree with
Title: Re: Relevance of Guns N' Roses Post by: ILChief on October 29, 2006, 09:02:31 AM while i agree with the jist of your post, i'd add Pearl Jam, ACDC, and RHCP to your list.
Title: Re: Relevance of Guns N' Roses Post by: Mauve_All on October 29, 2006, 09:28:45 AM Girls that age love emotional stuff... they like catchy stuff... they will like better... :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: That was funny !!! Title: Re: Relevance of Guns N' Roses Post by: gnrfanxxx on October 29, 2006, 12:33:35 PM the music age is sad today :crying:
Title: Re: Relevance of Guns N' Roses Post by: lennonisgod on October 29, 2006, 02:04:53 PM A lot of people in this thread keep mentioning teenage girls liking Better... Well my girlfriend, she isn't really a teenager but she's almost 21, loves that fucking song. She loves music in general and listens to shit like John Mayer, Tim McGraw, Faith Hill, Sheryl Crow, etc. She's not a real hardcore girl and thank God for that (I've dealt with girls on the hardcore side and I'm done with them). Anyway, I can't usually stand her music at all but I'm a nice boyfriend and let her listen to what she wants without bitching about it. And she has always liked GN'R, but would never ask me to play them or anything. She loves Slash and thinks he's the coolest guy ever BTW. But when I first played Better for her, she fucking loved it. To this day, when Better comes on, she will sing the whole song word for word and totally rock out. She can't get enough of the song. Now she can't wait to go see GN'R with me in November and she is actually really excited about it. She has just heard so much about Axl and GN'R since she's been with me, which has been a few years, so it's just going to be such a surreal moment for her.
ANYWAY, my point in explaining that whole thing is if my girlfriend can fall in love with Better, then a lot of other females in that age bracket will as well. That's why I think Better is a good choice for the first single and it will win over people that wouldn't usually listen to this type of music. That also proves how relevant the music of this "New" band can really be and also how many different types of "music" fans could also possibly become fans of this era of Guns N' Roses. Title: Re: Relevance of Guns N' Roses Post by: Mauve_All on October 29, 2006, 03:02:37 PM IMO the more you categorize people, the more misled you get. What does gender have to do with my tastes in music? These are all cliches. Take ballads for example. I totally fuckin hate most of them, I even hate November rain, it's far too mellow for me but I know guys who love this song, so what does that mean? That I'm an exception? Or that I've no tender feelings in my heart? Or maybe that guys are getting softer these days? No. I'll tell you what it means: a b s o l u t e l y n o t h i n g .
Take each person for what he/she is and try n judge individually, this is the safest way, don't categorize, don't try and make conlusions out of what you consider pulp. And yes, I like "Better" but I don't think it can beat "You could be mine" which must be my fav GnR song. :love: Title: Re: Relevance of Guns N' Roses Post by: give_it_a_rest on October 29, 2006, 03:04:51 PM while i agree with the jist of your post, i'd add Pearl Jam, ACDC, and RHCP to your list. What's wrong with pearl jam!!!, I fucking love that band, after the album TEN 1991 (UYI period) they released at least 7!!!! albums and 100+ live bootlegs instead of one GN'r album, and they play every night a lot of songs (most of the time 26-36 songs), they never have the same or standard set list. When you go to 2 or more pearl jam shows it's a treat, because it's never the same. BTW: I really love GN'R since 1989, but the setlist these days is always the same (more or less). :peace: |