SoulMonster

Members
  • Content count

    12,561
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

SoulMonster last won the day on December 1 2015

SoulMonster had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,342 Excellent

About SoulMonster

  • Rank
    FRONTMAN
  • Birthday

Previous Fields

  • Sex
    Male

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

5,652 profile views
  1. Yeah, the crafts beer scene is amazing here i CA. Thanks!
  2. Not yet. Going out tonight so crossing my fingers.
  3. We've all been there
  4. In LA and what do you know? It's LA Beer Week.
  5. I am happy for you The last I heard you were in a sort of pathetic break-up period with lots of ridiculous drunk postings. Good things come to good guys. But not all of them.
  6. After the excitement of Troubadour my interest petered quickly out. I became so indifferent to GN'R that I have recently taken a long time off the forums. It just doesn't excite me. That being said, the current lineup is good and the shows seem great. I just feel new music is becoming less and less of a possibility and I am just not cut out for nostalgia. But it's good, I guess.
  7. Just even more busy than usual and decided to take a break from the forums for a while.
  8. My youngest kid's generous laughter as we were watching a 'funny dogs' compilation video on youtube while eating ice cream.
  9. CONGRATULATIONS!
  10. Likewise, if Brain stepped in on drums and Guns N' Roses decided to play something from Brain's collaboration with Melissa, then, according to your arbitrary redefinition of cover song, that would also not be a cover. Or if the band had decided to play something from The Psychedelic Furs (Richard and Frank), then that too would automagically not be a cover song because, again, two extant band members created that music in a previous band. It is ridiculous, Diesel.
  11. No, nowhere have I given a definition that supports the ludicrisy that when Guns N' Roses played concerts in 2001-2014 it was actually covering itself. I see what you are trying to do, you are trying to argue that "nuGuns" was a different band and then, per the normal definition of what a cover song is, it must have been covering. But I don't agree with the notion that nuGuns was such a different band. Neither do wikipedia, setlist.fm, the band itself, etc. which all agree that, although changed in its lineup, the Guns N' Roses that existed between 2001 and 2014 was just a new version of Guns N' Roses. Not very much liked, but still Guns N' Roses. Now you will probably revert to the technicality that assumingly the legal entity of GN'R was dissolved at some time, and hence, technically speaking, the band was dissolved before being reinstated and there being no unbroken link of existence. That might be true but it doesn't mean that the band wasn't resurrected and hence started exisiting again. Again, except for a few fans who never coped with "NuGuns" the rest of the world had no problems accepting it. It is uncontested. It is legally true. It is accepted by the music industry, by the music press, by media in general. Except for a minority of people who out of spite refused to acknowledge it. I know you won't agree with me, but that is just how it is.
  12. Yeah, I prefer originals to covers, too, but not to the extent that if it was a cover song I particularly liked (=Slither), I'd go out of my way to redefine 'bands' and 'cover' so as to make sure I wouldn't have to think of it as a tainted cover. I would simply accept that some covers are better than others.
  13. Only if you have some inherent bias against covers would it be a problem to you chuck 'The Seeker' and 'Slither' in the sme mix. But I can't help you with that. If I have questioned your level of intelligence then you have my unconditional apology. It shouldn't be questioned. I can't remember having done that in this thread, though.
  14. No need to add ad hominem attacks to the list of your fallacies.
  15. Of course I will accomodate the fact that we would be witnessing two members from the current lineup of GN'R play a song they helped write while in another band, but it would still be Guns N' Roses covering Velvet Revolver. Any excitement I might feel about this would not make me not still call it a cover. A cover is a cover. You don't get to change definitions because you get excited about something, you find some other venue to express that excitement. 'We Can Work It Out' was co-written with John, so yes, I would certainly refer to it as a cover. 'Her Majesty' on the other and... Setlist.fm also makes notes of this, and while they don't call any Beatles songs played by Paul "covers" (because, as they say, it "doesn't feel right"), they refer to them as "songs by 'The Beatles'" to make it clear these are not Paul McCartney songs. Semantics again. But again, these examples of solo artists playing songs from previous bands they were in, is not relevant to whether Guns N' Roses playign 'Slither' would be covering Velvet Revolver or not. That is strange, according to setlist.fm's own guidelines those songs should be listed as: Fell I Love With A Girl (White Stripes song). That's how they solve the issue when it's a song that same artist wrote while in a previous band.