G-n-R vs. Nirvana
 

So, MisterMadly and I were talking about music the other night, and the subject of Guns and Roses came up. I made the argument that G-n-R were really a grunge band, but because they came in on the tail end of the "hair band" era, they got lumped into that genre. When grunge became popular, G-n-R were unfairly piled on top of the trash heap that was hair bands.

Anyone out there agree with me? If you need evidence, listen to "It's So Easy" from Appetite for Destruction back to back with "Breed" from Nevermind.

I think G-n-R is a great band. So many great songs, the Appetite for Destruction album has so many fine examples.

Just my $.0159843 worth
-Mark

I hate the word grunge and the way it used to market things that had nothing to do with music so I would never call anything I like grunge...

But G 'n R kick Nirvana's ass. They are both ROCK bands, forget all the other labels.

I'd say both. I'd put them in 2 completely different categories of music. Therefore, there's not a comparison.

Can you picture Kurt Cobain with big hair and tight cutoff jean shorts?

True "grunge" was an offshoot of bands like Husker Du and REM along with various punk bands, throw in a dash of metal and you have what "grunge" was characterized by. There are really no songs by GNR that I know of that show punk influence, and I doubt that Axl was spending a lot of time listening to early REM.

There is a really great book called Bang Your Head, which details the history of the American metal/ hard rock scene from the 1960's until today.

GnR came from the same LA Rock scene that produced other 80's "hair bands" such as Motley Crue, Poison, and others. All of these metal and rock bands played the same club circut in LA.

I would assume that each bands "sound" and "image" would eventually depend on when they were signed to big time record deals and who produced them and wrote their music. A lot of record companies were just looking for a "hair band" to sign because the sound was so popular, so a lot of crap was produced and thrown on the radio. So you got some bands that were legitimately good rock bands (GnR), and some that kind of sucked (a LOT of the others).

GnR members wrote most of their own music, and obviously also "lived the life", which led to the bands eventual demise. Even at the time they were seen as the future of rock music, and more like a real rock band (they toured with Aerosmith and Metallica) than a trendy hair band. But as hair bands became less trendy, bands like REM, Alice in Chains, and of course Nirvana bagan to rise in popularity. GnR could never get their act together, and as they were battling it out amongst themselves the whole music scene started to change.

Thought I grew up more during the Nirvana years than the GnR years (my mother wasn't really into Appetite For Destruction when I was in elementary school), GnR has since become one of my favorite bands. I wish they had stayed together!

Even though Axl looks grungish, I thin GN'R is a metal "hair" band. I believe they spoke of this on the Headbanger's ball special they show ad nauseum on MTV2. Appetite for destruction is one of the few albums I can listen to without skipping over a song.

personally I didn't care much for Nirvana, I loved Pearl Jam and Soundgarden. I think their music is much better than Nirvana, any day, they had some good songs...but I think since Curt killed himself "we" are making them greater than they truly were. That being said, I do think that Dave Grohl of The Foo Fighters is a genius.

As for G n R -- ALL TIME fav metal band and I still get chills listening to Appretite. Its sad to me that circumstances that they themselves created and the music scene of the early 90s destoryed them.

These "new" incarnations that they are attempting to form, from Axl and the new G N' R to Slash, Duff and the others forming a new band will never hold water.

As for the original question, they were two different musical and life styles.

I also have to say that Gun N' Roses was NEVER A HAIR BAND, they just got lumped in