Are you satisfied with the current state of affairs in GNR world?

[DieselDaisy]

36 minutes ago, Stress Fracture said:

The quality of over quantity argument does have merit. When you look at the number of CD songs played on the NITL tour and compare that to the amount of material from the last 25 years that the likes of Metallica, Bon Jovi, Def Leppard and AC/DC played on their recent tours, Axl doesn’t come off anywhere near as bad.

Is setlist song inclusion a barometer of ''quality''? I also do not think that argument applies to Metallica. From Metallica's last setlist obtainable they played seven songs - I repeat, seven songs - from their new (2017) album: https://www.setlist.fm/setlist/metallica/2018/sap-arena-mannheim-germany-5bee3368.html. (They also played one from 1997's unpopular Reload.) That comprises nearly 40% of their present repertoire!

I keep seeing this argument applied to Metallica and it simply is not true, and has rarely been true. I can only think that the reason people believe this is true is because of the way they immediately jettisoned all of the St Anger stuff in 2003-04.

Edited March 25, 2018 by DieselDaisy

[Stress Fracture]

GNR’s most recent setlist has eight CD tracks.

That’s a bit too much, to be fair...

[Tom2112]

On 23/03/2018 at 2:32 PM, RONIN said:

Axl refuses to make a cock rock album with Slash for 25 years because of artistic integrity.

Angus calls Axl to sing over some butt rock songs and he drops everything. Makes perfect sense really.

But it works out great in the end - perhaps they won't tarnish their legacy any further by releasing an album with the current lineup. No Izzy, no GnR. Know Izzy, know GnR.

You keep suggesting that AC/DC are in some way a cock rock band. They are absolutely NOT cock rock. You're thinking of Whitesnake, Def Leppard. AC/DC are a straight up no frills rock band.

Axl didn't want to make the Snakepit album because it was essentially standing still musically, a little funkier than UYI but not much else had changed in Slash style of writing. Also, Snakepit is not cock rock.

[DieselDaisy]

The meaning of ''cock rock'' has changed over time. Initially it described the phallic orientated rock acts of the late '60s and 1970s, your Aerosmiths, Zeppelins and Stones, the Stones that is of ''Stray Cat Blues'' and ''Starfucker'' notoriety. Later again it become synonymous with the American ''hair rock'' scene of the '80s, Crüe, Ratt and LA Guns. I would suggest AC/DC qualify for the first usage but not the second. 

I'm not especially fond of the term either way.  

[EvanG]

35 minutes ago, Tom2112 said:

Axl didn't want to make the Snakepit album because it was essentially standing still musically, a little funkier than UYI but not much else had changed in Slash style of writing. 

Slash has never really evolved musically, at least referring to the style. Every album he released can be put in the same category. There's nothing wrong with that, but a lot of musicians don't want to do the same thing on every album.

[Kwick1]

11 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

 

PS

And 1985 - 1993 was (largely) perfect. Everything worthwhile about Guns N' Roses: everything we want to know concerning their greatness, their musicality and creativity, the reasons for their success (success today in 2018), fall into that 1985-93 time frame.

I can't dispute that GnR has released less material than The Beatles, Zeplin or the Stones but GnR is in the same category as each of those bands. AFD and Lies in the earliest years were like nothing out and Axl was the driving force. But like everything that is to remain current, it must evolve. By UYI II it was evident the band was evolving. Many at the time disagreed with the more elaborate sound. I was very fortunate to see GnR in '89 and '91. Very unfortunate to not see GnR in '87 with the Crue in LA. Not because Axl was late but me 😢   After '87 I quickly discovered GnR which was with me during very turbulent years and credit the band with saving my life. But just like I grew up in the next decade, GnR continued to evolve. I stopped destroying myself and would listen to GnR periodically but mostly I moved on. But when CD was released, I was very curios and rushed to the record store. It's a masterpiece. I realize we're now a decade past CD but I don't agree that everything good happened between '85 and '92  those were turbulent times  

 I didn't feel a need for a reunion between the original 5 but the NITLT has been great to see.  

Edited March 25, 2018 by Kwick1

[tsinindy]

1 hour ago, Kwick1 said:

I can't dispute that GnR has released less material than The Beatles, Zeplin or the Stones but GnR is in the same category as each of those bands. A

LOLOL.   What are you smoking bro?

[RONIN]

16 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

You keep suggesting that AC/DC are in some way a cock rock band. They are absolutely NOT cock rock. You're thinking of Whitesnake, Def Leppard. AC/DC are a straight up no frills rock band.

Axl didn't want to make the Snakepit album because it was essentially standing still musically, a little funkier than UYI but not much else had changed in Slash style of writing. Also, Snakepit is not cock rock.

The meaning of the term cock rock has changed over time. It was first mentioned by an anonymous author in the New York-based underground feminist publication Rat in 1970,[5] to describe the male dominated music industry and became a synonym for hard rock, emphasising the aggressive expression of male sexuality, often misogynist lyrics and use of phallic imagery.[6] The term was used by sociologists Simon Frith and Angela McRobbie in 1978 to point to the contrast between male dominated sub-culture of cock rock which was "aggressive, dominating and boastful" and the more feminised teenybop stars of pop music.[7] Led Zeppelin have been described as "the quintessential purveyors of 'cock rock'".[8] Other formative acts include the Rolling Stones, The Who and Jim Morrison of The Doors.

Since the 1980s, the term has been sometimes interchangeable with hair metal or glam metal.[11] Examples of this genre include: Mötley Crüe, Ratt, Warrant, Extreme, Cinderella, Pretty Boy Floyd, Jackyl, L.A. Guns, and Poison.[12]Despite the name, many of these bands had or have large numbers of female fans.[13] The spoof documentary This Is Spinal Tap is an acclaimed parody of the genre.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cock_rock

Quote

"And I ended up hanging out with girls a lot. And I just always felt that they weren’t treated with respect. Especially because women are just totally oppressed. I mean the words “cunt” and “bitch” were totally common. Although I listened to Aerosmith and Led Zeppelin, and I really did enjoy some of the melodies they’d written, it took me so many years to realise that they had a lot to do with sexism." - Kurt Cobain

http://www.faena.com/aleph/articles/kurt-cobain-on-discrimination-against-women-and-sexual-identity/

As per usual, Cobain is starkly honest, discussing feeling closer to women than he was to men and how he “always felt that [women] weren’t treated with respect”, and while he liked to listen to classic rock bands like Led Zeppelin and Aerosmith, eventually he realised that a lot of their music was sexist, and immediately lost interest, instead finding solace in punk.

https://hhhhappy.com/kurt-cobain-discusses-rejecting-cock-rock-culture-and-struggling-with-sexual-identity-in-a-1993-interview/

 

Quote

"And look sure, there are some AC/DC tunes that we all know are about sinking the pink, like You Shook Me All Night Long, Let Me Put My Love Into You and, well, Sink The Pink. But DID YOU KNOW that pretty much every other AC/DC song ever written is also about doing the dirty deed (including Dirty Deeds)? 

Honourable mentions must go to lesser-known tracks Big Balls, Deep In The Hole, Givin The Dog A Bone, Love At First Feel, Get It Hot, Go Down, Inject The Venom, Hard As A Rock, Send For The Man, Let’s Get It Up and Squealer, which are also thinly veiled metaphors about slapping squids."

http://musicfeeds.com.au/features/11-acdc-songs-you-probably-didnt-realise-are-actually-about-sex/

 

Edited March 26, 2018 by RONIN

[tbaugerud]

GnR could have been the next Stones. But they blew it. 

On topic: 

People can say whatever they want, but the fact is that musicians have two jobs:

Concerts and recording. 

Axl pretending to be this very political democrat of late, should realize that there are bigger worries in this world, than giving the fans something to listen to, even if it hasnt been mixed and masteren 1000 times back and forward.

I have absolutely zero sympathy for any of his excuses, and none of your fanboys' either.

 

[AncientEvil80]

18 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

Axl didn't want to make the Snakepit album because it was essentially standing still musically, a little funkier than UYI but not much else had changed in Slash style of writing. Also, Snakepit is not cock rock.

You know, this idea that Axl wanted/had to move on musically always got to me somehow. It didn't make sense then, even less now. I get it, trying to improve and enhance is usually a good thing, but in some cases (actually many...) forcing a stylistic change just for the sake of it is just plain fucking bad and the results will show it for what it really is. Axl's perennial conflict with this concept has probably deprived us of his raw talent for many years... simplicity is usually a big part of what defines GREAT artistry, and probably even more so in rock music; completely went over Axl's head at the time, I guess...

[DieselDaisy]

Nobody could've been the ''next Stones'', not even Guns. To quote a certain b-movie with Sean Connery, ''there can be only one''. 

[scooby845]

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Nobody could've been the ''next Stones'', not even Guns. To quote a certain b-movie with Sean Connery, ''there can be only one''. 

I watched GNR last July, and I watched Stones last September.

I was on the seating for GNR, and front row for the Stones.

You're not gonna like this...

GNR blew away the Stones live-performance-wise and I'm not even playing the reunion card. That's how I felt. 

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, scooby845 said:

I watched GNR last July, and I watched Stones last September.

I was on the seating for GNR, and front row for the Stones.

You're not gonna like this...

GNR blew away the Stones live-performance-wise and I'm not even playing the reunion card. That's how I felt. 

The Stones worst ever night, Richards pissed-as-a-fart and Jagger hamming it up with an inflatable penis, is better than GN'R's greatest ever night. 

[scooby845]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

The Stones worst ever night, Richards pissed-as-a-fart and Jagger hamming it up with an inflatable penis, is better than GN'R's greatest ever night. 

It was my first time seeing GNR and first time seeing Stones, so it was equal opportunity to blow me away. GNR prevails.

Have you seen Stones on the No Filter tour? Or will you? (UK 2018) ?

[DeperilsofrockNRollDekednz]

30 minutes ago, scooby845 said:

It was my first time seeing GNR and first time seeing Stones, so it was equal opportunity to blow me away. GNR prevails.

Have you seen Stones on the No Filter tour? Or will you? (UK 2018) ?

 

30 minutes ago, scooby845 said:

It was my first time seeing GNR and first time seeing Stones, so it was equal opportunity to blow me away. GNR prevails.

Have you seen Stones on the No Filter tour? Or will you? (UK 2018) ?

Hopefully the Appettie rerelease will be a full on package with bells and whistles!

[killuridols]

1 hour ago, DeperilsofrockNRollDekednz said:

Hopefully the Appettie rerelease will be a full on package with bells and whistles!

What Appetite re-release? 

[RussTCB]

10 minutes ago, killuridols said:

What Appetite re-release? 

It's just a guess at this point, more or less. There was a podcast recently that had an interview with an author of a book about GN'R. He mentioned something to the effect of "Universal is remastering Appetite". 

[DieselDaisy]

3 hours ago, scooby845 said:

It was my first time seeing GNR and first time seeing Stones, so it was equal opportunity to blow me away. GNR prevails.

Have you seen Stones on the No Filter tour? Or will you? (UK 2018) ?

Out of my price range I'm afraid.

I saw them on the Babylon tour. 

[RazorGunner]

8 hours ago, tbaugerud said:

GnR could have been the next Stones. But they blew it. 

On topic: 

People can say whatever they want, but the fact is that musicians have two jobs:

Concerts and recording. 

Axl pretending to be this very political democrat of late, should realize that there are bigger worries in this world, than giving the fans something to listen to, even if it hasnt been mixed and masteren 1000 times back and forward.

I have absolutely zero sympathy for any of his excuses, and none of your fanboys' either.

 

 

You neglected to mention practicing/maintaining skill level, writing/composing  in your narrow definition of what a musician's job is. 

Axl isn't pretending anything and it's his personal twitter so he can post what he likes without your approval. 

Edited March 26, 2018 by RazorGunner

[killuridols]

5 hours ago, RussTCB said:

It's just a guess at this point, more or less. There was a podcast recently that had an interview with an author of a book about GN'R. He mentioned something to the effect of "Universal is remastering Appetite". 

Oh. I did not heard that.

Tnx

[RONIN]

11 hours ago, AncientEvil80 said:

You know, this idea that Axl wanted/had to move on musically always got to me somehow. It didn't make sense then, even less now. I get it, trying to improve and enhance is usually a good thing, but in some cases (actually many...) forcing a stylistic change just for the sake of it is just plain fucking bad and the results will show it for what it really is. Axl's perennial conflict with this concept has probably deprived us of his raw talent for many years... simplicity is usually a big part of what defines GREAT artistry, and probably even more so in rock music; completely went over Axl's head at the time, I guess...

Great post. I wouldn't have agreed with you 10 years ago, but hindsight has proven this to be true. You have to put stuff out there instead of getting caught in your head. Axl disappeared up his own ass in the name of "artistry". I imagine he probably was shocked by how his "complex" music like Estranged was lost in the shuffle while simple 3-4 minute grunge songs with just a muddy sounding guitar were all the rage back then. You have this guy who has an incredibly dynamic voice with tons of range like an opera singer - he's already considered one of the best frontmen/singers ever so early in his career - and he's writing 10 minute songs with deeply introspective lyrics, an orchestra, multiple instruments - basically he's already approaching his music like a near-auteur by Illusions after a single (legendary) album. He's at the top of his game. And he's seeing himself passed on the charts by guys like Kurt Cobain (who neither has Axl's vocal range nor is a flashy frontman/entertainer). It must have burned him. Sometimes less is more. And I don't think Axl has ever understood this. 

 

7 hours ago, tremolo said:

I see it the other way around: whoever sticks to one style and repeats the same formula over and over, is someone who clearly has not evolved as an artist.

 

In the case of music, you are influenced by different styles at different stages of your life, and your life itself changes through times, and that is reflected in the music you put out.

 

What has kept Axl from releasing material are his insecurities, not his influences. Axl is a visionary (or at least he was until the release of CD). Slash would have been comfortable remaining in GNR and releasing 15 different versions of AFD... pull an AC/DC you know...?

Agreed and those are all fair points but I think the "evolving as an artist" goes out the window when you start chasing trends and trying to be something you're not which imho is what Axl did. He didn't trust his own vision and second guessed himself. It didn't help that during the mid-90's, he was a figure of ridicule with his peers.

If you like industrial music that doesn't mean you should now do that kind of stuff because you think you will be awesome at it. Doing your own thing and evolving naturally is different from "NIN is awesome. I love Trent. I want to do similar stuff like that. I love Nirvana's drumming. I want the drums on my songs to sound like Dave Grohl's drumming. I love electronic music and that's really hot right now - I want Moby to be my producer." That's just derivative hackery. He went beyond just being influenced by his favorite music - he actually tried to hire people from his favorite bands to emulate the sounds of those bands. I think Axl was at the top of his game in the 90's and he could have put out an incredible album then (with or without Slash) but he was too obsessed with chasing fads and it paralyzed him from releasing anything. Oh my God is a perfect example of that. By the time that song came out, it was already late to the party. People were onto the next trend. God knows how many things were started/revised and then scrapped once Axl had moved onto his next muse. 

I think he may have understood this eventually by 2000/2001 when RTB came onboard as a producer. The songs start to evolve back to a more "classic" feel. But in '94, nobody could convince him he was heading in the wrong direction.

Edited March 26, 2018 by RONIN

[RazorGunner]

2 minutes ago, RONIN said:

Great post. I wouldn't have agreed with you 10 years ago, but hindsight has proven this to be true. You have to put stuff out there instead of getting caught in your head. Axl disappeared up his own ass in the name of "artistry". I imagine he probably was shocked by how his "complex" music like Estranged was lost in the shuffle while simple 3-4 minute grunge songs with just a muddy sounding guitar were all the rage back then. You have this guy who has an incredibly dynamic voice with tons of range like an opera singer - he's already considered one of the best frontmen/singers ever so early in his career - and he's writing 10 minute songs with deeply introspective lyrics, an orchestra, multiple instruments - basically he's already approaching his music like a near-auteur by Illusions after a single (legendary) album. He's at the top of his game. And he's seeing himself passed on the charts by guys like Kurt Cobain (who neither has Axl's vocal range nor is a flashy frontman/entertainer). It must have burned him. Sometimes less is more. And I don't think Axl has ever understood this. 

 

Agreed and those are all fair points but I think the "evolving as an artist" goes out the window when you start chasing trends and trying to be something you're not which imho is what Axl did. He didn't trust his own vision and second guessed himself. It didn't help that during the mid-90's, he was a figure of ridicule with his peers.

If you like industrial music that doesn't mean you should now do that kind of stuff because you think you will be awesome at it. Doing your own thing and evolving naturally is different from "NIN is awesome. I love Trent. I want to do similar stuff like that. I love Nirvana's drumming. I want the drums on my songs to sound like Dave Grohl's drumming. I love electronic music and that's really hot right now - I want Moby to be my producer." That's just derivative hackery. He went beyond just being influenced by his favorite music - he actually tried to hire people from his favorite bands to emulate the sounds of those bands. I think Axl was at the top of his game in the 90's and he could have put out an incredible album then (with or without Slash) but he was too obsessed with chasing fads and it paralyzed him from releasing anything. Oh my God is a perfect example of that. By the time that song came out, it was already late to the party. People were onto the next trend.

I think he may have understood this eventually by 2000 when RTB came onboard as a producer. The songs start to evolve back to a more "classic" feel. But in '94, nobody could convince him he was heading in the wrong direction.

 

I disagree strongly with your "derivative hackery" label. Artists are inspired by different things, no shock that it is sometimes other Artists. 

Axl was onto NIN before NIN went mainstream and was popular. 

Some of this is speculative nonsense and assumption stated as fact.  

[auad]

6 minutes ago, RONIN said:

Great post. I wouldn't have agreed with you 10 years ago, but hindsight has proven this to be true. You have to put stuff out there instead of getting caught in your head. Axl disappeared up his own ass in the name of "artistry". I imagine he probably was shocked by how his "complex" music like Estranged was lost in the shuffle while simple 3-4 minute grunge songs with just a muddy sounding guitar were all the rage back then. You have this guy who has an incredibly dynamic voice with tons of range like an opera singer - he's already considered one of the best frontmen/singers ever so early in his career - and he's writing 10 minute songs with deeply introspective lyrics, an orchestra, multiple instruments - basically he's already approaching his music like a near-auteur by Illusions after a single (legendary) album. He's at the top of his game. And he's seeing himself passed on the charts by guys like Kurt Cobain (who neither has Axl's vocal range nor is a flashy frontman/entertainer). It must have burned him. Sometimes less is more. And I don't think Axl has ever understood this. 

 

Agreed and those are all fair points but I think the "evolving as an artist" goes out the window when you start chasing trends and trying to be something you're not which imho is what Axl did. He didn't trust his own vision and second guessed himself. It didn't help that during the mid-90's, he was a figure of ridicule with his peers.

If you like industrial music that doesn't mean you should now do that kind of stuff because you think you will be awesome at it. Doing your own thing and evolving naturally is different from "NIN is awesome. I love Trent. I want to do similar stuff like that. I love Nirvana's drumming. I want the drums on my songs to sound like Dave Grohl's drumming. I love electronic music and that's really hot right now - I want Moby to be my producer." That's just derivative hackery. He went beyond just being influenced by his favorite music - he actually tried to hire people from his favorite bands to emulate the sounds of those bands. I think Axl was at the top of his game in the 90's and he could have put out an incredible album then (with or without Slash) but he was too obsessed with chasing fads and it paralyzed him from releasing anything. Oh my God is a perfect example of that. By the time that song came out, it was already late to the party. People were onto the next trend. God knows how many things were started/revised and then scrapped once Axl had moved onto his next muse. 

I think he may have understood this eventually by 2000/2001 when RTB came onboard as a producer. The songs start to evolve back to a more "classic" feel. But in '94, nobody could convince him he was heading in the wrong direction.

this

[DieselDaisy]

Rose could have just pursued the ''Estranged route'' and become the antithesis of grunge, 30 minute prog songs and all. You never know? Guns were in an important position and there would've been a lot of kids who didn't like cardigans. 

[Blackstar]

8 minutes ago, RONIN said:

I think he may have understood this eventually by 2000 when RTB came onboard as a producer. The songs start to evolve back to a more "classic" feel. But in '94, nobody could convince him he was heading in the wrong direction.

I have doubts that what Axl originally wanted to do was as "experimental" and bold as believed.

Sean Beavan said that all the songs on CD but one date from his time. And most of them (seemingly about 2/3 of CD) had already vocals on before he left, which means that Axl had singled those songs out and already intended them for the album. If we look at the songs Axl had done vocals on in '99, they are mainly the "epic" ones, i.e. those that reflect Axl's 70s influences (Street of Dreams, CITR, Madagascar... - even TWAT and Prostitute are basically "classic" rock songs), while songs like Shackler's and Scraped most likely came a little later.