|
|
Post by theyknowwhatimean on Jul 20, 2015 7:54:40 GMT -5
I think the Guns 'N' Roses jabs are ignorantly unjustified. A lot of people seem to push them in with the hair/glam metal crowd when really they're a blues based hard rock band. They've produced far better material than most bands will ever put out. A great band who are an easy target, much like Oasis. From the 80's onwards I thinks it's hard to argue that Britain produced by far the better rock music. From this point on it's been been a close fought duel with America winning out in a lot of situations. Which musicians established themselves as (the ever loosening term of) 'rock stars' during and post the 00's? America has a few cool names like Jack White and Josh Homme, but who are our biggest? Chris Martin and Alex Turner? Don't get me wrong, I like the Arctic Monkey's, but I'd take the other two in a instant. When Nirvana broke out in 1991 they instantly made Guns N Roses (and similar hair bands of the late 80s) look tame and a cultivated image of rock n roll excesses. I'm not sure if that is fair but that is what happened. Something about Nirvana type bands screamed "authentic" while those hair bands looked silly. It also didn't help that Guns N Roses stopped releasing music for almost 20 years. Hair bands haven't really come back to popularity since then.  "[talking about Welcome To The Jungle]...this was from the brief period when Guns N Roses were popular, before Nirvana came along and made them look like gay pirates! ...[Axl Rose's] crew were under strict instructions not to wake him under any circumstances, and so failed to wake him up from his afternoon nap. Guns N Roses fans were deeply disappointed. Luckily though, they were all morons that'd I leave inside a burning house to save a pig!" -Frankie Boyle |
|
|
|
Post by The Crimson Rambler on Jul 20, 2015 8:41:26 GMT -5
I think the Guns 'N' Roses jabs are ignorantly unjustified. A lot of people seem to push them in with the hair/glam metal crowd when really they're a blues based hard rock band. They've produced far better material than most bands will ever put out. A great band who are an easy target, much like Oasis. From the 80's onwards I thinks it's hard to argue that Britain produced by far the better rock music. From this point on it's been been a close fought duel with America winning out in a lot of situations. Which musicians established themselves as (the ever loosening term of) 'rock stars' during and post the 00's? America has a few cool names like Jack White and Josh Homme, but who are our biggest? Chris Martin and Alex Turner? Don't get me wrong, I like the Arctic Monkey's, but I'd take the other two in a instant. When Nirvana broke out in 1991 they instantly made Guns N Roses (and similar hair bands of the late 80s) look tame and a cultivated image of rock n roll excesses. I'm not sure if that is fair but that is what happened. Something about Nirvana type bands screamed "authentic" while those hair bands looked silly. It also didn't help that Guns N Roses stopped releasing music for almost 20 years. Hair bands haven't really come back to popularity since then. For sure and that's was most certainly a very healthy thing for rock music. It needed a good kick up the arse and it got one. I just don't find many people's views specifically on Guns 'N' Roses particularly fair or well founded, much like many people's views on Oasis in the wider music community. One thing I can respect Axl for is him wanting to push the GNR sound beyond what they were doing before, something Slash certainly had no interest in. I mean when you look at Axl's hired guns of the 90's; Nine Inch Nails' Robin Finck & Josh Freese, The Replacement's Tommy Stinson, Primus's Brain & Buckethead... these guys are no slouches and certainly won't be pushing the sounds of the 70's and 80's. Had the band carried on releasing like normal (likely without much of the original lineup) I'm sure this kind of progression would have been more publicly apparent. I mean listen to the bands only 90's (post original lineup) release: Oh My God [Demo] (Pre Finck/Buckethead but featuring Jane's Addiction's Dave Navarro). All Guns N' Roses needed to do was release music regularly, something Axl unfortunately has no interest in. |
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Jul 20, 2015 8:47:17 GMT -5
When Nirvana broke out in 1991 they instantly made Guns N Roses (and similar hair bands of the late 80s) look tame and a cultivated image of rock n roll excesses. I'm not sure if that is fair but that is what happened. Something about Nirvana type bands screamed "authentic" while those hair bands looked silly. It also didn't help that Guns N Roses stopped releasing music for almost 20 years. Hair bands haven't really come back to popularity since then. For sure and that's was most certainly a very healthy thing for rock music. It needed a good kick up the arse and it got one. I just don't find many people's views specifically on Guns 'N' Roses particularly fair or well founded, much like many people's views on Oasis in the wider music community. One thing I can respect Axl for is him wanting to push the GNR sound beyond what they were doing before, something Slash certainly had no interest in. I mean when you look at Axl's hired guns of the 90's; Nine Inch Nails' Robin Finck & Josh Freese, The Replacement's Tommy Stinson, Primus's Brain & Buckethead... these guys are no slouches and certainly won't be pushing the sounds of the 70's and 80's. Had the band carried on releasing like normal (likely without much of the original lineup) I'm sure this kind of progression would have been more publicly apparent. I mean listen to the bands only 90's (post original lineup) release: Oh My God [Demo] (Pre Finck/Buckethead but featuring Jane's Addiction's Dave Navarro). All Guns N' Roses needed to do was release music regularly, something Axl unfortunately has no interest in. Bands like Nirvana and Pearl Jam killed off Guns N Roses for good. Releasing a much hyped album almost 20 years later was stupid. All momentum lost. Axl is like a dinosaur relic. |
|
|
|
Post by The Crimson Rambler on Jul 20, 2015 9:00:50 GMT -5
For sure and that's was most certainly a very healthy thing for rock music. It needed a good kick up the arse and it got one. I just don't find many people's views specifically on Guns 'N' Roses particularly fair or well founded, much like many people's views on Oasis in the wider music community. One thing I can respect Axl for is him wanting to push the GNR sound beyond what they were doing before, something Slash certainly had no interest in. I mean when you look at Axl's hired guns of the 90's; Nine Inch Nails' Robin Finck & Josh Freese, The Replacement's Tommy Stinson, Primus's Brain & Buckethead... these guys are no slouches and certainly won't be pushing the sounds of the 70's and 80's. Had the band carried on releasing like normal (likely without much of the original lineup) I'm sure this kind of progression would have been more publicly apparent. I mean listen to the bands only 90's (post original lineup) release: Oh My God [Demo] (Pre Finck/Buckethead but featuring Jane's Addiction's Dave Navarro). All Guns N' Roses needed to do was release music regularly, something Axl unfortunately has no interest in. Bands like Nirvana and Pearl Jam killed off Guns N Roses for good. Releasing a much hyped album almost 20 years later was stupid. All momentum lost. Axl is like a dinosaur relic. I disagree that Nirvana and Pearl Jam killed Guns 'N' Roses, I think Axl did that. Nirvana simply spearheaded a wave of bands who replaced hair metal/glam metal and a lot of hard rock music, replacing it with the short lived grunge scene and alternative rock. Guns 'N' Roses lost momentum a long, long time ago. If Axl wanted to release music 20 years after the Illusions then great, but seven years later he never built on it. Shame. |
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Jul 20, 2015 9:13:20 GMT -5
Bands like Nirvana and Pearl Jam killed off Guns N Roses for good. Releasing a much hyped album almost 20 years later was stupid. All momentum lost. Axl is like a dinosaur relic. I disagree that Nirvana and Pearl Jam killed Guns 'N' Roses, I think Axl did that. Nirvana simply spearheaded a wave of bands who replaced hair metal/glam metal and a lot of hard rock music, replacing it with the short lived grunge scene and alternative rock. Guns 'N' Roses lost momentum a long, long time ago. If Axl wanted to release music 20 years after the Illusions then great, but seven years later he never built on it. Shame. A lot of those grunge/alternative bands are still chugging along. Granted you could say the same about many short lived Brit pop bands as well. Guns n Roses should have felt pushed by Nirvana and Pearl Jam to create better music. Instead they retreated and hid. Band members fled. Now Axl (like Liam) is mostly known for his off the stage antics than for the music. At least in America. |
|
|
|
Post by theyknowwhatimean on Jul 20, 2015 9:49:29 GMT -5
His brain addled by hamburger consumption, Elvis actually turned down the chance to sing this tune... Bowie offered it to him on a plate and he turned it down... What a lummox. |
|
|
|
Post by The Crimson Rambler on Jul 20, 2015 10:29:08 GMT -5
I disagree that Nirvana and Pearl Jam killed Guns 'N' Roses, I think Axl did that. Nirvana simply spearheaded a wave of bands who replaced hair metal/glam metal and a lot of hard rock music, replacing it with the short lived grunge scene and alternative rock. Guns 'N' Roses lost momentum a long, long time ago. If Axl wanted to release music 20 years after the Illusions then great, but seven years later he never built on it. Shame. A lot of those grunge/alternative bands are still chugging along. Granted you could say the same about many short lived Brit pop bands as well. Guns n Roses should have felt pushed by Nirvana and Pearl Jam to create better music. Instead they retreated and hid. Band members fled. Now Axl (like Liam) is mostly known for his off the stage antics than for the music. At least in America. I don't think Guns N Roses necessarily needed to create 'better' music as both 1991's Illusion records we're well received and contained some of the band's best material. They just needed to evolve, something Axl wanted to do and something Slash didn't. These musical differences led to a difficulties following up the albums and left Axl pretty much on his own come 1996/97. I think Axl's intentions have always been for the good of the band and putting the music first, whatever the consequences but unfortunately Axl's complete lack of output and unwillingness to defend himself in the public, (especially when compared to the outputs of Slash, Duff McKagen, ect.) has left people little to talk about, minus his on/off stage antics and his rapidly deteriorating voice/appearance... much like Liam indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Jul 20, 2015 15:15:16 GMT -5
For sure and that's was most certainly a very healthy thing for rock music. It needed a good kick up the arse and it got one. I just don't find many people's views specifically on Guns 'N' Roses particularly fair or well founded, much like many people's views on Oasis in the wider music community. One thing I can respect Axl for is him wanting to push the GNR sound beyond what they were doing before, something Slash certainly had no interest in. I mean when you look at Axl's hired guns of the 90's; Nine Inch Nails' Robin Finck & Josh Freese, The Replacement's Tommy Stinson, Primus's Brain & Buckethead... these guys are no slouches and certainly won't be pushing the sounds of the 70's and 80's. Had the band carried on releasing like normal (likely without much of the original lineup) I'm sure this kind of progression would have been more publicly apparent. I mean listen to the bands only 90's (post original lineup) release: Oh My God [Demo] (Pre Finck/Buckethead but featuring Jane's Addiction's Dave Navarro). All Guns N' Roses needed to do was release music regularly, something Axl unfortunately has no interest in. Bands like Nirvana and Pearl Jam killed off Guns N Roses for good. Releasing a much hyped album almost 20 years later was stupid. All momentum lost. Axl is like a dinosaur relic. I know of a few Americans who would say the same thing about the brothers Gallagher. Just saying. |
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Jul 20, 2015 16:17:18 GMT -5
Bands like Nirvana and Pearl Jam killed off Guns N Roses for good. Releasing a much hyped album almost 20 years later was stupid. All momentum lost. Axl is like a dinosaur relic. I know of a few Americans who would say the same thing about the brothers Gallagher. Just saying. I agree 100%. Most Americans I know think Oasis broke up in September 1996! Be Here Now? Be Here What?!?!?!?!?!!? |
|
|
|
Post by oasisserbia on Jul 22, 2015 12:14:46 GMT -5
Uk by far but two best bands at this moment are from Australia and Canada.
|
|
|
|
Post by mimmihopps on Jul 22, 2015 12:17:28 GMT -5
Iceland got Sigur Ros! But I wouldn't call them a "Rock band".
|
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jul 22, 2015 19:11:38 GMT -5
Britain gave us Oasis.
Game. Set. Match.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Jul 22, 2015 21:08:37 GMT -5
Britain gave us Oasis. Game. Set. Match. Britain also gave us you! End. Of. Humanity. |
|
|
|
Post by sgtpeppr on Jul 23, 2015 1:21:29 GMT -5
Uk by far but two best bands at this moment are from Australia and Canada. australia actually had a bit of a golden era in the 90s. some amazing bands and the overall scene wouldve rivaled the UK & US. but those days are gone. not sure who you mean at the minute tho? |
|
|
|
Post by The Crimson Rambler on Jul 23, 2015 3:28:22 GMT -5
Uk by far but two best bands at this moment are from Australia and Canada. australia actually had a bit of a golden era in the 90s. some amazing bands and the overall scene wouldve rivaled the UK & US. but those days are gone. not sure who you mean at the minute tho? At a guess I'd say Tame Impala & Arcade Fire... |
|
|
|
Post by WirralRiddler on Jul 23, 2015 5:27:40 GMT -5
Elvis wasn't fit to lace David Bowie's bright red Japanese platform boots. ridiculous statement.  made me chuckle though, fair play |
|
|
|
Post by WirralRiddler on Jul 23, 2015 5:29:38 GMT -5
Uk by far but two best bands at this moment are from Australia and Canada. Arctic Monkeys are British mate. FYI |
|
|
|
Post by sgtpeppr on Jul 23, 2015 8:21:19 GMT -5
australia actually had a bit of a golden era in the 90s. some amazing bands and the overall scene wouldve rivaled the UK & US. but those days are gone. not sure who you mean at the minute tho? At a guess I'd say Tame Impala & Arcade Fire... yeah, i guess theyre pretty good. but i was thinking of bands like: jebediah, grinspoon, spiderbait, powderfinger, frenzal, superjesus, the living end, TISM, regurgitator, silverchair, john butler, sonic animation...just so many. the living end in particular. not so much for great music (altho they were very good), but because of chris cheney (lead guitar). this guy is one of the best guitarists of his/our generation. does not get the props he deserves. he can keep up with anyone around. compared to these bands the new gen stuff is kinda tame...impala. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2015 8:51:16 GMT -5
It's all about the UK. About 95% of my music collection is from the North of England, I think that definitely says something. 75% of that is from Manchester or Liverpool.
|
|
|
|
Post by theyknowwhatimean on Jul 25, 2015 14:45:52 GMT -5
Elvis wasn't fit to lace David Bowie's bright red Japanese platform boots. ridiculous statement. made me chuckle though, fair play It wasn't written to amuse... It was written to educate. |
|
|
|
Post by Let It🩸 on Jul 25, 2015 15:55:32 GMT -5
eva's probably fucked this guy...  God bless.
|
|
|
|
Post by theyknowwhatimean on Jul 27, 2015 6:22:02 GMT -5
Britain gave us Oasis. Game. Set. Match. Britain also gave us you! End. Of. Humanity. He has spent a lot of time in the US though... Surely some of the blame must be placed on you guys for how he's turned out, no? |
|
|
|
Post by The Milkman & The Riverman on Jul 27, 2015 6:28:27 GMT -5
Beatles Stones were american blues and rock n roll standards cover bands at the start.only later they devepoled their own style and british feel to their songwriting so its all like a snowball really.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2020 4:31:43 GMT -5
Funny I found this thread again, I did vote UK by far back in the day. I would have a way more subtle approach now. You could argue that UK had better rock bands to reach mainstream success, but the american independant rock circus is unbelievable. Names that come to my mind: Big Star, The Velvet Underground, Love, Pavement, Elliott Smith, Sparklehorse, Pixies, Mazzy Star, The Stooges, Sonic Youth, Kurt Vile, The Strokes, Dinosaur Jr., MGMT, Daniel Johnston and many others. Add to that also The Beach Boys, R.E.M., Nirvana, Buddy Holly, Bob Dylan, Simon and Garfunkel, Johnny Cash, Creedence Clearwater Revival, Jimi Hendrix etc. Old thread I know  |
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Aug 1, 2020 5:02:40 GMT -5
The fact that people have spent the first three pages of this thread talking about Aerosmith, Guns n Roses, and The Foo Fighters shows why this is a comfortable win for Britain. Gotta give credit to Black America for the original blues, and they did come up with Dylan and Nirvana, but aside from that it's no contest.
|
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5