You are not logged in. Please register or login.

metallex78
 Rep: 194 

Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles

metallex78 wrote:
smoke wrote:

No question on Syd. Axl vs Izzy is a 1st round 10 second KO by Axl.  Izzy's "crazy" is enigmatic, gypsy, unpredictable, but it's not (barring the heroin days) destructive, self-defeating, or paranoid.  Izzy just marches to his own beat, and despite my disappointment in his no show to RRHOF, I can't really think of anything else he's done that I don't fully support. I still consider him the departure that killed GNR, and though the following tours were great, I think I'm proven right by the piece of crap that was TSI? and the total lack of confidence Axl had in writing with that lineup.

Hey, I happen to like that so-called piece of crap TSI. It's a fun covers album, with some solid performances. Ain't It Fun sits right alongside my favourite GN'R originals 22

Which band is better?

Guns N' Roses 48%
The Beatles 52%
Total votes: 23
smoke
 Rep: 77 

Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles

smoke wrote:

I know I'm hugely in the minority here, so I'm not trying to cause offense, honestly. To me though, it wasn't Sympathy for the Devil that was the sound of GNR breaking up, it was TSI?, just no one realized it at the time.

BTW- I decided to give it my annual listen today, so I'm spinning it right now at work. It'll be good to have it out of the way so early in 2013. big_smile

Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles

Sky Dog wrote:

Ain't It Fun is great and my other favorite is Black Leather. I would rather have them on the Illusions instead of LALD and KOHD. Ain't It Fun would fit perfect on II and Black Leather on I...just my opinion.

Ultimately, I would have preferred no covers on the Illusions. Just put LALD and KOHD on SI as it ended up not really being a "punk" album anyway.

polluxlm
 Rep: 221 

Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles

polluxlm wrote:

TSI is superfluous, but a good album. It's not the typical cash grab effort where the band phones it in. A lot of energy and imo their interpretations are mostly better than the originals.

Axlin16
 Rep: 768 

Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles

Axlin16 wrote:

I prefer GN'R, but you can't deny the influence of the Fab Four. They're easily the biggest rock band in the history of rock bands.

misterID
 Rep: 475 

Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles

misterID wrote:

Slash and Duff = Very well adjusted people and normal.

Axl and Izzy = Both are weird. Izzy gets more of a pass because he's liked more. I haven't seen anything in Izzy in the last 20 years that says he's more well-adjusted than Axl. Axl holds a grudge and can't release an album, which probably has more to do with his relationship with the label than any "emotional problems." Axl has shown to be pretty normal lately, besides the typical rock star stuff. Nomad's aren't the most "normal" people walking the earth.

buzzsaw
 Rep: 423 

Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles

buzzsaw wrote:

I don't know that I'd ever label Axl as "normal" but you do get glimpses like that Slash story a few years ago that show a pretty normal guy.

Bono
 Rep: 386 

Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles

Bono wrote:
misterID wrote:

Slash and Duff = Very well adjusted people and normal.

Axl and Izzy = Both are weird. Izzy gets more of a pass because he's liked more. I haven't seen anything in Izzy in the last 20 years that says he's more well-adjusted than Axl. Axl holds a grudge and can't release an album, which probably has more to do with his relationship with the label than any "emotional problems." Axl has shown to be pretty normal lately, besides the typical rock star stuff. Nomad's aren't the most "normal" people walking the earth.

You're basing this off Izzy being a celebrity who goes about his business and doesn't play the media/celeb game. You're basing this on the act you know NOTHING about Izzy.  Who of us really do?  We never hear about Izzy, he hardly ever shows up anywhere and because of that he's fucking weird? Shit maybe he's the most well adjusted of them all. Has gone about his business and lived his life away from the spotlight.  There's no way in hell you can make a convincing argument that Izzy is as weird or weirder than Axl. It's ririculous to even try.

Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles

Sky Dog wrote:

plus the fact that Izzy has aged very well which shows that he is living a happy, content life. He looks f'n normal whereas the rest definitely are torn and frayed. Duff may be fit but his face is burned out as hell as Slash, Steven, and Axl are....Izzy survived and came out the other side unscathed. Pick another battle ID.

Re: Guns N' Roses Vs. The Beatles

Lomax wrote:
Sky Dog wrote:

plus the fact that Izzy has aged very well which shows that he is living a happy, content life. He looks f'n normal whereas the rest definitely are torn and frayed. Duff may be fit but his face is burned out as hell as Slash, Steven, and Axl are....Izzy survived and came out the other side unscathed. Pick another battle ID.

You're right. Izzy is pretty, and therefore sane.

hehe. I do agree though he doesn't seem to be as haggard as the rest.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB