DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => General Music Discussion => Topic started by: KevShmev on July 07, 2021, 06:54:10 PM
-
Ah yes, two more hugely popular hard rock records that many would argue still stand up today.
I think the GnR album might have higher highs (maybe), but Back in Black is so darn consistent, and I've always found Appetite... a bit hit or miss. AC/DC all the way for me.
-
Interesting matchup, Kev.
I love Appetite, but this is easy. Back In Black all the way.
-
Back In Black easily. Appetite is an awesome record, but… very few are better than BIB.
-
Back in Black is so darn consistent, and I've always found Appetite... a bit hit or miss.
It's the opposite for me, Back in Black always just had too many songs I thought were average for me to ever hold it in as high regard as everyone else, even at the height of my fandom for AC/DC.
I'm voting for Appetite.
-
Back in Black is the epitome of boring rock music.
So Appetite wins by default.
-
Too hard to vote
I consider them both to be the two greatest hard rock albums ever made.
I might give a slight edge to Appetite for being a tiny bit more consistent. That album is just too damn good, like better than it has any right to be. I’ve often had conspiracies in my head that some of the cuts were ghost written by more talented musicians.
-
I loved both - played the hell out of them. I was into GnR for about a year before they blew up in the UK. I’d bought the album on import. I lost a little love fir it when too many of the songs were played everywhere, but when Axl started acting like a complete tool I just walked away from them. I didn’t buy anything after Lies.
These days, I’m far more likely to reach for BiB so voted for that.
-
I think the two best songs are on Back In Black but I only like about half that album and all of A4D, so the latter gets my vote.
-
I like reading how many songs are average on Back in Black. Every song was on the radio when it came out.
Not many albums could boast about that.
AC/DC all the way.
-
If you asked me a couple years ago it'd be GnR easily, but over time I've really come to appreciate AC/DC a lot more so BiB gets my vote.
-
This is really tough. The best parts of both are really good. The weaker parts of both are, shall we say, weaker. I'm going to give the edge to Back In Black, because there are fewer weaker tracks and it's so seminal in my musical upbringing. But both are records I still listen to a LOT, and both have songs I want to hear frequently.
-
For me, this is the biggest no brainer in the history of no-brainers.
I don't LOVE BIB. Bells, Shoot, the title track and Shook are all really good, fun songs. However, AC/DC has a very bluesy side that doesn't appeal to me. However,...
GNR is pretty much the worst band ever. I will never forget the day I first heard the band. In the '70s and early '80s, southern California had two MAJOR rock stations: KLOS and KMET. These were huge AOR stations that played all the best rock music. Jim Ladd was a staple on KMET. By the mid-'80s, however, those stations were softening their format big time and, by early 1987, KMET changed to a new age station. In early 1986, a station called KNAC converted to an all-hard rock and metal format that it dubbed "Pure Rock." This was THE radio station of my early adult days.
Anyway, I was at work (Baskin Robbins at a mall) sometime during the middle part of 1987, and the DJ was saying that he or she was going to play a song by this great new artist. My friend and I gathered closer to the radio, and they played Mr. Brownstone. I thought the music was ok, but then the vocals started, and I thought for a minute that it must be a joke -- some sort of novelty thing like Weird Al. Sadly, no. If I still listened to music on the radio, GNR would be one of two bands (the Doors being the other) that would make me change the station instantly. Cannot stand that band or anything they've ever done. How they managed to become a "hall of fame" band on the strength of what? Three albums and an EP? Is just baffling to me.
-
Appetite easily.
I like BIB, but I have heard it so many times. Not to mention the fact that all of the songs kind of sound the same.
-
Appetite, for sure.
Back in Black is a classic, and I enjoy it greatly, but Appetite is actually one of my all-time favorite albums. Love everything in it, from the mega-hits to the deeper cuts.
-
Appetite all the way. Back in Black is so played out, while Appetite can still sound fresh.
-
Neither? :dunno:
-
Tough call, but I think for me it comes down to variety in this case, and Appetite simply has more variety. Both albums have killer songs from start to finish, but Appetite has more distinct, unique riffs from one song to the next, as well as more varied vocal lines, and Axl Rose sounds like three or four different people across the whole record. The vocal melodies are pretty cool, too. It's hard to write a real catchy melody for a hook, doubly so for the verses, and both bands managed to do it for every song on their respective albums. Both are timeless. I also think the lyrical themes are in Appetite's favor. Back In Black is very much a meat and potatoes rock and roll record about hot chicks, rock'n'roll, and all that. Appetite's got a bit more depth in that regard, to me.
-
Back in Black was a definitive record for a legendary band, as well as one that turned me into who and what I am today. Appetite is a steaming pile of shit. Frankly, pg1067's assessment of GnR is far too generous.
-
I like reading how many songs are average on Back in Black. Every song was on the radio when it came out.
Not many albums could boast about that.
Boston's self titled album! :metal
-
I like reading how many songs are average on Back in Black. Every song was on the radio when it came out.
Not many albums could boast about that.
Boston's self titled album! :metal
Yup . Led Zep IV & The Cars Self titled as well.
-
I like reading how many songs are average on Back in Black. Every song was on the radio when it came out.
Not many albums could boast about that.
Boston's self titled album! :metal
Yup . Led Zep IV & The Cars Self titled as well.
Not to mention The Dark Side of the Moon.
-
Yup. May be a few more or close. (9 of 11 ect)
Those albums deserve to be put up on a pedestal.
-
Gotta go with Appetite. For me, I think it comes down to timeline. BiB was a little before I was into harder rock. I was only 7 at the time. So, I found this album probably 3-4 years later. With Appetite, I can remember when the album came out and getting it on vinyl. That album is much more engrained in my memory. And, I like it more overall.
-
For me, this is the biggest no brainer in the history of no-brainers.
I don't LOVE BIB. Bells, Shoot, the title track and Shook are all really good, fun songs. However, AC/DC has a very bluesy side that doesn't appeal to me. However,...
GNR is pretty much the worst band ever. I will never forget the day I first heard the band. In the '70s and early '80s, southern California had two MAJOR rock stations: KLOS and KMET. These were huge AOR stations that played all the best rock music. Jim Ladd was a staple on KMET. By the mid-'80s, however, those stations were softening their format big time and, by early 1987, KMET changed to a new age station. In early 1986, a station called KNAC converted to an all-hard rock and metal format that it dubbed "Pure Rock." This was THE radio station of my early adult days.
Anyway, I was at work (Baskin Robbins at a mall) sometime during the middle part of 1987, and the DJ was saying that he or she was going to play a song by this great new artist. My friend and I gathered closer to the radio, and they played Mr. Brownstone. I thought the music was ok, but then the vocals started, and I thought for a minute that it must be a joke -- some sort of novelty thing like Weird Al. Sadly, no. If I still listened to music on the radio, GNR would be one of two bands (the Doors being the other) that would make me change the station instantly. Cannot stand that band or anything they've ever done. How they managed to become a "hall of fame" band on the strength of what? Three albums and an EP? Is just baffling to me.
I get that we like what we like, but of all the sort of "new", "young" bands that have made the HoF in their first year or so - Green Day, Foo Fighters, etc. - who I also am baffled by, I have seen GnR back in the day, and they are a step above when it comes to the live experience. I've frequently written about the vibe and attitude of seeing them live back in 80's and 90's. It was just different. It was, for lack of a better word, "dangerous". It was one of a handful of shows I've ever seen where the music felt... alive. It felt dynamic. It felt like there was something more going on than just a guy fingering notes and singing words. It's almost impossible to put into words, but it's real (I've written about feeling the same thing at a Page and Plant concert, where I almost felt like I was in a trance).
EDIT: Oh, and I saw the Chinese Democracy club tour, and Axl gave one of the best vocal performances I've ever heard. Three hours, sang the whole show (except for a handful of solo spots) and in the moment sounded excellent.
-
GNR is pretty much the worst band ever.
the vocals started, and I thought for a minute that it must be a joke
Cannot stand that band or anything they've ever done. How they managed to become a "hall of fame" band on the strength of what? Three albums and an EP? Is just baffling to me.
Frankly, pg1067's assessment of GnR is far too generous.
:lol :lol :lol
-
I get that we like what we like, but of all the sort of "new", "young" bands that have made the HoF in their first year or so - Green Day, Foo Fighters, etc. - who I also am baffled by, I have seen GnR back in the day, and they are a step above when it comes to the live experience. I've frequently written about the vibe and attitude of seeing them live back in 80's and 90's. It was just different. It was, for lack of a better word, "dangerous". It was one of a handful of shows I've ever seen where the music felt... alive. It felt dynamic. It felt like there was something more going on than just a guy fingering notes and singing words. It's almost impossible to put into words, but it's real (I've written about feeling the same thing at a Page and Plant concert, where I almost felt like I was in a trance).
Fear that the lead singer could hurl himself into the crowd and incite a riot definitely can add a "dangerous" vibe to a rock concert. ;)
-
I get that we like what we like, but of all the sort of "new", "young" bands that have made the HoF in their first year or so - Green Day, Foo Fighters, etc. - who I also am baffled by, I have seen GnR back in the day, and they are a step above when it comes to the live experience. I've frequently written about the vibe and attitude of seeing them live back in 80's and 90's. It was just different. It was, for lack of a better word, "dangerous". It was one of a handful of shows I've ever seen where the music felt... alive. It felt dynamic. It felt like there was something more going on than just a guy fingering notes and singing words. It's almost impossible to put into words, but it's real (I've written about feeling the same thing at a Page and Plant concert, where I almost felt like I was in a trance).
EDIT: Oh, and I saw the Chinese Democracy club tour, and Axl gave one of the best vocal performances I've ever heard. Three hours, sang the whole show (except for a handful of solo spots) and in the moment sounded excellent.
I'm not really sure about the HoF, and that's probably not very important anyway...but as far as I'm concerned GnR captured lighting in a bottle with Appetite. It's just an incredible set of songs, and I always felt there was so much more going on musically than with a lot of their peers in that "scene". The arrangements, the interplay between the guitars, the drumming that just fit so perfectly...it feels like songs that were brewed to perfection.
I also agree (at least with those that do like Appetite! ;D) that Appetite is the reason they became who they became. Lies! is a cool EP. Then Use Your Illusion - I mean, my 14-year old self was as excited as anyone when the UYIs came out, but whether you like them or not (I'm in the pretty common "they could have made a much better single album" camp), they almost sounded like a different band (minus the vocals). And after that, well, there is nothing else, really. Chinese Democracy is, quite obviously, an Axl solo record - a fascinating one, perhaps, but that's what it is.
Just out of curiosity - those who really hate Appetite: is it mostly the vocals, or you think the the songs are overall just not good?
-
Fear that the lead singer could hurl himself into the crowd and incite a riot definitely can add a "dangerous" vibe to a rock concert. ;)
Actually it was a fear that Axl would stop a show at any moment and freak out, which he was famous for.
I saw them a bunch of times back in the day and that only happened once.
EDIT: Oh, and I saw the Chinese Democracy club tour,
Oh, and I saw the Appetite club tour. ;D
I'm not really sure about the HoF, and that's probably not very important anyway...but as far as I'm concerned GnR captured lighting in a bottle with Appetite. It's just an incredible set of songs, and I always felt there was so much more going on musically than with a lot of their peers in that "scene". The arrangements, the interplay between the guitars, the drumming that just fit so perfectly...it feels like songs that were brewed to perfection.
It's almost a perfect hard rock album.
-
Appetite has "rocket queen". Close call but that gets my vote.
-
Fear that the lead singer could hurl himself into the crowd and incite a riot definitely can add a "dangerous" vibe to a rock concert. ;)
Actually it was a fear that Axl would stop a show at any moment and freak out, which he was famous for.
I saw them a bunch of times back in the day and that only happened once.
It wasn't that specific. Slash was obviously wasted, as was Duff... it was just all over the map, and held together with duct tape and bailing wire, but it was GOOD.
-
Just out of curiosity - those who really hate Appetite: is it mostly the vocals, or you think the the songs are overall just not good?
It's MOSTLY the vocals. I don't mind Paradise City, but even that song gets repetitive. For me, the music is mediocre, generic, bluesy hard rock, and that sort of thing doesn't appeal to me even when it's done well.* I also couldn't stand the band's image. I saw them once live, and it was quite meh, but they were opening for the Rolling Stones at the LA Coliseum, so I doubt it was particularly representative of the band.
* - Caveat: I looked at the track list, and there are at least four songs I've never heard, so my comments are limited to the "hits."
-
I was at the Monsters of Rock festival at Donington where Guns played, having just become huge in the UK. I was down at the front and spent the first three songs trying not to die (3 people did die in the crush as people surged towards the stage). I spent the next few songs passing people over my head to the stewards at the front to get them out of the crush. It was the most scared I’ve ever been. There were times my feet weren’t on the floor and you just got carried where the surge went.
-
I liked GnRs hits, but never bothered to deep dive in to Appetite, or any of their other albums. I thought Axl came across as a douche, but his vocals never bothered me any.
My mom, who never liked anything heavier than Neil Diamond or Rod Stewart, loved Paradise City.
-
If there's any knock about Appetite, it's that it's two songs two long. But side one is solid as a rock, and side two, except for My Michelle (a true story, by the way) and maybe Anything Goes, side two is good, too. Rocket Queen? C'mon.
-
BIB by light years.
But I don't see any equivalence of these two albums except for being in the same decade.
They're 7 years apart. One is a highlight of a career that built fundamental building blocks of heavy rock arrangement, and a milestone in music production, the other is, erm, GnR. Guh... They had some great riffs and leads but the whole badass posturing and attitude bugs me so much it hurts. And Axl's vocals...
-
I was at the Monsters of Rock festival at Donington where Guns played, having just become huge in the UK. I was down at the front and spent the first three songs trying not to die (3 people did die in the crush as people surged towards the stage). I spent the next few songs passing people over my head to the stewards at the front to get them out of the crush. It was the most scared I’ve ever been. There were times my feet weren’t on the floor and you just got carried where the surge went.
I've been in one of those (Metallica, Mexico City) and yeah, it's some scary shit. I've been dealing with (and enjoying) crowd rushes since I was a wee lad, but when it gets to the point where nobody has any control over anything you start thinking about how to GTFO.
-
If there's any knock about Appetite, it's that it's two songs two long. But side one is solid as a rock, and side two, except for My Michelle (a true story, by the way) and maybe Anything Goes, side two is good, too. Rocket Queen? C'mon.
Assuming I am reading this right, you are praising Rocket Queen, right?
Even though I am not a big fan of Guns N' Roses, they do have a handful of what I would call legit great songs, and Rocket Queen is one of them. I also have mad love for Patience, which was one of my favorites songs of 1988 at the time. MTV played that a ton and I never got tired of it.
-
I was at the Monsters of Rock festival at Donington where Guns played, having just become huge in the UK. I was down at the front and spent the first three songs trying not to die (3 people did die in the crush as people surged towards the stage). I spent the next few songs passing people over my head to the stewards at the front to get them out of the crush. It was the most scared I’ve ever been. There were times my feet weren’t on the floor and you just got carried where the surge went.
I've been in one of those (Metallica, Mexico City) and yeah, it's some scary shit. I've been dealing with (and enjoying) crowd rushes since I was a wee lad, but when it gets to the point where nobody has any control over anything you start thinking about how to GTFO.
I have a funny story about losing my place for the opening night on the Rush- Power Windows tour. I need to type it out on a computer. lol
-
I also have mad love for Patience, which was one of my favorites songs of 1988 at the time. MTV played that a ton and I never got tired of it.
I loved that song too, never got old despite the ridiculous air time it got. Could be the one song of theirs I wouldn't switch off if it came on the radio right now. That and maybe Civil War.
-
I'm not really sure about the HoF, and that's probably not very important anyway...but as far as I'm concerned GnR captured lighting in a bottle with Appetite. It's just an incredible set of songs, and I always felt there was so much more going on musically than with a lot of their peers in that "scene". The arrangements, the interplay between the guitars, the drumming that just fit so perfectly...it feels like songs that were brewed to perfection.
I agree, Appetite is just too damn good, I simply have a hard time conceiving that those strung out 20-somethings put together an album THAT good. Listen to all the guitar work that’s going on in the left and right channel between Izzy and Slash; I can’t think of another rock band that made better use of the two guitar arrangement (except maybe Ac/Dc, ironically).
-
Close one. Both made my top 50, so I went with the one I ranked higher.
Back in Black. There is no weakness on that album. Appetite has a couple of quasi-fillers (My Michelle, It's So Easy, You're Crazy). For as much as we've heard the big-3 songs from BiB to death, they are still 3 of the greatest hard rock songs of all-time. Any radio station that does a Top <insert number here> list/countdown, all three will invariably show up in a list of 100 songs or more. Not sure the same would be said for Appetite's big-3.
-
If there's any knock about Appetite, it's that it's two songs two long. But side one is solid as a rock, and side two, except for My Michelle (a true story, by the way) and maybe Anything Goes, side two is good, too. Rocket Queen? C'mon.
Assuming I am reading this right, you are praising Rocket Queen, right?
Even though I am not a big fan of Guns N' Roses, they do have a handful of what I would call legit great songs, and Rocket Queen is one of them. I also have mad love for Patience, which was one of my favorites songs of 1988 at the time. MTV played that a ton and I never got tired of it.
Rocket Queen is my favorite song on the album, and it's not really that close.
AFD: Rocket Queen
GnRL!: One In A Million (no, not because of the lyrics; I love the guitar mix on that song).
UYI1: The Garden
UYI2: Estranged
TSI?:Hair Of The Dog
CD: Sorry (Maybe)
-
UYI1: The Garden
Alice Cooper is awesome on this song!
-
Rocket Queen is my favorite song on the album, and it's not really that close.
AFD: Rocket Queen
GnRL!: One In A Million (no, not because of the lyrics; I love the guitar mix on that song).
UYI1: The Garden
UYI2: Estranged
TSI?:Hair Of The Dog
CD: Sorry (Maybe)
Rocket Queen is amazing, but it's really hard for me to pick a favorite on Appetite. As for the rest:
Lies!: Patience - I, too, couldn't get tired of it no matter how much it was played
UYI1: November Rain (yes, it's a bit ridiculous and overwrought, but I love it so much ;D And it's a testament to how big GnR were at the time. An almost 9-minute song, with a bunch of different sections and two solos to boot, with a video - of the full thing! - in heavy rotation...)
UY2: It's a toss...Civil War/You Could Be Mine/Estranged...but probably the latter.
-
Rocket Queen is my favorite song on the album, and it's not really that close.
I can't say I prefer it to Welcome to the Jungle, but it's probably a 1a and 1b situation for me. Think About Your and Mr. Brownstone would be in the next tier. Paradise City could've been their best song ever had Axl's vocals not sucked ass in it.
-
Mr Brownstone is one of my least favorite songs on the album. I mean, it only outranks Out To Get Me and You're Crazy.
-
Mr Brownstone is one of my least favorite songs on the album. I mean, it only outranks Out To Get Me and You're Crazy.
You're crazy.
-
Mr Brownstone is one of my least favorite songs on the album. I mean, it only outranks Out To Get Me and You're Crazy.
You're crazy.
You're just out to get me.
-
Mr Brownstone is one of my least favorite songs on the album. I mean, it only outranks Out To Get Me and You're Crazy.
You're crazy.
You're just out to get me.
One this is for sure: you are not f'ing innocent.
-
Every single song on AfD is 10/10…except Think About You…which probably a 7.
But even then, I think I have to give the edge to Back in Black. I’m burnt out on the big 3, but if I take myself back to 1980 when I heard it for the first time, every song on that album is a 10.
-
Not for nothing, I watched the Velvet Revolver Blu-ray from Germany last night and the versions of It's So Easy and Mr. Brownstone were SOLID. Weiland was a better front man than I remember and VR was a better band than I remember.
-
Appetite by a mile. Not a fan of BIB. Can't stand Brian Johnson's vocals, the fingernails on a chalkboard to me.
-
Every single song on AfD is 10/10…except Think About You…which probably a 7.
But even then, I think I have to give the edge to Back in Black. I’m burnt out on the big 3, but if I take myself back to 1980 when I heard it for the first time, every song on that album is a 10.
What I always want to know in these polls is the age breakdown of who votes for what. We're ranking an album that came out well before a lot of people here were born and judging it by modern standards. In terms of who was better musically that's alright, but I think you also have to take into account, at least somewhat, the effect they had on the musical landscape. BiB was a sound we hadn't really heard before. GnR was derivative.
-
What I always want to know in these polls is the age breakdown of who votes for what. We're ranking an album that came out well before a lot of people here were born and judging it by modern standards. In terms of who was better musically that's alright, but I think you also have to take into account, at least somewhat, the effect they had on the musical landscape. BiB was a sound we hadn't really heard before. GnR was derivative.
In general, I think you are right, if we are trying to ascertain which album is better in a more "objective" way. But isn't that basically an impossible exercise anyway? Plus, the idea of contextualizing the historical importance of a record is especially relevant if we are comparing something that came out, say, 5 vs. 40 years ago. But, even sharing your view that BiB was less derivative and had more of an effect on the musical landscape than Appetite, we are still talking about two albums that came out 41 and 34 years ago, respectively.
Musically speaking, GnR were definitely taking plenty of cues from Aerosmith and a harder-rocking version of the Stones, but they were very much their own thing, in many ways, already on Appetite. There were certain elements in the songs that were borderline metal and, as was mentioned before, some of the intricacies in the arrangements and guitars' interplay between Izzy and Slash were way beyond what the glam/street metal bands were doing at the time (IMO). I first heard Appetite in 1989, and I was 12 at the time. I discovered AC/DC a little later. BiB is a great, iconic album. I find Appetite nearly as iconic and, musically, I just like it better.
But, at the end of the day, it's a just lot of fun to think about these comparisons - and it's a good excuse to revisit timeless classics (although I take it you don't necessarily share this view when it comes to Appetite :biggrin:)
-
Musically speaking, GnR were definitely taking plenty of cues from Aerosmith and a harder-rocking version of the Stones, but they were very much their own thing, in many ways, already on Appetite.
I'd say they were influenced by AC/DC and Led Zeppelin quite a lot too and they also added a bit of punk in their sound.
-
BiB is a great, iconic album. I find Appetite nearly as iconic and, musically, I just like it better.
But, at the end of the day, it's a just lot of fun to think about these comparisons - and it's a good excuse to revisit timeless classics (although I take it you don't necessarily share this view when it comes to Appetite :biggrin:)
Van Halen debut vs. Appetite is another good comparison, both American hard rock classics. What do you like better between them?
-
Apetite is a great record, but I have to hand it to Back in Black.
-
Musically speaking, GnR were definitely taking plenty of cues from Aerosmith and a harder-rocking version of the Stones, but they were very much their own thing, in many ways, already on Appetite.
I'd say they were influenced by AC/DC and Led Zeppelin quite a lot too and they also added a bit of punk in their sound.
Agreed - and I think that the successful merging of these influences, via the different backgrounds of the songwriters in the band (Axl, Duff, Slash, Izzy) is part of what made the record so incredible and (for me) unique
-
BiB is a great, iconic album. I find Appetite nearly as iconic and, musically, I just like it better.
But, at the end of the day, it's a just lot of fun to think about these comparisons - and it's a good excuse to revisit timeless classics (although I take it you don't necessarily share this view when it comes to Appetite :biggrin:)
Van Halen debut vs. Appetite is another good comparison, both American hard rock classics. What do you like better between them?
Yes, that's another good one - VH debut is fantastic (and talk about influential here!) but, once again, I'd go for Appetite. It's no other record's "fault" really...it's just that Appetite really is one of my all-time favorites.
-
Van Halen debut vs. Appetite is another good comparison, both American hard rock classics. What do you like better between them?
VH
Of course, I'd rank Beauty and the Beat over Appetite.
-
Van Halen debut vs. Appetite is another good comparison, both American hard rock classics. What do you like better between them?
VH
Of course, I'd rank Beauty and the Beat over Appetite.
What is Beauty and the Beat?
-
Van Halen debut vs. Appetite is another good comparison, both American hard rock classics. What do you like better between them?
VH
Of course, I'd rank Beauty and the Beat over Appetite.
What is Beauty and the Beat?
The Go-go's debut album from 1981, the same year that BiB was released.
-
Van Halen debut vs. Appetite is another good comparison, both American hard rock classics. What do you like better between them?
VH
Of course, I'd rank Beauty and the Beat over Appetite.
What is Beauty and the Beat?
https://lmgtfy.app/?q=beauty+and+the+beat
-
The Go-go's debut album from 1981, the same year that BiB was released.
Nice little pop rock record. I know some rock fans are aggravated to see the Go-Go's make the R&RHOF, especially when certain favorites are still on the outside looking in, but they were the first all-female band to write their own songs, play their own instruments and go to number 1. They are worthy (not that the Hall cares about "worthy," but I suspect you get what I mean).
And to anyone who doesn't think the Go-Go's could rock, go listen to the instrumental break in Turn to You and report back. :biggrin: :biggrin:
-
What I always want to know in these polls is the age breakdown of who votes for what. We're ranking an album that came out well before a lot of people here were born and judging it by modern standards. In terms of who was better musically that's alright, but I think you also have to take into account, at least somewhat, the effect they had on the musical landscape. BiB was a sound we hadn't really heard before. GnR was derivative.
In general, I think you are right, if we are trying to ascertain which album is better in a more "objective" way. But isn't that basically an impossible exercise anyway? Plus, the idea of contextualizing the historical importance of a record is especially relevant if we are comparing something that came out, say, 5 vs. 40 years ago. But, even sharing your view that BiB was less derivative and had more of an effect on the musical landscape than Appetite, we are still talking about two albums that came out 41 and 34 years ago, respectively.
Musically speaking, GnR were definitely taking plenty of cues from Aerosmith and a harder-rocking version of the Stones, but they were very much their own thing, in many ways, already on Appetite. There were certain elements in the songs that were borderline metal and, as was mentioned before, some of the intricacies in the arrangements and guitars' interplay between Izzy and Slash were way beyond what the glam/street metal bands were doing at the time (IMO). I first heard Appetite in 1989, and I was 12 at the time. I discovered AC/DC a little later. BiB is a great, iconic album. I find Appetite nearly as iconic and, musically, I just like it better.
But, at the end of the day, it's a just lot of fun to think about these comparisons - and it's a good excuse to revisit timeless classics (although I take it you don't necessarily share this view when it comes to Appetite :biggrin:)
I think you're right, but I wasn't really looking to approach how we judge them at such a nuanced level. What I actually wonder about in these things is how old people are when they say BiB or AfD. Are the BiB voters, such as myself, largely people who were around to see just how impactful the album was? Are the people who voted for Appetite younger and perhaps unaware of how meaningful BiB was? Are they older and think that Appetite was just as meaningful, if not more so? Perhaps a lot of the preference comes down to how refreshing something was, rather than musical significance, and age doesn't matter. I just see a lot of these sorts of poles and wonder why people choose what they do and the significance of what that time in their lives may have played.
In this case, I think GnR are a bunch of talentless hacks, but I'd be lying if I downplayed the significance BiB had on me as a seminal album when I compare the two.
As for who or what influenced GnR, I don't really see ACDC in their sound. Though if we're being honest, aside from a pillowcase full of tormented cats, I couldn't discern any particular influence.
-
In this case, I think GnR are a bunch of talentless hacks, but I'd be lying if I downplayed the significance BiB had on me as a seminal album when I compare the two.
As for who or what influenced GnR, I don't really see ACDC in their sound. Though if we're being honest, aside from a pillowcase full of tormented cats, I couldn't discern any particular influence.
OK Old man..
I can understand someone not liking Axl's voice, but Brian Johnson sounds like he's passing a 15lb shit log.
How are GnR the talentless hacks in this conversation? I like AC/DC as much as anyone but they're as talentless as anyone, especially compared to GnR.
I hear AC/DC in GnR definitely. For a short period of time, GnR was incredible, but they just couldn't hold it together. AFD and UYIs are as good of hard rock records released during that time period as there is..
To me, the biggest thing that Back In Black did opened up hard rock to have crossover success in the 80's.
-
In this case, I think GnR are a bunch of talentless hacks, but I'd be lying if I downplayed the significance BiB had on me as a seminal album when I compare the two.
As for who or what influenced GnR, I don't really see ACDC in their sound. Though if we're being honest, aside from a pillowcase full of tormented cats, I couldn't discern any particular influence.
OK Old man..
I can understand someone not liking Axl's voice, but Brian Johnson sounds like he's passing a 15lb shit log.
How are GnR the talentless hacks in this conversation? I like AC/DC as much as anyone but they're as talentless as anyone, especially compared to GnR.
I hear AC/DC in GnR definitely. For a short period of time, GnR was incredible, but they just couldn't hold it together. AFD and UYIs are as good of hard rock records released during that time period as there is..
To me, the biggest thing that Back In Black did opened up hard rock to have crossover success in the 80's.
Brian Johnson's singing was new and unfamiliar at the time (not to mention frightening to the squares, remember when you would go to hell if you listened to them?). Axl's was not, and wasn't even as good. As for the rest of them, ACDC had a much better rhythm section. Slash is probably a better guitarist than Angus, but what really sets him apart is something that doesn't really show up in their music.
Also, I like AC/DC as much as anyone but they're as talentless as anyone, especially compared to GnR. This isn't an unfair point. While I think ACDC was better in some ways, I don't think they're particularly talented. But here's the thing, most people don't. I think ACDC's standing in the annuls of rock history is about where it should be. "Simple guys writing simple songs that make people like us happy. Angus is a good guitarist, but not exceptional. Brian Johnson is an acquired taste." I think that's a fine assessment. At the same time people regard GnR like they were the new Zeppelin or some shit. Even if their talents are on par with one another, I think ACDC is properly rated, and GnR is massively overrated.
-
Brian Johnson's singing is still unfamiliar! :lol
I don't think it's unfair to call GnR overrated. Their problem is that they don't have the longevity to even that (over)rating out.
All I'm saying is that AFD and UYIs are amazing albums. And I have no issue with someone wanting to listen to Appetite instead of Back In Black. Honestly, I've probably listened to Appetite over BiB 4-1 over the last 30 years.
-
Appetite and it’s really not close. I’ve never been a big AC/DC fan and prefer Bon to Brian. GNR on the other hand I’m a big fan of.
-
I will never forgive Axl for wailing like a dying cat over the ending solo in November Rain. Totally unnecessary, and is somewhat of a killjoy to what could have been a killer ending to a little mini-epic. But Axl's voice ruining things was kind of his thing. He single-handedly prevents Paradise City from being great with his horrendous vocal melodies in the verses.
-
As for who or what influenced GnR, I don't really see ACDC in their sound. Though if we're being honest, aside from a pillowcase full of tormented cats, I couldn't discern any particular influence.
A heavy influence on both the image and sound of Guns N' Roses was the Finnish band Hanoi Rocks (singer Michael Monroe and Rose have collaborated on various occasions). Rose has stated that the band was massively inspired by groups like Queen, AC/DC, The Rolling Stones, Aerosmith, and Rose Tattoo, and that the sound of Appetite for Destruction was influenced by AC/DC, Led Zeppelin, The Who, Cheap Trick, Aerosmith, Van Halen, the New York Dolls, and Hanoi Rocks. The band was also influenced by the likes of T. Rex, the Sex Pistols and Accept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_N%27_Roses#Legacy,_style,_influence,_and_criticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_N%27_Roses#Legacy,_style,_influence,_and_criticism)
-
As for who or what influenced GnR, I don't really see ACDC in their sound. Though if we're being honest, aside from a pillowcase full of tormented cats, I couldn't discern any particular influence.
:rollin
At the same time people regard GnR like they were the new Zeppelin or some shit.
Yeah, you are definitely not wrong here. For me, I don't particularly care either way - What I truly love is Appetite, not necessarily GnR. That album is very close to hard rock perfection, as far as I am concerned. The UYI albums, not so much. Like I said before, I have fantastic memories of the time when they were released, and I listened the crap out of them, but they can't really touch Appetite. To go back to the HoF considerations (again, not that it matters): I don't see GnR as HoF material, but I definitely do Appetite, if we were to have an "album-based" RnR HoF!
-
I think appetite was very different from what came before it. You have to remember that this was coming out during a time when glam metal had become all the rage.
Sure, it may have borrowed a lot from bands a decade earlier, but what new fresh band doesn’t borrow from something a decade old or so and then put a fresh spin on it? that’s what makes it fresh.
Metal had just spent the previous five or six years trying to make all the men look like girls, and then suddenly here came these gritty sleazy guys Who looked like they hadn’t even taken a shower before they jumped on stage. LOL
In short, it was 10 times as “dangerous“ as Poison, Ratt, Britney Fox, Winger, White Lion and their ilk. So, yes…when it came out, it was a very refreshing return to rock being something that scared your parents again.
-
Yes, exactly. Not that I was aware at the time, of course. But they definitely brought something "new" to the table, both musically and attitude-wise, compared to the years immediately preceding their arrival on the scene.
-
I think appetite was very different from what came before it. You have to remember that this was coming out during a time when glam metal had become all the rage.
Sure, it may have borrowed a lot from bands a decade earlier, but what new fresh band doesn’t borrow from something a decade old or so and then put a fresh spin on it? that’s what makes it fresh.
Metal had just spent the previous five or six years trying to make all the men look like girls, and then suddenly here came these gritty sleazy guys Who looked like they hadn’t even taken a shower before they jumped on stage. LOL
In short, it was 10 times as “dangerous“ as Poison, Ratt, Britney Fox, Winger, White Lion and their ilk. So, yes…when it came out, it was a very refreshing return to rock being something that scared your parents again.
Yep, Appetite was raw, dirty, nasty and ballsy hard rock, unlike cheesy hair or glam metal of that time.
-
While hair metal was certainly the big thing, there were parallel trends going on. It was a pretty decent year for thrash, which some of us had already moved towards. Hell, even rap was going strong at that point with Public Enemy and Ice T. At that point I'm listening to Among the Living, Scream Bloody Gore, Abigale, etc., all of which came out around the same time, specifically to get away from the hair metal. Paradise City wasn't exactly a move in the right direction from my point of view. It was only slightly less cheesy than Look What the Cat Dragged In when Thrash is your bag.
-
Yeah, it's cute when hardcore GNR fans try to act like they weren't part of the hair rock movement. Go watch their first video, Welcome to the Jungle. Both Axl and the drummer both look like they used about two full cans of Aqua Net on their heads. :lol :lol
-
Yeah, it's cute when hardcore GNR fans try to act like they weren't part of the hair rock movement. Go watch their first video, Welcome to the Jungle. Both Axl and the drummer both look like they used about two full cans of Aqua Net on their heads. :lol :lol
Yeah but they really weren't part of the hair movement.
There was a legit-ness to their music that really separated them.
-
Appetite, all day and twice on Tuesdays! :metal
-
Yeah, it's cute when hardcore GNR fans try to act like they weren't part of the hair rock movement. Go watch their first video, Welcome to the Jungle. Both Axl and the drummer both look like they used about two full cans of Aqua Net on their heads. :lol :lol
Yeah but they really weren't part of the hair movement.
There was a legit-ness to their music that really separated them.
Maybe, maybe not, but they looked and sounded enough like the average hair rock band to where, fair or not, they get lumped in with them.
-
Yeah, it's cute when hardcore GNR fans try to act like they weren't part of the hair rock movement. Go watch their first video, Welcome to the Jungle. Both Axl and the drummer both look like they used about two full cans of Aqua Net on their heads. :lol :lol
Yeah but they really weren't part of the hair movement.
There was a legit-ness to their music that really separated them.
Maybe, maybe not, but they looked and sounded enough like the average hair rock band to where, fair or not, they get lumped in with them.
Not. Even. Close.
-
Yeah, it's cute when hardcore GNR fans try to act like they weren't part of the hair rock movement. Go watch their first video, Welcome to the Jungle. Both Axl and the drummer both look like they used about two full cans of Aqua Net on their heads. :lol :lol
-
I can quote myself too.
Not. Even. Close.
-
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/o1tj2zJ2Wvg/maxresdefault.jpg)
You can almost smell the Aqua net. :lol
-
I don't have the energy to do this tonight. :lol
-
Maybe you just need a little patience, yeah, yeah.
-
I used to love you but I had to kill you.
-
Please. Just because they got told to tease their hair to promote their first video does not mean they sounded or in any other way were lumped in with hair metal. I think Stretch Armstrong just entered the building.
-
I think Stretch Armstrong just entered the building.
:lol
Kev's got a new name! :lol
-
Right, because Axl Rose has ever done what he was told. You guys are cute. :lol :lol :biggrin: :biggrin:
-
As for who or what influenced GnR, I don't really see ACDC in their sound. Though if we're being honest, aside from a pillowcase full of tormented cats, I couldn't discern any particular influence.
A heavy influence on both the image and sound of Guns N' Roses was the Finnish band Hanoi Rocks (singer Michael Monroe and Rose have collaborated on various occasions). Rose has stated that the band was massively inspired by groups like Queen, AC/DC, The Rolling Stones, Aerosmith, and Rose Tattoo, and that the sound of Appetite for Destruction was influenced by AC/DC, Led Zeppelin, The Who, Cheap Trick, Aerosmith, Van Halen, the New York Dolls, and Hanoi Rocks. The band was also influenced by the likes of T. Rex, the Sex Pistols and Accept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_N%27_Roses#Legacy,_style,_influence,_and_criticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_N%27_Roses#Legacy,_style,_influence,_and_criticism)
Google "Axl Rose Richard Black". He was the singer for "Shark Island" (and did that "Contraband" record with Michael Schenker). The Used Bin Radio guys used to talk about this ALL the time.
-
The truth is that you're really not going to make it coming out of the Whisky A Go Go in 1986 if you're not doing the hair metal thing. Granted, GnR had more going on than their peers, and they certainly took things in a different direction once Appetite gave them that option, but let's not suddenly pretend that they weren't doing the same things as all the other hair bands at the time. You watch videos of GnR playing the Whisky (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXI7zfnjtBQ) in the mid 80s and aside from being better songwriters, which isn't saying a whole lot, I'm not sure what really separates them from Poison, Ratt, or any other notable bands from that time and place.
And back to my point, watch that video after listening to Baptized in Blood or Raining Blood and see if you don't think of it as hair metal by the numbers.
-
You can’t compare GNR, to the thrash movement. The thrash movement was 100% “grassroots” in the late 80s. It gained popularity with zero media or radio support.
I tried to get the local rock station to play Welcome Home Sanitarium on METAL SHOP when it was brand new. The DJ said that we (Metallica fans) needed to quit bombarding the station with requests because they were never going to play Metallica. They were way too heavy and over the top.
I lived through this. I was there. GNR were a different animal. Very much more dangerous than bands like Winger, but more palatable than thrash, which was fully rejected by the media outright.
Even Hetfield at one time proclaimed that Metallica would have never become a stadiums band without the success of GNR first. (Although I don’t know if I fully agree with that assessment…it’s not without merit entirely)
-
I'm not comparing GnR to thrash. I'm comparing GnR to hair metal. Thrash simply highlights the point.
-
This is like when a non-prog fans gets upset with a band they like with strong similarities to prog is called prog, as they know prog is a dirty word in many circles, thus they do not want their band associated with it, just like G n' R fans here do not want to them associated with hair rock (which is also a dirty word/phrase in many circles) even though they are more similar than dissimilar to the bands in that subgenre.
We can talk about "dangerous" and some differences all we want, but I lived it (as I know others did here as well). Everyone I knew in the late 80's put them in the hair rock category (and no one considered that the insult it is now to many). In 1988, you could watch MTV and get videos in a row from Bon Jovi, Def Leppard, Stryper, Guns N' Roses and Europe, and they were all had a similar enough look and sound to where it just made sense to consider them all part of the same movement/subgenre. It's just the way it was.
-
Yeah, it's cute when hardcore GNR fans try to act like they weren't part of the hair rock movement. Go watch their first video, Welcome to the Jungle. Both Axl and the drummer both look like they used about two full cans of Aqua Net on their heads. :lol :lol
Yeah but they really weren't part of the hair movement.
There was a legit-ness to their music that really separated them.
Maybe, maybe not, but they looked and sounded enough like the average hair rock band to where, fair or not, they get lumped in with them.
Not. Even. Close.
As someone who spent a lot of time on the Sunset Strip in the mid- to late '80s, Kev is right on the money. The biggest difference is that GnR looked a bit uglier/less feminine that most of the glam bands at the time.
Everyone I knew in the late 80's put them in the hair rock category (and no one considered that the insult it is now to many). In 1988, you could watch MTV and get videos in a row from Bon Jovi, Def Leppard, Stryper, Guns N' Roses and Europe, and they were all had a similar enough look and sound to where it just made sense to consider them all part of the same movement/subgenre. It's just the way it was.
Exactly.
-
I don't know man.
I mean, look at Appetite's back cover:
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0902/5612/products/guns_n_roses_appetite_for_destruction_vinyl_back_cover_1024x1024.JPG?v=1551419060)
And compare it to Look What The Cat Dragged In..
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71FHEhMSS7L._SL1043_.jpg)
I mean, other than both bands having hair, there's simply no comparison.
Admittedly, the label may have had something to do with the puffy hair publicity shots and the look in the Welcome To The Jungle video, but that's it. By they time they shot the Sweet Child video, there was no puffy hair.
Just because Lil' Kev could sit down in his pajamas and watch MTV in late 1987 or 1988 and see GnR videos amongst the rest of the other bands of the day, doesn't make them a hair metal band. They didn't look like a hair metal band. They didn't sound like a hair metal band.
I wasn't walking the Sunset Strip, but I was in on GnR early on. I remember Kerrang writing articles about them before Appetite was released. I saw them on their first East Coast club tour and took this pic:
(https://i.imgur.com/uOml6XJ.jpg)
No puffy hair here.
@ PG, I appreciate your West Coast view but I was also experiencing GnR in real time, and I mean before they hit it big. So I guess we may end up just disagreeing. Cool.
@Kev, you're the Steven A. Smith of music takes. ;D
-
Tim is spot on. The rest is a shocking example of revisionist history.
-
No, revisionist history is suggesting that they were not considered by many to be part of the hair rock scene when they clearly were. I will circle back to my earlier point about being obvious that "hair rock" is considered somewhat of an insult, and some lovers of the band think they were better than that, so they are retroactively trying to act like they were never part of something that they quite obviously were.
-
I will circle back to my earlier point about being obvious that "hair rock" is considered somewhat of an insult, and some lovers of the band think they were better than that, so they are retroactively trying to act like they were never part of something that they quite obviously were.
Ugh. I don't consider it an insult. I just consider it wrong. I'm not protective of GnR's reputation or anything like that. They were never a hair metal band. Ever. I'm kind of flabbergasted that this is even a discussion.
-
I will circle back to my earlier point about being obvious that "hair rock" is considered somewhat of an insult, and some lovers of the band think they were better than that, so they are retroactively trying to act like they were never part of something that they quite obviously were.
Ugh. I don't consider it an insult. I just consider it wrong. I'm not protective of GnR's reputation or anything like that. They were never a hair metal band. Ever. I'm kind of flabbergasted that this is even a discussion.
I honestly was speaking more in generalities, hence why I said "some lovers of the band think they are better than that," as I have seen it a lot over the years, the suggestion that G N' R was better than "those lame ass hair rockers." I will put it this way: to a large degree, I put hair rock in what I often refer to as "party rock," which is that kind of 80's trashy hard rock that just sounds fun, ya know, music that rocks that you'd hear at a party that would get both men and women moving. And these bands almost always had the token totally 80's-sounding monster ballad, ala Home Sweet Home, Sweet Child O' Mine, Every Rose Has Its Thorn or Honestly. If Van Halen and Aerosmith were new bands in the later 80's, they probably would have been lumped into that category as well (songs like Rag Doll and Angel would have fit right into the genre, but they were also established as a hard rock/blues rock band, and were from the 70's, so they escaped the label), and actually I have seen VH put in that category by some before, although I think they kind of set the template for what would later become full-fledged hair rock, if that makes sense. None of the OU812 hits, though, sounded similar to the average hair rocker tune of the latter 80's, though, but VH was kind of the pioneers in a sense of that party rock sound that eventually melded with the hair rock sound of the mid to later 80's, IMO. I hope that explains better where I am coming from.
-
No, revisionist history is suggesting that they were not considered by many to be part of the hair rock scene when they clearly were.
Yup. At least where I was.
-
No, revisionist history is suggesting that they were not considered by many to be part of the hair rock scene when they clearly were.
Yup. At least where I was.
Yup….and there were a ton of people in 1980 who categorized AC/DC as “heavy metal”….doesn’t mean they were correct.
-
Yeah, and some people like Power Windows..
...and Winger.
-
Yeah, and some people like Power Windows..
...and Winger.
You know…I *WAS* taking your side. Et tu Brutus? Et tu?
:rollin :rollin
-
No, revisionist history is suggesting that they were not considered by many to be part of the hair rock scene when they clearly were.
Yup. At least where I was.
Yup….and there were a ton of people in 1980 who categorized AC/DC as “heavy metal”….doesn’t mean they were correct.
Whether they were or weren't "correct" (something that is impossible when it comes to an opinion) isn't the point. The point is that this is how they were viewed at the time.
-
Even if one doesn't consider GnR hair metal, which is debatable, the pushback here is against the idea that somehow GnR was this refreshing change away from it. That's like saying Mr. Pibb is a nice respite from your usual Dr. Pepper. Yeah, it may taste a little different, and the ingredients aren't the same, but it's still a whole lot more similar than different. At best GnR is a very small step in the evolutionary process away from hair metal.
-
I don't know. I experienced the rise of GnR in real time, as well, and I for one never associated them with the other hair metal bands. I mean, they were out at the same time, but that was it.
There was something a little scary about them. I was never scared of anyone in Poison or Winger.
-
As a big fan of hair metal at the time, G'N'R seemed like something very different to me when Appetite came out.
-
Even if one doesn't consider GnR hair metal, which is debatable, the pushback here is against the idea that somehow GnR was this refreshing change away from it. That's like saying Mr. Pibb is a nice respite from your usual Dr. Pepper. Yeah, it may taste a little different, and the ingredients aren't the same, but it's still a whole lot more similar than different. At best GnR is a very small step in the evolutionary process away from hair metal.
Yeah, but can you really compare the two? Pibb didn't even bother get his doctorate!
:biggrin:
-
No, revisionist history is suggesting that they were not considered by many to be part of the hair rock scene when they clearly were.
Yup. At least where I was.
Yup….and there were a ton of people in 1980 who categorized AC/DC as “heavy metal”….doesn’t mean they were correct.
Whether they were or weren't "correct" (something that is impossible when it comes to an opinion) isn't the point. The point is that this is how they were viewed at the time.
Exactly. It's laughable now to think of AC/DC as heavy metal, but that is what many considered them back then. Hell, Rush and Blue Oyster Cult were called metal by some in the 70's, which sounds even more hilarious.
Even if one doesn't consider GnR hair metal, which is debatable, the pushback here is against the idea that somehow GnR was this refreshing change away from it. That's like saying Mr. Pibb is a nice respite from your usual Dr. Pepper. Yeah, it may taste a little different, and the ingredients aren't the same, but it's still a whole lot more similar than different. At best GnR is a very small step in the evolutionary process away from hair metal.
Post of the thread. :tup :tup
Shut it down, mods. :P :P
-
As a big fan of hair metal at the time, G'N'R seemed like something very different to me when Appetite came out.
+1
And no insults have been traded. I disagree with those who feel differently, but any “barbs” have been lighthearted ribbing…at least for my part.
Love you all.
-
Yep, it's all good. I love a friendly music disagreement, as they can be fun to trade different opinions and viewpoints. No harm done on my end. :hat :hat
-
Even if one doesn't consider GnR hair metal, which is debatable, the pushback here is against the idea that somehow GnR was this refreshing change away from it. That's like saying Mr. Pibb is a nice respite from your usual Dr. Pepper. Yeah, it may taste a little different, and the ingredients aren't the same, but it's still a whole lot more similar than different. At best GnR is a very small step in the evolutionary process away from hair metal.
Well, since I'm doing the pushback, I'll take this.
I never said it was a refreshing change. In reality, Appetite was released before the hair metal explosion. So they weren't really a small step in the evolutionary process away from it either. They kind of predated it actually.
I know Slippery When Wet and Night Songs were released in 1986, but the real Hair Metal bandwagon jumping didn't really start until late 87/early 88. Appetite was released in July '87.
I'm just saying that they were independent of hair metal.
And these bands almost always had the token totally 80's-sounding monster ballad,
Monster ballads have been around since the 70's. Dream On, Still In Love With You, Beth...
-
OK, anyway..
Kev, what's your next fucked up battle? Hurry before WildRanger beats you to it.
-
Get ready for the epic Wham! vs solo George Michael clash!!
-
Even if one doesn't consider GnR hair metal, which is debatable, the pushback here is against the idea that somehow GnR was this refreshing change away from it. That's like saying Mr. Pibb is a nice respite from your usual Dr. Pepper. Yeah, it may taste a little different, and the ingredients aren't the same, but it's still a whole lot more similar than different. At best GnR is a very small step in the evolutionary process away from hair metal.
Well, since I'm doing the pushback, I'll take this.
I never said it was a refreshing change. In reality, Appetite was released before the hair metal explosion. So they weren't really a small step in the evolutionary process away from it either. They kind of predated it actually.
I know Slippery When Wet and Night Songs were released in 1986, but the real Hair Metal bandwagon jumping didn't really start until late 87/early 88. Appetite was released in July '87.
I'm just saying that they were independent of hair metal.
As someone who started to lose interest in the LA rock of the late '80's when this became a thing:
(https://i.imgur.com/4FSUCYh.jpg)
There WAS something different about G'n'R. El Barto is right: they weren't a radical departure from what came before, but they were different. They were far more late 70's "Sick As A Dog" Aerosmith than they were early 70's glam. Kind of like when the cocaine took over the New York disco scene.
-
Well, since I'm doing the pushback, I'll take this.
I never said it was a refreshing change. In reality, Appetite was released before the hair metal explosion. So they weren't really a small step in the evolutionary process away from it either. They kind of predated it actually.
I know Slippery When Wet and Night Songs were released in 1986, but the real Hair Metal bandwagon jumping didn't really start until late 87/early 88. Appetite was released in July '87.
I'm just saying that they were independent of hair metal.
I guess it was the late 80s when record labels were signing any band with makeup and big hair, but the style had been going on for a while. Ratt, Motley Crue, Quiet Riot, etc. all broke big well before then. The Wiki article has it divided into a "First Wave" 1981-1986 and a "Second Wave" from 1986-1991, the latter of which lines up with what you are talking about.
I still remember Casey Kasem announcing Ratt's "Round and Round" on American Top 40. It was kind surreal.
-
I strongly disagree with the assertion that GnR was only a 'very small step' away from hair metal. There is almost nothing hair metal about GnR other than the way they looked very early on (for example, Welcome to the Jungle's video, when they had the big hair in their early days). And the music wasn't glammy at all, it was dirty, filthy rock and roll with some real edge to it and heavy metal vibes at times. You're Crazy is a ripper. Lyrics were pretty coarse, too. Melodically they were able to also juggle sweet melodies and aggressive yet catchy parts like My Michelle or Out Ta Get Me. I think that album has it all, can't say that for a lot of bands at that time in my opinion.
-
And no insults have been traded. I disagree with those who feel differently, but any “barbs” have been lighthearted ribbing…at least for my part.
Love you all.
Yep, it's all good. I love a friendly music disagreement, as they can be fun to trade different opinions and viewpoints. No harm done on my end. :hat :hat
Ditto.
There WAS something different about G'n'R. El Barto is right: they weren't a radical departure from what came before, but they were different.
They were dirtier and more distasteful. :-)