Gordon Comstock

Club Members
  • Content count

    7,027
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,106 Excellent

1 Follower

About Gordon Comstock

  • Rank
    Failure to communicate

Previous Fields

  • Sex Male

Contact Methods

  • Website URL http://
  • ICQ 0

Recent Profile Visitors

5,767 profile views
  1. Yea he said he was going for a clearer sound on CD, but he sang incredibly before and after CD's release so that's not really an excuse for the current voice. I don't want to hate on the guy, but he's proven what he's capable of and it's disappointing to hear him sounding just blatantly unrehearsed.
  2. Thanks. I always remembered the way he said it more than what he actually said lol. My point stands though. Listen to the verses from Nightrain from any of the NA shows last year, there's no reason he couldn't sing other songs with the voice he uses there.
  3. This is bullshit. He screams through the Brian songs, but he sings the Bon songs, and they sound fuller, grittier and all-around better than his GNR 'head voice'. It's gonna take me forever to find the clip, but in 2012 while talking to a crowd after Don't Cry he said someone asked him why he didn't use his raspy voice on that song, and his response was pretty much 'well, because I don't want to'. If he wanted to put in the effort to sound raspy on November Rain, Better, Paradise City or whatever then he would. But he's content with his current vocal approach so that's what we get.
  4. 01/21/17 - Osaka - Kyocera Dome

    I missed the live stream (because I'm sick and not staying up til 1 AM) but I've watched videos from the show. The band sounds awesome, and Frank's finally playing at a better tempo. Axl.... sounds like he hasn't sung in a while tbh. I swear this is the excuse every time he starts a tour but, was he sick or something? The clean voice sounds weird, not in a mickey way but in a nasally kind of way. And he was holding his chest for most of Coma (which was particularly shaky). If so then, no complaints, at least he showed up. If he's just starting the tour cold (no rehearsals) then, wtf Axl?
  5. 01/21/17 - Osaka - Kyocera Dome

    Can I have some of whatever you're smoking?
  6. What Are You Listening To 2017

    Outkast's ATLiens, on vinyl
  7. Pit Sections seperated?

    Pretty sure the Pit 1 and Pit 2 thing is purely to make lining up and getting everyone in more organized. In Seattle there was a 'Pit 1' line and a 'Pit 2' line, but once you're on the floor you're allowed to stand wherever you want, there were no barriers.
  8. Why do people film concerts?

    I maintain that you can't "steal" something that was shared for free, but I agree with you regarding the hypocrisy.
  9. Why do people film concerts?

    Now we're just nitpicking about technicalities, but I assume you grasped the point I was trying to make about pirating official albums? FWIW I believe the majority of serious bootleg collectors already own all or most of their favourite artists albums, so the logic in comparing downloaded bootlegs vs albums is flawed there. I don't think a casual fan is gonna listen to a bunch of audience recorded shows to hear the slight differences between them, whereas die-hards will definitely do that. The demographic for bootleg shows is an important factor that doesn't transcend to that for regular albums. I agree with you though, that trying to portray oneself as a 'true music fan' while belittling those who listen to the same music for free is hypocritical.
  10. Why do people film concerts?

    Profiting from bootlegs is illegal, having them isn't. It's the same sort of thing with playing cover songs; any band can perform any song they want without the permission of the songwriter, but they can't release or profit from it. Just the same as I can film some songs on my phone but can't put out a DVD of them. Having bootlegs isn't violating a bands intellectual property because they only own the official versions of the songs, not the public performances of them. Downloading an album is considered stealing because there are various legal ways to listen to it (even just digitally), while the same can't be said for bootlegs. If you pirate an album it could be argued you're stealing from the band, itunes, or whoever, but how do you steal something that was given away for free? Quite a difference there IMO. I have a feeling we'll have to agree to disagree
  11. Why do people film concerts?

    I would argue that downloading a bootleg can't be labelled "stealing" as there is no way to pay for it in the first place. The difference between downloading a bootleg and downloading an official album is being able to walk into a store and buy one of them, and not the other. The band/record company owns the copyright to the songs and officially released versions of them, but they don't own recordings of public performances which don't/wouldn't produce income to either the band, record company or the bootlegger. Technically, I would be listening to the recording without the express permission of the band, but I don't think there's a way to gain permission from a band to listen to unofficial recordings? If I were pressing CD's and charging $50 each, or playing the recording in public, I'd agree with you, but that's not the argument. Selling copies of a bootleg would violate copyright laws, but merely having and listening to bootlegs is fine, as far as I know.
  12. Why do people film concerts?

    I get the point you're trying to make but I think you're stretching things a bit far with that argument, because the sole purpose of bootlegs is to provide fans with something they can't get from the band. If you can't legally purchase a copy of a show, which was never going to be released anyway, I don't see how it's wrong to have a bootleg? If I download Appetite For Destruction, yes, technically I'm stealing. If I download a copy of the show from Middletown 1988, who am I stealing from? The band? The record company? The guy that held up the camcorder? If we're talking soundboard, professionally mastered shows, I see your point. If we're talking about a show someone recorded from the audience, we disagree. At least for the former you could argue there was some intent to release the show at some point, with the latter I think it's more a case of fans sharing with other fans. And yes, the artist is the owner of the work - the work which appears on official studio or live albums. But if you're doing a public performance, audience recordings are fair game IMO.
  13. Why do people film concerts?

    Except the latest Bieber album is for sale in every music store, while 'Bieber live in wherever-the-fuck' isn't. I think it's also important to consider that bootleg collectors are usually more than casual fans of a band, they already have the albums, dvds, etc. For example, I have tons of GNR bootlegs, and if they announced tomorrow that they were officially releasing, say, the Ritz 1988 show, I'd still buy it even though I already have a few different copies of that show. Now, if they released it and I decided that I wouldn't buy it because I already had the bootleg and it was just as good, your argument would make sense. But that's not the case. Unless the band officially releases a show, how can you argue they're losing money because of a bootleg recording?