You are not logged in. Please register or login.

#451 Re: Guns N' Roses » The Tommy Stinson Thread » 675 weeks ago

Sky Dog wrote:

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/ … stpopular4

Paul and Tommy working together some.......


Does this one-day reunion augur a new tour or album from the Replacements, one of the best American bands of the Eighties? "It's possible," Westerberg says. "After playing with Tommy last week, I was thinking, 'All right, let's crank it up and knock out a record like this.' I'm closer to it now than I was two years ago, let's say that."

It will be funny, if Paul and Tommy releases a new album before Axl manages to make the next GN'R record. And not only funny, but possible.

#452 Re: Dust N' Bones & Cyborg Slunks » MATT SORUM Talks VELVET REVOLVER, Possible Autobiography And GUNS N' » 675 weeks ago

monkeychow wrote:

The shame of Slash's book is that he was clearly playing nice with Axl so as to protect the possible reunion, only mid way through Duffs but he's always diplomatic...not to mention that slash/duff/adler were fucked up most of the time....

So now post RRHOF, post Slash doing all his riffs solo, be very interesting to see matt write the only "tell all" book....

Yeah. Matt is not an Axl fan, for sure, so he'll be on the other side of the fence. However I'm not sure that he'll be very pro-Slash either, considering the past 5 years of Velvet Revolver and the slight chance of a VR reunion.

#453 Re: Dust N' Bones & Cyborg Slunks » MATT SORUM Talks VELVET REVOLVER, Possible Autobiography And GUNS N' » 675 weeks ago

Intercourse wrote:

I think his book would be miles better. Matt was much more in Axl's face than the others. He could be the only one to have the balls to tell it as it REALLY was.

I don't  get the hate for Matt anymore. He finally moved into adulthood about two years ago and I think he comes across great.

Agreed. His book can be quite interesting, since he was in te band, but was only a paid employee and not in the partnership, so he was an insider and an outsider at the same time. He can be right about the memory issue, too.

#454 Re: Guns N' Roses » 12 GN'R shows in Las Vegas » 675 weeks ago

faldor wrote:
Mikkamakka wrote:

No, it doesn't feel like a victory. It feels like a loss. A great loss.

GN'R were the ultimate band for me back then. I collected everything from them. I was listening albums and bootlegs 24/7. I had like 7 GN'R shirts and everyday I went to the school in one of them. (Well, I had a Led Zeppeli and a Skid row shirt, too.) They inspired me to learn guitar. I learnt all their songs, except a few which I couldn't.
Now it's a meh band for me. Only the past (and Slash's recent solo efforts) keep me here. Cause there is really nothing in Axl's band and post 1996 career to get excited about. And it's a great, great loss, considering how unbelievable great he was in his prime. I thought he could succeed alone, or with new musicians and will continue to make great music. But I was wrong.

Here's the problem I have with that rationale.  You enjoy what Slash has done post GNR, correct?  You love what he's done recently right?  You don't like what GNR has done, so be it.  It is, what it is.  You prefer Slash's work.  That's fine.  I don't see any reason to be "upset" that Axl hasn't lived up to your expectations.  Lots of fans enjoyed CD, and what the band has been doing the last 3+ years.  There are also lots of fans who think Slash's solo work has been sub par.  Would I have rather GNR stayed together through the tough times?  Sure.  But it didn't happen.  Slash LEFT the band.  People seem to forget that.  People get all upset at Axl for ruining GNR for them.  He was far from the only one.  Maybe some of your anger should be directed at Slash for leaving the band that you so loved.  OR, maybe you should just accept things as they are.  After all, you've got Slash's solo work to enjoy.  If Axl puts out something you like in the future, all the better. 

And when I say YOU, I'm not necessarily speaking solely to you (Mikka).  As I'm sure there are many who feel the same way you do.

You misunderstood my post or I wasn't expressing myself good enough. So I try it again.

I fully supported Axl when he decided to continue without the others, under the Guns N' Roses name. (I don't wanna hijack this thread with the argument that who's to blame if everyone else leaves.) I thought it was better to keep the name alive then leave it die. Yes, I thought they could reunite one day, but even till that, we'll get quality music from Axl. I even supported the industrial turn, cause I loved Nine Inch Nails, early Manson and some other bands like Recoil etc. I was happy with the band he built up by the late 90s, which had a great potential to make great industrial music.

But this didn't happen. Axl made all his line-ups better or worse cover bands of the original Guns N' Roses. That was and is my problem. I though that "well, he's got Robin Finck, who's extremely great for industrial music. They won't play the old songs, cause that doesn't fit their style, no SCOM, no NR, etc, maybe a few old songs will remain, but they'll have great own material". This didn't happen. Axl made them play SCOM, NR. etc., and all their industrial songwriting input was wasted or softened to a point, where it became irrelevant. Not to mention that ONE album in 19 years is just not enough. If they released more material, I would probably have a different view. Cause not Velvet Revolver's two albums helped me keep my Slash fanboyism. Anyone can make a not so good record, but if there is nothing else, then why care? I even doubt I'd care at all, if I found CD magnificent. Even The White Album only wouldn't be enough in 19 years.

And yes, I not only have problems with Axl's non-actions, I have problems with his actions, too. He's always been a madcase, but in the past decade he turned into a bitter, self-apologizing hater, who wants all the power and wants to decide everything,yet he's the one who doesn't take responsibility for jack shit. Guns N' Roses used to be unpredictable, but functional. Now it became predictable, disfunctional and the worst led band in the history of music.

And no, Slash's post-GN'R work doesn't do the same for me, like old Guns N' Roses. I feel a great loss here, too. But at least he's not become the biggest egoist of the world and continue to make albums, some of them are quite enjoyable for me. I do like Duff's work to some extent, doesn't really care about Izzy's repeated same songs, but these are solo albums that come out under their name. Even if it was weak, it wasn't tarnishing the Guns N' Roses legacy. If Axl had the balls to go solo, I'd probably be less harsh with him. But he made my all-time favourite band a joke. A really bad joke.

So yes, I feel it's a great loss that my all-time favourite band turned into a nostalgia wedding band. Considering what happened in the past 17 years, it would have been better to let Guns N' Roses die, than making it into this impotent parodia of itself. I don't feel anger. It's been done a long time ago. I feel a very bad disappointment about all that could have been and all that SHOULD have been.

#455 Re: Guns N' Roses » 12 GN'R shows in Las Vegas » 675 weeks ago

RussTCB wrote:
Mikkamakka wrote:

No, it doesn't feel like a victory. It feels like a loss. A great loss.

GN'R were the ultimate band for me back then. I collected everything from them. I was listening albums and bootlegs 24/7. I had like 7 GN'R shirts and everyday I went to the school in one of them. (Well, I had a Led Zeppeli and a Skid row shirt, too.) They inspired me to learn guitar. I learnt all their songs, except a few which I couldn't.
Now it's a meh band for me. Only the past (and Slash's recent solo efforts) keep me here. Cause there is really nothing in Axl's band and post 1996 career to get excited about. And it's a great, great loss, considering how unbelievable great he was in his prime. I thought he could succeed alone, or with new musicians and will continue to make great music. But I was wrong.

For me the album they put out in 2008 that I love, along with the awesome shows I've seen since then and the one I've got coming up in Vegas is all enough for me.

Is it enough for the last 17-19 years for you?

#456 Re: Guns N' Roses » 12 GN'R shows in Las Vegas » 675 weeks ago

No, it doesn't feel like a victory. It feels like a loss. A great loss.

GN'R were the ultimate band for me back then. I collected everything from them. I was listening albums and bootlegs 24/7. I had like 7 GN'R shirts and everyday I went to the school in one of them. (Well, I had a Led Zeppeli and a Skid row shirt, too.) They inspired me to learn guitar. I learnt all their songs, except a few which I couldn't.
Now it's a meh band for me. Only the past (and Slash's recent solo efforts) keep me here. Cause there is really nothing in Axl's band and post 1996 career to get excited about. And it's a great, great loss, considering how unbelievable great he was in his prime. I thought he could succeed alone, or with new musicians and will continue to make great music. But I was wrong.

#457 Re: Guns N' Roses » 12 GN'R shows in Las Vegas » 675 weeks ago

Sky Dog wrote:

In 1993 Gnr was an arena band in the US and a stadium band outside the US.

In 2012 Gnr is a theatre band in the US and an arena band outside the US.

It is what it is.

Fact.

#459 Re: Dust N' Bones & Cyborg Slunks » Believe in Me » 675 weeks ago

Axlin12 wrote:

Jesus fucking Christ, are you serious? Seriously?



Libertad?





Seriously?



I think Slash is insanely talented, but honestly I still have yet to hear him make one real 'full quality' album. There isn't one single Slash album I can listen to from start to finish without getting bored, or downright aggrevated. Slash 2010 was the closest I got.

I think if I pulled his best from each album, and formed one whole LP, plus used his collabs and soundtrack worked and threw in a custom EP... you'd have an accurate representation of something i'd put Slash's name on and put it up against Ju Ju and Believe In Me and Chinese.


I'm hoping Adler's album is good enough to jump into the ring and be held up against these other guys. It might be on melody and hooks, but good is good. We'll see...

Libertad is his weakest effort, but still better for me than anything from Izzy. I find close to nothing enjoyable in his albums. The same 3-chord song again and again. I'd even argue that Matt's Hollywood Zen is better than anything from Izzy.

I LOVE Slash's first Snakepit. This is almost an ultimate GN'R record for me. There is everything I loved in GN'R, except Axl. But Eric Dover did a pretty great job. Unbelievable riffs, long solos, songs that are full of energy and life. I enjoy it from start to finish and like it more than any GN'R album except AFD.
All other Slash albums are a bit incomplete here or there for me and all are missing something for me to be blown away. So they are not 10/10 albums for sure, not even 9/10s. But I still enjoy the shit out of Apocalyptic Love, which brings the heart of GN'R's music again. Slash I is a bit too studio steril for me and some singers/collabos weren't good enogh, but Slash has amazing ideas on that album, probably the best since 5 O'clock. I like ALG, too - I think it's somewhere on CD's level, although different animals, for sure, since their strengths and weaknesses are almost the opposite. Velvet Revolver had moments of greatness, but the lack of riffs and solos weren't my cup of tea.

#460 Re: Guns N' Roses » Guns N' Roses Live in London (Airing on Vh1 Classic) » 675 weeks ago

I see no progress, except that Guns N' Roses are finally becoming a functional tribute band. It's been a disfunctional tribute band in the past years, so you can see it as an achievement, if you wanna be positive.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB