You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#21 Re: Guns N' Roses » If GNR releases nothing in 2023, is this the end for you? » 134 weeks ago
A Private Eye wrote:I worry about the General. It’s been built up by the fan base so much over the years it’s never going to live up to it.
Prostitute pre 2008 vibes.
Were people disappointed in Prostitute because they thought it wasn't a quality track or because they were expecting a sleazy rocker based off the title? I wasn't in the fandom at the time.
It had been hyped nearly as much as CD itself. A couple of quotes from 00-02 period had it labelled a ‘big gun’ and I think it was likened by one person who heard/worked on it as November Rain meets Nightrain. It was generally assumed to be the best song in the vault. So when it dropped you can imagine tue anti-climax…
#22 Re: Guns N' Roses » If GNR releases nothing in 2023, is this the end for you? » 134 weeks ago
I worry about the General. It’s been built up by the fan base so much over the years it’s never going to live up to it.
Prostitute pre 2008 vibes.
#23 Re: The Sunset Strip » What Are You Listening To? » 134 weeks ago
Saw Elton John last night so gonna have a dive in to his back catalogue over the next few days.
#24 Re: Guns N' Roses » If GNR releases nothing in 2023, is this the end for you? » 141 weeks ago
sp1at wrote:gavgnr wrote:@sp1at
Any updates buddy?
Hiya,
Songs are coming out soon, summertime. Record label are the goto for this, band members vague on anything
Year off next year, assumed from external parties and plans outside gnr
Glastonbury will have at least one guest possibly, source, the guest. Very guessable lol
Better not be Carrie Underwood! They really could make a splash by having Izzy and Steven imo
Yeah I hope it’s not Carrie either. Nothing against her but meh.
Based on who’s around/likely... Lana Del Ray and Axl have some history don’t they? She is on the Glastonbury bill so that’s a possibility but again no thanks. Elton is headlining the next night so that’d be the special guest I’d hope for that seems possible. I can’t see them wasting the full AFD reunion capital on a mostly non GNR crowd even if the exposure would be bigger media-wise.
Dave Grohl maybe? Looks like Foo’s are touring again in the summer so maybe a return from him for the exposure?
#25 Re: Guns N' Roses » 2023 Tour Dates » 147 weeks ago
Glastonbury confirmed. Saturday night headline slot. Pretty big deal
#26 Re: Guns N' Roses » 2023 Tour Dates » 149 weeks ago
I could see them shoehorning a Dublin gig in before Glasgow.
Isn’t Glastonbury on that weekend before the Glasgow date?
Might struggle to get Glastonbury and Dublin squeezed in. Assuming Glastonbury is still happening?
#27 Re: The Garden » Current Events Thread » 172 weeks ago
Randall Flagg wrote:CMU has denounced her tweet. She meets all the checkboxes of intersectionality, so nothing serious will come from it. Certainly nothing like being jailed or fired for refusing to participate in compelled speech.
I saw AOC told GQ she was “uncomfortable with interracial marriage” and wasn’t sure if it was for her. This is the pillar of wokeism and progressive thought, and she’s openly saying race mixing is a controversial topic.
It looks like the movement is finally starting to eat itself...it was always going to lead to that point.
Not surprised that the racism is starting to get more blatant. It was always there in the background just begging to surface.
As far as this royal shit goes, I started hating it in my teens. For some reason, Charles and Diana started getting massive coverage here in the US in the early 90s. They were in all the tabloids every week. You had to see them every time you went to the grocery store...and of course all the news coverage.
I just can't stand the concept of a superior family that deserves billions and everything that comes with it just for being born. On top of the money, mansions, cars, and travel, they get worshiped like gods.
It's obscene. All royal families should've been tossed on the ash heap of history in the 20th century.
King Charles III is king unless he personally choses to abdicate or unless he dies.
It's not something like a prize that is awarded because he seemed like the best fit or because a lot of people like him.
It's just not how it works.
I know how it works. That one abdication after WWII is the only reason this branch of the family tree got to have it. It should've been her uncle's side of the family leading them. That king wanting to fuck a divorced woman altered the course of the monarchy.
My point regarding William becoming King early is it might allow their family to keep this shit going well into this century.
The world is staring down a barrel.... economic uncertainty, war, and of course climate change. If the British start freezing to death this winter while the King is all warm and toasty, the majority may finally get sick of this. Charles was never well liked. Hated royals and economic disasters have never been a winning combination.
On the other hand, maybe not. The West is diving into an Idiocracy so maybe things will stay peachy keen.
It's been said for a while Charles should just hand it straight on to William, especially when his popularity was at its lowest in the late 90's after the Diana divorce and subsequent death. I think time has healed a lot of that, from a UK perspective at least. He's an old man in his own right now and seems to be a lot more comfortable in his own skin than he was 20-30 years ago. The other issue is if you immediately made William king now and skipped Charles then the next in line is currently a child, they'd want to avoid that if at all possible.
I've never really been fussed one way or another for the monarchy, it's just something we have and that's that. However a large royal event undoubtedly brings out a sense of patriotism in the country on a scale little else does. With all that said I've still found myself unexpectedly sad about the Queens death, she'd sort of become the nations grandma and her longevity meant she was a constant in British life unrivalled by virtually anything else.
I can see the side of the argument about the monarchy and the inherited privilege etc etc but it's so woven in to the fabric of the country at this point that for me it's hard to imagine the UK without one. Also, whilst all the points about royals being in palaces whilst others starve and live in poverty is valid, those people would be living in poverty anyway, it's not like countries without a royal family have zero poverty or deprivation. The optics aren't great but it's unlikely to make much real world difference should the monarchy be abolished.
I wouldn't disagree this is an important point for the monarchy though. There is definitely a version of the future where this is the beginning of the end for them. Charles will need to navigate the next decade very carefully.
#28 Re: Guns N' Roses » GN’R 2022 Tour Thread » 182 weeks ago
London night one was a shortened set due to sound issues and starting late.
London night 2 was even shorter, (though still 18 songs), reportedly because Axl says he was having issues with his voice.
He sang most of the show in lower register, which for the most part sounded pretty good according to those that were there.And there are varying reports about Axl having some anxiety issues due to his vocal problems etc.
I’m curious to see how this plays out….
I guess we’ll find out at the next show.
I was at the show last night. Yeah he was generally in the lower register most of the night. It worked though, didn’t notice too much at the time. A few of the videos I took when watching this morning you could hear he was quite pitchy which I guess the live crowd masked a fair bit.
Have mixed feelings overall, bit gutted after a 3 year wait that some of the staples were cut (no RQ, NR or YCBM) but equally kudos for playing when sick, it can’t be easy. Got the feeling it was maybe close to being cancelled. I also wonder if that was why there was such a delay getting in to the venue the night before. If there was a risk of it being cancelled maybe that’s why they weren’t letting people in.
So all in all a bit of a shame but can’t be helped and was still a good show. In some ways I think the enforced changes perhaps helped the show. It felt really tight and punchy. I’d never criticise for the usual 3 hours they do but it did sometimes make the shows a bit meandery in parts. At 2 hours last night there was none of that.
#29 Re: The Sunset Strip » No Time To Die » 221 weeks ago
Saw it at the weekend.
#30 Re: The Sunset Strip » No Time To Die » 221 weeks ago
The whispers have all been positive for this film. Similar to CR and Skyfall when they were getting released, so my hopes were up anyway.
