The band that tried to kill hair metal vs. the band that did. GNR or Nirvana?

[Steevo]

Yea i can't agree that G N R sound dated. if anything.....grunge sounds very of it's time to my ears. great stuff don't get me wrong. but very of it's time.

 

Mick

 

Reverse for me. AIC and Nirvana never sound dated, two best to have come out of that era, no question.

[ReRushed]

Nothing in popular music remains dated for long. It always comes back around some how. Always.

[bluefox4000]

Yea i can't agree that G N R sound dated. if anything.....grunge sounds very of it's time to my ears. great stuff don't get me wrong. but very of it's time.

 

Mick

 

Reverse for me. AIC and Nirvana never sound dated, two best to have come out of that era, no question.

 

cool. i suppose it's just me. Growing up right in there. they all were just there for that period.

 

Kinda all blended together for me for a while. so i associate that style as being firmly late 80's/90's

 

Mick

Edited September 1, 2017 by bluefox4000

[ReRushed]

Yea i can't agree that G N R sound dated. if anything.....grunge sounds very of it's time to my ears. great stuff don't get me wrong. but very of it's time.

 

Mick

 

Reverse for me. AIC and Nirvana never sound dated, two best to have come out of that era, no question.

 

cool. i suppose it's just me. Growing up right in there. they all were just there for that period.

 

Kinda all blended together for me for a while. so i associate that style as being firmly late 80's/90's

 

Mick

You can say that about every genre era-wise. Cream and the Who and Hendrix, yep late 60's/early 70's.

[bluefox4000]

Yea i can't agree that G N R sound dated. if anything.....grunge sounds very of it's time to my ears. great stuff don't get me wrong. but very of it's time.

 

Mick

 

Reverse for me. AIC and Nirvana never sound dated, two best to have come out of that era, no question.

 

cool. i suppose it's just me. Growing up right in there. they all were just there for that period.

 

Kinda all blended together for me for a while. so i associate that style as being firmly late 80's/90's

 

Mick

You can say that about every genre era-wise. Cream and the Who and Hendrix, yep late 60's/early 70's.

 

hey i agree.

 

i was just saying i don't think Grunge is timeless.

 

Mick

Edited September 1, 2017 by bluefox4000

[Rick N. Backer]

Appetite for Destruction was a massively huge album. Guns n' Roses are still riding the coattails of its success. But, how much did it really change the musical landscape? I am sincerely asking, where are the Guns n' Roses clones? Who are their contemporaries?

 

Nevermind shifted everything. Tons of bands and musicians wanted what Nirvana had. Then look what followed... Pearl Jam... Soundgarden... Alice in Chains... Stone Temple Pilots... and tons of clones all over the radio and MTV. Holy heck, things were different.

 

Am I remembering it incorrectly?

Maybe. Those bands (PJ, etc) you listed didnt really come after Nirvana, other than radio play maybe. They were all part of the same Seattle underground scene, with acts like Mudhoney, etc.

I know. But Nirvana was the band that spearheaded the commercial acceptance of the Seattle scene. Same thing with the Beatles and the British Invasion.

 

Exactly.

 

Funny how it took Nirvana to do it, considering Soundgarden were already making ripples on a major label.

 

That raw sound that defined "grunge" remains timeless to my ears. Something about it leaves every hair metal band sounding very dated. Nevermind could have come out yesterday. Appetite For Destruction sounds its age to my ears.

 

Mother Love Bone, Pearl Jam and Alice In Chains released the very best albums, in my opinion. Soundgarden for me were wonderful, but the albums are all too long for me to listen too and keep interested in for the entire duration.

 

Yeah, one would've really though Soundgarden were going to hit first. Nevertheless, Nevermind is what took the world by storm.

 

However, to my ears, GNR don't sound dated at all. They sound like rock and roll, and rock and roll will never die!

 

You can largely credit Slash and Stradlin for that. Because they weren't going berserk with tapping or whammy bars or pinch harmonics, the tunes don't have a 1980s feel, at least to my ears.

 

Here's another thing in GNR's favor I'll raise: Lies. They rereleased a live album, and put some acoustic tunes on the B side. And the acoustic tunes are what caught everyone's ear. They were unplugged before it became a thing.

[ReRushed]

Appetite for Destruction was a massively huge album. Guns n' Roses are still riding the coattails of its success. But, how much did it really change the musical landscape? I am sincerely asking, where are the Guns n' Roses clones? Who are their contemporaries?

 

Nevermind shifted everything. Tons of bands and musicians wanted what Nirvana had. Then look what followed... Pearl Jam... Soundgarden... Alice in Chains... Stone Temple Pilots... and tons of clones all over the radio and MTV. Holy heck, things were different.

 

Am I remembering it incorrectly?

Maybe. Those bands (PJ, etc) you listed didnt really come after Nirvana, other than radio play maybe. They were all part of the same Seattle underground scene, with acts like Mudhoney, etc.

I know. But Nirvana was the band that spearheaded the commercial acceptance of the Seattle scene. Same thing with the Beatles and the British Invasion.

 

Exactly.

 

Funny how it took Nirvana to do it, considering Soundgarden were already making ripples on a major label.

 

That raw sound that defined "grunge" remains timeless to my ears. Something about it leaves every hair metal band sounding very dated. Nevermind could have come out yesterday. Appetite For Destruction sounds its age to my ears.

 

Mother Love Bone, Pearl Jam and Alice In Chains released the very best albums, in my opinion. Soundgarden for me were wonderful, but the albums are all too long for me to listen too and keep interested in for the entire duration.

 

Yeah, one would've really though Soundgarden were going to hit first. Nevertheless, Nevermind is what took the world by storm.

 

However, to my ears, GNR don't sound dated at all. They sound like rock and roll, and rock and roll will never die!

 

You can largely credit Slash and Stradlin for that. Because they weren't going berserk with tapping or whammy bars or pinch harmonics, the tunes don't have a 1980s feel, at least to my ears.

 

Here's another thing in GNR's favor I'll raise: Lies. They rereleased a live album, and put some acoustic tunes on the B side. And the acoustic tunes are what caught everyone's ear. They were unplugged before it became a thing.

That's the album with the song "Patience", correct? I like some GNR songs. "Patience" ain't one of 'em.

[Rick N. Backer]

Appetite for Destruction was a massively huge album. Guns n' Roses are still riding the coattails of its success. But, how much did it really change the musical landscape? I am sincerely asking, where are the Guns n' Roses clones? Who are their contemporaries?

 

Nevermind shifted everything. Tons of bands and musicians wanted what Nirvana had. Then look what followed... Pearl Jam... Soundgarden... Alice in Chains... Stone Temple Pilots... and tons of clones all over the radio and MTV. Holy heck, things were different.

 

Am I remembering it incorrectly?

Maybe. Those bands (PJ, etc) you listed didnt really come after Nirvana, other than radio play maybe. They were all part of the same Seattle underground scene, with acts like Mudhoney, etc.

I know. But Nirvana was the band that spearheaded the commercial acceptance of the Seattle scene. Same thing with the Beatles and the British Invasion.

 

Exactly.

 

Funny how it took Nirvana to do it, considering Soundgarden were already making ripples on a major label.

 

That raw sound that defined "grunge" remains timeless to my ears. Something about it leaves every hair metal band sounding very dated. Nevermind could have come out yesterday. Appetite For Destruction sounds its age to my ears.

 

Mother Love Bone, Pearl Jam and Alice In Chains released the very best albums, in my opinion. Soundgarden for me were wonderful, but the albums are all too long for me to listen too and keep interested in for the entire duration.

 

Yeah, one would've really though Soundgarden were going to hit first. Nevertheless, Nevermind is what took the world by storm.

 

However, to my ears, GNR don't sound dated at all. They sound like rock and roll, and rock and roll will never die!

 

You can largely credit Slash and Stradlin for that. Because they weren't going berserk with tapping or whammy bars or pinch harmonics, the tunes don't have a 1980s feel, at least to my ears.

 

Here's another thing in GNR's favor I'll raise: Lies. They rereleased a live album, and put some acoustic tunes on the B side. And the acoustic tunes are what caught everyone's ear. They were unplugged before it became a thing.

That's the album with the song "Patience", correct? I like some GNR songs. "Patience" ain't one of 'em.

 

Yes. I like all of the tracks on that album.

[RUSHHEAD666]

I can't believe Guns N Roses is winning this poll!

 

Must be a fix like Trump getting into office! Yet everyone hates him! LOL!

 

Guns N Roses tried to save sleaze hair metal. Not fuckking destroy it!!

 

LIVE LIKE A SUICIDE IS FOR PUSSIES! YEP!!!!

 

THAT EP IS METAL!

 

NIRVANA ARE POSERS!

 

GROHL IS THE ONLY ONE TRYING TO SAVE ROCK NOW!!!!

 

F NIRVANA!

 

I saw them on NYE at the Cow Palace! They opened up for L7, and Pearl Jam! The Red Hot Chili Peppers headlined!

 

Nirvana were the biggest fuckingg posers on the stage.

 

Smashing their instruments totally copying The Who!

 

ZERO ORIGINALITY!

 

If anything worthy to note. "Bleach" was their best album.

[JohnnyBlaze]

Appetite for Destruction was a massively huge album. Guns n' Roses are still riding the coattails of its success. But, how much did it really change the musical landscape? I am sincerely asking, where are the Guns n' Roses clones? Who are their contemporaries?

 

Nevermind shifted everything. Tons of bands and musicians wanted what Nirvana had. Then look what followed... Pearl Jam... Soundgarden... Alice in Chains... Stone Temple Pilots... and tons of clones all over the radio and MTV. Holy heck, things were different.

 

Am I remembering it incorrectly?

 

Nirvana changed what became sellable, and with that in mind, how different were they compared to Green Day ??

 

Being at the forefront of a natural cycle in the music business doesn't necessarily mean the music is groundbreaking - change is relative ..

 

 

Guns - with Appetite and Lies - brought fans of bands like The Faces, Aerosmith, The New York Dolls, Iggy And The Stooges, Dead Boys, etc together with contemporaries like The Georgia Satellites, Jason And The Scorchers, and The Black Crowes to name a few ..

 

In hindsight, it might not seem groundbreaking, but I can remember as a fan of Guns being ecstatic about the new wave of simple rock and roll bands ..

 

They all may not have hit it big, but bands like Flies On Fire, Dogs D'Amour, Jason And The Scorchers, The Black Crowes, Rock City Angels - even the change The Cult went thru was a part of what Guns brought to the table ..

 

What Guns did - albeit briefly - cannot be underestimated

 

It was - and still is - as much about the attitude as it is the music ... After witnessing just about every band I loved from the 70s and 80 nosedive, the attitude Guns resurrected was like seeing an old friend after so many years ..

 

So in that respect, they were influential and important

 

I don't value attitude as much as music compared to many people. It's probably why Rush could look like dorks for a good portion of their career and it not bother me. I didn't even think about it. Listen, then like or dislike.

 

A lot of punk and hip hop bands have plenty of attitude but at least two-thirds of what I've heard in those two genres have no value to me musically.

 

Additionally, if a song isn't enjoyable to me first then the groundbreaking part won't really matter (again, to me).

[Texas King]

When the 80's American mainstream rock scene was satiated with cheesy "hair metal", a quality hard rock band GnR hit the spot and brought back RAW and BALLSY hard rock sound to the audience of rock fans. American rock scene needed one such band as GnR.

 

Guns and Van Halen were two biggest American hard rock bands during the 80's. I dig both bands, but Gunners had bigger balls than VH and that's for sure.

[Entre_Perpetuo]

When the 80's American mainstream rock scene was satiated with cheesy "hair metal", a quality hard rock band GnR hit the spot and brought back RAW and BALLSY hard rock sound to the audience of rock fans. American rock scene needed one such band as GnR.

 

Guns and Van Halen were two biggest American hard rock bands during the 80's. I dig both bands, but Gunners had bigger balls than VH and that's for sure.

 

You realize this thread is about GNR and NIRVANA, not Van Halen, right?

[thirteen]

Nirvana made such an impact that even :rush: tried their hand at the grunge/alternative vibe....

[RUSHHEAD666]

Nirvana made such an impact that even :rush: tried their hand at the grunge/alternative vibe....

 

Oh come on Thirteen! Rush tried to "STICK IT OUT!" UGH! I always thought that long curly haired guy was a homage to Chris Cornell in that video.

 

RUSH always tried to fit in with the evolution or the downward spiral of modern music.

 

I think the boys came up short in their so called temporary "geological time" period of trying to be well "Hip To Be Square." Huey Lewis?

 

"What Is Hip?

 

Love,

 

TOWER OF POWER WINDOWS

 

LOL!!!!

[New_World_Man]

I voted for Nirvana but to be honest I don't have a problem with either band. Obviously Nirvana did more to kill hair metal but by itself that doesn't necessarily make them better.

[invisible airwave]

GnR killed the living corpse. Nirvana and Pearl Jam killed the zombified corpse.

 

You could say the success of a classic rock retro band like Black Crowes kind of played a part in killing it.

[The K Man]

It's a myth that Nirvana and grunge killed hair metal. Hair metal was on life support anyway at that point and only given days to live.

 

I am not wild about either band, but both have a handful of songs i enjoy.

[Nate2112]

Both bands are absolutely terrible. But Nirvana is a hair less terrible

[blueschica]

Guns N Roses!

[Digital Dad]

Soundgarden

[Entre_Perpetuo]

Soundgarden

 

Honestly the correct answer. Was just listening to a bit of their really early stuff, not expecting much but some zep and sabbath ripoffs, and it blew me away. It was a tad unrefined, but it didn't sound like anything other than Soundgarden, and that's awesome. Truly one of a kind. Such a shame it's over. R.I.P. Chris.

[_hi_water._]

Guns N Roses are great, but they have made some flops, unlike Nirvana. Nirvana got my vote.

[invisible airwave]

Soundgarden

 

Plus, Ultramega OK came out a year before Bleach. Speaking of 1988, I'd give some credit to bands like Jane's Addiction as well who were hard rock but popular with the college radio crowd that was into PIxies and R.E.M. at the time.

[Entre_Perpetuo]

Guns N Roses are great, but they have made some flops, unlike Nirvana. Nirvana got my vote.

 

I'm gonna give you this only because GnR have barely made more albums than Nirvana, who only made three (which gave them very little statistical chance of flopping compared to most bands). With similar numbers of records under their belts it's significant that GnR have a worse hit/miss ratio. I don't think the same argument holds up if you compare Nirvana to, say, Aerosmith.

[_hi_water._]

Guns N Roses are great, but they have made some flops, unlike Nirvana. Nirvana got my vote.

 

I'm gonna give you this only because GnR have barely made more albums than Nirvana, who only made three (which gave them very little statistical chance of flopping compared to most bands). With similar numbers of records under their belts it's significant that GnR have a worse hit/miss ratio. I don't think the same argument holds up if you compare Nirvana to, say, Aerosmith.

That's fair lol