It all started with the who's more talented question. For my money, if you can bring the same level of brilliance to a live performance as you can with a studio album, then you are more talented than those who cannot. Any slug off the street can sound good with a gifted sound engineer at the helm. The real test is on the stage. On the whole, Winger wins that argument over GnR.
Chula Vista
01-06-2016 02:22 PM
To me the biggest thing about GnR when they hit in late 87 was the tones and the lack of polish. Most of the 80s was about super processed **** that was mega over produced to the max. Along comes this band playing straight up heavy RnR with a major attitude. And they had the classic singer/guitarist thing going on which had been a bit lost with all of the hair.
Jagger/Richards
Page/Plant
Tyler/Perry
etc.
Plus, after years of hearing a billion notes per second played on a Floyd equipped super strat through a 5 foot rack it was really refreshing to hear straight forward heavy blues/rock played on an LP plugged into a Marshall. (even if it was an LP copy).
Trollheart
01-06-2016 02:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plankton
(Post 1667185)
It all started with the who's more talented question. For my money, if you can bring the same level of brilliance to a live performance as you can with a studio album, then you are more talented than those who cannot. Any slug off the street can sound good with a gifted sound engineer at the helm. The real test is on the stage. On the whole, Winger wins that argument over GnR.
It all started with the who's more talented question. For my money, if you can bring the same level of brilliance to a live performance as you can with a studio album, then you are more talented than those who cannot. Any slug off the street can sound good with a gifted sound engineer at the helm. The real test is on the stage. On the whole, Winger wins that argument over GnR.
A good sound engineer can do a lot of things, but he can’t turn a poorly-written song into a well-written song.
FRED HALE SR.
01-06-2016 02:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Janszoon
(Post 1667195)
A good sound engineer can do a lot of things, but he can’t turn a poorly-written song into a well-written song.
:laughing:
Basil C. Thurston III
01-06-2016 03:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chula Vista
(Post 1667013)
The biggest joke of a hair metal band of that era were Winger (hell, Beavis and Butthead pretty much ruined their careers). And Winger had 10X more talent than GnR.
Early contender for "Absurd Quote of the Year".
Plankton
01-06-2016 03:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Janszoon
(Post 1667195)
A good sound engineer can do a lot of things, but he can’t turn a poorly-written song into a well-written song.
So, by that logic, if let's say Sweet Child Of Mine were played on a kazoo, would you still have the same love for it? I mean after all, it's a well-written song right?
Basil C. Thurston III
01-06-2016 03:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord
(Post 1667025)
What does that have to do with anything? Just because you like one band from a genre doesn't make them not a band from that genre. They were formed from members of two glam metal bands for god's sake.
You asked what separated them. I answered talent. You appear to think GNR is a "glam band". Big difference between being a glam band and being influenced by them. Don't know if you're old enough to remember, but Elton John was called glam. Abba was called glam. Bowie was called glam. Ian Hunter was glam. The Tubes were called glam. So were Alice Cooper, Slade and Sweet. Bay City Rollers, Brian Eno, Sparks and Roxy Music also got that title. Can you not see that it's not the music, it's the on-stage style? Glam had nothing to do with the music, it was an image, or a look. I don't base whether I like a band on whether they dress a certain way or not, I have always realized that looks don't necessarily translate to talent. GNR was a talented band on a level that wasn't approached by many other L.A. bands at the time. Many got signed simply because they were in the scene, not because they were great musicians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plankton
(Post 1667105)
So, you're gonna play the tech vs. feel card eh? All I know is **** GnR. Can't stand em. I do however love quite a few songs that Winger did, especially their later stuff.
I'm a guitar player, so this is a bit biased, but here's one good example of my stance on this:
It's funny how everybody creams their pants over the guitar solo in November Rain when it's just Stash bending a note to a minor, and then there's Reb's work on Witness that had gone mostly unnoticed because it didn't get any limelight. In my personal opinion, this outro solo is one of the most soulful and emotional guitar solo's I have ever had the privilege of putting into my earholes. It's got more feeling in just a few tremolo bends than any of Stash's phoned-in crap.
Starts @ about 4:00
So you hate GNR but you came to a GNR reunion thread to wax poetic about Winger? Makes sense, lol.
Frownland
01-06-2016 03:14 PM
They glamourized the rough around the edges look, so they still fit.
Janszoon
01-06-2016 03:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plankton
(Post 1667204)
So, by that logic, if let's say Sweet Child Of Mine were played on a kazoo, would you still have the same love for it? I mean after all, it's a well-written song right?
Maybe. Who knows? At least the sound engineer would have something to work with. I never said it's impossible to do a bad version of a good song.
