Taking Sides: Guns' n' Roses vs. Stone Roses

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
White-trash punk funk with 'flexible' work ethics. Singers brooding and belligerent mystic types, with high queerness quotients despite 'homophobia' 'scandals'. Guitarists like soloing in revivalist style, which may be because they also like chemicals. (That means 'original' guitarists btw. Revolving-door bands, "The band [i.e., singer's head] is bigger than any one member, we can go on without them" etc). And has anyone noticed that two-part epics "Rocket Queen" and "I Am the Resurrection" are the same song, with the parts switched around?

dave q, Thursday, 10 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

"G'n'R have sold 17 million records and the Stone Roses haven't even sold one million." (Richey Edwards). So there!

dave q, Thursday, 10 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

But the Stone Roses aren't sleazy!

youn, Thursday, 10 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

i have often thought these 2 groups similar (i'm not referring to second coming btw), but i've not really been able to explain why, i'll return to this thread with interest.

gareth, Thursday, 10 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Much as I hate to differ with St. Richey, I prefer the Stone Roses. I'm sure a lot of UK fans gagged on all the hype long before their inglorious end, but that first album is still pretty much a classic for me. It's as good as any single album by the Beatles, Dylan, or Hendrix. Everything about the band still seems dead cool at that point, from Squire's Pollock-esque covers (the aforementioned Mr. Edwards once chose the cover of Fools Gold as one of his favorite paintings, so there!) to the hushed, sinister-sweet vocals and confrontational lyrics. It's like someone decided to cross Simon & Garfunkel with the Sex Pistols.

But, but, BUT, the Stone Roses after One Love are utterly awful. I refuse to accept that the same people responsible for the wonder that is "Sugar Spun Sister" and "Mersey Paradise" are responsible for the drudgery of Second Coming, with its endless sub-Zeppelin wankery and empty messiah posturing (by this point the band's constant Christ/heaven/messiah references in their lyrics were getting even more annoying than Oasis's pointless Beatles references) and uninspired songwriting. And then there's the Seahorses. And Ian Brown's solo career. I have to stop, I'm getting depressed.

As for Guns N'Roses, aren't they really just a hair metal band done right? Appetite For Destruction still sounds pretty solid, though, with some good overlooked songs (Think About You, Nighttrain, and of course Out Ta Get Me with its great-to-sing-along-to "I'M FUCKING INNOCENT!" chorus), and Izzy Stradlin sure looked cool. On the other hand, while Axl Rose may once have seemed like a dangerous, 'unpredictable' force in music back when people still cared about such stupid things, these days he's more like Elton John with Tourette's.

Justyn Dillingham, Thursday, 10 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Easiest question to answer on ILM ever: Guns'n'Roses, no contest.

jel, Thursday, 10 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Guns N Roses was one ship that left me on the island. I don't see what distinguishes them from all the other shite cock rock bands of their era. Stone Roses are pleasant enough, even if half both albums is complete shite. Jon Carter did a great remix of I am the Resurrection, leaving out the chorus in true Carter fashion. So Stone Roses. Also because Axl Rose is the sort of dickhead you want to hammer nails into as opposed to Ian Brown who is the sort of dickhead you just want to laugh at.

Ronan, Thursday, 10 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

ah, a youngun' like you doesn't remember what a breath of fresh air (!) GnR was in the late eighties. doesn't excuse what happened after Appetite for Destruction, but for a brief shining moment they were the shit.

OTOH, Axl Rose these days = what Jim Morrison would have become had Mr. Morrison not O.D.'d. To wit -- fat, slovenly, perpetually drunk, obnoxious, and clueless. At least Mr. Mojo Risin' had the good sense to kick before it got tiresome -- as fer Mr. Rose, while I don't wish dead, I do think that he's got enough $$$$ to hie his anti-social self to some island or mountain ("you just don't move me any more, Axl," to paraphrase Izzy's Rolling Stones predecessor/role-model).

As fer the Stone Roses ... I liked the Happy Mondays better (how conventional). So my vote goes to GnR, by default.

Tadeusz Suchodolski, Thursday, 10 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

At least Mr. Mojo Risin' had the good sense to kick before it got tiresome

*Before*? ;-)

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 10 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Being mancunian I'll always have a soft spot for the first SR album, but I always think it's odd how revered they are generally. I remember first hearing Made of Stone on local radio aged 15/16, and thinking it was a competent piece of fairly MOR rock with a nice guitar solo, nothing groundbreaking or anything. I was really surprised when it all blew up a few months later and the album was hailed as the next big thing since the last big thing. They swaggered well, though, and that counts for a lot. However, let us not forget that this is a band 1. whose second album was and is an utter disappointment. 2. whose lead singer was legendarily bad live (I'm not just talking about the infamous last gig, Listen to the live Blackpool video from their heyday and you'll see what I mean) 3. whose members (Reni and Mani) have played with their own tribute band. I mean, for fucksake. Even irony is no excuse. that's just sad. 4. whose post Roses output stinks. And I don't just mean the Seahorses. And all that's not counting Ian Brown's homophobic comments, on general record and in the national press. Jesus, Brown, and we thought you were hip, you skinny poisonous fucker. You had us fooled, didn't you? King Monkey. King Wanker more like.

I know G&R can be accused of many of the same sins so I won't offer any further judgement on them, but they weren't a huge part of my teens so I take their aberrances less personally.

misterjones, Thursday, 10 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I hate both! Hooray!

DG, Thursday, 10 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

The Second Coming is wonderful.

Dr. C, Thursday, 10 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

And yet you find 'Physical Graffiti' boring, Dr.C?

Andrew L, Thursday, 10 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

THE STONE ROSES!!!

Todd, Thursday, 10 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

in my high school it was always skid row that held sway over guns and roses. i can remember wearing out three cassette versions of the first stone roses album.

keith, Thursday, 10 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Last time I heard it - VERY.

Dr. C, Thursday, 10 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I always think it's odd how revered they are generally

Odd is an understatement. I mean sure they were pleasant enough, but reading back in the day how nuts English kids were going for them... I just didn't get it.

I still think the first G'n'R album is classic, so maybe it's an America vs. England kind of thing.

Sean, Thursday, 10 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

said someone in the jamiroquai thread: "reminds me ALMOST EXACTLY the things that disgust me the most - musically, spiritually, sartorially, intellectually, sexually,etc.etc.etc..."

i think guns n'roses does this for me.

marek, Thursday, 10 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I wish I could say that I agree with DG, but once I got over the hype, I found the first Stone Roses album to be fairly pleasant. Never heard the second one, except "10 Story Love Song" which is way more perfect than "Sweet Child of Mine".

I still hate Guns n' Roses.

Arthur, Thursday, 10 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

PHuX G00|\|Z & R4C!%+Z! @# ! @#

St0n3 r0zez r0x0r! @# ! @# !

R0N4|\| ist K0RReCKt! @# ! @#

So Iz D0cKToR C! @# (AbOuT "Thee SeCKoNd KoMiNg) ! @# ! @# ! @#

Norman Phay, Thursday, 10 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

0H I PHoRGoT! @# ! @#~

R0|\|a|\| != KoRReCKT aBT JoN KaRTeR! @# ! @#~

JoN CaRTeR = SuX0R! @# ! @# ! @# !~

NoRMaN PHaY, Thursday, 10 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

gunners kick the stoners ass - ian brown nevah had his own shoes, and they nevah did a charles manson cover.

geoff, Thursday, 10 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

fourteen years pass...

New interview with Aziz Ibrahim suggests that Slash was tapped for Stone Roses after John Squire left. Weird as fuck.

Poliopolice, Tuesday, 9 August 2016 17:05 (nine years ago)

You don't just step inside to 14 years!

DavidLeeRoth, Tuesday, 9 August 2016 17:35 (nine years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.