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. Which is exactly what the user above me said. Instead of discussing and trying to rip each other's eyes out, pin them down to something that everyone can agree with...what about just heavy rock?

Or somebody could start citing sources, and explain in the article who believes what about GNR. Tuf-Kat 16:12, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Im gonna keep changin it to heavy metal until you stop changin it to hard rock!

• • Well then you have no idea how wikipedia works and you should probably be banned. And I assure, I will continue changing it to hard rock, since it is the majority decision of the users that have to do with this article. At least make an ARGUMENT of why you think it is heavy metal.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 21:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

To be honest with you, heavy metal itself is a subgenre of hard rock. GNR is as much as a metal band as Metallica. The genres GNR play IMO include hair metal, glam metal, punk, hardcore punk, and punk metal. CoolKatt number 99999

An argument eh? Just listen to tracks such Mr Brownstone, Its So Easy, Dont Damn Me, Double Talkin Jive, Back Off Bitch,Your Crazy(AFD version) and Crash Diet. Thats Heavy Metal. As for your comment on "you dont know how wikipedia works" , i actually do. And as for "you should probably be banned", i'm on AOL, and so have a roaming IP, which means the only way to ban me would be to ban all of AOL.

• LOL..I can't believe you are going to use songs as a basis to your argument. Listen then to November Rain, Patience, Since I dont Have You, Estraged, Madagascar, oh My God, Chinese Democracy.....NONE of them are Heavy Metal......they are blues, punk, power ballad, on and on...that's why they cannot be classfied under only ONE sub-genre. <<Coburn_Pharr>>22:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

You say you cant belive that im using songs as my argument...and then YOU go and do the same!LMFAO. As for punk, blues, and power balled...BULLSHIT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.213.8.227 (talk • contribs) Sep 13, 2005 (UTC)

Anon, please stop making personal attacks and using profanity. We need to try to keep this place civil and not use this as a platform for attacks. Besides, kindly sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) for all of us to know what you wrote and answer accordingly. Thanks! --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 16:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

When did i make a personal attack? Anyway, all what i said in that post was true. He laughed at my argument, and then did the same himself, that was the basis of my argument. As for the word 'b******t', i had every right to use it considering what he said.172.203.56.137 22:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for signing. I suggest you read Wikipedia's No Personal Attacks policy for clarification. On the other hand, you do have the right to use profanity (at least here, in America, I don't know where you are) but you have a moral obligation to respect your peers and colleagues, I don't see anything that warrants your aggresion. Here in Wikipedia that language (LMFAO, etc...) is considered very offensive and frowned upon. I would like to encourage you to sign up for an account and to express your points of view on a more socially acceptable manner. You'll find other editors more willing to cooperate and compromise with you. It would also help since we'll be able to move this conversation away from this page, where obviously it doesn't belong anymore. Feel free to continue it on my talk page. Thanks for your understanding and please continue helping us be better. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 22:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

YOUR talk page? Dont get it. Anyway whats wrong with LM**A(i thought id better put the *'s in, seein as even LM**O offends you...). I'm in england btw, and yes we do have the right to use 'profanity'. As for compromising with the other editor's , im being 'monitered' or somethin, so that wont work. How do you comprimise on hard rock to heavy metal anyway?172.203.56.137 22:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Right next to my signature you will see a link that says "Talk". It's used to communicate with other people in a non-specific environment (like this, where we should be discussing GNR). I appreciate you realizing that profanity offends me, especially when applied undeservingly. Nobody is monitoring YOU, since your IP address changes that would be impossible, but we do monitor this page for those changes. In RE to your last comment, there are several ways to compromise but I personally don't see a will on your part to do it. I also encourage you to read Wikipedia policies, since they will give you insight as to how we usually handle things amongst us. (Like the Talk page example) Thanks. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 23:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• The reason I used songs examples in my argument its' to demonstrate that Guns N Roses has many many songs that do not fit into the heavy metal category. On the same note, they DO have songs that are heavy metal. But, this doesnt prove that they are ONLY a heavy metal band. I just don't see why you find it so important to classify them under ONE sub-genre, when the founder and practicly OWNER, (axl rose)of GNR, DOES NOT consider his band to be heavy metal.

Please dude,I am not trying to change you opinion. Im just saying that the consesus of the majority editors working on this article, myself included,have determined, as of this writing, that they should be classified under hard rock, since it is a comprimise: Heavy metal and hair metal are both sub-genres of hard rock. So, what Im askingis that you stop changing their classification in the main article just because it is YOUR opinion. Take into consideration the opinions of the rest of us. <<Coburn_Pharr>> 00:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Heavy metal a sub-genre of hard rock? Please. Axl was not the founder of GNR, for the record, the name Guns n Roses was a fusion of LA Guns, and Hollywood Rose. Your right, Axl Rose doesnt consider GNR to be heavy metal, NOR does he consider them to be hard rock, in an interview he said Guns were 'rock'. Not hard rock, just ROCK, which would be acceptable in my eyes for their classification in the article; but then, i dont own this site... Wait a minute, part of the article is missing.

• I re-added the missing section.....take a look at this article>>>>HARD ROCK....read it and post your thoughts here. I am willing to accept rock and roll as their classification in the article...of course if we reach a consensus with the rest of the guys.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 15:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Rock & Roll seems to be what Axl wanted, maybe that's what we should do... He should know better, right? :) --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 16:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Dont mean to start an argument again...but GNR were never in the list of hard rock acts before, one of you has clearly just added them recently. They're also in the hair metal list, this makes no sense. Superdude309 16:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Another idea: classify them as hard rock/heavy metal. CoolKatt number 99999 01:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we should be using anyhting other than "Rock and Roll", since apparently it's what Axl said they were. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 15:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

So Coolkatt, you want them classified as rock/metal, and you also want them on the hair metal bands list? BTW it has Hollywood Rose instead of Guns N Roses, but clicking on the HR link takes you to the GNR article. Should there not be a seperate article for Hollywood Rose, considering Hollywood Rose also had Tracii Guns and Robert Gardner? Superdude309

I just want everybody to be happy, PS the "K" is capitalized, and GNR did play some hair metal, they were even formed from parts of 2 hair metal bands (Hollywood Rose and LA Guns). Also, the genre tree for hair metal: Rock music->Hard rock->Heavy metal->Hair metal. People have also cited GNR as adding new elements to hair metal, and today they can also be classified as classic rock. PS I maintain a list of bands I consider classic rock in my user page, feel free to check it out, and suggest any other bands to put on the list on my talk page. CoolKatt number 99999 19:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

PS as I said, they play a mix of thrash metal, hair metal, punk, hard rock, & blues.

Classic Rock? B*ll*cks. And whats up with that incorrect hair metal tree?

It's true, they can be heard on a number of classic rock stations, PS the hair metal tree is not incorrect. CoolKatt number 99999 00:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• We are going off-topic here. We should simply come to an agreement on which main GENRE GNR should be classified. They DO have some hair metal material, they DO have some hard rock material, they DO have some heavy metal material, they DO have industrial metal material, they DO have punk material. So, since they have cover so many musical styles, they CAN'T be classified under only one SUB-genre. However, they should be classified under one main GENRE....my vote is for rock n'roll, since all of the above mentioned are sub genres of rock n'roll. More importantly, it should be rock n' roll since is what Axl Rose, member, owner has established. <<Coburn_Pharr>> 21:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 21:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I say just 'rock' - Superdude309

• If you keep calling everything "rock," you may as well consider everything as "music." Bands like Nile and Anaal Nathrakh are just plain ol' rock if your logic is followed. Heavy metal bands stemmed from hard rock; deal with it.

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)

20 million? I read recently AFD has sold 25 million.

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)

IMHO, the point is moot. This being an encyclopedia we should adhere to NPOV and remove the comparison altogether. The fact is that he was fired, period. If he was better or worse than Matt Sorum is a POV, as shown by this discussion on top. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 22:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Vandal

I added the anon user:172.201.64.206 to the list on WP:VIP, I am not an admin but will try to keep an eye open just in case. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 22:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Thank you so much. This article has been extremely vandalised recently. I added a warning at the beginning of the article. Anyway, thank you very much, I will inform any other irregularities that occur in the article.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 12:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Coburn, If this happens again, just go to WP:VIP and admins will jump to your help. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 15:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Final Classification

Please stop the edit war, everybody (that includes me). The article should either stay like it is now hard rock or be protected.

If we can't get a consensus here, I will ask an admin to protect the page until we can resolve this issue.

Let me start. I propose we change it to Rock and Roll since it's a more generic classification and it is what Axl said they are.

--Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 19:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• I totally agree with you....another vote for rock and roll. If the people (who seem to be people who are not members of wikipedia) don't stop vandalising the article, it should be protected.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 21:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • "Rock and roll" might make some people who are oblivious to the music world think that GNR are a rock and roll band in the sense of a Rockabilly band. Hard rock is most accurate IMO. Jobe6 [[Image:Peru flag

large.png|20px]] 19:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I also like hard rock better, but we need to try and compromise with the users who adamantly disagree with us. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 19:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• Man it should be Hard rock.....check out 100 Greatest Artists of Hard Rock...GNR its' ranked #9 in the list....it's incredible that a band that it's ranked in the top ten of a genre will be classified under a different genre here in wikipedia. I don't really know what to say anymore......and speaking of compromise, i think there is already a kind of compromise in the overview of the article....the first line says they are a hard rock band...one of the greatest in ROCK N ROLL history....later the second paragraph says they changed the course of the HEAVY METAL industry...and the second line then goes on to speak about their HAIR METAL influences. I remember while I was writing those opening paragraphs that I should keep in mind the fact they are part of several sub-genres, that's why I mentioned ALL of them. The history section also expands on it. This is really a stupid edit war, with only two guys so far arguing in favor of hair or heavy metal.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 02:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey, whats wrong with my suggestion of just ' rock '? Superdude309