What, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, would you say set Guns N’ Roses apart from their peers? Why did they become as massively successful as they did?
First the songs. Welcome to the Jungle, and Sweet Child were better than most Hair Metal going.
Then the image - they came across as authentically dangerous, not cute. This was before Axl became merely tedious. But they had a Cobain, Winehouse, Jim Morrison odor of trainwreck on them.
They appealed to men - the album truly rocked end to end. Slash is a bonified guitar hero, excellent at what he does. They weren’t Poison, whom they “had a feud with” back when the LA scene was just breaking out. Unskinny Bop? Every Rose Has its Thorn? GnR were a breath of welcome toxic rock air.
A good combo of factors.
I knew a guy who hated 90’s rock and roll, but as a child of the '60’s, really admired Axel Rose. He was, as that guy put it, the last classically-trained-as-a-child vocalist. Go re-listen for yourselves – ignore the content if you think its drek – who, at the time, had Axel’s vocal power? Yes, Cris Cornell was deeper, more brooding, more meaningful, better voice fit to the song, yadda yadda. Yes, David Groul is the best backup to Kurt Cobain’s brooding Grunge, I get that. Who, tell me, who, sings over a Guitar God like Slash and is still heard?
Hair metal was at its peak, and G’n’R were the happy medium between the cartoonish Poisons, Cinderellas, and Motley Crues of the world, and the more “hardcore” metal like Metallica, Megadeth, and Slayer. They were manly and “real,” without makeup or having to be scary just for the sake of scariness. And the music was genuinely good, still holds up to this day, and I can’t imagine it will ever not.
The other posters already pretty much nailing it. So I think i’ll just pile on the timelessness aspect of Appetite for Destruction. Sure, it has some of the ingredients of “hair metal”, but to me the songs don’t scream “hair metal” like the other bands of that era do. Its just good straight ahead heavy rock.
That nasty riff in My Michelle is still nasty & dirty today.
This sums it up quite nicely. (Great post Wordman)
I would also add their songs were easy/fun to sing along to. (Which never hurts)
They also had a fairly diverse fan base. Bikers loved them, meth heads loved them, along with white collar workers.
Axil was also popular with the ladies. Which also helped.
Their song writing was more ambitious than most bands of the time. There was just more going one in each song. They had songs wihtcow bell and songs with whistling. They had two guitarists and thei rsinger had the the greatest range in rock history.
I still listen to Appetite while mowing the lawn.
Yeah, he went all the way from shrill to shriek.
I have a theory that a local “scene” is what makes the really good bands great. That there is several bands of a similar sound that are all competing against and urging each other on. For example: the new york punk “scene” of the 70’s helped to push The Ramones, Blondie, Television, and The Talking Heads. the grunge scene in Seattle in the 90’s pushed bands like Nirvana, Sound Garden, and Mudhoney, and the LA hair band scene made GnR, Motely Crue, and Poison, push themselves farther artistically, than they may have on their own. If you have a group of peers whose talent you respect and whom you are trying to impress, it motivates you to become great.
of course when you can play the guitar like Slash; that doesn’t hurt either!
mc
No idea. I was pretty heavily into music in the 70s into the 80s, then didn’t hear much of interest until 90s grunge, and subsequent “Americana”/roots rock. In the 90s, I was going back to early blues.
Sure, I heard about Axel Rose, and could recognize Slash, but never understood the appeal. Same with Metallica. Prolly shoulda given Chili Peppers a fairer shake, especially as I’m a bassist.
While I loves me some good guitar, Slash’s image and GnR’s music always got in the way of my appreciating his ability.
+1. Also, Appetite for Destruction was a fucking classic. IMO, one of the best debut albums in all of rock.
It was the Hat.
That’s really it- somehow their particular status of not being quite as silly as the hair bands, but not as angry as the thrash metal bands worked for them and all out of proportion to what you might think.
I never really got it back then - as a thrash metal band fan, GnR seemed only a hair less girly than the Poisons, Motley Crues, and Wingers of the world.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
GnR are hard rock + punk. Aerosmith meets the NY Dolls.
Thrash metal is the big pivot away from blues swing. The rhythms got on beat to support complex timing changes.
Can I just say that early Aerosmith really holds up. I mean, Last Child? C’mon.
Funny thing is the OP didn’t ask what sets Guns and Roses apart. The OP asks what set Guns and Roses apart. I’m pretty sure that answer is simple: women money and drugs, not necessarily in that order for each particular member.
Very much a latecomer to Guns N’ Roses so my perspective is looking back.
They were really good, but I don’t see much that sets them apart aside from a few very solid songs. I think Alice in Chains, Stone Temple Pilots, and several other bands made better albums around the same time GNR was making albums.
Still, they did do some good work.
I don’t think you can do that. You had to be there for that first, glorious album. It hit the scene and set the world on fire. Nothing else quite like it at the time.
Everything else that came after was just same-old same-old, not earth-shaking like that first release.
I think the same could be said about Boston. First album hit, and BANG! Finding it nowadays, just doesn’t have the same punch. You had to be there.
“Nighttrain” still gets me jamming. 
No, I think in our hearts we all know that the real answer is Axl.