gnrkoncerti Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 http://sports.espn.go.com/espnradio/story?id=6177864&match=109048#top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gods Favourite Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 They're not gonna pass through to the next round, there's too many Beatles fans out there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longpig Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 The beatles should win anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cancerface Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 they should let you know which gnr line-up you're voting for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wicked Hand Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goose! Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 they should let you know which gnr line-up you're voting for.The good one (2010) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cancerface Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 I know the feeling. I felt the same way when i heard the "music" from $la$h'$ solo "album"he should change his name to sonic cancer.i wouldn't say that the old gnr line-up is better than the beatles, but i would say that the 2002, 2006 and 2008 line-ups of guns n' roses were better. there was just far more musical talent as the musicians were capable of doing so much more with their instruments than the guys in the beatles ever could have dreamed possible. if you think slash sucks at soloing because he plays the same few notes and can not finger tap, then try listening to george harrison or john lennon play. my kid brother could play those chords after his first few guitar lessons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sleeper Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 I know the feeling. I felt the same way when i heard the "music" from $la$h'$ solo "album" edit: Also when I saw and heard the "peformance" aka butchery at the super bowl half timeLOLcano I would have thought that after CD any kind of music/performance would be better to listen to. But I guess you are really hooked on Axl Ro$e. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wicked Hand Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 I know the feeling. I felt the same way when i heard the "music" from $la$h'$ solo "album"he should change his name to sonic cancer.i wouldn't say that the old gnr line-up is better than the beatles, but i would say that the 2002, 2006 and 2008 line-ups of guns n' roses were better. there was just far more musical talent as the musicians were capable of doing so much more with their instruments than the guys in the beatles ever could have dreamed possible. if you think slash sucks at soloing because he plays the same few notes and can not finger tap, then try listening to george harrison or john lennon play. my kid brother could play those chords after his first few guitar lessons.WOW!!!!!!!You just said nuGNR is better than the Beatles....Let me just let that sink in........I cant even begin to constuct a response to that for Im in shock.........Hey look out the window.........There goes your credibility......Beatles material is awesome to learn for beginners. I still have fun playin' certain songs but I think it's more a nostalgia thing. When I play their music people reconize it and sing along and everyone is happy.Same can be said about GNR's old material....everyone knows it but muscally it is inferior to the new material.I know the feeling. I felt the same way when i heard the "music" from $la$h'$ solo "album"he should change his name to sonic cancer.i wouldn't say that the old gnr line-up is better than the beatles, but i would say that the 2002, 2006 and 2008 line-ups of guns n' roses were better. there was just far more musical talent as the musicians were capable of doing so much more with their instruments than the guys in the beatles ever could have dreamed possible. if you think slash sucks at soloing because he plays the same few notes and can not finger tap, then try listening to george harrison or john lennon play. my kid brother could play those chords after his first few guitar lessons.WOW!!!!!!!You just said nuGNR is better than the Beatles....Let me just let that sink in........I cant even begin to constuct a response to that for Im in shock.........Hey look out the window.........There goes your credibility......Beatles material is awesome to learn for beginners. I still have fun playin' certain songs but I think it's more a nostalgia thing. When I play their music people reconize it and sing along and everyone is happy.Same can be said about GNR's old material....everyone knows it but muscally it is inferior to the new material.WOW!!!!!!!You just said nuGNR is better than the Beatles....Let me just let that sink in........I cant even begin to constuct a response to that for Im in shock.........Hey look out the window.........There goes your credibility...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cancerface Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 (edited) i didn't say gnr was better than the beatles. i said some line-ups are. and i stand by that, based on their musicianship. could nugnr play every song the beatles did? easily. probably with 8 of their 16 hands tied behind their backs. could george harrison play bumblefoot's solo in shackler's revenge? could ringo do all brain's fills from TWAT? could john lennon sing the high notes in this i love? try not to take it personally. the beatles were an amazing band for fifty years ago. times change and music progresses. Edited March 18, 2011 by cancerface Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wicked Hand Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Well then I was responing to Cancerface....I apologize.........my mind was blown out the back of my skull and found a new home on the wall of the office..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wicked Hand Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 i didn't say gnr was better than the beatles. i said some line-ups are. and i stand by that, based on their musicianship. could nugnr play every song the beatles did? easily. probably with 8 of their 16 hands tied behind their backs. could george harrison play bumblefoot's solo in shackler's revenge? could ringo do all brain's fills from TWAT? could john lennon sing the high notes in this i love? try not to take it personally. the beatles were an amazing band for fifty years ago. times change and music progresses.Were not comparing muscian to muscian, Were comparing band to band. Nu GNR hasnt even recorded a record together yet so..................WTF are you smokin homie......I dont know why I even respond to this garbage.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belgian Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 (edited) The Beatles are better than GN'R, though I like GN'R more.Still voted for Guns PS. GNR is losing, bigtimei didn't say gnr was better than the beatles. i said some line-ups are. and i stand by that, based on their musicianship. could nugnr play every song the beatles did? easily. probably with 8 of their 16 hands tied behind their backs. could george harrison play bumblefoot's solo in shackler's revenge? could ringo do all brain's fills from TWAT? could john lennon sing the high notes in this i love? try not to take it personally. the beatles were an amazing band for fifty years ago. times change and music progresses.A song isn't better because it has overly complex guitar solos and drum fills. Don't get me wrong. The various members of NuGNR are very talented, but most times in music less is more. A great thing about The Beatles is that while their work was revolutionary at the time it is still relevant today. Nobody had heard stuff like Sgt. Pepper before when it was released, but the songs endure because of the amazing melodies and lyrics. I doubt anyone will be talking about Chinese Democracy in fifty years. Not a knock on GNR, but there aren't too many albums that come out now that will be as timeless as The Beatles.That's exactly what I thought, couldn't have said it better myself. Edited March 18, 2011 by Belgian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cancerface Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 i didn't say gnr was better than the beatles. i said some line-ups are. and i stand by that, based on their musicianship. could nugnr play every song the beatles did? easily. probably with 8 of their 16 hands tied behind their backs. could george harrison play bumblefoot's solo in shackler's revenge? could ringo do all brain's fills from TWAT? could john lennon sing the high notes in this i love? try not to take it personally. the beatles were an amazing band for fifty years ago. times change and music progresses.A song isn't better because it has overly complex guitar solos and drum fills. Don't get me wrong. The various members of NuGNR are very talented, but most times in music less is more. A great thing about The Beatles is that while their work was revolutionary at the time it is still relevant today. Nobody had heard stuff like Sgt. Pepper before when it was released, but the songs endure because of the amazing melodies and lyrics. I doubt anyone will be talking about Chinese Democracy in fifty years. Not a knock on GNR, but there aren't too many albums that come out now that will be as timeless as The Beatles.the poll wasn't which band wrote the most popular songs. the poll was which is the best band. a band is comprised of musicians. so which musicians add up to the best band? the best musicians. simple. as great as the beatles were in their day and age, they are not great musicians. ringo can not even touch the weakest drummer today. same for their guitar players. the instrument has come such a long way it's like comparing finger-painting to the sisteen chapel. again, not a slam on the beatles. just an honest reflection of how times change and art progresses. as for popularity, the beatles had the benefit of coming out first. had axl and the gang released chinese democracy in 1968, nobody would have even noticed the beatles existed. and i disagree with you that people won't be talking about cd in 50 years. many people have said that the album will find its audience over time. even duff said that on talking metal. so if duff can be honest about cd's timeless qualities, then i think we should be too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wicked Hand Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 (edited) i didn't say gnr was better than the beatles. i said some line-ups are. and i stand by that, based on their musicianship. could nugnr play every song the beatles did? easily. probably with 8 of their 16 hands tied behind their backs. could george harrison play bumblefoot's solo in shackler's revenge? could ringo do all brain's fills from TWAT? could john lennon sing the high notes in this i love? try not to take it personally. the beatles were an amazing band for fifty years ago. times change and music progresses.A song isn't better because it has overly complex guitar solos and drum fills. Don't get me wrong. The various members of NuGNR are very talented, but most times in music less is more. A great thing about The Beatles is that while their work was revolutionary at the time it is still relevant today. Nobody had heard stuff like Sgt. Pepper before when it was released, but the songs endure because of the amazing melodies and lyrics. I doubt anyone will be talking about Chinese Democracy in fifty years. Not a knock on GNR, but there aren't too many albums that come out now that will be as timeless as The Beatles.the poll wasn't which band wrote the most popular songs. the poll was which is the best band. a band is comprised of musicians. so which musicians add up to the best band? the best musicians. simple. as great as the beatles were in their day and age, they are not great musicians. ringo can not even touch the weakest drummer today. same for their guitar players. the instrument has come such a long way it's like comparing finger-painting to the sisteen chapel. again, not a slam on the beatles. just an honest reflection of how times change and art progresses. as for popularity, the beatles had the benefit of coming out first. had axl and the gang released chinese democracy in 1968, nobody would have even noticed the beatles existed. and i disagree with you that people won't be talking about cd in 50 years. many people have said that the album will find its audience over time. even duff said that on talking metal. so if duff can be honest about cd's timeless qualities, then i think we should be too..so all the Jazz, Jazz Fusion Bands are better than nuGNR because they are better muscians ?( and they definately are technically and compose more complex solos, melodies, time signatures etc) A band should be judged by the music that they make and records they put out........ NuGNR hasnt put out one record..It is not the sum of the muscians its the product they PRODUCE!Your enthusiasm for nuGNR is respectable though Edited March 18, 2011 by The Wicked Hand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanedog Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 This list went to the shitter when I saw Smashing Pumpkins, Nine Inch Nails and Stone Temple Pilots get knocked out first round. But besides that its actually a cool fucking list, hell even 311 is on there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bacardimayne Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 voted for the beatles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakey Styley Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 lolcancerface Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bacardimayne Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 as for popularity, the beatles had the benefit of coming out first. had axl and the gang released chinese democracy in 1968, nobody would have even noticed the beatles existed. post of 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wicked Hand Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 as for popularity, the beatles had the benefit of coming out first. had axl and the gang released chinese democracy in 1968, nobody would have even noticed the beatles existed. post of 2011I see what your getting at but this is only hypothetical.When the Beatles hit they changed music and the world forever.The splash was like throwing a mountain into a coy pond.When Chinese Democracy came out, it was like flicking a cigarette ash into the Pacific.Are we really debating nuGNR vs the Beatles?They havent even written songs together.....And outside this forum.............no one cares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bacardimayne Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 I called it post of 2011 because it was fucking ridiculous.In other words, I'm agreeing with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Len B'stard Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 What does musically inferior mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wicked Hand Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 I called it post of 2011 because it was fucking ridiculous.In other words, I'm agreeing with you.You scared me for a minuite fella. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohmygod Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 (edited) Not getting in this gnr v. beatles debate. Truth is nothing about the beatles has ever excited me. The Rolling Stones wipe the beatles off the floor. And trust me, had Jagger or Richards died instead of Lennon in a high point in their career, and The Stones stopped making music, and Lennon survived and the beatles were still around, the tables would totally be turned right now. Everyone would be all over the Stones instead of the Beatles. The trick is die in your prime, and your legacy will always stay in your prime. Edited March 18, 2011 by ohmygod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wicked Hand Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Not getting in this gnr v. beatles debate. Truth is nothing about the beatles has ever excited me. The Rolling Stones wipe the beatles off the floor. And trust me, had Jagger or Richards died instead of Lennon in a high point in their career, and The Stones stopped making music, and Lennon survived and the beatles were still around, the tables would totally be turned right now. Everyone would be all over the Stones instead of the Beatles. The trick is die in your prime, and your legacy will always stay in your prime.Right on....I totally agree with that. I prefer the Stones also. I just think its ridiculus to compare nuGNR to The Beatles. This is the stupidest thing Ive ever heard on this forum.PERIOD!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts