I hate grunge.

I listened to the first half of In Utero on my commute home today. Not as good as Appetite for Destruction, admittedly, but certainly much better than either UYI album.
 
Most rock albums aren't as good as Appetite for Destruction tbh
It's one of those classic albums from the '80s where every song is good. For me, still their best album. If you were there you remember that 'Appetite' was a slow-burner when first released. But once the video for 'Sweet Child O' Mine' came out , that album took off like a rocket. The rest, as they say, is history... This was one of those rare moments when an album is recorded at the right time in a band's life. Venom, Piss, Vinegar, all sorts of drugs. Had this been recorded a few months later it wouldn't have had that same anger. The original cover, imho, was a well executed publicity stunt. Shortly after AFD was re-released with it's now iconic cover, it started to climb, hitting number 1 in the summer of 1988. AFD is like a drunken punk rocker discovering The Rolling Stones after binging on Aerosmith, Black Sabbath , and The Misfits. It might be the best rock album of the late 80's. The impact of hearing 'Welcome To The Jungle' for the first time will never fade for me.
 
not douchey enough

you'll need some washed up supermodels, a lot of coke, and at least two STD's to pull off a convincing Axl
Well I’m out on the STD’s but a latex cold sore and a powdered upper lip is a go...and I’m going for corn-row era fat Axl- it might top my Christopher Reeves Superman in the powered wheelchair costume
 
  • Like
Reactions: Trodden
Were Nirvana really bigger than Guns n Roses? To me, GnR were bigger.
You'd think that from hearing/reading the way a lot of people talk about Nirvana and that whole period in music. I know it's a pretty common tactic (just like those people who pretend the whole punk thing was bigger and more important than it actually was) but it's kinda funny to see a band like Guns N' Roses lumped in with all these "Hair" metal acts that Nirvana supposedly killed off and made irrelevant because record sales and that massive worldwide tour they did don't really support that notion. Metallica and GnR are examples of bands whose dscography has sold well, but I've always found it curious that Nirvana's Bleach never achieved higher sales. If Nevermind could sell 11+ million albums, why is it that the people buying that weren't buying the reissue of Bleach that came out the following year. When the Black album hit, Metallica's back catalog went through the roof.

I don't think people were as enamored with Nirvana as a band as they were with that one album, and more specifically, that one song. Granted, I've known Nirvana acolytes who praise Bleach up and down, but they are rarer than the teens of 1992 who just bought Nevermind, thinking there was some meaning to the songs that Kurt himself said was never there.
I mean in the listening sense primarily. GNR didn't have an album prior to Appetite, but GNR Lies certainly appealed to casual fans of GNR more than Bleach appealed to casual fans of Nirvana. Metallica is kind of unique, really. In 1990, who would have thought that thrash metal would become main stream music within the next year or so? Certainly not me! But the earlier albums were not radical departures from the Black Album anyway. GNR played massive outdoor stadiums, nirvana peaked with larger indoor venues. GNR were playing stadiums. Nirvana was an arena band for the most part. They did play big festivals, but never toured stadiums as GNR did. Nirvana, IMO, was a fad. Like The Village People in the 70's. Or Vanilla Ice in the 90's.

GNR is timeless music. Nirvana definitely did not kill off GnR, as both of their "Use Your Illusion" records sold massively at the same time "Nevermind" was breaking huge.
Cobain clearly despised Axl Rose and GnR, and made a point of publicly rejecting a slot on the GnR/Metallica tour, and then publicly mocking Axl afterwards. Nirvana clearly saw GnR as part of the bloated rock-star "enemy" they wanted no part of.

By all objective measures, GnR was always the "bigger" band, in terms of record sales and tour revenues.
from before Cobain signed his first contract up until after Cobain died,
music was marketed in such a way where the quality of the music had absolutely nothing to do with album sales,
.
.
.
.
at least according to those specific elitist people who are obsessed with the albums that sold poorly and call albums that have high sales "crap music marketed to people who will buy crap"
 
from before Cobain signed his first contract up until after Cobain died,
music was marketed in such a way where the quality of the music had absolutely nothing to do with album sales,
.
.
.
.
at least according to those specific elitist people who are obsessed with the albums that sold poorly and call albums that have high sales "crap music marketed to people who will buy crap"
GNR at their peak from Appetite and for about 6 years later, they were unbelievably huge... maybe people forget but they were the biggest band in the world... they had like two albums in the top 5 at one point...they pretty much ruled MTV/Rolling Stone/media..
GNR may have been the last gasp of real rock and roll....Nirvana rock and roll?? I don't think so.
Grunge was pretty much over by 1996, Soundgarden's last album, Screaming Trees Dust 1996, AiC 1995, Pearl Jam has soldiered on but their last classic grunge album was Vitalogy and that was 1994. The genre withered out quickly, you could feel it after Down On the Upside came out, the enthusiasm for the genre just waned. So given that I'm not sure Nirvana is exactly that influential outside of its own genre which was short lived. You could argue Pearl Jam or AiC or Soundgarden were just as influential but on what I'm not sure, the terrible generic clone bands that followed? What did Nirvana do in benefit of rock culture? I think Kurt turned out to be a martyr because he took his own life.
 
GNR at their peak from Appetite and for about 6 years later, they were unbelievably huge... maybe people forget but they were the biggest band in the world... they had like two albums in the top 5 at one point...they pretty much ruled MTV/Rolling Stone/media..
GNR may have been the last gasp of real rock and roll....Nirvana rock and roll?? I don't think so.
Grunge was pretty much over by 1996, Soundgarden's last album, Screaming Trees Dust 1996, AiC 1995, Pearl Jam has soldiered on but their last classic grunge album was Vitalogy and that was 1994. The genre withered out quickly, you could feel it after Down On the Upside came out, the enthusiasm for the genre just waned. So given that I'm not sure Nirvana is exactly that influential outside of its own genre which was short lived. You could argue Pearl Jam or AiC or Soundgarden were just as influential but on what I'm not sure, the terrible generic clone bands that followed? What did Nirvana do in benefit of rock culture? I think Kurt turned out to be a martyr because he took his own life.

You're kidding yourself if you want to say Nirvana only influenced grunge bands.
 
You're kidding yourself if you want to say Nirvana only influenced grunge bands.
What is Nirvana's clame to fame? The grunge era? Ripping off The Pixies and Sonic Youth? Nirvana is no match for G N R, which is arguably the greatest band in the last 30 years.
More than make changes themselves, Nirvana just brought those changes to the mainstream. The true innovators were the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, David Bowie, Black Sabbath, Lou Reed, Metallica, Van Halen, Def Leppard, ect.
 
What is Nirvana's clame to fame? The grunge era? Ripping off The Pixies and Sonic Youth? Nirvana is no match for G N R, which is arguably the greatest band in the last 30 years.
More than make changes themselves, Nirvana just brought those changes to the mainstream. The true innovators were the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, David Bowie, Black Sabbath, Lou Reed, Metallica, Van Halen, Def Leppard, ect.

Guns N' Roses can hardly be the greatest band of any era when every album that they put out after their debut has been immediately and obviously inferior to that album by a large amount.

I'm not even a fan of Nirvana, but they clearly influenced a lot of later bands in many different styles of music. Your attempts to downplay that are tiresome and you are obviously in denial.

You have failed to address various arguments people have presented in this topic and you consistently post false information because you are too dedicated to hero worship of bands that haven't released worthwhile material in decades to form a cohesive argument in response to anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: morguelord
tbh, who did Nirvana influence outside of grunge and alt rock? Nirvana were bigger popularizers than innovators, and their offspring were an incestuous bunch. Probably one of the biggest "they made me pick up a guitar at age 12" bands but far from a Beatles, Sabbath, Stooges, Kraftwerk, whathaveyou.
 
tbh, who did Nirvana influence outside of grunge and alt rock? Nirvana were bigger popularizers than innovators, and their offspring were an incestuous bunch. Probably one of the biggest "they made me pick up a guitar at age 12" bands but far from a Beatles, Sabbath, Stooges, Kraftwerk, whathaveyou.

The quality of the bands that they influenced and the manner of influence that they had is not the topic at hand. They definitely influenced a huge amount of alternative bands and not solely grunge as he claimed. They also had a pretty large influence on popular culture in general.

I'm not defending the band's originality in any way because I'm not even a Nirvana fan. I would never dispute that a lot of what they did was done better by other bands.
 
You can't be the greatest band the last 30 years when the best you can do is Appetite for Destruction.
Why do people seem to hate Guns n Roses so much? And do you know why this happens? Because it's cool to hate Guns N' Roses. It's a phenomenom I have been noticing for a while. I also have a friend who loves GNR, but multiple times I've seen him bash'em when talking to people who are into "more classic rock". It's cool to hate Guns N' Roses, and if you like'em people assume you know nothing about music. Which is really pathetic, really. I mean, seriously, if you like, let's say, Led Zeppelin and Rolling Stones and HATE GNR, there's something wrong, generally speaking. I've seen many people with this same speech. And I'm sorry, if you're into that kind of music it's just stupid to say they haven't done cool stuff. It's just to sound hipster, you know? The whole "Man, GNR is stuff people listen when they're getting into rock"

People are usually very passionate about GNR, and I think this is one of the reasons it's cool to hate'em. I haven't seen one person who likes rock and heavy metal that doesn't enjoy a thing or two from them. Nowadays with all the hipster/indie movement people don't even bother to check it out, for real. It's really annoying. Also personally I agree with Brian May who thinks that Def Leppard is one of the finest rock acts to come out of the UK in the last 40 years. Even the legendary Phil Lynott had nothing but admiration for them.
Absolutely underrated band. Great songs, lots of hits. They fall in the same category as Queen in being totally different from what's going on (only a few groups actually manage this) that said they seen what sounds great and try to form a similar strong sound.

Hysteria happens to be one of my top ten albums of all time never have i heard an album of such quality (rocket and gods of war among fave songs).