You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
I think Izzy is also a little odd.
Not in a crazy way though - as you said he's choices are rational - but I do think he's odd in a standard kinda artistic dude way.
There's a few stories around of him randomly disappearing on his own bandmates...and he's hard to pin down to stuff because one day he's gone caving in india and the next he's in LA or whatever.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
We never saw the beatles suck. Would they have washed up too? I am a stones guy. I would take the stones any day over the beatles. Beatles did have some brilliant songs, but I just don't like them that much. Early 70's stones is the greatest band of all time maybe. Just amazing. Even late 60's. GNR's Appetite is one of the greatest Hard Rock albums of all time. Beatles can't boast that. They were a pop band. I respect them, just don't like them much.
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
No the Beatles would not have washed up as they all had very successful solo careers. I am a Stones guy too and would pick the Stones over the Beatles. However, both blow Gnr out of the water on EVERY level. You can make a strong argument that Gnr matches up with Zep, Aerosmith, The Who, Nirvana, Pearl Jam et al....but not the Beatles and the Stones. They just have way too many certified classic albums, way too much influence, critical acclaim, etc.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
^ 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.
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
It's not just about being there first. John Lennon's songwriting ability blows Axl's out of the water. And he only got better later in life. Simplistic complexity. Kurt Cobain was like that, but nowhere near the level of John.
Also, The Beatles got better as they went on to as musicians and songwriters. I can see liking one over the other, but there has to be some kind of nod to the fact that the The Beatles were just on a totally different level than every other band.
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
^ 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. 
for example, Bono earlier laid out specific FACTS as to why, overall, Gnr doesn't touch U2 in alot of objective analysis.
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
It's not just about being there first. John Lennon's songwriting ability blows Axl's out of the water. And he only got better later in life. Simplistic complexity. Kurt Cobain was like that, but nowhere near the level of John.
Also, The Beatles got better as they went on to as musicians and songwriters. I can see liking one over the other, but there has to be some kind of nod to the fact that the The Beatles were just on a totally different level than every other band.
Axl is no where near McCartney either...it's a joke to even compare them. Are you kidding me?
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
misterID wrote:It's not just about being there first. John Lennon's songwriting ability blows Axl's out of the water. And he only got better later in life. Simplistic complexity. Kurt Cobain was like that, but nowhere near the level of John.
Also, The Beatles got better as they went on to as musicians and songwriters. I can see liking one over the other, but there has to be some kind of nod to the fact that the The Beatles were just on a totally different level than every other band.
Axl is no where near McCartney either...it's a joke to even compare them. Are you kidding me?
If you like them so much why do you spend so much time hear or do you spend the other 8 hours of the day on a beatles forum.The caual fan does give a fuck about how good the songwriting is its all about how catchy the music is
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
Well, The Beatles have a ton of number 1 hits, so I'd venture a guess that the songs were catchy as hell. I love the original band as much as anybody, but there's no rational way you can say they were better than The Beatles. You're free to like them better if you'd like.
