I have to admit, I didn't get GnR when they came out, and I just do not understand why they seem to have achieved some sort of legendary status based on their rather minimal output (when compared to the bands they appear to be copies of - I'm talking about volume of work, numbers of people played to, quality of work, longevity, etc, etc).
Eg I just watched the last episode of the BBC2 guitar documentary thingy on tape, and good ole Slash is wheeled out as usual, and the impression the general public are given is that in the general scheme of things he's a big gun and GnR are a major part of rock and roll history... are they really? What am I missing? My recollection of the time is that Bon Jovi, for example, were somewhat more ubiquitous (and successful? don't know the figures)... There did seem to be a lot of youngsters picking up guitar because of Slash a few years later - so that's a good "influencing" qualification for him to be in the BBC2 show, I'll give him that much, but I'm still perplexed...
I have Appetite lurking in my CD collection somewhere, have done for 5-6 years because I thought I ought to give it a go - all those millions of fans can't have been wrong, can they?... But as open-minded as I am about most things, every time I try it, I find it utterly unlistenable...
As far as I can make out, the GnR "legend" seems to have been even more media-generated than most rock legends...
Of course, this is all personal opinion... :lol:
Perhaps someone can put me right... but I'm not losing any sleep over "new album or not"...
