Talk:Guns N' Roses

Previous discussion, mostly regarding N vs n in Guns N' Roses, can be found at Talk:Guns N' Roses/archive1.

Chris Pittman

Pittman is the keyboards and effects man on the band. This position was previously held in hte band by Teddy "Zig Zag" Andreadis, but he was not considered an official member, even though he played in the Use Your Illusion Tour and appeared in the band's videos. A couple of websites say that Pittman is an official member, however since 2001, no official word from the band or it's management regarding Pittman has been released. Therefore, until Rose or his management realease this information, Chris Pittman cannot be considered an official member. <<Coburn_Pharr>> 18:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Name

There appears to be consensus above that Guns n' Roses is the correct way to write the band's name. Why was this moved to have a capital N? Tuf-Kat 18:47, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

[1] [2] [3] [4], etc. —siroχo

Abbreviation

Adding an apostrophe to an acronym or appreviation kind of kills the whole point of having one in the first place. Please quit adding the apostrophe to "GNR". I am aware that on GNR Lies it is printed as "GN'R" but this is the only place that it is referred to as such, and on the official website it does not even have GNR, it has G&R. I think it's better to keep "GNR" as it usually printed and said than use the apostrophe.

Classification

How should GNR be categorized? Different edits have described it has a hair metal band, a hard rock band, and a heavy metal band. Personally, I feel that heavy metal is the more accurate classification. Tkessler 00:18, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Heavy Metal, as Hair Metal (which verges on being more correct) is but a subgenre. Brother Dysk 02:55, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

i think guns'n'roses would be classified as sleaze rock. other examples of sleaze rock: l.a. guns and faster pussycat.

in fact, tracii guns has played with guns'n'rose, l.a. guns, and faster pussycat, though with faster pussycat only as a touring guitarist and only briefly.Gringo300 12:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They were a metal band. They sort of killed the "hair" aesthetic, so I don't think the current classification as "hair metal" is accurate. Except for in the Jungle video, I guess, for obvious reasons. Tempshill 21:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Guns N' Roses is a definitive hard rock band. They were not metal, metal bands in the 1980s were bands like Metallica and Anthrax. They were not hair metal, hair metal bands in the 1980s were bands like Poison. GNR was rock with elements of punk, blues, and metal. Use Your Illusions hair metal? Please. - user:defunkt 23:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The only thing hair metal about GNR is the video of welcome to the jungle. How can anybody in their right mind classify the use your illusion albums as hair metal....and even worse, the type of music they're are doing now which has industrial sound? I think which should leave hard rock as their clasification.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 00:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Guys, I don't think it's neccessary to classify everything and stamp it with a label. I mean GNR is really heavy rock but their sound varies. Just listen to GNR LIES or compare UYI I and II. It's like trying to classify Jimi Hendrix. Was he blues rock? Pyschedelic rock? Just classic rock? Who knows, more importantly who cares. In this case, labels do less to help and more to interfere. If someone reads this article and it says "hair metal" they'll associate Gun N' Roses with the wrong crowd and won't understand their sound. If we simply call them "metal" we get the same outcome. Although I favor no label, we of course have to say something about them, so I especially like "hard rock". That leaves some leeway on what they are and seems a little more loose than metal, and a lot more lose than "hair metal". We can hit a comnpromise and at least build on that part about them being a new band with a new sound and we can say that they can be most described as a conglomeration of hard rock/(hair) metal while the new band has taken a more hard rock/industrial style. --Elysianfields 16:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

This settles it: Straight from Axl himself on being questioned about being a heavy metal band, from an interview in '87 after a short show, "We don't consider ourselves a metal band. We consider ourselves a rock and roll band. Rock and roll covers everything, and we try to cover as many things as we can learn to play." Happy I found this, pretty much what I said last time. So let's keep it Rock n' Roll folks--Elysianfields 05:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

GN'R is band that mixes glam rock and hard rock. --80.186.67.158 05:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

GN'R are NOT a hard rock band! They are a heavy metal band!

I swear i'm going to reach through the monitor and fucking strangle to death the next person who changes it to heavy metal. AXL ROSE HIMSELF DECLARED THAT GUNS N' ROSES IS A ROCK BAND NOT A METAL BAND. He does not want to be classified with the limited and closeminded genre of metal he wants to be known as a rock band. Leave it the hell alone

I can't believe this. This is a stupid edit war. First it was the dude saying they were hair metal, and then now its the dude saying they are heavy metal. Anyway, heavy and hair metal are both subgenres of HARD ROCK! Axl Rose said that he doesn't want his band labeled under one specific sub-genre. So, please STOP IT, leave it at hard rock. If you are going to change it to heavy or hair metal, at least make an argument here!<<Coburn_Pharr>> 00:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

This is my opinion: GnR's a darn hard rock band. What makes them heavy metal? Not much, really. Sure, some of their songs have metal riffs, but that doesn't prove much. Besides, hard rock emcompasses a wider range of sounds and styles.

Appetite sales

The "Rise to fame" section says Appetite For Destruction sold 20 million copies, but the "Sales" section mentions only 15 million....

I updated a while back, forgot to mention it hear, so doing it now! :D --aditya mukherjee 12:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Steven Adler

It´s said that Steven Adler left "short time after the release" of Lies. I´m not an expert on the issue, but this fact seems strange to me. I suppose that he left at least 1 - 2 years after the release of that album. Isn´t it right that he played drums on "Civil War" which came out seperately on a tribute album (or something) in 90 - 91?

Another point: 'Adler had been replaced by the hard-hitting (but technically inferior) Matt Sorum,'

Shouldn't that be 'technicall superior'? I'm a guitaist myself, so I can't claim to be an expert in the field, but wasn't Matt for more technically gifted? I recall reading a guitar magazine article interviewing slash where he was quoted as saying that Stephen's playing is all over the place on Appetite. Somebody get a sober drummer to verify this...

• • Adler was fired on August 1990, part of "Use Your illusion" was already recorded. And anyone who says that Matt Sorum is inferior to Adler, drumwise, doesn't know anything about music. It is simply obvious that Matt is a much better drummer.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 18:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Say what you please, but most agree that Adler was better. Maybe it's just because he was the original band member and people like him for that, but most like Adler better. His abilities went downhill with drug use, but he was still an awesome drummer regardless; I don't know enough on the subject to objectively compare Sorum and Adler.--Elysianfields 16:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm a drummer, but I have never heard GNR live, and I would assume that studio recordings aren't an accurate representation of a drummer's ability, so I cannot give you an assessment myself; however, the general consensus actually seems to be that Matt is the better drummer. In any case, for all practical purposes, an awesome drummer whose abilities are impaired by drug use is not better than a competent drummer who has full control of his faculties, I would think. P 14:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC) ǔ