You are not logged in. Please register or login.

#1831 Re: Guns N' Roses » Guns N' Roses Best Buy promotional ads » 916 weeks ago

war

times change and the world changes with them

if the leaking of any album will be avoided at any cost it is this one

#1833 Re: Guns N' Roses » How does the new material rank against the old? » 916 weeks ago

war

hi neemo
yes, we understand each other and i posted those same sentiments. how's dtj?

#1834 Re: Guns N' Roses » CD and WTTJ comparison » 916 weeks ago

war

so i have your permission, buzz? 14

i disagree without prejudice.....

if you like the demo of one song more than the released version of another.  you can assume you will still like the same song better once it is released since it is 99.9 percent more likley to sound even better than the demo version.

#1835 Re: Guns N' Roses » How does the new material rank against the old? » 916 weeks ago

war

lol

another person that doesn't understand the complexities and analogies of my posts

14

#1836 Re: Guns N' Roses » CD and WTTJ comparison » 916 weeks ago

war

i like them both but welcome to the jungle is as perfect as a song can be

#1838 Re: Guns N' Roses » How does the new material rank against the old? » 916 weeks ago

war
Mikkamakka wrote:
war wrote:

if cd was released in 87 and appetite this year a lot of you would have differing opinions

It's absolutely absurd. CD just isn't good enough and AFD is a masterpiece. I like a lot of artists and sometimes I like their later albums more. Sometimes I think they lost it on the way nad prefer the early works. Sometimes I like some early, some middle and some later stuff, with some terrible albums between the greats.
To tell the truth, I think Axl lost it - not his own talent, although now he makes very bad musical and lyrical moves, the old band wouldn't let happen. Axl lost the guys who wrote that amazing music, and now we're left with others, who aren't as talented as a band as the classic line-up was.
It's not about liking the old band more. I confess that I prefer the AFD and Illusion line-ups. But I totally accepted his industrial change back in 1998-1999. As the time went by and the material surfaced, I was left quite disappointed. Will CD be a bad album? No. Will it be great? No. There's some good stuff and some bad stuff, but not something that would worth more than 2 years of wait. And it took much much more time. CD is not an album to listen years later.

Of course, my opinion is based on the demos we've heard.

Acquiesce wrote:

I agree with Mikkamakka that war's statement is absolutely absurd. It's just as likely that if CD was released in 87 GNR would have never had the impact they did and we wouldn't be sitting here today.

AFD is a timeless classic. It's considered one of *the* essential rock albums to own. CD doesn't hold a candle to it. That's not a knock on CD because it is a good album, but they caught lightning in a bottle with AFD. It wasn't big just because it was released in 87. It was a combination of everything. The perfect record with the perfect attitude at the right time.  CD doesn't have the larger than life songs that AFD contains. I don't think these tunes will make an impact the way the songs from AFD made. I don't think they will be staples on the radio 20 year from now. CD is not going to be considered an essential rock album the way AFD is.

There are too many Axl fans that convinced themselves that this album was a masterpiece and would be just as good as if not better than AFD before they ever heard one note. If people took off the Axl goggles they'd realize this is a good but unspectacular album. It's a nice followup to the Illusions, but it's nothing earth shattering.

you guys think what i said is absurd yet neemo says ofcourse to it?????????

i think you two are consfused about what i posted -

I never said that cd is superior to appetite.

and, ofcourse, there is no guarantee that cd (if it came out in '87) would have made it to the charts since there were no bands out like gnr.

however, when comparing apples to oranges, which is what we are doing, since these albums are completely different from technology to musicians.........................................................................you must consider the fact that you are most likley gonna cherish which ever fruit you eat and enjoy first just like...........................

if you eat green apples all of your childhood and then eat a red one for the first time you will probably say that you like it but the green one will always be the one you think about when you think of apples.

have i made it simple enough to understand yet?

#1839 Re: Guns N' Roses » Guns N' Roses Best Buy promotional ads » 916 weeks ago

war

"how dare they listen to promo of our album"

#1840 Re: Guns N' Roses » How does the new material rank against the old? » 916 weeks ago

war

i don't think you understand

back in '87 we were younger and crying out for indentity and something to relate our teenage troubles with

plus....


the band and it's sound has changed so much and you always attach to the first version you hear.

another reason why sequals are never better than the fist installment.

you will never hear an 11 year old say about the new star wars "they're pretty good but the orginal star wars trilogy was better"

but none of us older folks could watch them a billion times like we did the originals.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB