SoulMonster

Members
  • Content count

    12,552
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,325 Excellent

About SoulMonster

  • Rank
    FRONTMAN

Previous Fields

  • Sex Male

Contact Methods

  • ICQ 0

Recent Profile Visitors

4,851 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. No need to add ad hominem attacks to the list of your fallacies.
  6. 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.
  7. There are no such thing as "outright cover", or "2/5 cover", or "slightly cover", or "mostly cover", and so on. Nowhere have I seen such terms, not in any concert reviews, setlists, liner notes, interviews, etc. A song either IS a cover or it ISN'T. This is just something you make up on the fly. Again you are trying to change the world to accomodate your unconventional opinions and definitions. It is entertaining at least.
  8. If an artist plays a song by another band, then that is a cover per definition. If, on the other hand, an artist plays songs she wrote while in another band, then she wouldn't be covering anthing except herself, and then it is not really a cover. If Neil Young considers those songs not to be covers it must be understood that he considers them his own songs - written entirely by himself so no covering takes place. Fair enough. His bandmates in Springfield and CSNY might not necessarily agree with that, though. This doesn't at all apply to Guns N' Roses, though. If GN'R played 'Slither' it would be a cover, because GN'R is not a single artist who made that song while in another band. GN'R is a band, and even if some of the current band members did help in writing 'Slither', it would still be a cover for GN'R.
  9. Sacking a friend/colleague

    Don't get too heavy on the smileys. A reprimand is a reprimand and should be understood as such. I completely agree with @Orsys.
  10. I guess you can surmise the answer from this earlier post:
  11. I don't like Guns N' Roses because of its name, either, I like the band because of its music. But regardless of why we like the bands we like -- whether it is the band members or the music or whatever -- it doesn't give us the right to refuse to acknowledge the names of bands. We can dislike it as much as we want, but it is what it is. And this brings us to covers, Velvet Revolver simply ISN'T Guns N' Roses. You can close your eyes to reality as much as you want, but it is a different band by all conventional definitions of what a 'band' is. And hence, if Guns N' Roses were to play 'Slither', that WOULD be a cover, regardless of whether you in your entirely subjective opinion think that Velvet Revolver was closer to what you wanted GN'R to be, or whether the current lineup of GN'R contains band members who helped write that song. It is still a cover. This all boils down to the fact that we cannot redefine terms ('band' or 'cover') just to substantiate whatever opinion we might have. The world doesn't work that way. Otherwise the true reasons for why we think the way we do, and like what we like, and want what we like -- which are the interesting parts of us and should be brought out -- gets lost in semantics and idiosyncratic definitions.
  12. Yes, as an artist Slash covered Guns N' Roses when he played songs from GN'R's back catalogue at his solo shows.. And when Velvet Revolver was playing Guns N' Roses songs, then Velvet revolver was covering Guns N' Roses songs. But when Guns N' Roses played Guns N' Roses songs, it wasn't covering any other band. It was playing its own songs. That is how it works.
  13. So whereever these guys are there are Guns N' Roses? And hence, Guns N' Roses playing a song released by Velvet Revolver wouldn't be covering that song, because, wow, Velvet Revolver, due to having at the time three former members of Guns N' Roses, was actually sort-of Guns N' Roses! That's a very peculiar way of looking at things that flies in the face of norms and conventions on how we understand both what a 'band' is and what a 'cover song' is. And I normally like such contrary thinking, if it only had some benefit. But if you insist on GN'R not playing a cover song if they were to play a song released by the band Velvet Revolver, then a consequence of this would be that if GN'R were to release a new "Best of" record, then it could contain songs by Velvet Revolver, too. Because after all, with your logic, those wouldn't be covers but be actual Guns N' Roses songs. And, on the flip side, if Velvet Revolver were to release a "Best of", it could include songs released by Guns N' Roses, because, after all, with your logic, these two bands are the same or close enough or at least the songs belong to them both. Does it not strike you how absurd it becomes? Now you will probably argue that they are not the same, in like 100 %, surely!, but that Velvet Revolver, due to having three former members of GN'R is more like Guns N' Roses than "nuGN'R" ever were. And to save a couple of posts back and forth I will comment on that objection right away: So Guns N' Roses can play Velvet Revolver songs as if they were their own, because Velvet Revolver was 60 % GN'R. Could GN'R play Adler song, too, then, because that band was 20 % GN'R? And surely GN'R can play solo songs froom Izzy Stradlin, because not only is he 20 % GN'R but, I am sure youo agree, he is "the most Guns N' Roses of them all". Where does this end? Where do you draw the lines in your seemingly arbitrary system? In your peculiar view, when the UYI lineup broke down, GN'R wasn't continued in the very band called Guns N' Roses who legally had that name and could point to having gradually transformed from the UYI lineup, instead it became some kind of distributed band separated into small parts, and now, when some of these members have rejoined Guns N' Roses, they can play any of the songs created in the former separated units because, after all, GN'R is "inherent to its members". The only exception I am sure you make is for the actual band called Guns N' Roses in the period 1995-2015. Songs off CD is not Guns N' Roses songs, right? But songs off Contraband is. Because after all this argument of yours isn't really thought-through but just an attempt to rationalize your subjective opinion that GN'R should play Velvet Revover songs and they wouldn't be covers. Now you will probably argue that you weren't talking about bands but about musicians. Slash will not be covering anything if he were to play Slither now in Guns N' Roses, because that is his song (I assume). Yeah right, that is changing the goalposts because we have been talking about bands all the time. We have been talking about whether Guns N' Roses would be covering another band if they were to play Velvet Revolver songs, not if any particular band member would be covering another musician.
  14. Gin

    I can't remember if they were made of stone, but they were definitely wrapped in newspapers.
  15. Gin

    Ah, Jenever! Brings back memories. Pleasant memories, even. 18 years old, on a EU thingy in Brussels, hanging with the hosts at a backalley drinking place where they served Jenever in bottles covered with newspapers. Smashing.