― tnd, Thursday, 27 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
"I can't believe anyone thinks that Guns n Roses even produced one good song" translates, in objective critical terms, to "I am so mindlessly and carelessly convinced that Guns n Roses are undeserving of my attention that I'm unable to actually listen to 'Sweet Child of Mine'" -- to which, by my count, we can add "Welcome to the Jungle," "It's So Easy," "Don't Cry," and "You Could be Mine," and that's coming from a person with little-to-no familiarity with their proper album tracks. (Here's a fellow I went to high school with discussing "Sweet Child of Mine" on AMG.)
"I'm glad that they are seen as a joke." -- please navigate the AMG (or actually read the thread you're posting to for once) for evidence of the massive falsehood of that statement.
And on and on: "The Smiths inspired lifes [sic] with their lyrics," as did Axl, for better or worse (and as did Cobain, even when he was accidentally inspiring rapes -- is this really an effective route to judging music?). Or they "wrote some of the most amazing ... tunes ever," which reads fine as a declarative statement but it's very convincing as an argument -- I think we all already know you enjoy the Smiths.
Your guilt-by-association with regard to Michael Jackson and Elton John and money and popular-film would be a lot more convincing if your argument for every band you like didn't at some point include "oh, they were important" and "the bands you like are obscure and no one cares about them" -- you need to either sort out your appeals to popularity/relevance or just admit that only middling- popular Britpop gets through the gates of your musical universe. (Were you not just hours ago taunting Julio that Skullflower would sell out if given half a chance?)
No, what bothers me most here is this: "They were/ are/ always will be a joke. Except to some Americans who 'still dig them cos they wrre, like, cool and stuff'," especially after your pointing out that I've never set foot in the UK based on my having a better understanding of the UK indie industry than you -- your caricatures are so far off the mark that it often seems like you just imagine various bands' fan-bases. Seriously, navigate that AMG entry in full and you'll work out precisely what the current US music- fan reaction to GnR is: that much as a lot of us indie-inclined folk were politically obliged to slag them at the time, it becomes clearer and clearer in retrospect that they were an intially-spectacular band, and that even their long decline into bloated, mysterious ridiculousness was a marvelous and occasionally brilliant thing to observe. Few of us want to actually admit that they were "cool" -- we're just forced at the moment to concede that they did indeed Have It for a little while. And for the millions upon millions of people who never had to "concede" that because they were with it from the beginning -- well, your typical dumb appeals to one band being "important and influential" and another being "irrelevant" aren't going to work here: GnR's influence was, for better or worse, far more massive in human terms than the Smiths' ever was. In fact one could make a good case that a lot of the credit given to Nirvana for ushering in the big rock flip-over of the early 90s belongs to GnR, the first step of a three-step walk: people who thinks GnR have everything to do with 80s hair-metal and nothing to do with 90s grunge need to either work on their mental categorization or figure out something good to say about Shannon Hoon.
As for Axl looking like "a walking thug" have you any idea what the word "thug" actually means? I say that not only because most of them are able to walk but because if you stripped off the attitude and the cultural associations and just went by visual inspection, you'd probably conclude that Moz could take Axl in a fight.
(And have you honestly never noticed how often Axl looks entirely like a woman? And not in the hair-metal sense but in an honest-to-god feminine sense?)
― nabisco%%, Thursday, 27 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
I ask because precisely what a lot of people were getting out them -- there at the tail end of the hair-metal moment -- was a band who honestly didn't seem to be selling, and band who had some bizarre over-inflated image of something they seemed to mean and didn't care much about whether that made sense or not. (And it didn't make sense, but trying to parse it was intensely captivating to a whole lot of people.)
Number 2: Even my current music taste does not evolve around what you want to be able to slag me off over (i.e. Britpop) and I have probaby attended more gigs in my time that you have. Gosh, I even recall seeing the likes of The Beastie Boys live at one time. Though heaven forbid I should like anything that isn't rooted in 1995 chart indie world right?
Number 3: I happen to hate Guns n Roses. I'm glad that the Americans are into them and still believe they had something to say. If I could be assed I'd post a link to another music forum I post on where someone made the mistake of mentioning Guns n Roses to a bunch of Stone Roses/ Smiths fans and was eaten alive. Point is?
Number 4: Yes they are a joke. I have yet to speak to anyone over here who takes them seriously and my friends are not into the same music I am either. One of my mates still loves them and he's going to see them live later this year in Leeds, but he also loves The Foo Fighters, Soundgarden, The Lemonheads, Weezer etc
Number 5: Morrissey wouldn't fight anyone. He's got too much class.
Number 6: Guns n Roses are everything that's wrong with stadium rock - no class, no meaning, no point except sex, groupies and $$$$. I want to see a band I can at least, even slightly, identify with. Guns n Roses plain stink. The Americans loved them. Well great. The Americans also bought into Bush and The Cranberries and made a star out of Eddie Veder. Now what do you want me to add to that?
Maybe I should point out that your best bands of recent years have been discovered by us first (The White Stripes, The Strokes and Mercury Rev come to mind).
― Calum Robert, Thursday, 27 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Sterling Clover, Thursday, 27 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
The Lighthouse Family, Craig David, Moloko, Ocean Colour Scene, Coldplay, Toploader and the motherfucking STEREOPHONICS for one.
― Daniel_Rf, Thursday, 27 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
I really don't know what it is about you in particular that makes me want to tear out my eyeballs and spent all day desperately trying to drag you screaming out of your own idiocy but I really must make myself stop it. Especially since you're consistently too dim to have even the most rudimentary comprehension of what I'm actually arguing with you about anyway.
Sorry, everyone for acting embarrassingly like Julio and even bothering to engage over this one.
― Keiko, Thursday, 27 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
You are American.
I'm not trying to be outwardly nasty, but I lived with three of you while doing my masters last year (I'm finishing it right now which should indicate to you I'm not dim) and it shocked me that in the States you can get a degree simply by playing football or wrestling another half naked guy. And the Americans I lived with about shat themselves when they found out they actually had to 'like, write essays and stuff'.
My fave comment by an American ever is when one of me beloved flatmates (I moved out when my brain couldn't take any more) came back from a visit to Scotland and said (quite seriously): 'You know what I hated about Scotland? That you guys have so much history up there'.
I'm glad you feel like ripping out your eyeballs when you speak to me, that means I make you think and that is what all Americans need more of, don't you think? I'm also gald that you can call me dim, when - with all seriousness, you DID try and make a link between Guns n Roses and The Smiths.
Try that at my uni bar pal. See where it gets you.
Just curious.
― electric sound of jim, Thursday, 27 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― geeta, Thursday, 27 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― gareth, Friday, 28 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
more of us shd wear union jack tea-cosies on our heads in my opinion
― mark s, Friday, 28 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
Listen - funny story, I lived with this total ugly Texas henk and she was sooo thick. She sat down to the news one day and said:
"These guys in Afghanastan are so dumb. I mean, if someone was going to bomb England I'd just get ona train and go elsewhere."
She said this with a straight face. How the hell does that get a degree let alone become accepted for a masters??? OK, so I know the answer ($$$$) but it's a sham.
I used to invite my friends from Scotland and London to my house at this point just to meet them because words would just not do the Americans justice. You HAD to meet them. They had the social skills of a retarded hyeena.
― Calum Robert, Friday, 28 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Melissa W, Friday, 28 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
Now,a s to GNR = Smiths, Morrisey articulated the inner angst whilst Axl projected the outer angsts of many a suburban queer confused white boy in the big city, disguised in lyrics on impersonality - listen to Estranged, or (if you can) ignoring the homophobic racist shtick of One in A Million, listen to the imploring, the attempts at reaching out slashed down by rejection (bad verbage I know). As to the band itself, not being familiar with the Smiths chronology of death, I can only say that I imagine the relationship between AXl-Slash and Morrisey-Marr to be similar - Axl appears with Elton, Morrisey with Siouxe (yes?), whilst Slash appears with wacko Jacko and Marr with Oasis or Primal Scream or whoever those tossers are.
― Queen I am neither Buffy nor the Messiah G, Friday, 28 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Siegbran Hetteson, Friday, 28 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Sterling Clover, Friday, 28 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― the pinefox, Friday, 28 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Daniel_Rf, Friday, 28 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Lord Custos III, Friday, 28 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
Guns n Roses sound nothing like The Smiths, they look nothing like The Smiths, the lyrics are not even comparable (Morrissey being great, Axl being slightly less than great or even passable) and they appealed to different types of people. Plus one was a stadium rock outfit who were in it for the money the drugs and the groupies. One was an indie group that changed people's lives and changed the course of British music.
Now do you understand? The two have nothing in common. And I repeat: they didn't even sound alike. AND whether you like it or not, The Smiths are still seen as great, brilliant etc, Gunsn Roses are seen as crap, a joke band etc.
So the two have even left different legacies.
If you still like Guns n Roses in the year 2002 you must be American in which case aren't you better off attending Counting Crows concerts and nuking third world countries or building McDonald's in developing nations than debating this thread?
Q.: How the hell does that get a degree let alone become accepted for a masters?
A.: Evidently she goes to the UK, and applies for the same masters program as you.
― nabisco%%, Friday, 28 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
"I will say this as well - The Manics are not best suited to be compared to Guns n Roses either. A far better band that changed lives and kicked ass on stage."
But That Bloke Out Of Manic Street Preachers admitted himself that he wanted his band to be a mix of Guns 'N' Roses and Public Enemy!!
No.
P.S. Yes you're right - the Manics did actually want to be a UK Guns n Roses/ Public Enemy. They were far too good to be the former in my humble opinion.
P.P.S Funny yank story no.987 - I switched on Brass Eye one night and was killing myself laughing when one of the Americans got up and left, having neither laughed nor been offended. 'You know I don't think I get this type of humour' she said in her vacant Texan growl.
― doom monger, Friday, 28 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Josh, Friday, 28 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― s woods, Friday, 28 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― DG, Friday, 28 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― jel --, Friday, 28 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Queen I am neither Buffy nor the Messiah G, Saturday, 29 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
I think that having read the thread there seems to be far more of a connection than I would've thought abt before but I have never given much thought to Guns and roses (its just time and place, I guess).
Both bands are something you grow out of but you'll always remember the happy memories they gave you. In terms of sound it's different and the same. I definetely get the stones' comparison to both and lyrically they did appeal to adolescents, just like every other band who had some degree of success. Guns n'Roses are surely more in the minds of other bands because they were huge. The smiths had a few chart hits in the UK but were a cult following.
Nirvana's seuccess of course, is due to the use of the power chord. they were a heavy metal band with diff. lyrical themes (though maybe not so far from the Roses). grunge is what you get when you splice punk w/heavy metal.
Its amazing to think Calum has a degree. He is acting like some bad comedian out of the 1970s (Bernard Manning comes to mind). No wonder Mark E Smith hates students. Like nabisco, i thought he must have been 13 or so. It boggles the mind.
''Sorry, everyone for acting embarrassingly like Julio and even bothering to engage over this one.''
Oh, come off it Nabisco...the way ILM is constructed, you can get into arguments that just snowball. You have argued at quite a lenght too and so have quite a few on the Sleeper thread. But yes, it is time to stop and get back into more constructive, thought-provoking discussions.
― Julio Desouza, Saturday, 29 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― jel --, Saturday, 29 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― geeta, Saturday, 29 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Lord Custos III, Saturday, 29 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― jel --, Sunday, 30 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link