The 80's album matchup: Appetite for Destruction vs 1984?

[JohnnyBlaze]

I know that Guns N Roses presented a dirtier and grittier style than Hair metal bands, but other than that, what was so innovative or genre-defining about Appetite for Destruction? I think the album is good, but far from groundbreaking or original.

 

With1984 the Roth-era well was running dry, but there's more energy and sincerity in "Panama" alone for me to prefer it over Appetite for Destruction.

 

I think 1984 is a bland and ultra commercial album. To me it sounds like the template for all future empty headed hair metal bands like...yes...Bon Jovi or Warrant. Appetite had grit and swagger and a persuasive senses of passion and youth. I don't like it much either but it has a spark about it that it shares with albums such as Van Halens debut or Nevermind. It just has an "it" factor.

I remember not being able to avoid the damn album. Yes, it was huge and inspirational for, unbelievably, millions of fans, it's a classic album. I just don't hear it. I think it has to do with Axl Rose. I don't find his singing appealing and I think his lyrics are atrocious. I find him an extremely overrated artist.

Took the words right out of my mouth

[Rick N. Backer]

I know that Guns N Roses presented a dirtier and grittier style than Hair metal bands, but other than that, what was so innovative or genre-defining about Appetite for Destruction? I think the album is good, but far from groundbreaking or original.

 

With1984 the Roth-era well was running dry, but there's more energy and sincerity in "Panama" alone for me to prefer it over Appetite for Destruction.

 

I would say it was "innovative" because it wasn't trying to sound like Van Halen. In 1987, that was very rare indeed.

[goose]

I know that Guns N Roses presented a dirtier and grittier style than Hair metal bands, but other than that, what was so innovative or genre-defining about Appetite for Destruction? I think the album is good, but far from groundbreaking or original.

 

With1984 the Roth-era well was running dry, but there's more energy and sincerity in "Panama" alone for me to prefer it over Appetite for Destruction.

 

I would say it was "innovative" because it wasn't trying to sound like Van Halen. In 1987, that was very rare indeed.

Bands were returning to a more traditional 70's rock sound, and Appetite was the commercial breakout album of that movement. The Seattle scene was still underground, although some of the bands already existed.

[Ancient Ways]

I know that Guns N Roses presented a dirtier and grittier style than Hair metal bands, but other than that, what was so innovative or genre-defining about Appetite for Destruction? I think the album is good, but far from groundbreaking or original.

 

With1984 the Roth-era well was running dry, but there's more energy and sincerity in "Panama" alone for me to prefer it over Appetite for Destruction.

 

I think 1984 is a bland and ultra commercial album. To me it sounds like the template for all future empty headed hair metal bands like...yes...Bon Jovi or Warrant. Appetite had grit and swagger and a persuasive senses of passion and youth. I don't like it much either but it has a spark about it that it shares with albums such as Van Halens debut or Nevermind. It just has an "it" factor.

I remember not being able to avoid the damn album. Yes, it was huge and inspirational for, unbelievably, millions of fans, it's a classic album. I just don't hear it. I think it has to do with Axl Rose. I don't find his singing appealing and I think his lyrics are atrocious. I find him an extremely overrated artist.

When it was released I was working 6am-2pm. Every day when I got off work I got home to take a shower and blasted that album in the apartment before going out to get drunk which was a daily occurrence back then.

[Lucas]

I think we're straying off topic

 

This is not about how Axl looks now or how he and Vince Neil were going to have some slap fight

 

It's Appetite vs 1984

 

http://img.wennermedia.com/featured-promo-724/rs-190672-468193488.jpg

 

Right right, TRF threads always stays on topic. :P

 

I'll say this straight off: 1984 wasn't as good as some of VH's albums that preceded it but I still find it much more enjoyable than Appetite.

 

Guitars...EASILY...1984 > Appetite

Vocals....EASILY...1984 > Appetite

 

Roth was never one of my favorite singers but he fit VH's sound perfectly in those early days.

Axl's vocals...I didn't like them the first time I heard them. Screeching in the negative sense for me. Holding some of the notes as he did, yup I hated that.

 

Some have already mentioned Appetite's influence on music. Okay. But isn't that straying from the topic too ((this being a vs thread and not an influence on music thread))? As an album unto itself, Appetite didn't mean anything to me when it was released. Still doesn't.

 

Also, someone mentioned 1984's influence on 80s music so there's that if you want to go that route.

Then there was the comment on 1984 being too commercial. Is Hot For Teacher really all that commercial? I'm not sure I know what that word really means now. If 1984 is commercial then I'll still take it over Appetite.

 

I disagree with both the guitars and vocals being better ... Of course, this is a very subjective thing, but while Eddie is in a league of his own, 1984 is not a gimme just because it is Eddie ..

 

I can understand your opinion JB, but "easily" just is not fair or accurate in terms of comparing the guitar on each album

 

What Slash did with writing those classic riffs and his now signature solos can't be dismissed just because he did not carry a name at the time ..

 

It's a subjective thing ... but in 2006, the readers of Guitar World magazine did vote Appetite #2 on the list of All Time Greatest Guitar Albums ( Led Zep IV being #1 )

 

Personally, I would never put it that high, but I would put it above 1984

Edited April 19, 2017 by Lucas

[djflex]

Voted 1984 , not really sure why, but i did

[JohnnyBlaze]

I think we're straying off topic

 

This is not about how Axl looks now or how he and Vince Neil were going to have some slap fight

 

It's Appetite vs 1984

 

http://img.wennermedia.com/featured-promo-724/rs-190672-468193488.jpg

 

Right right, TRF threads always stays on topic. :P

 

I'll say this straight off: 1984 wasn't as good as some of VH's albums that preceded it but I still find it much more enjoyable than Appetite.

 

Guitars...EASILY...1984 > Appetite

Vocals....EASILY...1984 > Appetite

 

Roth was never one of my favorite singers but he fit VH's sound perfectly in those early days.

Axl's vocals...I didn't like them the first time I heard them. Screeching in the negative sense for me. Holding some of the notes as he did, yup I hated that.

 

Some have already mentioned Appetite's influence on music. Okay. But isn't that straying from the topic too ((this being a vs thread and not an influence on music thread))? As an album unto itself, Appetite didn't mean anything to me when it was released. Still doesn't.

 

Also, someone mentioned 1984's influence on 80s music so there's that if you want to go that route.

Then there was the comment on 1984 being too commercial. Is Hot For Teacher really all that commercial? I'm not sure I know what that word really means now. If 1984 is commercial then I'll still take it over Appetite.

 

I disagree with both the guitars and vocals being better ... Of course, this is a very subjective thing, but while Eddie is in a league of his own, 1984 is not a gimme just because it is Eddie ..

 

I can understand your opinion JB, but "easily" just is not fair or accurate in terms of comparing the guitar on each album

 

What Slash did with writing those classic riffs and his now signature solos can't be dismissed just because he did not carry a name at the time ..

 

It's a subjective thing ... but in 2006, the readers of Guitar World magazine did vote Appetite #2 on the list of All Time Greatest Guitar Albums ( Led Zep IV being #1 )

 

Personally, I would never put it that high, but I would put it above 1984

Since it is ALL subjective, it IS easily. And that's all there is to it.

Plenty of Appetite fans here saying it's an easy choice for them sooooo it's an easy choice for me.

[Rick N. Backer]

I know that Guns N Roses presented a dirtier and grittier style than Hair metal bands, but other than that, what was so innovative or genre-defining about Appetite for Destruction? I think the album is good, but far from groundbreaking or original.

 

With1984 the Roth-era well was running dry, but there's more energy and sincerity in "Panama" alone for me to prefer it over Appetite for Destruction.

 

I would say it was "innovative" because it wasn't trying to sound like Van Halen. In 1987, that was very rare indeed.

Bands were returning to a more traditional 70's rock sound, and Appetite was the commercial breakout album of that movement. The Seattle scene was still underground, although some of the bands already existed.

 

Everyone who loved Appetite, that I knew, loved Nevermind when it came out.

[Rick N. Backer]

Listening to Appetite right now.

 

Now I get up around whenever. I used to get up on time.

[Mithrandir]

Listening to Appetite right now.

 

Now I get up around whenever. I used to get up on time.

But that old man......

[Xanadoood]

Appetite is probably more of a cultural impact album. GNR were just different enough to get noticed.

 

1984 is just a solid, commercially successful hard rock album.

[Mithrandir]

Appetite is probably more of a cultural impact album. GNR were just different enough to get noticed.

 

1984 is just a solid, commercially successful hard rock album.

 

I agree to a point about Appetite. But it is MUCH more than culturally impactful. The album is filled with great riffs, melodies---great songs!

 

I think that Axl's attitude has led to a blowback against GnR and subsequently people dismissing Appetite for less than it is.

 

It is a MONSTER of an album.

[Rick N. Backer]

Appetite is probably more of a cultural impact album. GNR were just different enough to get noticed.

 

1984 is just a solid, commercially successful hard rock album.

 

I agree to a point about Appetite. But it is MUCH more than culturally impactful. The album is filled with great riffs, melodies---great songs!

 

I think that Axl's attitude has led to a blowback against GnR and subsequently people dismissing Appetite for less than it is.

 

It is a MONSTER of an album.

 

I could not agree with you more. Axl pretty much defines "d*ckhead rock star." But in 1988 and 1989, on the strength of Appetite and Lies, GNR were pretty much viewed as hard rock's saviors. It's no coincidence Slash solo live pulled most of his GNR tunes from Appetite. I saw them open for Aerosmith in 1988 or 1989 at Great Woods. They blew them away.

 

I still love that album.

[Xanadoood]

Appetite is probably more of a cultural impact album. GNR were just different enough to get noticed.

 

1984 is just a solid, commercially successful hard rock album.

 

I agree to a point about Appetite. But it is MUCH more than culturally impactful. The album is filled with great riffs, melodies---great songs!

 

I think that Axl's attitude has led to a blowback against GnR and subsequently people dismissing Appetite for less than it is.

 

It is a MONSTER of an album.

 

I could not agree with you more. Axl pretty much defines "d*ckhead rock star." But in 1988 and 1989, on the strength of Appetite and Lies, GNR were pretty much viewed as hard rock's saviors. It's no coincidence Slash solo live pulled most of his GNR tunes from Appetite. I saw them open for Aerosmith in 1988 or 1989 at Great Woods. They blew them away.

 

I still love that album.

 

It really was much different than the Crues, Leppards and Ratts of the world. If that album came out in 1981, it probably wouldn't have blown up quite as much.

[tangy]

Appetite was among the strongest debuts since van halen. Van halen is a far superior group but i do prefer appetite.

I'm going with Living Colour's Vivid as the strongest debut since Van Halen. Better musicians in Living Colour. Better vocalist. Better lyrics even.

 

Good call. I love both discs but i guess i agree with you. Both were the right records at the right time.

[Mithrandir]

Appetite is probably more of a cultural impact album. GNR were just different enough to get noticed.

 

1984 is just a solid, commercially successful hard rock album.

 

I agree to a point about Appetite. But it is MUCH more than culturally impactful. The album is filled with great riffs, melodies---great songs!

 

I think that Axl's attitude has led to a blowback against GnR and subsequently people dismissing Appetite for less than it is.

 

It is a MONSTER of an album.

 

I could not agree with you more. Axl pretty much defines "d*ckhead rock star." But in 1988 and 1989, on the strength of Appetite and Lies, GNR were pretty much viewed as hard rock's saviors. It's no coincidence Slash solo live pulled most of his GNR tunes from Appetite. I saw them open for Aerosmith in 1988 or 1989 at Great Woods. They blew them away.

 

I still love that album.

 

It really was much different than the Crues, Leppards and Ratts of the world. If that album came out in 1981, it probably wouldn't have blown up quite as much.

 

Who knows? I get what you are saying, but its pointless. The album just kills it and would have been mega successful at any time.

[JohnnyBlaze]

Appetite is probably more of a cultural impact album. GNR were just different enough to get noticed.

 

1984 is just a solid, commercially successful hard rock album.

 

I agree to a point about Appetite. But it is MUCH more than culturally impactful. The album is filled with great riffs, melodies---great songs!

 

I think that Axl's attitude has led to a blowback against GnR and subsequently people dismissing Appetite for less than it is.

 

 

For me, I disliked Axl's voice well before I knew of his offstage antics. Riding in friends' cars at the time of its release, my pals must've been playing it a solid two years before I knew anything about the band. I had just been listening and not liking it. So yeah, I dismissed it because I didn't like it. Simple. Axl just happened to be a dick.

[Segue Myles]

Appetite is probably more of a cultural impact album. GNR were just different enough to get noticed.

 

1984 is just a solid, commercially successful hard rock album.

 

I agree to a point about Appetite. But it is MUCH more than culturally impactful. The album is filled with great riffs, melodies---great songs!

 

I think that Axl's attitude has led to a blowback against GnR and subsequently people dismissing Appetite for less than it is.

 

 

For me, I disliked Axl's voice well before I knew of his offstage antics. Riding in friends' cars at the time of its release, my pals must've been playing it a solid two years before I knew anything about the band. I had just been listening and not liking it. So yeah, I dismissed it because I didn't like it. Simple. Axl just happened to be a dick.

 

Sounds like me and Queen.