You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
But it comes down to the time period for most of those things.
1. More Popular - Beatles were the first band to capture the hearts of people and speak to a whole generation with music the way no one else really had before. They are without doubt more popular - at one time everyone in the world was a fan - but that's also about historical factors in popular culture and more - baby boomers growing up and so on.
2. More influential is a product of being first - they wrote their songs 25 years earlier - and of course if you have never before seen popularity you are inherently going to influence the entire generation that was obsessed with you.
3. Musicianship I disagree they're more talented. Slash is a better guitarist than anyone in the Beatles. Axl plays keys better than anyone in the beatles. Axl's vocal range is a lot wider than anyone in the beatles. GNR could play a beatles song but beatles could not necessarily play a GNR song. As for songwriting - well it's about time - beatles were amazing but they also operated within an entirely different time period when it comes to creativity. As I was discussing with D - later audiences both have the benefit of prior creative works but also the problem of being innovational around what's left to experiment. I don't think you can fairly say who would be more creative without swapping them in time. What would Axl write if he was born when John Lennon was - and what would John write if he grew up listening to Axl? You can't divorce the time periods from the equation.
4. Critical Acclaim - again much like #2 - this is a subspecies of the freakshow level of popularity and influence they achieved in their day.
I'm not saying they're not a great band. I'm saying you can't really compare them due to the time periods. As one follows the other's work.
It's like how good would the best USA president these days have to be to be better than Washington . It's hard to say - as whatever he or she does it's inherently based on the environment those guys made. Which is why they should get props for being first...but at some point it can't mean they are the best for all time...eventually you might find a better president....
Same with the beatles...massive respect for innovation and paving the way....but does it mean they're better than everything else ever? Not to my ears.
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
Sky Dog wrote:monkeychow wrote:^ I'd say GNR blows half the bands on that list totally away, especially Nirvana and Pearl Jam, it's not matching up it's destruction.
As for Beatles and Rolling Stones, I enjoy GNR a ton more, but I do give those bands some credit for being the founding fathers.
Please explain why Gnr is better....I want objective data and reasoning...not "Slash is a better lead player" or you connect with Axl's lyrics. Please tell me what Gnr does and did better than ANY of the bands I named.
Well there is no objective test as to how any music is better than another. People's response to music is inherently subjective - unless you want to get into generalised popularity - like more people agree that Lady Gaga is worth buying than album X - but I don't think that's a test anyone would really use to define what's better.
So the test is always going to be things like who one considers a better lead player, I don't see why it shouldn't be mentioned, after all the arguments that any of those bands are better would have to be phrased in similar terms.
So I'll go through them:
Zep - I already discussed comparison to Zep previously.
Aerosmith - This is a tough one as it's a similar band and clearly one of the primary influences on GNR's sound. Never been an Aerosmith then there would probably never have been a GNR. So they get some credit for that. Sorry to bring up the things you forbid, but when it comes down to it, Slash's playing is moulded from Joe Perry's but he takes it to the next level, Axl in his prime was a similar singer to Steven - there's a strong argument that Steven's aged a lot better in that his performances at 50 were better than Axl's are now. However GNR's songwriting is on a deeper level. Aerosmith is a great band - but lyrically their songs are great and fun - but they're not on serious subjects the same way GNR can do. "Walk This Way" is not "Estranged" although they're both great songs. Basically GNR is the same band as aerosmith just with more depth to it's roots and consequently a wider style.
The Who - I consider this one of the most overrated bands of all time, talented bass player, but that's the only attraction.
Nirvana - Kurt was an interesting songwriter in that he would take simple ideas and make big things out of them. However, his guitar skills are seriously limited, and his lyrics are mostly nonsense. At first it seems like he's a heartfelt poet - then you read him say he composed them instrumentally then just puts whatever line fits in the space there. It's a real fine line...if you're in the right mood then "aqua seafoam shame" could be a really pronounced and heavy lyrical idea....but it turns out he's really not william yeats after all...even if he thinks he is. I do give kurt marks for powerful presentation of simple songs though. Two decades on and Nirvana's shocking new sound turns out to be more dated than the music they liked to mock. Had a listen to nevermind or bleach these days? They're not holding up well. Turns out the whole of this sound was basically just a fun reversion to "simple" music after the virtuoso lead 1980s. Some cool ideas wtih swapping from soft to loud and so on. But its a one-trick band. Great drums over a lot of distortion on and off and a guy who can scream like he means it. It was burnt out and getting repetitious by In Utero. Where can it go once you've played all the 3 chord songs there are. It's no coincidence that the songs on unplugged that are best are the David Bowie Cover, the Meatpuppets Cover, and the Leadbelly Cover. I'm sick of the kurt mythology - he wrote some interesting songs - but he had many shortcomings as a musician too that people overlook cos he put himself in the 27 club.
Pearl Jam - Never understood the fuss...decent band...don't have an issue with them....but wouldn't be anywhere near my list of all time greats.
Monk, when people start using the word "dated", I stop listening.....Nevermind and Bleach are just as awesome today as they were then. Hank Williams recordings in the early 50's are just as good now as they were then. The Carter Family songs from the 20's are incredible. A good song is a good song, no matter when it was recorded. To even say "dated" is actually really "dated"...it is an ignorant way to say you simply don't like the song or are just tired of the song. People get dated...a good song doesn't.
metallex78- Rep: 194
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
metallex78 wrote:Nirvana sounds more dated to me than UYI does like a lot of people here claim. Which is not to say I still don't enjoy the hell out of listening to Nirvana
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
Monk, when people start using the word "dated", I stop listening.....Nevermind and Bleach are just as awesome today as they were then.
In general I agree in that I don't like the mentality that something old is no longer good just because it is old.
However, at the same time, it depends why it was good in the first place.
Bleach was good because we'd just listened to a decade of virtuoso players like EVH, and here was Kurt coughing during the recording, fucking up chords but playing with a refreshing sense of honesty in an environment where things sounded over produced.
And it was good because pedal technology was pretty new - so no one had really thought of jumping between a nice clean fender sounding tone and hitting an overcooked, gain dripped stack just for the chorus.
Fast forward 20 years and that innovational loud/soft dynamic has been absorbed into popular culture, perfected, abused, and become a cliche.
And while the honesty is still there in bleach...it's more common now for people to be average at their instruments than at genius level...so it's not as refreshing as it is standard.
So that's what i mean by dated...it's not the age...it's the context...the moment where Nirvana hit it offered exactly what we all wanted to hear to change the direction of things....but 30 years on in that direction and it should be respected for what it did at that time...but it doesn't offer the innovation and excitement it once did to me.
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
Nirvana sounds more dated to me than UYI does like a lot of people here claim. Which is not to say I still don't enjoy the hell out of listening to Nirvana
That kind of makes me laugh. I turn on the radio and I still hear bands trying to sound like Nirvana.
Like Mad said, a good song is a good song and transcends everything.
And hearing what some of you guys say is dated over the years, or what is or isn't good music, I kind of write it off.
- metallex78
- Rep: 194
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
metallex78 wrote:Just because we have a hundred shitty clone bands of Nirvana now, doesn't mean that Nirvana's recordings haven't dated.
To me that means bands have less talent and picked copying the easy style of Nirvana, as opposed to the complex riffing of Slash
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
I'd say no, they haven't dated. And the fact people are still copying them shows the relevance of those recordings hasn't dated, either.
No, there's not a lot of guitarists on modern radio today as talented as Slash, but he's also making throwback rock right now, so you could make a case that his music sounds dated. But at the end of the day, people dig what they dig.
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
Kim would probably bite your head off if you even suggested he was influenced by Slash. Jerry? Yes, I believe that. But he's not exactly topping the charts these days. And I don't mean that as a slag to either guy, we're just talking todays rock music, whether you like the stuff or not. I'd bet more of todays guitarists would say they were influenced more by The Edge than Slash.
Beatles were derivitave of buddy holly amongst other late 50's music
People act like they invented the pop song or chord progression.
Its just music, no more, no less.
A "G, C, D" doesn't sound any better when they play it
You officially have no idea what you're talking about. 
