I realize this is not a novel thought, but I just feel like every now and then it needs to be re-emphasized. Not one bad song...really, not one. Went 18x platinum, lol. This is one of those albums that relentlessly hits you with song after song. Every member was on POINT. Obviously Axl and Slash were gonna kill everything (Axl just crushed "Sweet Child o Mine", plus he wrote it), but Izzy went in on the lead for "Nightrain" and played drums on "Paradise City", Steven Adler was solid throughout and had his best moment on "Mr. Brownstone". The album is basically flawless. One of my homeboys still has the joint with the original cover art showing the robot being stopped from raping a woman...it was on the outside, at first, but the label caught a lot of flack and decided to put it inside the cover. What are your memories/thoughts on the album?

> What are your
>memories/thoughts on the album?




that's not a diss, either.
i enjoy the album quite a bit.
and i've heard every song.

but i don't own it
and aside from the radio, i've never heard it sober.

can't tell you how many times I found myself in the Pike house chillin with the cross country team, bumpin this album, lol.

between 88 and 92 cause I would play it on repeat in my walkman until it wore out

and u right, there is no bad songs on there, but little know fact, rocket queen as the best one

>and u right, there is no bad songs on there, but little know
>fact, rocket queen as the best one

I can see why it wasn't a single but at the same time it would have been huge

were all iconic in different ways & oddly enough seemed spaced out over what felt like a full two year period which is why this album came out in '87 but was still selling like a new record in '89.

Some of the album cuts (Brownstone, My Michelle & Rocket Queen) felt familiar enough to be singles by the end of the run anyway because this album was so huge & had such staying power.

But I'd rather 'Rocket Queen' be what it was/is: the epic closer/fan favorite of a classic rock album.

Those ones obviously made the album what it is. But "It's So Easy" as the 1st single never made much sense to me and "Nighttrain" was a good song but "Mr Brownstone" would have been a better choice if going that route imo. "Rocket Queen" could have been a hit or heck probably could have turned "Think About You" into a hit considering what soft ballady stuff was big at the time.

and I think by the time they got to 'Nightrain' as a single the album was finally about done.

I'm not sure they were going to follow 'Paradise City' at that point with an album that had been nearly two full years, plus 'Patience' off Lies was holding it down on the ballad end in that summer.

http://theyesyesyalls.com
http://facebook.com/theyesyesyalls
http://reverbnation.com/theyesyesyalls
http://twitter.com/shamelessplug

that album alone basically puts Guns N' Roses in the Hall of Fame first-ballot.

Actually just saw Axl at the Palladium on Sunset last week, he's still an asshole (came onstage at 12:30 AM for a 9 PM show) & it's tough to do the snake-dance when you're more shaped like a bullfrog these days but somehow he still sounded great vocally.

They opened with 'Jungle' then went into 'It's So Easy', before that last pick-up when he goes into the high-register I turned to my girl & said 'if he can still hit these notes coming up we're in for a good show'.

Axl then kicked into that high-weird-Axl-scream/screech with absolute ease & power for that whole last chorus/refrain.

Played just about every song off this album save 'Think About You' (which was always the most forgettable song off Appetite, still not worth skipping but not a highlight by comparison) and 'My Michelle' (which I really would have loved to heard just for the intro alone).

Appetite still holds up, far better than the double-album that followed, it was almost difficult to explain to my girl whose 28 going on 29 how 'important' this band was at one point in time in the late 80s/early-90s.

It's a shame how things sort of fell apart after this record but just off the title alone & the themes on it you can see this wasn't somehting built to last.

top 5 GnR records:
1) SCOM
2) november rain
3) paradise city
4) out 2 get me
5) estranged

http://theyesyesyalls.com
http://facebook.com/theyesyesyalls
http://reverbnation.com/theyesyesyalls
http://twitter.com/shamelessplug

such a great ridiculously GREAT record

massive. epic. not better than AFD but fantastic...i aint gonna steal the light from this 1 but yeah...tomorrow? this needs its own apreciation post


do or die

but over the years o came to realize it was good in its own right.

the attitude and the energy, musicianship was cold.

they were truly trying to seperate themselves from the rest of the pack and it worked.

one of those albums where you knew where you were and felt the impact.'

you thought Slash and Axel were going to be doing it up for many years to come.

GREAT, LANDMARK album....

The songwriting was just as epic as the riffs and the attitude...

Axl's paranoia fucked up everything....

I think it suffers a bit from sounding a bit too much like 80's hair-metal to qualify as truly great rock'n'roll.

At the same time, it sounds a bit too much like gritty and "authentic" rock'n'roll to qualify as great hairmetal (think Mötley Crue's ''Shout at the devil'', first W.A.S.P album, the best Def Leppard songs).

Basically, it exists in some aesthetic nowhereland I rarely feel the need to visit and there's no nostalgia involved either because I was into more brutal stuff when it came out...

That being said, I NEVER change the station when those songs come on the radio and even the fillers feel like hits and in the context of 80's pathetic mainstream rock, those hits are as good as it gets so still, props!!!

all these tunes were on it. It was in the student center my freshman year and we wore that shit out. Damn Imma have to see if I can find it online and save up for it.

http://www.monkeysarcades.com/Guns_N_Roses_Pinball_p/gunsnr1994.htm

they had it at this now-closed arcade around my way where everyone in school would have their bday parties, and I would spend the entire time playing that game, even missing the cake and happy bday song if i was in the middle of a game

that is def at the top of my "purchase when i get $$$" list

This album was the entire shit when i was in 5th grade. I wasn't allowed to listen to it because my mom considered any rock music with loud guitars and long hair "heavy metal" and we all know that was the devil's music.

But even I couldn't escape the reach of that album. Great songs, great performance & production. Still holds up.



http://twitter.com/collazo
http://www.reverbnation.com/livesociety

At the time, I was getting more and more into thrash, speed metal, death metal, and all of that, but I respected Guns N' Roses for what they were. I never use this word in anyway, but if there was a 1987 interpretation of what "swag" represented, it was Guns N' Roses. Motley Crue were becoming what Kiss became, and that was too shiny and glossy for their own good. As much as people wanted to hate on the L.A. music scene, you could not deny that they were different from the rest.

As I look back at the time, there were those who made better albums. Y&T's CONTAGIOUS is incredible, Tesla's first, Faster Pussycat's first, the self-titled Whitesnake album, The Cult's ELECTRIC. If anything, they all pushed one another, and it was that balls out hard rock and heavy metal that has proven to be successful. Def Leppard's HYSTERIA, I loved the album too even though now I see and hear it as something ultra-slick and very different from what they did with PYROMANIA and HIGH'N'DRY, yet you hear elements of both (and their debut) on HYSTERIA. For me, I'll take any of these albums over APPETITE any day. GN'R's music hasn't aged well, and maybe that's because their songs have been overplayed. I will say that I still love when "Paradise City" stirs up in the second half, and I will always have in my head, the image of Axl holding the mic stand and rocking out in that part of the song. To me, that's what GN'R represented, a return to sounding "not pussified" but still wanting pussy and not being afraid to say so.

It has been too long since I listened to USE YOUR ILLUSION I & II, I had both on vinyl but... back then it came off like WU-TANG FOREVER: greatness that just became too much. I think the time away from it would make me listen to it.

Bottom line, APPETITE FOR DESTRUCTION was good for its time, but as dated as some thrash and speed metal albums can sound, it still sounds as vibrant as it did when I first heard them 25 years ago. Maybe in this decade I'll choose to hear APPETITE FOR DESTRUCTION again, but I'm not in a hurry. Give me The Cult's ELECTRIC first.



THE HOME OF BOOK-NESS:
http://www.thisisbooksmusic.com/
http://twitter.com/thisisjohnbook
http://www.facebook.com/book1


http://i32.tinypic.com/kbewp4.gif

"Electric" was awesome, they are almost completely forgotten now it seems but I remember hearing songs like "Love removal machine" a lot at the time and they were really big. But yes, I think that album holds up pretty damn well.

As for Def Leppard and Whitesnake I'm one of those guys who think those bands sold out something terrible compared with their earlier stuff (of course, at that time, I too was primarily into thrash, death and grind/hardcore/whatever so I couldn't give a fair judgement) but I played both "Hysteria" and "1987" on Spotify a while ago and while "Hysteria" is overproduced and "80's" to the point of sounding ridiculous, it's hard to not admire the craftmanship in the songwriting.

As for Whitesnake. ''1987'' was much better than I remembered it to be even if the hit-version of ''Here I go again'' is a travesty compared with the 1982 original. Also, ''Straight for the heart'' rocks!

¤Generally speaking, I think this era deserves some critical re-evaluation which of course doesn't mean that Bon Jovi were ever any good (limp pop-rock masquerading as ''metal'') or that bands like Poison or Warrant weren't total clowns but I think enough time has passed to at least give some bands props.

>"Electric" was awesome, they are almost completely forgotten
>now it seems but I remember hearing songs like "Love removal
>machine" a lot at the time and they were really big. But yes,
>I think that album holds up pretty damn well.
>

You don't think they and Rubin were trying to redo AC/DC? Not a diss as Im a huge Cult fan.

However, I think Astbury's vocal-style gave them a different vibe and also, they had their roots as a sort of goth-poseur band and I think that came through in their music as well; they didn't sound as "blue collar"/bar-rock as AC/DC but more in line with the pop-metal aesthetic even if they were a pure rock'n'roll band.

BTW, it's pretty obvious that Rubin lost interest in the Cult when he found Danzig who was more "evil" and badass while still having that AC/DC vibe; I always felt the first Danzig-album sounded very similar to the Cult, just more theatrical and dramatic. After that, Danzig got a bit more sludgy and heavy of course...

That's nuts to me.

I mean I copped Hysteria on cassette at the tape store by the boardwalk one summer in AC when I was 11 off 'Pour Some Sugar On Me' & knowing they were the guys who did 'Rock Of Ages' prior.

And you cite overplay but what's more overplayed than 'Pour Some Sugar On Me'? Hearing that song gives me the same douche-chill 'Living On A Prayer' does nowadays. I will never get that from 'Sweet Child O' Mine', perhaps because it feels like there's some actual real human emotion/soul put into it rather than this cyborg-pep-rally-anthem.

I liked Hysteria then as kid but I'd be embarrassed to listen to that slick shit, with each instrument bit being so segmented/chopped you can tell they were never even in the studio at the same time, ridiculous lyrics, rock-choir-chorus affectations & just overall cheese.

That being said, I still have a soft spot for the title track (that's a tight little groove there & Elliot sounds good on it) and maybe a moment here or there otherwise (I really haven't listened to this album full through since cassette) but that album felt like a lab experiment.

As for The Cult, they were cool, 'She Sells Sanctuary' was amazing to me when I first heard it & still holds up.

But they're a band I'd go to for a song here or there or a certain aesthetic more than a band whose albums belong in the cannon.

Ian Astbury kinda reminds me of his era's version of Paul Rodgers, he was a great rock singer but missing that element that makes you actually give a shit about them as even a persona let alone as a person/artist.

Much like The Doors found out trying to later use Astbury & even Scott Stapp to front their bullshit tours, for better or worse the singer does make/break the band.

And as far as rock frontmen go, Axl Rose & Joe Elliott aren't remotely in the same stratosphere.

While Def Leppard eventually glammed it up, their image from the getgo and even in the hysteria-days (¤see the videos for Animal or Pour some sugar...) was that they were regular working class rockers... with perms. They didn't have a ''star'' or a leader. The NWOBHM-movement that they helped pioneer was like that in general:Tygers of Pan tang, Diamond Head, Angel Witch and pre-Dickinson Iron Maiden were like that too. Sheffield is not the Sunset Strip; it doesn't work to look like Vince Neil or act like Axl Rose when you go to the local pub and needless to say, that attitude manifested itself in the general image and performance style of the band. NWOBHM was very "punk" in that regard.

And this is just nonsense:

>for better or
>worse the singer does make/break the band.

Wer'e not talking Springsteen/Dylan here or even Cobain/Corgan (=the type of personality based, singer-songwriter nonsense that ruined the *sound* of US "alternative"), wer'e talking "heavy rock" (VERY wimpy heavy rock in the case of "Hysteria" but still...), a genre where it is often the guitarist that is the "star" or where numerous bands (more extreme metal in particular) even suscribe to the "faceless" garage-rock aesthetic where the band as a *unit* and their combined sound is stronger than any individual parts.

Look at the popularity of Metallica; I'd even argue that the lack of personalities in that band was their most important non-musical aspect; they brought the underground, no star/personality aesthetic of the underground mainstream. I never heard anyone who held that against the band.

Look at Mötley Crue:vince Neil was NEvER as cool as Nikki Sixx or Tommy Lee.

van Halen may have had a charismatic singer in Roth but let's be real:Eddie was the star and the fact that they continued to be popular even after the EXTREMELY uncharismatic and dull Hagar replaced Roth proves my point.

AC/DC even survived losing one of the best frontmen and RAWK-singers ever and replaced him with a dude that was pretty much a regular joe. Why? Because it's Angus and Malcolm's band-''everyone'' knows that.

There are also lots of exceptions of course but in those cases, the singer is often a driving force in the songwriting...

Basically, I think you are applying classic rock/pop aesthetics to the wrong genre.

>While Def Leppard eventually glammed it up, their image from
>the getgo and even in the hysteria-days (¤see the videos for
>Animal or Pour some sugar...) was that they were regular
>working class rockers... with perms. They didn't have a
>''star'' or a leader. The NWOBHM-movement that they helped
>pioneer was like that in general:Tygers of Pan tang, Diamond
>Head, Angel Witch and pre-Dickinson Iron Maiden were like that
>too. Sheffield is not the Sunset Strip; it doesn't work to
>look like Vince Neil or act like Axl Rose when you go to the
>local pub and needless to say, that attitude manifested itself
>in the general image and performance style of the band. NWOBHM
>was very "punk" in that regard.
>
Punk had as many frontman types as most other rock forms to me.

>And this is just nonsense:
>
>>for better or
>>worse the singer does make/break the band.
>
>Wer'e not talking Springsteen/Dylan here or even Cobain/Corgan
>(=the type of personality based, singer-songwriter nonsense
>that ruined the *sound* of US "alternative"), wer'e talking
>"heavy rock" (VERY wimpy heavy rock in the case of "Hysteria"
>but still...), a genre where it is often the guitarist that is
>the "star" or where numerous bands (more extreme metal in
>particular) even suscribe to the "faceless" garage-rock
>aesthetic where the band as a *unit* and their combined sound
>is stronger than any individual parts.
>

first of all, I said 'most times', there's not a ton of top-tier bands where the lead singer isn't an asset or a strength.

I can't really comment on the extreme metal stuff because that's not my lane.

And the shit that ruined the "sound" of US 'alternative' wasn't personality-based singer-songwriters, it was due to the same shit that ruins anything else: corporation-induced overexposure, homogenizations/copycats, death/drugs, etc.

The 'singer-songwriter' dudes were either dickheads from the jump like Corgan or cats that never had the chops or were even really even musically related like Evan Dando.

But STP to Bush to Creed to Nickelback isn't a personality/singer-songwriter driven arc.

>Look at the popularity of Metallica; I'd even argue that the
>lack of personalities in that band was their most important
>non-musical aspect; they brought the underground, no
>star/personality aesthetic of the underground mainstream. I
>never heard anyone who held that against the band.
>
Oh Metallica had personality, it just didn't surface until later & revealed itself to be pure douchiness.

I'm not a big Metallica fan. I recognize their importance but outside of Ride The Lightning & Master of Puppets I don't really enjoy them for full albums, those are on a pure musical level.

I've never liked Hetfield's voice or given his lyrics any thought.

>Look at Mötley Crue:vince Neil was NEvER as cool as Nikki Sixx
>or Tommy Lee.
>
I mostly thought Motley Crue sucked outside of about five songs, which puts them above Poison, Warrant, Winger & them but their legacy is more 'rock & roll lifestyle' shit than actual music.

>van Halen may have had a charismatic singer in Roth but let's
>be real:Eddie was the star and the fact that they continued to
>be popular even after the EXTREMELY uncharismatic and dull
>Hagar replaced Roth proves my point.
>
Eddie was the star, sure, I never said that the guitarist couldn't be the or a star.

I said the success/quality of a band often lives/dies with guy up front for better or worse.

And Van Halen was never the same post-Roth so that's a double-edged sword for your point.

>AC/DC even survived losing one of the best frontmen and
>RAWK-singers ever and replaced him with a dude that was pretty
>much a regular joe. Why? Because it's Angus and Malcolm's
>band-''everyone'' knows that.
>
But Bon Scott was in fact a great frontman & the work suffered as a result, particularly after the initial 'something to prove' burst of 'Back In Black' and the next album's title track.

Saying that a guitarist like Eddie Van Halen or a band as powerful as AC/DC can 'get by' for a bit without their original singer/lyricist is almost proving *my* point, it takes an all-time great guitarist or one of the most powerful hard-rock backdrops ever to overcome such a thing.

Jeff Beck couldn't do it & neither could The Doors.

>There are also lots of exceptions of course but in those
>cases, the singer is often a driving force in the
>songwriting...
>
>Basically, I think you are applying classic rock/pop
>aesthetics to the wrong genre.
>
What 'genre' is Def Leppard in the overall scheme of things?

The difference between 'Hysteria'-era Def Leppard & 'Slippery When Wet' era Bon Jovi is almost negligible to me.

I would take the album that inspired this post over a compilation of my favorite songs from those two bands over the course of their careers without hesitation.

>NWOBHM
>>was very "punk" in that regard.
>>
>Punk had as many frontman types as most other rock forms to
>me.

I put punk in quotes because of its general concept of the anti-star. And I don't agree at all that punk had as many frontman types as other forms of rock. Your typical punk/hardcore/crust type of band does not have a frontman as ''star''. meanwhile, even your local bar-rock band will have a singer being a poseur and acting out.


>first of all, I said 'most times', there's not a ton of
>top-tier bands where the lead singer isn't an asset or a
>strength.

Top-tier bands as in ''bands I like'' or top-tier bands as in commercially successful? Of course a singer is an asset or a strength just like a good/cool drummer, bassist etc. is. However,I do not think he makes or breaks a hard-rock band.


>But STP to Bush to Creed to Nickelback isn't a
>personality/singer-songwriter driven arc.

Those bands copied the aesthetics of the mainstream alternative of the early 90's which started to over-emphasize the personality with all the negative shit that leads to (=self-conscious emotional resonance, too much emphasis on lyrics, vocal-melodies etc.). Meanwhile, US alternative rock of the 80's didn't do that-it largely subscribed to a more ''faceless''/band-oriented garage/punk aesthetic and as a result sounded more like *my* idea of great rock. Anyway, this has nothing to do ith the post, I just saw another chance to shit on Cobain/Corgan.

>I've never liked Hetfield's voice or given his lyrics any
>thought.

I'm sure a lot of people agree with you and yet, Metallica is an objectively top-tier band.


>I mostly thought Motley Crue sucked outside of about five
>songs, which puts them above Poison, Warrant, Winger & them
>but their legacy is more 'rock & roll lifestyle' shit than
>actual music.

Point is that they didn't need the singer to make/break them; vince neil is shit more-or-less-they could have had any LA poseur singing for them and it wouldn't have made a difference...
>
>>van Halen may have had a charismatic singer in Roth but
>let's
>>be real:Eddie was the star and the fact that they continued
>to
>>be popular even after the EXTREMELY uncharismatic and dull
>>Hagar replaced Roth proves my point.
>>
>Eddie was the star, sure, I never said that the guitarist
>couldn't be the or a star.
>
>I said the success/quality of a band often lives/dies with guy
>up front for better or worse.
>
>And Van Halen was never the same post-Roth so that's a
>double-edged sword for your point.
>
>>AC/DC even survived losing one of the best frontmen and
>>RAWK-singers ever and replaced him with a dude that was
>pretty
>>much a regular joe. Why? Because it's Angus and Malcolm's
>>band-''everyone'' knows that.
>>
>But Bon Scott was in fact a great frontman & the work suffered
>as a result, particularly after the initial 'something to
>prove' burst of 'Back In Black' and the next album's title
>track.
>
>Saying that a guitarist like Eddie Van Halen or a band as
>powerful as AC/DC can 'get by' for a bit without their
>original singer/lyricist is almost proving *my* point, it
>takes an all-time great guitarist or one of the most powerful
>hard-rock backdrops ever to overcome such a thing.

They made it...

>
>Jeff Beck couldn't do it & neither could The Doors.

Jeff Beck was never a songwriter, arranger or whatever; he is a good lead-guitarist who after the original Jeff Beck group never worked with a truly good band. And if I'm not mistaken, his instrumental fusion-albums from the mid-70's were more successful than the Rod Stewart stuff. The Doors reputation rested on Mporrison to a large extent.it's not comparable with AC/DC or van Halen; a band like Queen is probably a better comparison and no, they never made it without Mercury either.
>
>>There are also lots of exceptions of course but in those
>>cases, the singer is often a driving force in the
>>songwriting...
>>
>>Basically, I think you are applying classic rock/pop
>>aesthetics to the wrong genre.
>>
>What 'genre' is Def Leppard in the overall scheme of things?
>
>The difference between 'Hysteria'-era Def Leppard & 'Slippery
>When Wet' era Bon Jovi is almost negligible to me.

No arguments there except that I still think Leppard was better (¤not much better though). I still think you can hear SOME traces of Leppards NWOBHM roots on "Hysteria"; Bon Jovi were more the worst aspects of Bruce Springsteen posing as hard-rock...

>
>I would take the album that inspired this post over a
>compilation of my favorite songs from those two bands over the
>course of their careers without hesitation.

I'd probably take Def Leppard's debut ''On through the night" as we4ll as their first EP and 7'' over "Appetite..." but that's me...

>
>>NWOBHM
>>>was very "punk" in that regard.
>>>
>>Punk had as many frontman types as most other rock forms to
>>me.
>
>I put punk in quotes because of its general concept of the
>anti-star. And I don't agree at all that punk had as many
>frontman types as other forms of rock. Your typical
>punk/hardcore/crust type of band does not have a frontman as
>''star''. meanwhile, even your local bar-rock band will have a
>singer being a poseur and acting out.
>
there's plenty of bar bands that don't feature a true 'frontman' doing lead vocalist things, same as there's plenty of frontmen in punk bands in any of the initial wave of each NYC/UK/LA punk or even into DC hardcore later.
>
>>first of all, I said 'most times', there's not a ton of
>>top-tier bands where the lead singer isn't an asset or a
>>strength.
>
>Top-tier bands as in ''bands I like'' or top-tier bands as in
>commercially successful? Of course a singer is an asset or a
>strength just like a good/cool drummer, bassist etc. is.
>However,I do not think he makes or breaks a hard-rock band.
>
>
>>But STP to Bush to Creed to Nickelback isn't a
>>personality/singer-songwriter driven arc.
>
>Those bands copied the aesthetics of the mainstream
>alternative of the early 90's which started to over-emphasize
>the personality with all the negative shit that leads to
>(=self-conscious emotional resonance, too much emphasis on
>lyrics, vocal-melodies etc.).

none of those increasingly shitty bands really 'emphasized' lyrics nor was their sound that tied into the 'personality' of their lead singer.

Meanwhile, US alternative rock
>of the 80's didn't do that-it largely subscribed to a more
>''faceless''/band-oriented garage/punk aesthetic and as a
>result sounded more like *my* idea of great rock. Anyway, this
>has nothing to do ith the post, I just saw another chance to
>shit on Cobain/Corgan.
>
>>I've never liked Hetfield's voice or given his lyrics any
>>thought.
>
>I'm sure a lot of people agree with you and yet, Metallica is
>an objectively top-tier band.
>
sure.
>
>>I mostly thought Motley Crue sucked outside of about five
>>songs, which puts them above Poison, Warrant, Winger & them
>>but their legacy is more 'rock & roll lifestyle' shit than
>>actual music.
>
>Point is that they didn't need the singer to make/break them;
>vince neil is shit more-or-less-they could have had any LA
>poseur singing for them and it wouldn't have made a
>difference...
>>
I don't like Vince Neil & think his whole aura is wack but you saw what happened when they tried to do it without him.

>>>van Halen may have had a charismatic singer in Roth but
>>let's
>>>be real:Eddie was the star and the fact that they continued
>>to
>>>be popular even after the EXTREMELY uncharismatic and dull
>>>Hagar replaced Roth proves my point.
>>>
>>Eddie was the star, sure, I never said that the guitarist
>>couldn't be the or a star.
>>
>>I said the success/quality of a band often lives/dies with
>guy
>>up front for better or worse.
>>
>>And Van Halen was never the same post-Roth so that's a
>>double-edged sword for your point.
>>
>>>AC/DC even survived losing one of the best frontmen and
>>>RAWK-singers ever and replaced him with a dude that was
>>pretty
>>>much a regular joe. Why? Because it's Angus and Malcolm's
>>>band-''everyone'' knows that.
>>>
>>But Bon Scott was in fact a great frontman & the work
>suffered
>>as a result, particularly after the initial 'something to
>>prove' burst of 'Back In Black' and the next album's title
>>track.
>>
>>Saying that a guitarist like Eddie Van Halen or a band as
>>powerful as AC/DC can 'get by' for a bit without their
>>original singer/lyricist is almost proving *my* point, it
>>takes an all-time great guitarist or one of the most
>powerful
>>hard-rock backdrops ever to overcome such a thing.
>
>They made it...
>
They had *already* made it & used that platform plus the remain talent to soldier on, in both cases that was due to the profile they had established along with exceptional talent.
>>
>>Jeff Beck couldn't do it & neither could The Doors.
>
>Jeff Beck was never a songwriter, arranger or whatever; he is
>a good lead-guitarist who after the original Jeff Beck group
>never worked with a truly good band. And if I'm not mistaken,
>his instrumental fusion-albums from the mid-70's were more
>successful than the Rod Stewart stuff.
Part of the reason the Jeff Beck Group wasn't as successful as they were expected to be was because they emphasized Beck as the guitarist rather than the unit as a whole or pushing Rod Stewart who was a more natural star & obviously went on to bigger successes with Ronnie Wood & Company as well as on his own (even though Beck was a better musician than probably anybody he worked with).

That & Led Zeppelin stealing their thunder.

The Doors reputation
>rested on Mporrison to a large extent.it's not comparable with
>AC/DC or van Halen; a band like Queen is probably a better
>comparison and no, they never made it without Mercury either.
>>
>>>There are also lots of exceptions of course but in those
>>>cases, the singer is often a driving force in the
>>>songwriting...
>>>
>>>Basically, I think you are applying classic rock/pop
>>>aesthetics to the wrong genre.
>>>
>>What 'genre' is Def Leppard in the overall scheme of things?
>>
>>The difference between 'Hysteria'-era Def Leppard &
>'Slippery
>>When Wet' era Bon Jovi is almost negligible to me.
>
>No arguments there except that I still think Leppard was
>better (¤not much better though).
agreed.

I still think you can hear
>SOME traces of Leppards NWOBHM roots on "Hysteria"; Bon Jovi
>were more the worst aspects of Bruce Springsteen posing as
>hard-rock...
>
Any correlation between Bruce Springsteen & Jon Bon Jovi is superficial as hell to me, Jovi ain't a poor man's Bruce Springsteen.......he's not even a Homeless Man's John Mellencamp.

He's closer to New Jersey's Bryan Adams.

>>
>>I would take the album that inspired this post over a
>>compilation of my favorite songs from those two bands over
>the
>>course of their careers without hesitation.
>
>I'd probably take Def Leppard's debut ''On through the night"
>as we4ll as their first EP and 7'' over "Appetite..." but
>that's me...
>

Merely opinion, no biggie.


THE HOME OF BOOK-NESS:
http://www.thisisbooksmusic.com/
http://twitter.com/thisisjohnbook
http://www.facebook.com/book1


http://i32.tinypic.com/kbewp4.gif

such a great album.

I started reading about how fans thought all these other songs from Appetite For Destruction should have been on there, so it made me take a closer look at their debut.