You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#6211 Re: Guns N' Roses » Differences in the "old" new leaks.... » 934 weeks ago
Your stance(not just you but the general statement) is the worst case scenario for the band. You're comparing it to the old band. Its a valid comparison since Axl kept the name and anything he does under the GNR name has to be compared to the prior discography.
What reeks from your "review" of the music is that you simply wont give it a chance. You're not broadening your horizons because Slash isn't on the record.
How does Riyadh musically have "no depth" and an attempt at covering up a weak song? If anything, Axl is the song's weak link.
The general public is going to compare it to the old music. It's the same band, right? All the people that want to say it's still Guns N' Roses have to live with the fact that the comparison will NEVER go away. But this isn't about the name issue.
I listen to a lot of great music that Slash doesn't appear on. This has nothing to do with him at all. It has to do with the fact that these songs are so bad that even the people that have stuck around for 10+ years can't agree on what is good and what isn't. This isn't my message, this is summing up the messages that the people that were excited to get the leaks have posted here. Read it. I purposely stayed out of it until enough posts had been made to draw a fair conclusion. This isn't my message, it's the site's collective message.
As for Riyadh, I'll turn the question around: How does it have depth? It is at best an ok song as is in my opinion. As with most of these songs, there's some potential there, but at this point, we shouldn't be discussing potential anymore.
#6212 Re: Guns N' Roses » Differences in the "old" new leaks.... » 934 weeks ago
I'll agree there is almost too much going on in these tracks. But how you can say there is "no depth" to the songs is going way overboard.
You need to clean the wax out of your ears....
I did clean the shit out of my ears...I turned off that song that Axl sounds like a girl on 20 seconds in because it was so bad. That might have been the greatest song in the world after the 30 second mark, but if nobody can make it to that point, does it really matter?
When I say no depth, I'm referring to the quality of the song itself, not the musical layers. Sure, there is musical depth, but it comes off as an effort to cover up a weak song more than an opportunity to add more quality to the song.
Go back and read through the reviews here...almost everybody saying anything positive is referring to BH. Maybe other places are different - I don't know - but the majority of positive comments are "the song is ok but BH is awesome from this time to this time of the song" and the rest of the comments are less positive than that. Everybody pretty much agrees (for the most part) on the songs on AFD and UYI that are top notch because those songs are great songs. With these songs, nobody can agree on anything and we're supposed to want to hear new material form Axl. What do you think the rest of the world is going to think if we can't even agree on what is good and what isn't?
#6213 Re: Guns N' Roses » Differences in the "old" new leaks.... » 934 weeks ago
The songs are so bad that nobody can even agree on which ones suck and which ones are good. This isn't a sign of stellar material.
#6214 Re: Guns N' Roses » Differences in the "old" new leaks.... » 934 weeks ago
buzzsaw wrote:The division is just an indication of how shitty the songs really are, the majority of the "positive" posts about them are only positive because BH is on them. The reality is that the "depth" that James refers to is just a result of adding shit because there really is no depth to the song itself. They can't stand on their own, so the result is add enough layers so that nobody notices the songs aren't very good. It didn't work.
Are you serious??:nervous:
Or is this one of those "Slash is #1 and everything else sucks" type of posts?
Not at all. These songs blow James. If they didn't, the entire fan base would be elated, not just a few BH fans.
#6215 Re: Guns N' Roses » Differences in the "old" new leaks.... » 934 weeks ago
I don't know where Bri's quote in James' signature came from, but it's that kind of lunacy that led to the mess we have now. The few crazy BH fans are trying to convince Ax that this mess is better than AFD, and UYI and nothing could be further from the truth. Go review the youtube video comparing the 3 NR outtros...you'll see why Slash owns BH in the one area most important to the GnR sound.
#6216 Re: Guns N' Roses » Differences in the "old" new leaks.... » 934 weeks ago
The division is just an indication of how shitty the songs really are, the majority of the "positive" posts about them are only positive because BH is on them. The reality is that the "depth" that James refers to is just a result of adding shit because there really is no depth to the song itself. They can't stand on their own, so the result is add enough layers so that nobody notices the songs aren't very good. It didn't work.
#6217 Re: Guns N' Roses » Questions about the leaks. » 934 weeks ago
They are that bad...actually, they might be worse.
#6218 Re: Guns N' Roses » Play.com lists 1/9/08 as CD's release date » 934 weeks ago
We can shoot the messenger for posting something we all know is bullshit. Enough of these stupid threads already...anyway the link says 2008.
#6219 Re: Guns N' Roses » Let the reunion rumors roll... » 935 weeks ago
You guys seem to forget Axl isn't a very good singer live. Sounding "as good as he did" in 91 isn't a compliment necessarily. I saw him in Chicago in 92 and as good as the show was, there were times I couldn't hear Axl at all. I know it wasn't the sound because I could hear Billy Corrigan just fine. This isn't anything new. Axl has a great voice, but because of the way he sings, he's going to have good days, but he's going to have a lot more bad days. Nobody can sing like that every other day and be spot on and certainly not at 44.
Think about this...do you think he went in and fixed the vocals on the live discs because they were good? You'd think he could have found 30 songs out of all those concerts that didn't need any touch ups since they recorded everything.
#6220 Re: The Garden » Tim Russert dead at 58 » 935 weeks ago
I liked watching him. He was one of the few that I never felt was playing to an agenda regardless of how he felt personally.
