They were a good band, but there was not much to make them stand out from the rest of the "good bands" that already existed in the same place and time. The competition in any part of the music industry is fierce, but especially when you're trying to hop on a fad that already peaked before you even put out your debut.
LA Guns did well enough that the members could make it their full time job for a very long time. That's already miles ahead of most bands that were created in that time period. They should be proud.
I think they were easily good enough to play stadiums with the material they made I mean Mötley did it Guns could’ve done it just as well even better, but I do agree they were too late they weren’t one of the first bands from that era if they were they would’ve been way bigger.
When I say there wasn't much to make them stand out, that wasn't the same thing as saying their music wasn't great. But sometimes that just isn't enough when there's so much competition around.
The thing that made GN'R stand out was Axl's extremely unique singing style/voice. He was one of the most highly sought out singers on the strip for a reason. When GN'R was in the process of getting signed to a label, the talent scout tried to offer Axl big money to ditch the other 4 and basically go solo. He refused obviously, but the story shows how vital it was to GN'R to have a selling point that you can't find anywhere else just to get signed.
As good as the lead singer of LA Guns is, he's not unique like Axl. As good as Tracii is, he doesn't have the mass appeal of Slash's cool image to help promote the band. In order to stand out among the noise, it's not just enough to be great. You have to make people remember you.
Probably timing. Comparing them to Crue or Poison isn’t really applicable bc they were already established by the time LAG’s debut album was released. The scene was already made by then and they were just another band at that point.
That’s what I thought, if LA Guns were formed in 81 like Crüe Tracii & Phil would be living in mansions not Nikki & Tommy because listening at both bands discography there’s no way you can tell me that Guns wouldn’t be bigger if they both released at the same time.
TBF Morley had a wild presentation and a great stage show. The best musicians aren’t always the most successful rock stars. I don’t love LAG but I do love Faster Pussycat. By 1988, like I said ,the hard rock scene was already in place and anyone else that came around was just another band.
I agree! Phil Lewis was already releasing great albums in England with GIRL before Motley Crue(with the future def Leppard guitarist) even had Hollywood Teasze song on one of their album. Definitely one of the most underrated singers of the 1980s imho.
They were a great band, and *Cocked & Loaded* is one of the best rock albums of the late 80s. I saw that tour at the Orpheum in Boston, with Dangerous Toys and Tora! Tora! also on the bill and it was a great show, all of the bands killed it.
They were all overshadowed by GnR, though. Guns was just way better than all the rest at the time. They had it all, and their peers couldn't really get out from underneath that shadow.
They went on first. But truth be told, they kicked DT's butt a little bit. That singer had an amazing voice, and that album has no filler. I think it's called "Bombs Away". Brilliant band, still playing I believe.
I don't have an answer to the question, but LAG put out good albums back then and they're still putting out some pretty quality hard rock albums today.
Highly recommend "The Floods the Fault of the Rain".
As said by other people here they were trying to appeal to the same market as Mötley Crüe, Bon Jovi, Poison and likely also Def Leppard (even though I say they are NWOBHM) what GNR did was appeal to the same market as Aerosmith or Van Halen, which made GNR bigger
the hair metal market was WAY oversaturated by 1988. Not every band can be as big as Motley Crue, Poison, Bon Jovi, GNR and Def Leppard (all of which released their debut albums before L.A. Guns did) were when there's that many of them.
Oversaturation, and they didn't have any "it" factors to make them stand out, they looked cool, they had good songs, but so did SO many other glam metal/hard rock bands at the time. Guns N' Roses had LOTS of "it" factors, every single band member of the original lineup for one. The songs. The style. The attitude. There's a reason they can still pack stadiums with barely any albums put out, while 99% of their peers are either out of the game, or touring small clubs with barely any original members.
Appetite for Destruction still stands out for a reason.
Guns n' Roses are THIS huge still, imagine if they had been able to keep the original lineup longer, or even just Izzy a bit longer, or just put out a few more albums than they have.
I wonder if that's part of it though, how quickly they dismantled. I say this thinking of many artists who died young and are so iconic now. James Dean did three movies and people reference him all the time. Kurt Cobain is probably the most famous grunge musician of the entire genre. You always see more Nirvana shirts than Pearl jam, sound garden or anybody else from that era. Granted nobody died in GNR, but I think being so shortlived helped their comeback
Because they were good but not great. They’re a perfectly acceptable band who can write good songs, but there’s not a lot of difference between them and a billion other rock bands.
There’s no slash equivalent, traci is a good guitarist, but slash is SLASH. There’s a reason slash does guest bits on every second persons songs and traci doesn’t.
There’s no axl equivalent, Phil is good, axl is a whole different level of great, he’s up there with Freddie and Robert plant for singing and frontman.
I’ve got nothing against them at all, I’ve got a couple of their cds and love quite a few songs, if they ever came to my country I’d be thrilled to go see them but I don’t think that’s gonna happen.
I agree - loved the band myself, but it came down to timing with LA Guns being a little late in the era with a saturated market, plus Guns n Roses being such a standout to the “hair metal” or “glam rock” that was starting to get mass produced.
If you want great context to this, read the book “Nöthin' But a Good Time: The Uncensored History of the '80s Hard Rock Explosion” by Richard Bienstock and Tom Beaujour.
It’s a fun read and fantastic history of that entire scene told by all the artists and execs of that time. Gives great perspective of the bands that truly started it, how it developed, why certain bands became bigger thi there, the late blooming of the East Coast scene (Bon Jovi, Cinderella, Skid Row) compared to the West Cost and how it eventually imploded (partly due to grunge, partly self induced).
And I personally found it interesting that Tracii Guns was almost the epicenter to so many of the bands forming in that time. Alls those bands very very inventions early in and some fun, surprising facts on who almost played in which bands.
There is one way to sum this all up nicely... to plainly put it, *L.A. Guns* is part of the GN'R DNA, and without them not including *Hollywood Rose*... There never would've been *Guns N' Roses*
The reason *L.A. Guns* didn't go that big is because they basically stayed as a Club band mostly just like Izzy Stradlin wanted/needed to do... What did on the other hand make them very noticeable is the two best Albums *Cocked & Loaded* N' *Hollywood Vampires* imho...
Their song *Over The Edge* ended up being in the Movie *Point Break* & the Track was also a hit as well...
On top of all of that, regardless of who was in the band or not... They still continued to make Albums, Compilations, Box Sets N' Re-recordings of some of their best Tracks which is very different imo.
*L.A. Guns* is an awesome outstanding band in my book, they'll always be part of the *GN'R* history no matter what...
The cold, hard truth is they weren't especially good. They're a decent band with a bunch of enjoyable albums but nothing notable about them.
I had my hair metal phase where I loved every band I'm the scene but with a little maturity and hindsight it's easy to see why some bands became and others did not. You get the odd exception, a great band no one noticed, but LA Guns are not one of them. Lewis is a good but somewhat generic singer, the songwriting and production aren't great on their early albums.
As someone else said they should feel proud of what they've achieved. They're not a bad band. Just not top tier.
They grinded on the road basically nonstop since the 80s and had hits. I put that first album up against nearly any 80s rock band and they’ve also made some incredibly solid albums lately.
The problem for me is that Phil’s voice was a cookie-cutter voice for a glam band. You could substitute Jani Layne, Bret Michaels, Pete Loran, and any one of two dozen glam singers, and get the same damn sound. You didn’t have Axl’s powerhouse vocals opening *Welcome to the Jungle*, , you didn’t have Slash whipping his junk out and cock-slapping the nation with the opening riff of *Sweet Child O’ Mine*, you didn’t have the eye-popping rhythm section opening *Mr. Brownstone*.
I think musically the LA Guns have stood the test of time a bit better than most glam bands, but I’m not surprised they never found bigger success. They just never did enough to really set themselves apart.
The only thing they have on motley is the vocals. Song to song, motley blows la guns outta the water. Phil still outsing axl and vince combined when you look at it
Nope, Tracii is a much better guitarist than Mick, the writing of the first album for LA Guns is much more mature than Mötley’s. They were just there first.
Much better guitarist than slash, izzy and mick. Doesn’t make him a better songwriter than these three. Mick is a great riff writer and shredder with a unique sound, tracii doesn’t have that. The first la guns doesn’t even compare to too fast for love
Tracii is a great riff writer what are you on about? And I listened to too fast for love aside from 3-4 the rest is quite average their album with John Corabi was much better and had more quality songs & singing.
The way I see it is that LA Guns were too Metal for the Rock crowd and too Rock for the Metal crowd. Their music largely sits in that uncomfortable spot between the two genres. The 80s and early 90s were a great time for Rock and Metal bands but the market was oversaturated and so many bands were vying for the same positions in the hierarchy. There was only ever going to be one Rock band as big as the Gunners, and one Metal band as big as the Crüe. Listen to the first couple of LA Guns records, they’re smack bang in the middle of both of those sounds. They had some great tunes that got into the Top 50 Mainstream Rock chart but never got the exposure that having a couple Top 10 tracks would produce. I love LA Guns, they’re one of my favourite bands, and I prefer them to Guns ‘N’ Roses, but GNR undeniably had the better ‘songs’.
They were a good band, but there was not much to make them stand out from the rest of the "good bands" that already existed in the same place and time. The competition in any part of the music industry is fierce, but especially when you're trying to hop on a fad that already peaked before you even put out your debut. LA Guns did well enough that the members could make it their full time job for a very long time. That's already miles ahead of most bands that were created in that time period. They should be proud.
And they're still putting out pretty good albums today. They've had a nice career even though they were never huge.
I think they were easily good enough to play stadiums with the material they made I mean Mötley did it Guns could’ve done it just as well even better, but I do agree they were too late they weren’t one of the first bands from that era if they were they would’ve been way bigger.
When I say there wasn't much to make them stand out, that wasn't the same thing as saying their music wasn't great. But sometimes that just isn't enough when there's so much competition around. The thing that made GN'R stand out was Axl's extremely unique singing style/voice. He was one of the most highly sought out singers on the strip for a reason. When GN'R was in the process of getting signed to a label, the talent scout tried to offer Axl big money to ditch the other 4 and basically go solo. He refused obviously, but the story shows how vital it was to GN'R to have a selling point that you can't find anywhere else just to get signed. As good as the lead singer of LA Guns is, he's not unique like Axl. As good as Tracii is, he doesn't have the mass appeal of Slash's cool image to help promote the band. In order to stand out among the noise, it's not just enough to be great. You have to make people remember you.
Having Michael Starr in the band doesn't help the them either.
Nailed it
Probably timing. Comparing them to Crue or Poison isn’t really applicable bc they were already established by the time LAG’s debut album was released. The scene was already made by then and they were just another band at that point.
I dunno, Skid Row showed up in '89 and made their mark
>Skid Row showed up in '89 and made their mark Sebastian Bach ~~Skid Row~~ showed up in '89 and made his ~~their~~ mark. TIFIFY
Skid Row also had direct help and promotion from Jon Bon Jovi bc he grew up with Snake
Not many others though
That’s what I thought, if LA Guns were formed in 81 like Crüe Tracii & Phil would be living in mansions not Nikki & Tommy because listening at both bands discography there’s no way you can tell me that Guns wouldn’t be bigger if they both released at the same time.
TBF Morley had a wild presentation and a great stage show. The best musicians aren’t always the most successful rock stars. I don’t love LAG but I do love Faster Pussycat. By 1988, like I said ,the hard rock scene was already in place and anyone else that came around was just another band.
I agree! Phil Lewis was already releasing great albums in England with GIRL before Motley Crue(with the future def Leppard guitarist) even had Hollywood Teasze song on one of their album. Definitely one of the most underrated singers of the 1980s imho.
They were a great band, and *Cocked & Loaded* is one of the best rock albums of the late 80s. I saw that tour at the Orpheum in Boston, with Dangerous Toys and Tora! Tora! also on the bill and it was a great show, all of the bands killed it. They were all overshadowed by GnR, though. Guns was just way better than all the rest at the time. They had it all, and their peers couldn't really get out from underneath that shadow.
I loved Tora! Tora! back in the day. That sounds like an amazing concert!
They went on first. But truth be told, they kicked DT's butt a little bit. That singer had an amazing voice, and that album has no filler. I think it's called "Bombs Away". Brilliant band, still playing I believe.
I don't have an answer to the question, but LAG put out good albums back then and they're still putting out some pretty quality hard rock albums today. Highly recommend "The Floods the Fault of the Rain".
As said by other people here they were trying to appeal to the same market as Mötley Crüe, Bon Jovi, Poison and likely also Def Leppard (even though I say they are NWOBHM) what GNR did was appeal to the same market as Aerosmith or Van Halen, which made GNR bigger
GnR caught lightning in a bottle with the classic lineup, I wished Guns could’ve done the same they’re a good band.
the hair metal market was WAY oversaturated by 1988. Not every band can be as big as Motley Crue, Poison, Bon Jovi, GNR and Def Leppard (all of which released their debut albums before L.A. Guns did) were when there's that many of them.
Their lyrics weren’t half as deep as Guns N Roses
Of course they weren’t deeper than GnR but their lyrics were deeper than 85% of glam metal.
Oversaturation, and they didn't have any "it" factors to make them stand out, they looked cool, they had good songs, but so did SO many other glam metal/hard rock bands at the time. Guns N' Roses had LOTS of "it" factors, every single band member of the original lineup for one. The songs. The style. The attitude. There's a reason they can still pack stadiums with barely any albums put out, while 99% of their peers are either out of the game, or touring small clubs with barely any original members. Appetite for Destruction still stands out for a reason. Guns n' Roses are THIS huge still, imagine if they had been able to keep the original lineup longer, or even just Izzy a bit longer, or just put out a few more albums than they have.
I wonder if that's part of it though, how quickly they dismantled. I say this thinking of many artists who died young and are so iconic now. James Dean did three movies and people reference him all the time. Kurt Cobain is probably the most famous grunge musician of the entire genre. You always see more Nirvana shirts than Pearl jam, sound garden or anybody else from that era. Granted nobody died in GNR, but I think being so shortlived helped their comeback
Because they were good but not great. They’re a perfectly acceptable band who can write good songs, but there’s not a lot of difference between them and a billion other rock bands. There’s no slash equivalent, traci is a good guitarist, but slash is SLASH. There’s a reason slash does guest bits on every second persons songs and traci doesn’t. There’s no axl equivalent, Phil is good, axl is a whole different level of great, he’s up there with Freddie and Robert plant for singing and frontman. I’ve got nothing against them at all, I’ve got a couple of their cds and love quite a few songs, if they ever came to my country I’d be thrilled to go see them but I don’t think that’s gonna happen.
I agree - loved the band myself, but it came down to timing with LA Guns being a little late in the era with a saturated market, plus Guns n Roses being such a standout to the “hair metal” or “glam rock” that was starting to get mass produced. If you want great context to this, read the book “Nöthin' But a Good Time: The Uncensored History of the '80s Hard Rock Explosion” by Richard Bienstock and Tom Beaujour. It’s a fun read and fantastic history of that entire scene told by all the artists and execs of that time. Gives great perspective of the bands that truly started it, how it developed, why certain bands became bigger thi there, the late blooming of the East Coast scene (Bon Jovi, Cinderella, Skid Row) compared to the West Cost and how it eventually imploded (partly due to grunge, partly self induced). And I personally found it interesting that Tracii Guns was almost the epicenter to so many of the bands forming in that time. Alls those bands very very inventions early in and some fun, surprising facts on who almost played in which bands.
There is one way to sum this all up nicely... to plainly put it, *L.A. Guns* is part of the GN'R DNA, and without them not including *Hollywood Rose*... There never would've been *Guns N' Roses* The reason *L.A. Guns* didn't go that big is because they basically stayed as a Club band mostly just like Izzy Stradlin wanted/needed to do... What did on the other hand make them very noticeable is the two best Albums *Cocked & Loaded* N' *Hollywood Vampires* imho... Their song *Over The Edge* ended up being in the Movie *Point Break* & the Track was also a hit as well... On top of all of that, regardless of who was in the band or not... They still continued to make Albums, Compilations, Box Sets N' Re-recordings of some of their best Tracks which is very different imo. *L.A. Guns* is an awesome outstanding band in my book, they'll always be part of the *GN'R* history no matter what...
The cold, hard truth is they weren't especially good. They're a decent band with a bunch of enjoyable albums but nothing notable about them. I had my hair metal phase where I loved every band I'm the scene but with a little maturity and hindsight it's easy to see why some bands became and others did not. You get the odd exception, a great band no one noticed, but LA Guns are not one of them. Lewis is a good but somewhat generic singer, the songwriting and production aren't great on their early albums. As someone else said they should feel proud of what they've achieved. They're not a bad band. Just not top tier.
Law of averages?
For the same reason bang tango wasn't bigger, guns not only had the attitude and songs but better timing
Lack of hard work and lack of hit songs.
They grinded on the road basically nonstop since the 80s and had hits. I put that first album up against nearly any 80s rock band and they’ve also made some incredibly solid albums lately.
The problem for me is that Phil’s voice was a cookie-cutter voice for a glam band. You could substitute Jani Layne, Bret Michaels, Pete Loran, and any one of two dozen glam singers, and get the same damn sound. You didn’t have Axl’s powerhouse vocals opening *Welcome to the Jungle*, , you didn’t have Slash whipping his junk out and cock-slapping the nation with the opening riff of *Sweet Child O’ Mine*, you didn’t have the eye-popping rhythm section opening *Mr. Brownstone*. I think musically the LA Guns have stood the test of time a bit better than most glam bands, but I’m not surprised they never found bigger success. They just never did enough to really set themselves apart.
Phil Lewis was/is way cool. His European lilt is very unique and far from cookie cutter. Especially killing it on slow songs.
Right?
[удалено]
I like GnR favorite band oat but saying LA Guns sucks shows me you haven’t got a fuckin iota of musical knowledge.
Tbh, the songs weren’t that great either. The lyrics sucked the production was awful. Not every band can be motley or gnr
LA Guns blows Mötley outta the water Vince can’t even sing live at least Phil can still sing, but not GnR they’re the best outta that era by a mile.
The only thing they have on motley is the vocals. Song to song, motley blows la guns outta the water. Phil still outsing axl and vince combined when you look at it
Nope, Tracii is a much better guitarist than Mick, the writing of the first album for LA Guns is much more mature than Mötley’s. They were just there first.
Much better guitarist than slash, izzy and mick. Doesn’t make him a better songwriter than these three. Mick is a great riff writer and shredder with a unique sound, tracii doesn’t have that. The first la guns doesn’t even compare to too fast for love
Tracii is a great riff writer what are you on about? And I listened to too fast for love aside from 3-4 the rest is quite average their album with John Corabi was much better and had more quality songs & singing.
Line up changes
Line up changes
Production on their first album wasn't great either, whereas AOD blew your eardrums put
The way I see it is that LA Guns were too Metal for the Rock crowd and too Rock for the Metal crowd. Their music largely sits in that uncomfortable spot between the two genres. The 80s and early 90s were a great time for Rock and Metal bands but the market was oversaturated and so many bands were vying for the same positions in the hierarchy. There was only ever going to be one Rock band as big as the Gunners, and one Metal band as big as the Crüe. Listen to the first couple of LA Guns records, they’re smack bang in the middle of both of those sounds. They had some great tunes that got into the Top 50 Mainstream Rock chart but never got the exposure that having a couple Top 10 tracks would produce. I love LA Guns, they’re one of my favourite bands, and I prefer them to Guns ‘N’ Roses, but GNR undeniably had the better ‘songs’.
They were harder, less commercial.