You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
I thought the ones bono listed at #3 are pretty different sounding to #1 and #2....but to me the group at #4 was a return to the classic sound or at least the tracks i've heard from it were.
So they've had their moments of experimenting with their sound...but then I also think people underrate how diiferent UYI is to AFD....to me that's a bit like the change around the pop era for u2....some ofthe same hallmarks are there but they're clearly playing around with the format and branching out a little too.
- tejastech08
- Rep: 194
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
Gn'R without Slash would be like Zeppelin without Page.
While I understand the sentiment, Slash did not start GN'R while Page was the guy who started Zeppelin. Page was also the producer for all of the Zeppelin albums. He had more power in Zeppelin than Axl did in GN'R, but what's funny is he gave up a lot of his power over time. Bonham and Plant started out on salary and Page/Jones made them into full members after the band started succeeding. Axl used every bit of leverage he could to take control of GN'R. I still can't believe how stupid Slash and Duff were to actually sign over their rights.
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
Bono wrote:No really when these types of comparisons come up nothing post TSI enters into it for me in terms of who i like better and who i consider to be the greatest frontman ever. Now if we complicate things and enter in a bunch of criteria including longevity and how well a performer has aged then sure Axl's stock falls big time but not when it comes to these classic band showdowns.
I don't even feel TSI deserves to be included. Once Izzy left, that was all she wrote.
yep...tsi is not considered by me either...nor was the illusion tour after Izzy left...87-91
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
I dunno I went to a 1993 post izzy illusion show and it was kickass and most definitely GNR.
And TSI is great....I mean it was only supposed to be a covers EP to fill in time before the next real album - so I don't really look at it as too much more than that. But there's some solid performances on it considering none of it is original material.
I know you guys love izzy...but you go to a 1993 show...you've got Duff hammering the bass, Matt smashing the kit, slash's is running around like an absolute madman like he did pre his heart condition and Axl's young and dangerous in the sense that he might have some kind of meltdown live on stage but he's nailing the vocals like a frontman from hell.
Izzy was cool and all...as was steven...but that UYI band was still GNR in a way that the band wasn't without Duff/Slash.
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
I saw 2 UYI shows with Izzy and 6 UYI shows without Izzy...completely different dynamic. Axl was calling all the shots at that point (92-93). The shows were good but they were moving in to hired gun territory already. My cutoff Gnr point was NOVEMBER 91.
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
I like TSI?
I don't care for Gilby, but it didn't cease to be GN'R without Izzy. If he would have stayed, I think he would have burned bridges with all the members. He's a bigger headcase than Axl. He actually went out at the right time to save face.
- tejastech08
- Rep: 194
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
Izzy is a bigger headcase than Axl.
lolwut?
Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles
Bono wrote:Gn'R without Slash would be like Zeppelin without Page.
While I understand the sentiment, Slash did not start GN'R while Page was the guy who started Zeppelin. Page was also the producer for all of the Zeppelin albums. He had more power in Zeppelin than Axl did in GN'R, but what's funny is he gave up a lot of his power over time. Bonham and Plant started out on salary and Page/Jones made them into full members after the band started succeeding. Axl used every bit of leverage he could to take control of GN'R. I still can't believe how stupid Slash and Duff were to actually sign over their rights.
Jager/Richards, Page/Plant, Perry/Tyler, Axl/Slash that's all I'm saying. the perception is what I'm talking about not who started the band or who had control or who produced. I'm talking about who was integral to the band and how people viewed them. Gn'R without Slash would be exactly like one of those bands minus their guitar player
