Sorry doesn't have any real issues with it, other than the shock that Axl when soulful with his voice and words, when the song itself has Grunge or Alice In Chains written all over it. The entire structure of the song, easily could've been on the recent Black Gives Way To Blue or The Devil Put Dinosaurs Here.

Lyrically I think the song represents Axl in a more straight-forward manner, because that's the context of the song, not such much lyrical laziness. It just seems more simplistic for a writer that is more so intelligent and wordy that you can't stand it sometimes. Axl says a lot and yet nothing at the same time is borderline legendary of him.

My only complaint with Sorry was that it I wish Axl would've sung in a lower register, with more of a depressive attitude to suit the tone and melody of the song. The song in those depressive moments could've been a Jar of Flies B-side, except Axl singing slow and higher, makes it something else.

The other thing was that Sebastian Bach should've been shot for saying the song sounded like doom metal... the song sounded nothing like that.

Wow that's the best Nightrain i've heard at least since 2010. I honestly don't think Axl is doing anything much different with the vocal there, than his down-times in 2006. Most of the 2006 performances by Axl, especially Appetite songs still had alot of 2002 in them, but with alot more power and rasp like 2010. Many at the time considered "Axl vocally fucked", specifically the Inland Invasion (San Bernadino) show and that vocal immediately came to mind when hearing this Vegas 2014 Nightrain.

Although in hind-sight we all listen to this vocal, call it new and perfect to what Axl's vocal is, and ironically in 2006 it was considered crap. In hind-sight it was a nugget of gold prophecy for Axl's future, on the best of circumstances.

The reality of it all is that people's vocals change. Period. Considering Axl's peers from LA as well as the rock/metal scene of the time, Axl might be in the best shape of them all, with the exception of the Steven Tyler and David Coverdale's, both of the two had to have vocal surgeries to repair damage, and had to completely re-teach themselves how to sing. Now the two of them run off and show off at shows at their ability as the above Forevermore live video demonstrates.

I made NUMEROUS posts back when these problems showing up, comparing Axl's vocals to an aging baseball veteran. Baseball vets and aging All-stars all make the exact same mistake Axl made. They all think they are "that good" that the older they get, the less work they have to do because they "just know the game that well". The reality is, to stay in the game full-time at 37, 38, 39, 40+ years old, you've got to train EVEN HARDER than the youngens which do it effortlessly.

This recent 2014 re-emergence has seen Axl trying new things, and trying to re-train himself. Maybe spring training/rehab for a reunion? Who knows. But it's obvious he's been trying--MUCH MORE than he was. And sometimes it works, and sometimes it's an epic fail. But he's working on it, whether for a future, or to return to his own perfectionism, I dunno.

You can tell with say, a David Coverdale, that he is focusing on every single note, every single thing he does vocally, almost distracted at times. Chris Cornell is another one that does that. No it's not as 'off the cuff', but then again i'd  rather go with the Grunge sensibility of "let's have a great MUSICAL show" rather than the LA attitude of "let's show off, then fuck off".

When Axl does pay attention, does try, does understand his own vocals, and balances them properly---he's actually aged far better than he gets credit for. He honestly, when he tries, has created an all-new sound of his voice that is just as entertaining as anything he's done before. The rockers from back in the day sound balanced and more honest for a man his age, and the ballads of the new era sound absolutely heavenly.

I for one CANNOT STAND Madagascar with rasp. It's clean vocal or fuck off. The song doesn't work otherwise, and the damn studio version sounds like Axl channeling Phil Anselmo at times, with no power.

My personal opinions on the franchise, is that the original is a classic, and to this day underrated. Rarely is it spoken of in the same breath as Halloween or Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Friday The 13th or some of these low-budget affairs from the same time frame. Phantasm to this day is haunting and still holds up.

Phantasm II is the one that so many fans adore. It's purely a spectacle. It tries to be the Aliens-to-Alien, this pumped up, bigger and badder sequel with more guns, more 'Cuda, more explosions, more more more. Yes in alot of ways PII is the original Phantasm on PED's/Steroids. But like most juicing baseball hitters, sure the home run swings are big and magnificient, but somewhere the heart is lost and the second film is no exception. Everything is bigger and badder, but the feel of the first film and that wonderful atmosphere is lost, ala T1 to T2.

Phantasm III is a total piss-take. I don't know if Coscarelli just got bored, or had pressure from Universal to make it whatever they asked for because it was going DTV in 1993/94 and they needed it to be alot of things to mass-market back then... I dunno. Either way what happens is an unever, busy, bizarre, campy-version of the series that in some ways plays like a comedy. Granted the first is kind of a Jody & Mike-story, and the second is a Mike & Liz story. The third is strictly a Reggie-story, and because of Reggie's character, Reggie is a tongue-in-cheek anti-hero. So maybe because of Reggie being the star, it was intentional to make it somewhat campy like the Reggie character. Still the film didn't have to come across as something bound for USA Up All Night with Gilbert Gottfried. It's average at best, and if I were Coscarelli I wouldn't brag about directing it.

Phantasm IV: Oblivion, which is almost universally hated (which I don't understand), was the major rebound-film for me of the franchise. Despite the fan-fare around the second film, Phantasm IV for me is easily the best of the sequels. Purely a Tall Man-story, despite a shoestring budget the film is a bizarre "what is reality?", "Dream within a dream" world attempts to have a Tall Man-origin story. Despite tons of stock footage from the original Phantasm, plus deleted scenes, returning to pad the film, what results in an interesting sequel that after 20 years restores the original darkness, and creepy atmosphere from the first film. Of all of the sequels, Phantasm IV actually feels like it's in the same world as the first. Unfortunately the end result falls short, as the budget seems too low to full flesh out the plot arc's, and the idea is kind of half-baked. Still for me it was very intesting to watch, laid some fascinating concepts, and might be the Halloween III of the franchise for me.

And with that said, Phantasm is like Atari said, one of those franchises in desperate need to rebooted. There actually were plans with Coscarelli to finalize a deal in the mid-2000s to produce a reboot trilogy with New Line Cinema. New Line wanted to fund a fantasy/horror franchise with a huge budget on the same level as Lord of the Rings for fantasy/sci-fi. Could you imagine Phantasm with such a budget? Well the original plan was to bring this to life with a rebooted story that would feature a new director (not Coscarelli), but Coscarelli on board as writer/producer. Reggie Bannister was to reprise an older version of Reggie in the original story, and Angus Scrimm would play an older version of the Tall Man, but it would still be like starting from scratch with an all-new trilogy.

Phans, like me, geeked the fuck out. Well Coscarelli spoke too soon about it, before the contracts were signed, and the plans were canceled for whatever reason. But the fact remains that Phantasm, to this day, has THE MOST BRILLIANT concept for any horror film that i've seen.

The philosophical ramifications of the "what is reality", "dream within a dream", mixed with horror/sci-fi/fantasy/action-elements could've been one of  the deepest, richest worlds in horror that were ever seen. In the right hands, the concept could've been LOTR or Star Wars for horror films.

Instead... I dunno. It just didn't happen. The films remain cult fan favorites, and I will be first in line for Phantasm V as I was first in line in high school when Phantasm IV came out. More than likely P5 will be a Direct-to-Netflix release, but still I will be there ready to love it.

Sadly Phantasm's legacy will always be that of "what could've been". Still hope a die-hard fan one day comes into a shitload of money and bank rolls a big Hollywood reboot of it. It still has a concept waiting to be fully explored. Phantasm has yet to be fully realized.

It's never over...

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

Apparently this post slipped by everyone. If true, this explains the Ron rumors, as well as Axl suddenly at least trying to put in effort as it could possibly be his swan song.

What I think is the more fascinating question is the article goes into mentioning that insiders close to Axl believe that he's "done with touring". He's made enough money touring.

Nobody said, no more studio work. If Axl has made his bank, and there's still a massive market out there for anything Guns N' Roses, I have been a HUGE HUGE HUGE supporter of Axl retiring from live shows for the last few years. I felt in 2010, 2011 at the latest that Axl should've quit touring to become exclusively a studio-only band, similar to Queen post-Kind of Magic, post-1986, post-Freddie diagnosis.

I wish, if Axl still has any artist in him, would just lock himself in a studio, write, and fucking relax. Have a take, don't suck, if it does suck, come back tomorrow. He could cut albums and work as long as he'd like. The pressure from Chinese is gone, and honestly if Guns N' Roses as a band is disbanded, Axl could easily just do session musicians and have 100 people be Guns N' Roses. From Slash to Izzy to Duff to Kim Thayil to Buckethead to Robin to DJ to Joe Perry to John 5 to Doug Aldrich to Tom Morello to Paul McCartney to any fucking body that would come down and jam with him on record.

And he'd never have to tour. Sounds pretty fucking cool to me. And it would also retain Axl's legacy vocally. Axl could easily hammer out multiple records with his old voice, if he was allowed numerous takes. Live.... I think he's dne.

Yeah, maybe. That's another way to look at it. Or at least a new incarnation that features Axl, Richard, DJ, Izzy, Duff, Tommy, Frank, Dizzy & Chris. It would be nice to see Axl retire "Guns N' Roses" and reform the old band and say "Guns N' Fuckin' Roses is back however".

But Axl vocally is in such a bad state, that live... the moment is lost. Or at least lost until Axl repairs his vocals. Whether new or old, I still stand by Axl needs to perform strictly in a studio and give the live shows a break for many years to come.

It'd be really cool if GN'R recorded a new album every year or two, and Axl and new or old GN'R would come out and only perform in select cities on select dates to promote it, then retire back into the studio. It's like a Zeppelin model, mixed with Genesis-isms.

I wish Axl would've did something like that a long time ago. It allows him to still be Axl fuckin Rose, still have GN'R, still have a new band or reunion, and tour whenever he likes, while keeping his legacy and reputation in tact.