Guns N' Roses Appetite for Destruction
» Back to review

Comments:Add a Comment 
romulanrancor
October 22nd 2015


7575 Comments

Album Rating: 4.5

HERE I AMMMM

AND YOURE A ROCKET QUEEEEEN

Titan
October 22nd 2015


26588 Comments

Album Rating: 5.0

I MIGHT BE A LITTLE YOUNG BUT HONEY..........



SPUTNIK IS NAIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Davil667
October 22nd 2015


4075 Comments

Album Rating: 5.0

Hard 5.

TheMagicalBlender
October 22nd 2015


2345 Comments

Album Rating: 5.0

Hard 5. [2]

Snake.
October 22nd 2015


25598 Comments


ha.

zakalwe
October 22nd 2015


42019 Comments

Album Rating: 2.5

I definitely understand the love for this one but I just couldn't swallow it.

danielcardoso
October 22nd 2015


11770 Comments


For coming out at a time when all popular music was dominated by bombastic guitars, overblown synths and choruses full of sugar, and bringing back the sleaze spirit of rebellion that rock music was supposedly all about in the first place, not only reviving that spirit but taking it to the full level after almost a full decade of boring stadium pop rock dominating the airwaves, the album deserves its status.

Snake.
October 22nd 2015


25598 Comments


so what it's still not good

danielcardoso
October 22nd 2015


11770 Comments


Oh it is bud, but judging from your taste I can understand why you have a different opinion, it's definitely not everyone's favorite brand of music anyway.

guitarded_chuck
October 22nd 2015


18070 Comments

Album Rating: 3.5

sigh

NeroCorleone80
October 22nd 2015


34618 Comments


This has plenty of bombast itself

Titan
October 22nd 2015


26588 Comments

Album Rating: 5.0

'I definitely understand the love for this one but I just couldn't swallow it.'



Fair enough zak, at least you've heard the album!

JamieTwort
October 22nd 2015


26988 Comments


"this is almost glam"

It's funny that some people see this as glam/hair metal related when in reality when it came out it was the very antithesis of hair metal within the hard rock genre.

NeroCorleone80
October 22nd 2015


34618 Comments


Thats what I find funny, because for me this doesnt sound that much different from the glam it was supposed to be the antithesis of.

guitarded_chuck
October 22nd 2015


18070 Comments

Album Rating: 3.5

word



slightly more skilled instrumentation

romulanrancor
October 22nd 2015


7575 Comments

Album Rating: 4.5

To me it seems like this album was aimed at as wide an audience as possible.

KILL
October 22nd 2015


81582 Comments

Album Rating: 3.0

this definitely has balls which most glam didnt have or was swallowin so yea beats any hair metal shit but its still kinda lame when you compare it to the metal records of the day m/ metal

JamieTwort
October 22nd 2015


26988 Comments


"slightly more skilled instrumentation"

Well that's not true, a lot of hair metal bands had more technical musicianship than this.

The old school, no flashy nonsense, bluesy approach is one of the things that separates this album from hair metal.

danielcardoso
October 22nd 2015


11770 Comments


Well, there was more to rock than metal here anyway.

guitarded_chuck
October 22nd 2015


18070 Comments

Album Rating: 3.5

" Well that's not true, a lot of hair metal bands had more technical musicianship than this. "



examples?



You have to be logged in to post a comment. Login | Create a Profile





STAFF & CONTRIBUTORS // CONTACT US

Bands: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z


Site Copyright 2005-2023 Sputnikmusic.com
All Album Reviews Displayed With Permission of Authors | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy