Are Guns N Roses still relevant?

Sometimes, I feel like the last person alive under 40 who likes Guns N Roses. Maybe it's just the nostalgia, good memories hanging out in my friends basement with Use Your Illusions on repeat. Or eleven years old getting on the full school bus awkwardly looking for an available seat while Axl Rose screamingly inquires: Do you know where you are?

Yes Axl, yes I do know where I am.  I'm in the jungle, I'm a small child, I'm going to die.

I grew up in a redneck-y tourist trap of a town, where my peers had aspirations of making good money at local Lumber Yard so they can afford to drive around big trucks and do massive amounts of cocaine. A noble calling, but my stick-in-the-ass type religious upbringing told me that was all kinds of wrong - combined with my dislike of the smallness of the area's mentality (I learned later there are many many places that are exactly the same - this is the world we live in). I left that place and never wanted to go back, but I never stopped liking Guns N Roses. I've been revisting them, as I do periodically, but with so much video footage compiled, I could see lots of different performances of their songs live, and interviews at different points of their career - mostly with Slash, I think Axl pulled permission on a lot of his personal footage, or never allowed it in the first place.

Chinese Democracy has some songs I do quite enjoy, but obviously lacks the visceral feel of the riffs in Appetite and the Use Your Illusions. Obviously the earlier life stuff is great, and much more enjoyable compared to more recent shows (2013), which is too processed and has no viscera, but doesn't sound bad at all. Since the band broke up, and Chinese Democracy took a very long time indeed, most people have forgotten about Guns N Roses.  Even my friend who was a huge fan has not even given Chinese Democracy a test listen. Without Slash, the band is nothing to him. While they left most of their fanbase heartbroken, they are still interesting to check out, and the songs I used to like still sound great to me.

I've been paying special attention, first, to Axl's dance moves - he sings about being super tough through the stories of his life and being on the streets, all the while wearing more ambiguously tough clothing (black wifebeater, leather pants, bandana). With all these signs, symbols, mannerisms of a badass, he still somehow manages to happily bop about the stage, wiggling like the bait bucket at a fishing derby, chirping in a friendly manner to the audience about something that happened to him recently, or someone he dislikes, and sometimes just general words of encouragement and camaraderie - like any good host. His on stage presence doesn't quite match up, but that was a good thing.  He was "your" (the audience's) buddy, at least for the time he was up there. Sure he trash talked people on stage, but he hated on "that guy" who doesn't get down with the likes of us. Then he would wiggle some more and kick a cowboy boot heel at you to let you know he was having a good time.

Something else remarkable, and worth you and I knowing: apparently the scene in Los Angeles was so competitive for bands playing in the area, that the clubs would not hire you - instead you had to raise enough money to buy the entire roll of tickets for your show ($500) and sell as many as you could so you could recoup the money. They had to bust their asses promoting themselves enough to sell out the tickets, by flyering, postering, and probably a whole lot of selling to people they knew.  This is on top of writing songs and playing really tightly, consistently well. Schmoozing and self promoting meant their 24/7 party lifestyle was work of a sort, at least in that critical period before they made it big.  They needed to play those shows to prove what they could do, and their show got big enough with the LA music scene crowd that when the record execs put feet on the ground to find out what was going to be the next thing, they were pretty much already in.

Another key factor to their huge appeal stated over and over was their authenticity. They sang about partying as hard as a human could party, but at the same time completely different from another famous partier Hunter S. Thompson - Never anywhere do interviewers ever verbally make a connection there, but their lifestyle influenced their creative and commercial work in some similar ways. Axl's lyrics on Appetite sounded like they could have been written on a napkin, hiding out at a diner in the early morning to make sure whatever fallout from the night before had blown over. There was, and is, always an introspective aspect to it I like, while not particularly glorifying drugs (but still singing about them because they were such a big part of their lives), and simultaneously celebrating while also hating on women. It has an emotional charge, is all very believable and sound very much like their lives.  This, it has been said, is what lead to their broad appeal and gave them a more fantastic sound than other bands of the time, where they are spilling their heart and guts out to you, not only on the album, but every single time they performed. They are a rags-to-riches rockstar American story tale.

Guns N Roses has a lot in common with Michael Jackson.  Their super fast, super huge rise to fame and massive audiences, with a huge marketing campaign and promotional war machine. While they had a don't ask don't tell policy regarding drugs, and I'm sure they dressed themselves, the promoters controlled all the other aspects of promoting, tours, stage setups and keeping the hype up. The way they were run between the two sets of artists worked pretty much the same way.

Michael Jackson drew on a lot of the style and bad boy imagery, having slash-style guitar solos, taking bits of the scene and aesthetic following Guns N Roses Hollywood strip cultural scene when they got signed. MJ took it in his own direction, incorporating it with other elements he liked as well as the dancing and performance elements, instead taking it to the level of sterile art form. His look and visual style are captivating, but also belong in the "History" museum he created for himself, even as you were hearing it for the first time. Guns n Roses differed in the sense that they seemed to express themselves in a singular sense where they were distinct individuals who seemed to know who they are, while Michael seemed to flow quickly from one fad to the next, dipping in to so many spheres of influence, the constant sense of change seemed to be the only singular defining factor throughout his career.

Still, by the time the Use Your Illusions albums were created, conflict as well as differences emerging between what band members wanted had begun to disrupt their sound. Without the unifying street influence defining themselves and their music, Axl wrote about more abstract concepts about his life that had been caused by fame, wealth and unimaginable influence. The sound was good, but very different, and I think a certain amount of change is reasonable for any band to stay relevant past a few years. However, when you think about what the large part of their fanbase was, it isn't hard to imagine them being disenchanted with something that forced them to think complicated thoughts. Use Your Illusions still had enough talent put in to it by really hard working band members, but according to the history of the time, the differences had fractured the band enough to be irrepairable. Although fans wouldn't learn until years later what had been going on, insiders say you can hear the sounds of the band breaking up in those albums.  There are a lot of melodic, sad, or at least introspective songs, again what they were actually going through. They had put everything in to those albums, and they were not able to follow it up. I think even if they had tried to make another appetite, nobody would have liked it.  Unless they had all forsaken their vast wealth and gone back to living on the streets in L.A. There's no substitute for authenticity.

It's also difficult to measure by today's yardstick, considering how little longevity modern artists have in terms of popularity. Guns N Roses can still draw large crowds (at least internationally) by name recognition alone, but will the next big rock band have such an fascinating rise and blowout? It is the stuff of myths and legends.