You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#1981 Re: Guns N' Roses » Guns N' Roses vs The Wiggles » 694 weeks ago
The Wiggles were actually fairly talented. So are some other musicians geared towards children. Some of them are more talented than some of the stuff being bought as pop music these days.
#1982 Re: Guns N' Roses » Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles » 694 weeks ago
Monkey, I'm not really sure what your point is. I would think a Slash fan would appreciate Beatles solos, not mock them. Slash has his share of simplistic solos that fit the songs perfectly. Maybe that's the point you were trying to make with the NR video...I don't know. Guitar has changed a lot since the Beatles. It's not like there were many people shredding in those days.
#1983 Re: Guns N' Roses » Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles » 694 weeks ago
johndivney wrote:the beatles started out as a badass rock n roll band.
I think you're confusing them with the Rolling Stones, they were a badass rock n roll band.
johndivney wrote:then they wrote the greatest pop songs ever.
I could care less about that side of them, I fucking hate pop music.
johndivney wrote:then they wrote the greatest rock catalogue ever.
I agree that they eventually went on to write some good stuff, but it's hardly the greatest rock catalogue ever. I'd give that to the Stones, Led Zep, or GN'R before the Beatles.
Guess who wrote the Stones first hit?
#1984 Re: Guns N' Roses » Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles » 694 weeks ago
metallex78 wrote:buzzsaw wrote:Started as a boy band? OMG, you need some music history lessons.
I know the Beatles history, I'm just making comparisons. And that's exactly what they started as - a boy band (for their time) pop group for the girls to go crazy over.
what?!
the beatles started out as a badass rock n roll band.
then they wrote the greatest pop songs ever.
then they wrote the greatest rock catalogue ever.
This.
#1985 Re: Guns N' Roses » Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles » 694 weeks ago
buzzsaw wrote:metallex78 wrote:This is what I have to say about the Beatles... yeah, they're good, but they started as a pop vocal group, kinda like a boy band (Nsync, Backdoor Boys... LOL). It's only as they went on, they got some cred about them musically.
Yeah, they're founders because of what they did for their time, but comparing them to GN'R makes no sense. GN'R beats them as far as "rock" goes, so you know where my vote goes.
I'm not too fond of pop music either, I like something with a bit more edge.
Started as a boy band? OMG, you need some music history lessons.
I know the Beatles history, I'm just making comparisons. And that's exactly what they started as - a boy band (for their time) pop group for the girls to go crazy over.
I give props to them later in their career, for all their drug-induced trippy creativity, but you can't deny what they began as.
If you think they began as a boy band, you don't know anything about Beatles history. Read up on it. Watch the Anthology videos.
They were every bit as rock n roll as there was at that time. Their live shows were all high energy rock songs. The only thing that changed that was when they were given the chance to make an album. They were given even fluffier stuff than they recorded, so they wrote their own love songs and insisted if they were going to have to go that route, at least it would be with their stuff. It's obviously more complicated than that, but that's the cliff notes version.
Seriously - if you think they started out as a boy band, you don't know as much about them as you think you do.
#1986 Re: Guns N' Roses » Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles » 695 weeks ago
This is what I have to say about the Beatles... yeah, they're good, but they started as a pop vocal group, kinda like a boy band (Nsync, Backdoor Boys... LOL). It's only as they went on, they got some cred about them musically.
Yeah, they're founders because of what they did for their time, but comparing them to GN'R makes no sense. GN'R beats them as far as "rock" goes, so you know where my vote goes.
I'm not too fond of pop music either, I like something with a bit more edge.
Started as a boy band? OMG, you need some music history lessons.
#1987 Re: Guns N' Roses » 11-21-2012 The Joint, Las Vegas (Being filmed in 3D) » 695 weeks ago
And, no, he's not using falsetto. If you listen to the beginning of "Better", that's his falsetto. It has a much lighter, airy tone. He's using more of a head voice.
Ali
You mean like what I said in the post before this?
#1988 Re: Guns N' Roses » 11-21-2012 The Joint, Las Vegas (Being filmed in 3D) » 695 weeks ago
buzzsaw wrote:The cleaner tone sounds terrible. It almost sounds like he's singing falsetto (which I don't believe he is, it just sounds that way). It's bad...really bad.
I've always thought he was singing falsetto when he does the clean tone.
I don't know. I generally have a lower voice, but if everything is right with my throat, I can sing fairly high without using falsetto. It's very light sounding, but it is not falsetto. That's how I see it at least.
#1989 Re: Guns N' Roses » 11-21-2012 The Joint, Las Vegas (Being filmed in 3D) » 695 weeks ago
The cleaner tone sounds terrible. It almost sounds like he's singing falsetto (which I don't believe he is, it just sounds that way). It's bad...really bad.
#1990 Re: Guns N' Roses » Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles » 695 weeks ago
I don't think this one can really be debated. I can see liking GnR more, but that isn't the question.
I also can't wait for the inevitable Slash is better than George Harrison and Axl is a better singer...
