You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#211 Re: Guns N' Roses » DR. PEPPER ISSUES CHALLENGE TO AXL ROSE! » 898 weeks ago
http://pressreleasetosaveworld.blogspot.com/
anyway someone over @ mygnr says that Kaneda is involved in this...dont know much about him other than his reputation but maybe some of our mygnr people can shed some light on his motives
as for htgth not taking it down....maybe jarmo is sleeping
Yeah, it was me who called out Kaneda.
I spoke to Chris last night and he seemed to say it was legit. I started telling people it was fake but looking at what Madison has said and how fast this is spreading - I may regret it (telling people it was fake) now though.:/
My two cents are that it's real but GN'R (camp) is not involved (or possibly(?) even aware).
#212 Re: Guns N' Roses » GNRevolution Exclusive! Classic Rock Feb Mag Cover! » 906 weeks ago
Arcade Roses wrote:madagas wrote:Neemo, I don't know why I am posting this, but Axl never said the songs he was playing would not be on the album. He only said they were not being considered for singles-not b sides, not a sides, just other songs on the album that were not being considered for singles-that is a fact from London 02. People get so confused.
*Chinese whispers.*:laugh:
I think he said not all the songs would be on the album - "Au contrere mon frère" and all that - IIRC. I always took this as referring to "Silkworms" (experimental) and "Rhiad" (maybe a B-side, tour or just reject song? Maybe it was just an "experimental" song too (mind you so was "Oh My God")?).
There's no way in hell that Riyadh is a "reject song".
Yeah but you are one of... how many people who likes "Rhiad"?:haha:
(No offence. I *quite* like it myself - just don't think it's worthy of being on CD (and with all that other leaked/played material) IMHO.) Plus it's the only BH solo I don't like (don't know why - just think too much is going on unlike in the wes 3 songs where his parts really work).
Only way it could be on CD if it was really "Oklahoma"... perhaps?:o (Doubt it myself - but below I discuss the possiiblity of the song being "beefed up" for a future release in some form....)
It was on the setlist in 06-07, so that means it has its place somewhere on Chinese Democracy.
Not necessarily. The band (perhaps/debatably wisely) is/has openly said they won't play any more new material - and at the moment it seems even tour again - until the album comes out. So, like "Oh My God" in 2001/(02) - that's why it still makes the setlists. Might be a B-side then or even a heavily altered "second CD" track (like "Oh My God" is now said to be (source: 4tus e-mail)). Just an option to throw in to pacify the fans if all else fails (as we've already heard it). Perfectly logical IMHO. (Remember the rumours it was played by studio as the people were entering one of the Mexico (I think the second one) shows last year? Doubt it myself, but that's the kind of scenario I am talking about.) Either way it being on the setlist of course does indicate it is still being "used" and is a "live" track at least of 2006 for whatever reasons.
If it was a throwaway track, there was no point in it being on that list 5 and 6 years after it was last performed.
Or the agreed worst/weakest song on a movie soundtrack from 3 years ago (in the case of "OMG").:haha: Sure bet for the much-anticipated new GN'R album "to be released in the summer of 2002".:P
Mind you yes there is a difference between just 2 years and nearly over half a decade. Again the song is some fans' favourite though - and so that's why the option still stands (IMHO).
#213 Re: Guns N' Roses » GNRevolution Exclusive! Classic Rock Feb Mag Cover! » 906 weeks ago
Neemo, I don't know why I am posting this, but Axl never said the songs he was playing would not be on the album. He only said they were not being considered for singles-not b sides, not a sides, just other songs on the album that were not being considered for singles-that is a fact from London 02. People get so confused.
*Chinese whispers.*:laugh:
I think he said not all the songs would be on the album - "Au contrere mon frère" and all that - IIRC. I always took this as referring to "Silkworms" (experimental) and "Rhiad" (maybe a B-side, tour or just reject song? Maybe it was just an "experimental" song too (mind you so was "Oh My God")?).
#214 Re: Guns N' Roses » New Info regarding CD » 907 weeks ago
I have to say the album is NOT done. Why would the record label have it in their possesion and still be discussing with Axl.
Money.
They've got it, so now distribute it their way.
They don't know how to. The downloading "craze" of 2007 has hit the industry really hard - never seen an industry hit as hard as this IMHO.
This all seems like more elaborate scheming and rumor slinging by the GnR camp themselves to buy more time with the fans.
Possibly, LOL.
I'm just wondering why none of you have considerd the posibility(real good possibility) that the album is not done let alone handed in. The album being handed in and the label still negotiating makes no sense. Axl loses all leverage once the album is in.
Some people have. However, numerous sources have said that it's handed in now. Money - the state of the industry and Axl's supposed "promotion demands" - are what's keeping this thing in "limbo" (Trunk (et al.)). If he's had it 13 (if not nearly 15) years his own way, he's not exactly gonna give up at the final hurdle, is he, and probably has laid down some sort of demand "You get the album if you can/the first single (video) gets this..." etc.. Merck and he both alluded to this in their letters though both did hint at heavy record company control/say at this point IIRC.
(Slightly) OT: Good to see ROV back. Offered Brody some help to rebuild his site but just got nothing back. "You snooze you lose.":zzz::bed:
Sandman - it won't leak if it's in a chairman's (Iovine's? for one) vault. Now if a cleaner was to be a closet fan...:haha:
