Charbor on the Rocks - Band on Band Rock Feuds: Metallica & Guns 'N Roses

 

vs.

Metallica and Guns 'N Roses toured together in 1992, and rarely has a tour been filled with so many severe setbacks.

Guns N' Roses insisted on being the headliners, so they came on after Metallica every night. But this might have been a case of, as the lyrics to Metallica's King Nothing goes, "careful what you wish/ you just might get it." They got what they wanted in terms of going on last, but it proved not to be the smartest idea. Metallica is not the kind of act that you easily follow, and even someone with the stadium-sized ego of Axl Rose should have realized that.

I went to one of those shows with my brother, on July 29, 1992. It was the first major concert that either of us had chosen to go to of our own accord. We were both there more for Metallica than Guns N' Roses, admittedly, so it might seem like I am taking Metallica's side in this conflict, so to speak.

But, all I have to say is that the stadium was filled with energy when Metallica first took the stage. Then, after two hours and change (if memory serves me correctly) of some of the hardest, loudest, and most intense music around, the stadium seemed drained of energy after their set list. They took a lot out of you, whether or not you were a fan. Again, I repeat, Metallica (at least back then) was not the kind of act that you would want to have to follow.

Guns N' Roses came on late (shocker!), and the reception was considerably milder than what it had been for Metallica. Axl Rose noticed, too, much like he did throughout that tour. For a man who starved for attention, and wanted everyone on their feet at all times, excited and singing every word, it must have been a disappointment. A good percentage of people were there to see Metallica, and many of the rest of the fans simply were drained of their energy and enthusiasm after Metallica's set. By that point, it was very late. It was a Monday night, and Guns N' Roses did not take the stage until the wee hours of the morning. My brother and I did not mind so much. We were young, and did not have to get up early the next morning. But I can't help but wonder if that was true for a lot of people that went to that show. Fatigue may have been a factor. Can't say for sure.

Less than two weeks after that concert, came the most infamous moment between the two, and what really cemented the status of feud. It happened in Montreal. James Hetfield, the lead singer for Metallica, was standing in the wrong place at the wrong time, when the pyrotechnic blasts. He suffered second and third degree burns, and Metallica obviously could not continue with the show, although they did promise to return in order to complete the show.

It was time for Gun N' Roses to step up and win the day, right?

Well, actually....not so much.

Guns N' Roses took the stage after a long delay of well over two hours, during which time the crowd grew restless, but it was hardly a command performance. First off, the stage had not been fully prepared for them, and they had difficulties with the sound system. Also, GNR frontman Axl Rose claimed that he had a sore throat. Perhaps there were some other reasons stated, but one way or the other, Guns N' Roses left the stage far too early. It could have been the moment for Guns N' Roses to finally shine. Instead, it underscored exactly what was wrong with the group. Axl Rose even commented that, while the band had "got it together in Europe", everything had fallen apart here. He also said that it would be the last show for a long, long time for Guns N' Roses.

Years later, the experience of that night was captured on VH1's Behind the Music when it focused on Metallica. James Hetfield described how Guns N' Roses could have been "the hero of the day", but instead, Axl "throws this fit". The other members of Metallica saw Guns N' Roses backstage, and they described how Axl Rose was complaining to anyone who would listen that his voice was giving him trouble, although Jason Newsted remembered how he had a cigarette in one hand, and a drink in another, while he said this. Kirk Hammett said that it reminded him "of what it must have looked like when Rome burned and Nero played a fiddle."

James Hetfield summarized it:

"We couldn't relate to Axl and his attitude, you know? So we learned...we learned quite a bit on what not to do."

Guns N' Roses explained their side of things, claiming that the crowd really was dead, not into it. The sound system really was bad, none of the band members could hear at all. Plus, Axl's voice was really bothering him, and he didn't want to hurt himself. So, according to Axl, the band got into a huddle, and decided they were out of there.

A riot ensued, and it was compared to a similar riot the year before in St. Louis following a Guns N' Roses concert. Thousands of fans looted, threw rocks through shop windows, and caused general mayhem. There was violence, and there were arrests. Metallica seemed to point the finger at Guns N' Roses, while Guns N' Roses just kind of collectively seemed to shrug.

For Metallica, the tour was a success, financially and otherwise. It established their hard rocking credentials, and if it was perceived that they were in the shadow of Guns N' Roses before the tour, the same could certainly not be said afterwards.

Guns N' Roses, on the other hand, was a different story. The band did not make much money from the tour, and Slash blamed Axl Rose for hosting expensive and elaborate parties during every single show. Also, although perhaps it was not so obvious at the time (especially for the members of the band) Guns N' Roses was on the downslide. Perhaps it was the riot. Perhaps it was the tendency by Guns N' Roses to make their fans wait before taking the stage. Perhaps it was the tiresome and repetitive antics of prima donna lead singer Axl Rose, who's legendary self-obsession and ego finally took it's toll. Or, perhaps, fans just got tired of a big, huge band taking itself too seriously.

Axl Rose had some words to say about Metallica after their 1992 tour together, as well. On stage in San Francisco in 1993, Axl talked trash about Metallica, and claimed that they had not brought much with them on the tour. He also responded to some who believed that he was a racist, and made the claim that James Hetfield was a racist (which may or may not be true, I'm certainly not the authority on that). He mentioned how he had thought that they were friends, obviously implying that this was not the case, and also claimed that Metallica had talked shit about others, including some who adored the band. He said a lot of things, of course. There's never a shortage of trash talking when it comes to Axl Rose.

Looking back, it was a difficult time for Guns N' Roses, I think. Nirvana had just overtaken them in terms of album sales as the biggest band in the world, and had snubbed them when asked to join their summer tour. Metallica was on the bill with Guns N' Roses, but for all intents and purposes, overshadowed them. GNR had long dominated hard rock, but a new day was dawning. The so-called "Seattle sound" was taking over the country, while other bands like Metallica, the Red Hot Chilli Peppers, and the Smashing Pumpkins were beginning to really rise, benefiting from the newfound success of hard rock in the popular medium.

Whatever it was, Guns N' Roses began to fade into the background more and more. And deservedly so, I might add. They made solid music, I'll admit, and I still enjoy listening to it from time to time. Yet, whenever they come on the radio, or are mentioned in the news, it's hard to forget those ridiculous antics that came to define them. If you have followed Guns N' Roses at all recently, you already know that nothing has changed in their approach. The band might be different, but they still have Axl Rose as their singer. All these years later, he is still showing up hours late for shows, and then offering half-assed apologies to unhappy fans. Some things never change, I guess.

Well, maybe some things have changed. Their popularity, for starters. They certainly are nowhere near as dominant on the radio waves or album charts as they once were. That means that these days, in great measure stripped of their musical distinction, Guns N' Roses are simply known as a clown act. If they could focus on the music, perhaps they would still be respected. But since it is obviously more about Axl Rose's apparently still enormous ego and prima donna antics, it is all about him. Always, him. And that, perhaps, has worn thin. Perhaps it enhanced their dangerous, bad ass image back in the eighties and, arguably, into the early nineties. But nowadays? Frankly, it seems more pathetic than anything else. Because another thing that has changed is Axl Rose's age, which has inflated even faster than his waistline. Some people increase their perspective and knowledge with advanced age. In the case of Axl, the only thing that seems to have expanded, ironically, is his ego. No wisdom to be had there. Nothing new to offer at all.

Guns N' Roses always were good musically. Even Chinese Democracy, which took ridiculously long to come out, was good musically. Again, if the band would focus on what made them - namely, the music - they might be okay. But any band featuring Axl Rose is doomed to be distracted, and the focus will never be exclusively on the music. Probably, it will not even be primarily on the music. Axl's legendary ego is way too big for that.

I believe that the 1992 tour with Metallica might have contributed to the end of the dominance that Guns N' Roses had long enjoyed at that point. They had been known as the hardest rock band according to many, but truth be told, Metallica blew them away, and it was hard to even think that GNR might still hold such a lofty title, or that they could regain the prestige as the biggest band in the world after such a disastrous tour. They never got it back, either.

They could have been a great band, to boot. I can't help but wonder what they might have been minus the rock star attitudes. Sure, they were huge. Most big bands eventually get past that, and settle down a bit. Show some sense of moderation. But not with this band, and that really is a shame. I can't help but wonder if all of these ego trips and sideshow distractions perhaps are not so much getting in the way of good music, as they are an attempt to mask a sense of insecurity that the band might have about producing good music.

As for Metallica, they have their own egos to worry about, and they have had their share of problems over the years. But there music had such power in their prime, and they have still produced solid music now over the course of decades, like Guns N' Roses. Unlike Guns N' Roses, the also considerable distractions in Metallica's case have not so strongly overshadowed what they have done in the studio, or on stage.

Metallica have had personnel changes since then, and there has certainly been no shortage in controversies with them.  Still, always, the focus is on the music first. I have not always agreed with them, particularly on what seemed to be a corporate approach. Yet, when I think of Metallica, it's always the music that comes to mind first. It has changed over time, but still, always, the band has credibility enough that the music is the first and major focus with them, whether or not you like them.



http://www.metalsucks.net/2010/09/24/james-hetfield-vs-axl-rose-the-feud-continues/