You are not logged in. Please register or login.

Re: The Context of How Old Some of these Tracks Are

AtariLegend wrote:

The first Brian May Atlas Shrugged/Perhaps/Catcher in the Rye should probably turn 20 years old in just over a month (November-ish maybe).

For context, think back to 1999, listening to one of those tracks now is the equivalent of listening to one of these tracks when they were recorded:

Hidden Text:

Nevermind the earlier tracks.

zombux
 Rep: 36 

Re: The Context of How Old Some of these Tracks Are

zombux wrote:
AtariLegend wrote:

The first Brian May Atlas Shrugged/Perhaps/Catcher in the Rye should probably turn 20 years old in just over a month (November-ish maybe).

quite surely mid-November-ish.

"We're still hoping to have Brian May come in and do some tracks, and I got a fax today that he's coming in." (Axl, MTV, 11/08/99)

we don't have more precise date, but it couldn't be before 8th November 1999 obviously - altough we're only talking about the May guitar tracks here - the rest of the songs must have been already done so they are for sure older than this.
actually, there are the old demos that leaked in 2006 (Razz tracks and Catcher) - and at least Catcher and TWAT sounds like earlier version of those we got now at Rough Mixes CDs - that means obviously that at least Catcher still can't be older than May's involvement, but who knows about TWAT. IRS seems to be the same as the Rough Mixes version, but that doesn't say much - it could have just been taken from previous sessions as it was.
the Razz files might have been old tracks from the time when Robin left (his contract expired 1st August 1999), and might be stripped of his guitar tracks - but again IRS seems to have retained his guitar solo.

ummm... I forgot what I wanted to say when I started typing this, sorry for that smile

oh, and one more interesting fact: yes, we know that May played on three tracks and the third one is almost for sure Perhaps. but there was also "messing around on various other things" - so who knows what's buried somewhere in the mix smile

"[Axl] said, 'Brian can you come and do stuff which I will like and I won't feel too bad about ditching this other stuff?'. So I did. I went over there and I think I played on three tracks and messed around on various other things. But it worked out pretty well, as far as I can tell." (Brian May, Radio One Rock Show, 05/10/00)

Vale
 Rep: 3 

Re: The Context of How Old Some of these Tracks Are

Vale wrote:

I agree. Even by 2008 the world was listening with different ears already. That's why the stuff should have come out then. Soul Monster or Zodiac in 1999/2000 or even in 03 would have blown people's minds.

FlashFlood
 Rep: 51 

Re: The Context of How Old Some of these Tracks Are

FlashFlood wrote:

Thanks for pointing out, Atari. It’s crazy.

I like this material. I am a diehard Guns N Roses fan. But saying this stuff would have been a hit back in that day is delusional. Nobody wanted GNR without Slash. That hasn’t changed from 96-19.

Charlie Finck
 Rep: 0 

Re: The Context of How Old Some of these Tracks Are

Even though 20 years gone they Sound fucking Edgy and cool to me.

Have been released back in 2001 or 2008 itd be fantastic but ....something unheard its still NEW and FRESH for the hungry hearts.

imho

faldor
 Rep: 281 

Re: The Context of How Old Some of these Tracks Are

faldor wrote:
FlashFlood wrote:

Thanks for pointing out, Atari. It’s crazy.

I like this material. I am a diehard Guns N Roses fan. But saying this stuff would have been a hit back in that day is delusional. Nobody wanted GNR without Slash. That hasn’t changed from 96-19.

Exactly. Some of us would’ve loved it, but that’s not saying much. In a sense, I can understand the hesitation from the record company. They wanted that big smash hit to move units. But as you pointed out, that wasn’t likely to happen without Slash in tow. Looking back, they should have just released what they had and hoped for the best. Easier said than done though when you don’t have millions invested in it. But all they really ended up doing was wasting a decade or so of Axl’s career.

sp1at
 Rep: 36 

Re: The Context of How Old Some of these Tracks Are

sp1at wrote:

I don't think these tracks were given a chance.

If Green Day could release a popular rock opera album in 2004 then you have to expect that anything was possible during this time.

Vale
 Rep: 3 

Re: The Context of How Old Some of these Tracks Are

Vale wrote:

Well, a big hit is relative. By 2000 the musical landscape was very different than it was in 1991. There were no more really guitar heavy big hits by then anymore. That said, I don't know why Perhaps or The Blues - given the proper promotion - shouldn't have done fine enough commercially as a second single. Would they have had a huge impact on the music scene? Fuck no. But they could have performed more than well enough so that every one could have moved on with their heads held high. Songs like Oklahoma or Soul Monster on a subsequent release clearly wouldn't have been chart toppers. Not suitable for the masses. But they would have done well in the Rock market. Velvet Revolver didn't have mega hits either. Contraband was still a #1 album. No reason why Axl shouldn't have achieved at least that same level of success with these wasted/lost songs.

James
 Rep: 644 

Re: The Context of How Old Some of these Tracks Are

James wrote:
FlashFlood wrote:

But saying this stuff would have been a hit back in that day is delusional.

Yep. It's an album of deep cuts with one or two potential moderate hits.

----

we don't have more precise date, but it couldn't be before 8th November 1999 obviously - altough we're only talking about the May guitar tracks here - the rest of the songs must have been already done so they are for sure older than this.

While chances may be slim, the roots of some of these tracks could date back to that weird period in 96-97 where Slash is on the outside looking in and Duff and Sorum are still hanging by a thread.

In August, the full band were scheduled to return to the studio to write and record new songs.

"Duff: We're in [the studio], writing new songs...
Stern: And Axl's into it?
Duff: Yeah, totally. And, actually, today I was going to have to fly back right after this. We were going to start recording for this Jackie Chan movie, the next one." (Duff, Howard Stern Show, 07/25/96)

"Rose's sound is a lot more synthetic than anything I would get anywhere close to. That's about all I can say."  (Slash, Total Guitar, 01/97)

The first batch of material I heard definitely had an industrial thing about it, but the direction could well have taken another swing since then. Axl could go anywhere with this album." (Slash, Kerrang, 12/00)

At the risk of sounding like a sleazy music biz guy, I met with Axl last week to hear their new demos,' said Moby while he was discussing the future of electronica on a panel at Austin, Texas' South by Southwest Conference. 'They're writing with a lot of loops, and believe it or not, they're doing it better than anybody I've heard lately.'" (Moby, Allstar, 03/18/97)

One of the demos Moby might've been presented with was the work-in-progress track, Oh My God. Mentioning Matt suggests the song existed in some form in February/March '97.

"Musically the song was primarily written by Paul Huge [in early 1997], with Dizzy Reed writing the musical hook of the chorus. Former member Duff McKagan as well as former employee Matt Sorum failed to see its potential and showed no interest in exploring, let alone recording the piece." (Axl

Re: The Context of How Old Some of these Tracks Are

AtariLegend wrote:

I'm with Sp1at.

I think it'd have sold at least decently by default.

Limp Bizkit sold almost 7 million copies of an album in 2000 in the US alone. Hybrid Theory by Linkin Park sold 27 Million world wide plus. U2 sold over 12 million. nevermind Backstreet Boys or Britney Spears, NSYNC ect who all sold pretty decently all in 2000.

I don't want to compare it to Eminem, but the Marshal Mathers album sold 32 million +. Now while I doubt this sells anywhere in the same ballpark, you get the idea... albums still sold in 2000.

I think the Green Day comparison is a good one. In 2004 they sold 15 million +.

You might remember the tracks from many of those albums, but not all had major hit singles on them, it's worth pointing out.

There's no excuse in hindsight for not just releasing them prior to that 02 tour when albums still sold and what the public perception and press became. I reckon it still sells 10 million by default at least in 2000. It was too late by 08.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB