You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#1971 Re: Guns N' Roses » Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles » 694 weeks ago
buzzsaw wrote:Not looking for a meltdown, I just don't get the fascination with them. They have some catchy pop tunes but they all seem about the same to me since the late 80s. I don't hate U2, I just don't think they are special.
I'm not gonna meltdown but to say U2 has just done the same thing over and over since the 80's is ridiculous.
The Edge is an innovative guitar player whether people like his style or not. There's a reason why he was chosen to be inthe film It Might Get Loud.
U2 has evolved in trilogies really. the have eras of three albums that sound completely different to the next three.
1. Boy, October, War
2. Unforgettable Fire, Joshua Tree, Rattle & Hum
3. Achtung Baby. Zoororpa, Pop (Passengers if you conisder it a U2 album which many fans do)
4. All that You Can't Leave Behind, How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb, No Line on the Horizon.
the sounds of these eras are so completely different from each other era. There is no denying they have grown and evolved over the course of their career and thanks to The Edge they do have a distinct U2 sound in each era. And I'd argue the trasnformation fo the band from 1989- 1991 was the most daring evolution of a band ever. At least in terms of a massively popular band. They were arguable the biggest band on earth yet they overhaulded their entire sound and image and did so with huge success. You may not like the band or their music but that is irrelevant when talking about a band in terms of how some people have chose to talk about th Beatles for ths poll. I's not about personal taste it's about acknowldging what a band has accomplished and done.
See, to me everything after Rattle and Hum sounds about the same - I may be off on the years because I'm not enough of a fan to know when things were released. They don't suck and I like a few of the singles, but they don't srtike me as evolving in any way after that. Just my .02, wich isn't worth much considering I thought U2 had a rhythm guitar player.
#1972 Re: Guns N' Roses » Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles » 694 weeks ago
Not looking for a meltdown, I just don't get the fascination with them. They have some catchy pop tunes but they all seem about the same to me since the late 80s. I don't hate U2, I just don't think they are special.
#1973 Re: Guns N' Roses » Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles » 694 weeks ago
Interesting. I've never thought of U2 as innovative, but I'm not a fan either. I've always though of U2 as about as poppy as you can get. Maybe I missed something in their album cuts, but their stuff they've released as singles for at least the last 20 years is pretty bland to me.
Please don't use this as an opportunity to sell me on U2; I'm really not interested in being sold. I respect that you like them and I'm trying not to be trollish - I just never got U2 for whatever reason.
#1974 Re: Guns N' Roses » 11-21-2012 The Joint, Las Vegas (Being filmed in 3D) » 694 weeks ago
buzzsaw wrote:Ali wrote:How present the vocals are in the mix can't create a difference in his vocal tone, which seems to be the biggest objection I hear to his vocals.
Ali
It can if you can't clearly hear him. Down in the mix + crowd singing along can hide tone I suspect.
I had no problem making the distinctions in vocal tone the last two shows of the Vegas residency. For example, I noticed that during "Don't Cry", he started using a raspier tone as soon as he started singing "And please remember that I never lied...".
Even with the crowd singing along, I really had zero problem hearing Axl those two nights.
Ali
I don't know what to tell you...I was there on a different night and I couldn't hear shit over the music. I could hear he was singing, and from time to time I could hear him clearly, but a lot of it was him jumbled with the music from where I was standing. I wasn't far from Russ - maybe he heard it crystal clear from where he was and my hearing is off, but he didn't sound anywhere near as clear as he did in that video to my ears.
#1975 Re: Guns N' Roses » 11-21-2012 The Joint, Las Vegas (Being filmed in 3D) » 694 weeks ago
RussTCB wrote:buzzsaw wrote:I don't know how or why, but Axl doesn't sound that bad when you're there. I can't explain it; it defies logic.
I think in the end it comes down to the overall mix live. I wouldn't say he's buried in the mix live, but there seems to be more going on I guess and it weaves him in better.
When we saw them in November, I can say he sounded ATROCIOUS on RQ but other than that he sounded great the whole night.
How present the vocals are in the mix can't create a difference in his vocal tone, which seems to be the biggest objection I hear to his vocals.
Ali
It can if you can't clearly hear him. Down in the mix + crowd singing along can hide tone I suspect.
#1976 Re: Guns N' Roses » Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles » 694 weeks ago
I can't believe this poll is this close.
It wouldn't be anywhere other than a GnR site.
#1977 Re: Guns N' Roses » Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles » 694 weeks ago
Let's trace The Beatles through their album releases. It seems some of you think their recording career spanned 20 years.
1963
Please Please Me
With The Beatles
1964
A Hard Day's Night
Beatles for Sale
1965
Help!
Rubber Soul
1966
Revolver
1967
Sgt Peppers
Magical Mystery Tour
1968
The Beatles (White Album)
1969
Yellow Submarine
Abbey Road
1970
Let it Be
That's 8 years where they went from "boy band" to the greatest rock band in history. 1963 was certainly pop music (though they had been playing rock in their live shows since the late 50s). By 1965, they released Rubber Soul, which was not a pop record. Almost everything they did after that was pure rock n roll. In 2 years they went from "boy band" to the first real rock n roll band. They didn't stop there; they developed into the most creative music force ever seen and no band has evolved over their entire career as much as The Beatles did in such a short period of time. The music landscape at that time was so different; they had to break in as a pop act to do what they wanted to. They couldn't have made Sgt Peppers had they not broken in as a pop act, and none of the rock acts (including the Stones) that followed would have made it had they not paved the way. The Stones may have never made it at all had Lennon/McCartney not written their first hit. Lennon/McCartney throw away songs were gold to other artists. I think McCartney has the record for most #1 hits written or co-written (Lennon would be right there if not ahead had he not been killed). VH1 did a countdown of the greatest artists ever and I think The Beatles were #1 and both Lennon and McCartney were top 10 as solo acts. The McCartney/Nirvana collaboration shows that he could have done amazing things in his prime with that style of music (quite different than his forte) and he still does a pretty food job of it at 70+.
That's not meant to take away from the Stones or Dylan (both were amazing talents in their own right). A lot of great acts followed and took what The Beatles did to the next step, but none have ever evolved anywhere near the same amount. That's not a slag on them either.
And as much as I think George Harrison is a great song-writer as well, can you imagine if The Beatles had Clapton on guitar instead of Harrison and somehow stayed together until Lennon died? I don't even like Clapton, but that would have been killer.
#1978 Re: Guns N' Roses » 11-21-2012 The Joint, Las Vegas (Being filmed in 3D) » 694 weeks ago
I'm not defending Myles, trust me. I'm referring to the music (which is what I listen to).
#1979 Re: Guns N' Roses » Guns N' Roses vs The Wiggles » 694 weeks ago
That shit's never going to fly. Kids know who the real Wiggles are.
#1980 Re: Guns N' Roses » 11-21-2012 The Joint, Las Vegas (Being filmed in 3D) » 694 weeks ago
I don't know how or why, but Axl doesn't sound that bad when you're there. I can't explain it; it defies logic.
Slash plays the songs with such ease and flow that GnR can't replicate. They play the right notes, but it just doesn't sound right. I can't really explain that either because I respect them all as musicians...it's almost like they play it too clean if that makes any sense. I don't really care about the drummers, but maybe this is what people that love Adler hear vs Matt on the AFD songs. To my ears Matt is fine, but I'm not a drums guy at all.
