blied

So:
the drummer wasn’t Bonham, and that's fine. But he wasn’t a dog either.
Slash is a good guitarist, obviously not a genius, but certainly not lacking in imagination. He is definitely an aesthete, a mannerist; but with excellent taste, heavily inspired by Jimmy Page (with whom he certainly cannot compete, as any student cannot with the master); he is certainly not an innovator, but solos like Rocket Queen or Nightrain remain beautiful. And even in the other pieces, he does his damn job.
Duff, the only part where our thoughts are closest, is a great bassist.
And now we come to Axl: as far as I'm concerned, he is the greatest in the band: an excellent songwriter (okay, the next album is full of fillers, but this can’t really be said of him), with a voice that you may find unbearable because you haven’t grasped its spirit (as it seems to me you haven’t understood the spirit of hard rock post-70s: I’d be curious to know which 80s bands in the genre you consider among the "greats"). You might find him unbearable perhaps because he wanted to be: his era was an exaggeration of the hard rock of the 70s. Additionally, let me point out to you, as you might be a hard rock fan and hard rock enthusiasts often emphasize this, that Axl has the widest vocal range in the history of music, from the 60s to now: this means (I don’t know if you know, so I’ll specify) that he is the singer who, by far, has the widest range, able to jump from the lowest note to the highest (from F1 to B6). But let’s get to the point: he is chameleonic both in writing and in performing. Take a hard piece and you find him screaming like a madman, dissecting lust, depravity, and filth like the worst animal ever devoted to music, a sort of mixture between Jagger, Johnson, and Plant. And he had a damn rhythm, a sinuous and hammering style, a verve that was rare to find in others in the late 80s and early 90s. Then, as if nothing happened, he would morph from that into this, proving that he could compose and interpret both hard and dirty songs, as well as heartbreaking melodies (the second part of Rocket Queen, to name one, is epic and moving; for me, it remains one of the best pieces of hard rock ever): from frenzied screams and a hoarse, crude voice he transitions to a sweet, warm, caramelly voice but not polished like many of the time, imbued with memories and epicness, that gave life to tender religious ballads like “Patience.” Now I’d like to know, since apparently even ACDC and Bon Jovi would suck, who you think the greats of 80s hard rock are. I’m curious.

Thank you. I was worried thinking I wouldn't be able to appreciate GnR. You reassured me with this definition. Everything Onirico says may be true, but I just don't like their music at all.

Tastes are always tastes, and as such they are right!

Dreamlike, I’m convinced of it. But when I find myself in a very tight minority, I start to question things.
Let me explain: if I listen to a niche singer, I expect them to appeal to very few. If I listen to a mainstream artist, I also hear many opposing voices (see Ligabue, Vasco...), but I had never heard criticisms of Guns 'n' Roses. So I was worried that the problem might be my snobbery towards rock that's a bit harder, or my inability to decode their music.
Oh, but then at night I've always slept, you know!

Are you kidding? The detractors of Guns are everywhere! Probably half of debasers find them unbearable, just check out the reviews! In particular, many '68ers hate them precisely because they see them as an exaggeration, almost a parody, of the hard rock that was pure and raw in the 70s. Not to mention the generations after, who no longer identified with the vulgarity and the loud external expression of hard rock but preferred a more subdued and personal showcase of inner dimensions (shoegaze, post-rock), less macho, or filled with a sick rage from a stifled inner self (grunge, industrial). I myself, who started with that, almost vomited after the first listen. My first thought was: "Who is this screaming like a chicken with a light pole up its ass who has just spotted the axe that will decapitate him?" And who is this noisy guitarist? What is this vomited mess of obscene noises?" Then, I found myself listening to them again. And again. A couple of songs started to grow on me. In the end, I bought the album. And I ended up liking it a lot, as you may have guessed. Moral of the story: often, first impressions are not the right ones, because you need to enter the "language," the "vocabulary" of the artist in question, if they have one. And this applies to anyone who has done something that differs, because if I feel like I'm listening to the copy of the copy of the copy of a band, then probably the first impression is always the right one.

In fact, thinking about it, I've remained in my adolescence with the GnR, when they were loved by many of my peers. Then, ignoring them, I didn't notice the detractors. In truth, it would never occur to me to check reviews about them. But now you've piqued my curiosity. I'm going to enjoy myself like a bald heterocephalus reading the most spiteful things that have been written about them. :D

Alright. It's bullshit day.

"I've never heard any criticism about the guns" ... Sorry, do you happen to live in Paradise City? Because the shit that Slash and Axel have taken since the mid-nineties is enough to fertilize half of the Sahara...

Nes, I already answered above. And, I add, keep in mind that I have only recently started attending Debaser.