Having been very alive and very much into rating and criticizing music when Appetite came out I can clearly state those acting like this was not an important, powerful, and inspirational album are doing that just acting. This album was clearly a watershed moment in Rock. Also like others stated clearly the zenith of hair metal and the sunset strip sound. Wether you like appetite or not it is clearly one of the most important albums of the last 30 years.
It clearly is not. Popularity is not synonymous with impact, influence, or importance.
Hounds Of Love
So
Spirit Of Eden
The Queen Is Dead
Love Not Money
Isn't So just a beautiful record? A great statement in Gabriel's catalog, and 80's pop rock in general (even though pop rock would be nowhere near a proper description of what the record actually holds for the listener (How does one classify Mercy Street!!?)) _________________ Attention all planets of the solar federation: We have assumed control.
Hounds Of Love
So
Spirit Of Eden
The Queen Is Dead
Love Not Money
Isn't So just a beautiful record? A great statement in Gabriel's catalog, and 80's pop rock in general (even though pop rock would be nowhere near a proper description of what the record actually holds for the listener (How does one classify Mercy Street!!?))
Yes, So is beautiful. It has that dense production, like on The Joshua Tree. They have Daniel Lanois in common, so it must be from him, I guess
Hounds Of Love
So
Spirit Of Eden
The Queen Is Dead
Love Not Money
Isn't So just a beautiful record? A great statement in Gabriel's catalog, and 80's pop rock in general (even though pop rock would be nowhere near a proper description of what the record actually holds for the listener (How does one classify Mercy Street!!?))
Yes, So is beautiful. It has that dense production, like on The Joshua Tree. They have Daniel Lanois in common, so it must be from him, I guess
Ever since hearing The Unforettable Fire for the first time, I figured U2 had some admiration for Gabriel's work, I doubt it's just a coincidence that Lanois is on both So and The Joshua Tree haha. _________________ Attention all planets of the solar federation: We have assumed control.
mickilennialThe Most Trusted Name in NewsProfile Detroit
It clearly is not. Popularity is not synonymous with impact, influence, or importance.
I don't even abhor this record.
Overall what makes you say it's not important?
To put it bluntly? It is a record that represents hair metal's (and by extension, AOR's) death knell that really holds no wider spread of significance outside of being a particular snapshot of the time and place, as well as the deteriorating nature of its genre. It had no longstanding impact, influence, or significance. By 1987, metal had moved on from the contemporary glam soundscapes outside of a handful of acts who persevered (and expanded on their sounds rather than playing by numbers). The menial importance Appetite for Destruction had was exclusively limited in the long term to contemporary radio and like I said, being a snapshot of a particular time and place. The record didn’t change landscapes, didn’t innovate, didn’t really traverse anything to be important. Does it have cultural significance? Sure. But that’s about the only thing on impact one can really objectively discern once they remove their fondness for the record at large.
Appetite for Destruction is like heavy metal’s final signature on its divorce papers and the final bus stop on a trend that was dying out.
Having been very alive and very much into rating and criticizing music when Appetite came out I can clearly state those acting like this was not an important, powerful, and inspirational album are doing that just acting. This album was clearly a watershed moment in Rock. Also like others stated clearly the zenith of hair metal and the sunset strip sound. Wether you like appetite or not it is clearly one of the most important albums of the last 30 years.
I was around when it came out and it was no big deal back then. The radio stations, the bars and the parties would only play 2 songs. Welcome to the Jungle and Sweet Child. Two songs do not make a great album. Also many people despised them which is why Grunge soared when it arrived on the scene. _________________ "What it is" - Joe Walsh
Maybe I was just becoming slightly more mature, but even at 15 the misogyny that you often find in this music rubbed me the wrong way. At the same time as Hysteria, you had Appetite for Destruction. I don't really like the album. However, I remember hearing the intro to Sweet Child Of Mine on the radio at the time, and that in itself was a watershed moment. That thick Les Paul neck pickup lead tone was antithetical to everything else that was happening. It was a change of direction. That said, I think it was a correction, and a return to a clacissist rock aesthetic, rather than music that was moving forward. So, I'd agree that it was the beginning of the end of glam metal, but it was also a moment when rock began circling its wagons, and ceased looking to the future.
The next year, 1988, I found these two releases to be very exciting, because I felt they brought the music forward with a broader sonic palette and broader themes of social commentary and spirituality, rather than sexuality and hedonism. Living Colour were such an interesting band, that seemed to fizzle out far too soon. King's X never had the breakthrough popularity that they deserved, but in many ways paved the way for grunge and 90's rock, in my opinion, particularly albums like Soundgarden's Superunknown (although, I never really considered them a grunge band).
Interesting discussion on appetite for destruction. A few people seem to be agreeing that it wasn't so innovative or influential to justify its classic status. I'm not a huge fan of the album but I'm surprised that no-one is mentioning how the attitude/ rebellious nature of band people found exciting. I was too young to fully appreciate this at the time but I did like the way the album offended my parents! Seems like the case for the importance of this album could rest on the sense of danger and excitement they brought to the ailing hard rock/metal scene. For better or for worse Guns 'n' Roses were believable as bad boys 😕
It clearly is not. Popularity is not synonymous with impact, influence, or importance.
I don't even abhor this record.
Overall what makes you say it's not important?
To put it bluntly? It is a record that represents hair metal's (and by extension, AOR's) death knell that really holds no wider spread of significance outside of being a particular snapshot of the time and place, as well as the deteriorating nature of its genre. It had no longstanding impact, influence, or significance. By 1987, metal had moved on from the contemporary glam soundscapes outside of a handful of acts who persevered (and expanded on their sounds rather than playing by numbers). The menial importance Appetite for Destruction had was exclusively limited in the long term to contemporary radio and like I said, being a snapshot of a particular time and place. The record didn’t change landscapes, didn’t innovate, didn’t really traverse anything to be important. Does it have cultural significance? Sure. But that’s about the only thing on impact one can really objectively discern once they remove their fondness for the record at large.
I'm not gonna argue about the importance of appetite for destruction because I don't know much about the subject, but it seems you're looking at its importance solely based on the influence it had on the sound of music and progression of such which is a different than what I think of (And I presume the general populace thinks of) when an album is considered important.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
mickilennial
AAL2014
