You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
Sky Dog wrote: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
To use your own analogy, Beiber's songs are way more catchier than GN'R so Beiber must be better. Because no one cares about songwriting!
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
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.
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
Monkey, put all bands to this test....which band is:
1. More Popular
2. More Influential
3. More artistically talented (both songwriting and musicianship)
4. More critically acclaimed
go through all 4 tests and compare...then get back to me...4 pronged test....for this discussion, the Beatles win all, hands down. The other bands I mentioned are pretty close when considering all 4 criteria.
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
I.strongly disagree that nirvana's music sounds dated....
What makes it sound dated? As for lyrics being nonsense, well if it strikes a chord with a listener it means something...Kurt was also known to downplay his own abilities and Fuck with interviewers on purpose, not saying he was the be all end all, but he was a very good lyricist and song writer imo
