I can't think of anyone defending Pitchfork after this

>>74396233
it's one of their most acceptable acts in the past decade

>>74396260
What a P4k thing to say

I never say this but if you can't get down to Appetite you're what they call a nu-male.
You're a pussy.

>>74396233
It's not like that album is bad
And it's not like it's anything new for them to justify giving retrospective 10s for what they consider "classics"
And of the albums that they have done this with, this album is acceptable for them to have done this with

>>74396293
>It's not like that album is bad
but it is, though

>>74396233
p4k is lame but that's an acceptable position to hold

>In the tradition of the Rolling Stones and the Sex Pistols, Guns N' Roses was a band of psychopaths, delinquents, sex maniacs, junkies and alcoholics who liked to show and sound what they were. Appetite For Destruction (1987) was as harrowing an experience as being catapulted into a dark narrow alley of the worst Los Angeles neighborhood. William "Axl Rose" Bailey's nasty, offensive, anti-heroic vocal acrobatics fended off the double-guitar attack of Saul "Slash" Hudson and Jeff "Izzy Stradlin" Isabell, who indulged in unbridled concertos of screeching and reckless riffs. The noise, the energy, the lyrics transformed each song into a bloody fistfight.

>>74396285
this is probably the most sobering depiction of the kinds of people that say numale unironically.

>>74396285
>>74396293
>>74396330
>>74396330
It's absolute fucking cheesy garbage. At the same time as Glenn Branca, Swans, Talking Heads, you're going to say Guns 'n Roses is "hard rock?" Is full of "delinquents?" Jesus Christ.

I always forget P4K is one critic.

>>74396357
little babby can't handle a bit of glam pomp LOL

>>74396365
It's a representation of the Editorial Board's interests

>>74396406
Is that supposed to make it look better

>>74396406
>taking Scaruffi seriously at all

>>74396406
how can one man's taste be so perfect bros?

>>74396406
>>74396428
>>74396462
>>74396487
Chinese Democracy has a higher score than Rubber Soul and Revolver

Appetite for Destruction will always have a place in my heart, but it's irritating how writers find it necessary to assign numerical scores to albums with established legacies that came out decades ago.

>>74396515
again
>taking Scaruffi seriously at all

>>74396515
based

>>74396233
even if it were conceded that the album was relevant or influential at the time of its release (it wasnt), its a half-assed album; two radio singles and a bunch of filler. this completely invalidates pitchfork.

>>74396406
literally flawless

>>74396515
He's right

>hate p4k
>cry about p4k relentlessly
>keep going on p4k for more qq material and give them hits
>advertise p4k via your new qq material on /mu/
>never once post about the plethora of alternative online music publications out there
really gets the synapses firing

It's a good album where each track feels like it has its own identity so the listener doesn't feel like they are listening to something boring. The album's full of energy, and unlike >>74396357
retard says, G n R are actually delinquents. People like Swans or Talking Heads weren't party all night cause mischief types, they bitched and complained about shit like this board does. Not to mention that the music is more upbeat than an example like Swans or Branca (can't even believe they were brought up) and more heavy than an example like Talking Heads. The only music that's more intense yet upbeat at the same time is stuff like really angry hardcore punk or more extreme forms of metal, and neither of those are necessarily fun happy music that AFD is.

The fact that this board is unable to understand why it's such a highly lauded album is a lot more telling about the sheer pretentiousness of this board where its members are so far up their own ass that they are incapable of seeing music from any perspective but their own.
>>74396553
>two radio singles
>release comes with five singles all of which charted
This isn't even up to opinion, but objective fact.

I listened to this twice during my drive home today and I think it's still pretty damn good. Even the throwaways (You're Crazy, Anything Goes) are catchy. Overall, GnR have legacy to be proud of. Their best works stand up very well.

>>74396731
I listen to this shit in my department store job every day. I've musically analyzed it, trying to find the good harmonies, the good rhythms, the good technique. NONE of it is impressive. NONE of it is unprecedented. After the fucking late-70s with Post-Punk and the early 80's with New Wave/No Wave there should be no reason to celebrate Guns 'n Roses. Now fuck off you fucking /v/tard

>>74396772
>proves my point
Lmao. Nothing in post-punk, new wave, and no wave offers any experience like AFD. The fact that you're even comparing them kinda shows how far up your own ass you are.

>>74396821
Yeah it's a fusion of Pop shit and Punk. It's a watered down, stupid piece of shit. I agree with you that it hadn't been done before and that doesn't make it good.

No one made shitty watered down pop-ified Jungle before In Colour either, you colossal faggot.

>>74396772
why are you so fixated on comparing gnr to post-punk? you do realize that music doesn't have to set out for one particular mood or style, right?

>>74396844
Watered down version of what? You aren't being clear/concise with your statements. Again, pull your head out of your ass. You're conversing with someone else, not yourself.

>>74396864
It's hard rock for mainstream audiences, call it what you want.

>You're in the jungle baby

how the fuck does anyone who has listened to a respectable amount of music take this band fucking seriously

>>74396406
Based. His review was great too you. Said it was raw as fuck, like getting thrown into an alley in a dangerous part of LA.

Guns n roses want to be heavy but how can they do that when their music consists of fluttering guitars? There's literally no weight to it

>>74396869
But hard rock has been in the mainstream since its conception. Led Zeppelin, Rolling Stones, AC/DC, etc. were already popular as fuck. GnR took a different twist which I would argue would be a bit tougher to digest because they focus on making the music more aggressive than those guys with nowhere near as much soft shit in there.

>>74396894
you have 10 seconds to explain what's wrong with that line

>>74396731
>release comes with five singles all of which charted
no one gives a shit about paradise city. so the radio didnt have enough acdc and zz top so they milked this wax frisbee to fucking death. big fuckin deal.

>>74396934
Because somehow a vamp in Eb with some aggressive drumming is supposed to be "edgy" and extreme

Here's a fact: no one can defend Guns 'n Roses on a musical basis. There is nothing musically, in a historical nor a compositional basis, that is impressive.

>>74396772
Because every song sounds good. It's not rocket science. The songs are about drugs and sex and the riffs and music just sound good.

>>74397016
That's not a fucking 10/10 or exceptional release

>>74396949
i'd say the song does a fine job capturing a vibe of urban grit, albeit glamorized, and by your own admission the drumming is aggressive. perhaps it doesn't conform to your ideal of "edgy and extreme" should be, but it certainly captures a unique atmosphere that many would find hostile.

man the cut between the end of the chorus and Verse2 is so obvious, like at least another more musically interesting act would try to cloak the obvious edits
>>74397033
are you fucking b8ing me

File: cover.jpg (37KB, 297x300px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 297x300px

if afd is a 10, then significant other is a 12.

>>74397021
So mad numale. It's not a 10 imo. But P4K has handed out 10s to albums way worse. And if Nevermind or Pinkerton gets a 10, why not this one.

>>74397078
Nevermind is much grittier/harder rock than AFD
Pinkerton at least has the lyrical theme angle

I don't like either album but they're unquestionably better than AFD

>>74397047
no. how can you dispute a single word of what i said? welcome to the jungle pretty clearly attains a feeling of hollywood-ized urban violence.

File: annihilator.png (131KB, 826x272px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 826x272px

REMINDER:

File: Paradise City Charts.jpg (63KB, 430x484px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 430x484px

>>74396945
>no one gives a shit about paradise city
Objective facts prove you wrong. You guys are delusional as fuck.
>so the radio didnt have enough acdc and zz top so they milked this wax frisbee to fucking death. big fuckin deal.
AFD has a much more upbeat sound than either of those.
>>74396962
>>74396949
Find me a more aggressive album that manages to have mainstream appeal and isn't all muh life sucks edgelord bullshit that you faggots listen to.

>>74397157
>Find me a more aggressive album that manages to have mainstream appeal
Mainstream appeal has absolutely no value. It's music, not economics.
If you want to make money go into business.

>>74397094
It has Nighttrain, Rocket Queen, Sweet Child O Mine, Paradise City, Welcome to the Jungle, Mr. Brownstone, and more classic songs. Literally every song was a big hit. It's just good. Why so mad over a score.

>>74397094
>Nevermind is much grittier/harder rock than AFD
>relies on Pixies style dynamic play to soften the attack a lot more than AFD does
>Kurt's performance is nowhere near as sharp as Axl's to give a more shouty in your face style performance
>music about muh sadboy edgelord shit

>>74397182
Nevermind is unquestionably more dissonant, more aggressive, and less accommodating than AFD which is just loud party music.

>>74397171
It absolutely does. That's how it gets the scores it does. If you didn't give a fuck about mainstream appeal, you wouldn't be discussing popular music, just art music. Yet here you are, shit talking an album you probably haven't listened through.

>>74397197
>If you didn't give a fuck about mainstream appeal, you wouldn't be discussing popular music, just art music.
Popular music is a very broad umbrella, you aren't going to tell me Toshimaru Nakamura, Klaus Schulze, or Henry Flynt are classical music.

>>74397157
Far Beyond Driven reached no.1 on the Billboard charts and was highly aggressive by mainstream standards.

>>74397193
>more dissonant
Sure
>more aggressive
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

ANY music that spends as much time as Nevermind did with its focus on dynamics on soft shit can never be as aggressive as a record like AFD that stays hard 24/7. It is far more accommodating than AFD because of its soft sections. Not only that, it's distorted parts are closer to noise rock than they are to punk in the way they are mixed, so even in that way its less aggressive than AFD which is far closer to a more punchy mixing style for the guitars so each power chord has far more power behind it.

>>74397157
>>74397172
radio djs laying the shit out of shitty songs does not make the album any good. it just makes i over fucking played.

and afd is nothing different from acdc's back in black or highway to hell, both released many years earlier, were played to death on the radio, and neither of those were 10s either.

>>74397243
Typical shitposter: "sure you're objectively right, but in my subjective opinion you are wrong."

>>74397261
you asserted something, he disagreed and provided his reasoning for doing so. if you're too dumb to properly respond just leave the thread.

>>74397217
None of those are art music except maybe Flynt, and Flynt isn't even that great once you start analyzing his shit.
>>74397230
>and isn't all muh life sucks edgelord bullshit
Far Beyond Driven is this though.

>>74397193
Nevermind is mainstream as fuck. Literally every 12 year old knows Nirvana. AFD sounds more original too with the crunchy double guitar lines and Axl's singing style. Just because it doesn't have a shit ton of distortion and Dave Grohl slamming the drums doesn't mean it's not good.

>>74397245
>radio djs laying the shit out of shitty songs does not make the album any good. it just makes i over fucking played.
Changing the argument now. Very different from what it was >>74396553 it was big and it was influential whether you like it or not.
>and afd is nothing different from acdc's back in black or highway to hell
In terms of both being played a lot, sure. But musically pretty different. ACDC's music is much slower and less diverse. Their vocalist is also not on Axl's level.

>>74397288
Explain how they are popular music under YOUR definition then.

>>74397344
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_music

The one everyone uses.

>>74397094
>Nevermind is much grittier
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
It's literally the shiniest pop rock album ever.
It sounds like numales trying to be edgy
AFD sounds like Hoodlums raping your gf

>>74397321
nothing is different, kid. the album is shit and only has a couple songs anyone actually remembers despite being played to hell. and it is not at all influential (unlike ac dc which clearly influenced these clowns since their music is exactly the same).

>>74396233
Does anyone here actually like pitchfolk. They overrated so many shit bands, especially that Bon Iver indiefolk crap.

Anyone actually like these pc fucktards?

>>74397394
no. they are full of shit.

File: bait.png (8KB, 224x225px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 224x225px

>>74397376

>>74397367
So explain why you said I have to be interested in mainstream music in order to be interested in popular music?

File: Capture.png (72KB, 1045x376px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 1045x376px

Or this

>>74397377
Three of those songs have at least 200 million views on YouTube with Sweet Child having 500 million. People definitely remember these songs.

I can cite bands like Manic Street Preachers to Fall Out Boy to BLS among more that have cited GnR as influences.
>their music is exactly the same
Saying this over and over again won't make it true. You have a hard time reading it seems, but I'll spoonfeed your dumb ass one more time: GnR have a far more punk influenced upbeat sound than ACDC with more diverse structure/songwriting.

>>74397441
Because mainstream appeal is of pretty big importance in popular music? Idk if you noticed based on my original post, but I never said I actually like the album. All I am saying is that it's very understandable why pop critics will give this a high score. It's mainstream appeal is huge for that.

>>74397517
So mainstream appeal is a big part of Laurie Anderson's appeal?

>>74397537
Yes in that a record like Big Science takes a bunch of avant garde tropes and puts them into a much more easy to digest popular music product from which one of the singles even charted well.

No in that its relatively low in popularity to many of its new wave peers because it does have those avant garde tropes that'll always ensure that it's not looked upon as highly by pop critics and also have less fans.

>>74397465
ok ill tell ya what. ill revise my original statement. it is a half-assed album with THREE fucking radio singles and a bunch of filler. oh, and they apparently influenced some irrelevant bands. are you happy, kid-o?

they still sound exactly like acdc and others, your response to that came straight out of your ass, but whatever.

>>74397588
I just don't understand how a 10/10 for a record being OK but popular is acceptable. How is that a tenable position in any criticism?

>>74397627
its not. if being popular = good to critics, then we dont even need critics. they dont even need to exist. we already know what was popular.

>>74397653
Then AFD has pretty much no reason for a 10/10.

>>74397605
>THREE fucking radio singles and a bunch of filler
Five, and most fans/critics will cite Rocket Queen as the best song so not really filler.
>oh, and they apparently influenced some irrelevant bands.
All three of those artists have had releases popular enough to be charted.
>they still sound exactly like acdc and others, your response to that came straight out of your ass, but whatever.
Doesn't change the objective fact that AFD's music is generally more upbeat than ACDC's ,has a higher variety in structure as well, and Axl's vocal range has displayed far more variety as well.

>>74397627
Because that accessibility gives it universal appeal for it to be liked by enough group of people to be considered for that 10/10? Keep in mind this isn't just a popularity based argument; look back to the exact post you first quoted off me.

>>74397786
Just because a 7/10 is universally liked doesn't make it a 10/10.

>>74397851
>Keep in mind this isn't just a popularity based argument; look back to the exact post you first quoted off me.
Are you blind, retarded, too full of yourself, or trolling?

>>74397376
The album was made by people that grinded on the streets dealing with thugs and junkies playing in run down clubs. Not pussified numales like Nirvana. Even the cover for AFD got banned.

>>74397864
I just don't understand what the fuck your point is now. Can we just agree AFD is bland and Laurie Anderson is good

>>74396357
lmao Glenn Bronco is gay as fuck.

He's like a 12 year old mall goth edgelord

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEq57S094ro

if this album were released an entire fucking decade earlier, it still wouldnt be a 10/10.

>>74396772
Outside of goth post-punk was largely shit.

>>74397895
>I just don't understand what the fuck your point is now.
It's an album that brings enough surface level variety in its songwriting while still having a singular style. The end result is a record that is the most aggressive record that both has mainstream appeal and isn't focused on dark subject matter (rather, it has fun with traditionally taboo subjects). They have a vocalist that is objectively far more talented than his hard rock peers. This results in something that can very easily get a 10/10 from any mainstream publication. If a band like Beatles, Yes or The Velvet Underground can get 10/10s for making "sophisticated/cerebral music" (it's not really but it is done in an accessible form), AFD is that equivalent but for making "aggressive/visceral music".

I don't personally care for either AFD nor Anderson. I don't mind more aesthetically darker music like certain metal to have music more aggressive than AFD, and Anderson's inability to explore the avant garde due to pop limitations isn't worth my time compared to actual avant garde artists.

>>74398063
Yeah but think about it like this. If your so risk averse, how are you going to take the steps and make the decisions that make a man win in life. The risks that keep the economy going, the risks that make for great stories, adventures and so forth. Every cool thing that could approach you you'll say no. And it's not just you its a large section of an entire generation. Wasting away in their cubicles counting down the time until the day of their death..

>>74398063
OK now I understand what you mean

but here's what I'll say: Rolling Stone giving AFD 10/10 or whatever is not a big deal.

the thing is that this is Pitchfork, who tried to sell people on its indie credibility. surely you see how this is almost the definitive proof of their corporate shift?

>>74398075
AFD made more money being risk averse than when the band finally tried to doing art rock shit to sell a lot less. They literally started losing both on an artistic front and honestly on a personal one as well once they became more risk seeking.
>>74398110
Oh no, man. P4K hasn't been like that for a long ass time. I don't use the site much anymore, but while I respect how they have only given like 10 to 11 albums 10/10s on release, it's very common for them to just handout 10/10s to "classics" by artists that were popular in their time (so this means that reviews of classics by less popular artists like This Heat or Laurie Anderson won't get the 10.)

>>74398280
yeah I mean P4k hasn't had true credibility in years, I just think this is a new low. but w/e we seem to be on generally the same wavelength of things

File: Thin_Lizzy_-_Jailbreak.jpg (101KB, 298x300px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 298x300px

afd sounds exactly like any random 70s hard rock album released many years before it. 10/10 is laughably absurd no matter how you try to justify it.

>>74398315
Here's them giving a 10/10 to a release often considered by many to be the first record by The Who where they started falling off.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030605093103/www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/w/who/odds-and-sods.shtml

Also based on /mu/ posts from the time, they started reviewing Prince albums a bit after he died, giving all of the earlier ones 10s left n right when any other website would probs reserve that just for Purple Rain.

It's really funny seeing how neutered millennial "educated music fans" are reacting to Appetite in this thread.
You guys probably say things like "rock is dead" and "electronic music in the only genre doing anything interesting".

Christ, why is this album so repugnant to numales? Nobody thinks it's the epitome of rock. It's just a straightforward hard rock album that does what it does well.

>>74396772
>I listen to this shit in my department store job every day. I've musically analyzed it,

lol fuck off

>>74396894
>how the fuck does anyone who has listened to a respectable amount of music take this band fucking seriously

It was the first words spoken to Axl (by a beggar) when he got off he bus arriving in L.A. "You're in the jungle baby......and you're going down".

Considering the debuchery that followed, the beggar was right it seems.

>>74396233
Their documentary on The Soft Bulletin alone solidifies them as the best music publications hands-down.

>>74397243
Guns N Roses is not hard lol

>>74399592
It's a shame this is not true

It's a great album.

File: DFWSTtUVoAAGghW.jpg large.jpg (100KB, 750x659px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 750x659px

Uh oh, I think I just figured out why numales hate GNR.

>>74396233
>Depeche Mode's Violator is not a 10 but this
Screw them

>>74396233
>some faggot who works for a shitty online media site did something faggoty
WHO FUCKING CARES.