You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#1991 Re: Guns N' Roses » 11-21-2012 The Joint, Las Vegas (Being filmed in 3D) » 695 weeks ago
My god, The Joint looks like 10x bigger on video!
Yes it does.
I also don't remember Axl sounding that bad or the crowd being that big...of course our show was a Wednesday show which could explain both.
#1992 Re: Guns N' Roses » Guns N' Roses Vs Led Zeppelin » 695 weeks ago
I think One in a Million is a brilliant song lyrically. Pussing them down by not saying what he felt would have been the fail, not saying what he said.
#1993 Re: Guns N' Roses » Skwerl's post on MyGNR regarding his leak and his source » 695 weeks ago
If you've been to a Slash show, you know people are showing up to hear the GnR classics followed closely by Slither and a couple other VR songs. Those songs get the reactions, not the songs off any of his solo stuff or the snakepit days. I don't understand why this offends people; it's to be expected. The same thing happens at the GnR shows. The same thing happens at every concert I've ever been to. People react to the songs they know, not the ones they don't. Not every person at a Slash show is a die hard Slash person.
Nobody said Slash doesn't do a better job with the setlist, but if he had to play a 3 hour set, while he would still mix it up more than Axl does, it would be a lot less mixing up than what you're getting now. To really mix up a 3 hour show, you have to have one hell of a list of songs to choose from. Slash has more to choose from, but if we're being honest, at least half the people from his shows won't know the majority of his non singles.
#1994 Re: Guns N' Roses » Skwerl's post on MyGNR regarding his leak and his source » 695 weeks ago
buzzsaw wrote:What can he do? He has to play the hits. Slash... has songs he has to play too
this is a fallacy.
as is the idea most other bands' fans don't care about the setlist. (& it's not just GnR who have hardcore fans who go to multiple shows. *tho GnR are a special case because it's been p much the same setlist for 11 fucking years now, not just night to night on a certain leg!!)
they don't HAVE to adhere to that policy, they choose to. they choose the safety of it.
people are paying for a show. it's the performers decision as to what the show will entail. it's not up to the punters to demand the hits.
They play a 3 hour set. Who else does that? I'll tell you...bands with a much larger catalog of music, that's who. If you're going to play a 3 hour show with limited options, it's not going to be THAT different ever. Could it be more different? Sure, but it's not going to be much different.
#1995 Re: Guns N' Roses » Skwerl's post on MyGNR regarding his leak and his source » 695 weeks ago
buzzsaw wrote:Mikkamakka wrote:Obviously. They will never be able to top that, or come even close to the glory of those old days.
But Slash actually makes albums. Axl released (was supposedly forced to release...) 1 record in 20 years, containing mostly stuff leaked years before. Slash is doing kick-ass live shows with changing setlists and he's one of the best touring rock acts of today, without a doubt. While fans always need to make excuses for Axl's performances and his stable boring sets. Slash is playing better than ever, Axl is singing worse than ever. So when it comes to Slash, it's very easy to like his present. All Axl can offer you is past and fake nostalgia.
I hear what you're saying. If you like Slash's present then you're right. I'm not a huge fan.
The more I think about it, the less bothered I am with Axl's setlist (other then the solos and covers). What can he do? He has to play the hits. If Slash played a 3 hour (or longer) set, I think you'd find a lot less variety than you're seeing now. He has songs he has to play too, so he's mostly switching out the newer songs - songs many people don't care if he plays or doesn't play.
buzz, this would make sense, but you obviously don't follow Slash's setlist, so your argument is based on assumptions and not the reality.
In fact, Slash only plays Nightrain, SCOM, Rocket Queen, Paradise City (and The Godfather and Slither if you count them) of the hits every night. While the other regular songs he has are Ghost, Starlight and Back from Cali from Slash I, and Anastacia, Halo, No More Heroes and You're a Lie off Slash II.
He rotates Jungle, Out Ta Get Me, Brownstone, My Michelle and You're Crazy from the GN'R catalogue (like 2 of them per night). The other rotated songs are either from his solo albums, or from the Snakepits.
He almost or completely dropped Patience, Civil War and the first single By The Sword from the set. Fall to Pieces isn't played too often either.So it's hardly a GN'R nostalgia-fueled setlist (not more than 1/3 GN'R), although yes, the audience likes those songs (and Anastacia) the most. If Slash could have dropped so many old songs and managed to play for larger and larger crowds, then Axl could do that, too. But the biggest improvement of the last months was adding 2 more 40-year old covers. That's the difference.
Now project that to a 3 hour show with no solos or covers. All of a sudden it's pretty much the same setlist too because he's playing all those songs instead of rotating them. That's my point.
#1996 Re: Guns N' Roses » Skwerl's post on MyGNR regarding his leak and his source » 695 weeks ago
buzzsaw wrote:I don't know Mikka. I saw both Slash and Axl play last year and there was quite a bit of the long gone past on both sides. Sure, Slash is playing some newer stuff (as is Axl for the record), but the reaction from the fans on both sides comes from the classic GnR stuff. Slash will never get away from that any more than Axl will no matter what they do. That's the life of being that well known for something.
Obviously. They will never be able to top that, or come even close to the glory of those old days.
But Slash actually makes albums. Axl released (was supposedly forced to release...) 1 record in 20 years, containing mostly stuff leaked years before. Slash is doing kick-ass live shows with changing setlists and he's one of the best touring rock acts of today, without a doubt. While fans always need to make excuses for Axl's performances and his stable boring sets. Slash is playing better than ever, Axl is singing worse than ever. So when it comes to Slash, it's very easy to like his present. All Axl can offer you is past and fake nostalgia.
I hear what you're saying. If you like Slash's present then you're right. I'm not a huge fan.
The more I think about it, the less bothered I am with Axl's setlist (other then the solos and covers). What can he do? He has to play the hits. If Slash played a 3 hour (or longer) set, I think you'd find a lot less variety than you're seeing now. He has songs he has to play too, so he's mostly switching out the newer songs - songs many people don't care if he plays or doesn't play.
#1997 Re: Guns N' Roses » Skwerl's post on MyGNR regarding his leak and his source » 695 weeks ago
I don't know Mikka. I saw both Slash and Axl play last year and there was quite a bit of the long gone past on both sides. Sure, Slash is playing some newer stuff (as is Axl for the record), but the reaction from the fans on both sides comes from the classic GnR stuff. Slash will never get away from that any more than Axl will no matter what they do. That's the life of being that well known for something.
#1998 Re: Guns N' Roses » Guns N' Roses Vs Led Zeppelin » 695 weeks ago
buzzsaw wrote:There seems to be a misconception that your favorite band has to be the best band of all time. Favorite and best/better are two completely different things.
GnR is my favorite band, but I think The Beatles was (were?) the greatest band ever.
Beatles are the most influential and the greatest in terms of songwriting, but I think the likes of Zeppelin eclipsed them in musical talent. Vocals, guitar, bass, drums. Zeppelin was better at every single one of those instruments than the Beatles. But the Beatles had three of the best songwriters ever. They were incredibly prolific (eat your heart out, Axl). And they influenced everyone that came after them, including Zeppelin and GN'R.
Well, I'm on record long ago on not caring about drummers, and I'd debate the vocals and bass being better in LZ. With JP vs GH, to me it's kind of like the Slash vs BH debates...they are very different styles. I agree JP was a technically better guitarist than Harrison by a long shot.
It would actually make a good philosophical discussion about music in general...is it more important to be as technically proficient as possible or is it more important to have excellent songs to work with. I can see both sides of it...a great song can make average musicality sound much better; great musicians can make average songwriting sound great.
#1999 Re: Guns N' Roses » Guns N' Roses Vs Led Zeppelin » 695 weeks ago
There seems to be a misconception that your favorite band has to be the best band of all time. Favorite and best/better are two completely different things.
GnR is my favorite band, but I think The Beatles was (were?) the greatest band ever.
#2000 Re: Guns N' Roses » Skwerl's post on MyGNR regarding his leak and his source » 695 weeks ago
Maybe they owe label one last record.. so they do one album and then axl drops label and reunites thus getting new labels in a bidding war
No way the label drops a record releasing him from his contract when they know the only real money left in Axl is the reunion.
