Jump to content

NEW Legendary Rock Interview with Vicky Hamilton


LRI

Recommended Posts

Guns N' Roses anno 2012 is just as real as Guns N' Roses anno 1988. It's not the same, because band members have changed, the musical expression has evolved (albeit still typical GN'R), the look has changed, and so on, but it is still the same band. And the fact that the new music creates new fans, tells me the band is still relevant. To take anything away from people who like a particular lineup, whether it is the AFD or the 2001 lineup, by claiming that that is not the "real Guns N' Roses" is just silly and suggest one is either weak in the head or hasn't thought things through by realizing that many bands go through changes, some ever more drastic than GN'R's, and that one's own feelings of what the real band is may not be universally shared.

:no:

picard.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guns N' Roses anno 2012 is just as real as Guns N' Roses anno 1988. It's not the same, because band members have changed, the musical expression has evolved (albeit still typical GN'R), the look has changed, and so on, but it is still the same band. And the fact that the new music creates new fans, tells me the band is still relevant. To take anything away from people who like a particular lineup, whether it is the AFD or the 2001 lineup, by claiming that that is not the "real Guns N' Roses" is just silly and suggest one is either weak in the head or hasn't thought things through by realizing that many bands go through changes, some ever more drastic than GN'R's, and that one's own feelings of what the real band is may not be universally shared.

:no:

Thank you for not having arguments :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does an interview with Vicky Hamilton impact GNR 2012?

Better question,how much did she get paid to do this shoddy journalism bit?

If the new would give us something to talk about, which they haven't since 2008, then maybe people would shut the fuck about about old v new.

The old hasn't given us anything to talk about since 1994 so by your logic we definitely shouldn't talk about them...

Besides, the current lineup has given us a new record in 2008, lots of tours, a new web page, streamed shows, etc etc ad nauseum.

I'm agreeing with SM, there have been numerous perks for the Fans of the band. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way I don't think that Axl had anything to do with the Top hat thing at the new shows. It's most likely the venue trying to avoid a problem if they think that it could upset Axl. This is another case of both sides are telling the truth. Vicky was there and saw it happen and Axl didn't give the order to have that done.

Also the thing about Vicky is the band would have still got signed with out her because Tom Zutaut already had the band on his list to see right before Vicky starting to work with the band. However the fact that Vicky was working with the band at the time Tom did see them, gave the band much more clout because of Vicky's track record with the Crue, Poison and stryper. She was the real deal. She also got 30 k in funding that she put into the band in just 3 months (Thats about 4 times more then I had helped with in 1 year) and when the band decided they wanted to work with someone that had more experience to take the signed band to a much bigger level, they dumped her and when the time came where the band had some money, they didn't offer to pay her back the money she had raised for the band. I was not happy about that. The only thing that could have went wrong is someone may have advised the band not to open a can of worms. Maybe if they would have just gave her 50k like Slash and Axl had talked about doing for her when they dumped her, I remember them saying that she will get it when they have it. Maybe the reason they didn't do it was, it may have opened the door for her asking for much more with the court system?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way I don't think that Axl had anything to do with the Top hat thing at the new shows. It's most likely the venue trying to avoid a problem if they think that it could upset Axl. This is another case of both sides are telling the truth. Vicky was there and saw it happen and Axl didn't give the order to have that done.

Also the thing about Vicky is the band would have still got signed with out her because Tom Zutaut already had the band on his list to see right before Vicky starting to work with the band. However the fact that Vicky was working with the band at the time Tom did see them, gave the band much more clout because of Vicky's track record with the Crue, Poison and stryper. She was the real deal. She also got 30 k in funding that she put into the band in just 3 months (Thats about 4 times more then I had helped with in 1 year) and when the band decided they wanted to work with someone that had more experience to take the signed band to a much bigger level, they dumped her and when the time came where the band had some money, they didn't offer to pay her back the money she had raised for the band. I was not happy about that. The only thing that could have went wrong is someone may have advised the band not to open a can of worms. Maybe if they would have just gave her 50k like Slash and Axl had talked about doing for her when they dumped her, I remember them saying that she will get it when they have it. Maybe the reason they didn't do it was, it may have opened the door for her asking for much more with the court system?

"Axl was Not the most difficult to work with,Brett Michaels was". Vicky Hamilton

vicky Hamilton article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guns N' Roses anno 2012 is just as real as Guns N' Roses anno 1988. It's not the same, because band members have changed, the musical expression has evolved (albeit still typical GN'R), the look has changed, and so on, but it is still the same band. And the fact that the new music creates new fans, tells me the band is still relevant. To take anything away from people who like a particular lineup, whether it is the AFD or the 2001 lineup, by claiming that that is not the "real Guns N' Roses" is just silly and suggest one is either weak in the head or hasn't thought things through by realizing that many bands go through changes, some ever more drastic than GN'R's, and that one's own feelings of what the real band is may not be universally shared.

:no:

Thank you for not having arguments :D

What arguments?

Do you really thinks that only one member of the glorious band in the current "GNR" is real just as 1988?

And you want arguments?

Laughable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guns N' Roses anno 2012 is just as real as Guns N' Roses anno 1988. It's not the same, because band members have changed, the musical expression has evolved (albeit still typical GN'R), the look has changed, and so on, but it is still the same band. And the fact that the new music creates new fans, tells me the band is still relevant. To take anything away from people who like a particular lineup, whether it is the AFD or the 2001 lineup, by claiming that that is not the "real Guns N' Roses" is just silly and suggest one is either weak in the head or hasn't thought things through by realizing that many bands go through changes, some ever more drastic than GN'R's, and that one's own feelings of what the real band is may not be universally shared.

:no:

Thank you for not having arguments :D

What arguments?

Do you really thinks that only one member of the glorious band in the current "GNR" is real just as 1988?

And you want arguments?

Laughable.

I do not "think" anything, I understand that the name of a band, or the band's "realness", is not tied up in any specific band members being present. You can exchange all members in GN'R and the band would still be as real as ever, just very different and perhaps much worse. I find it perplexing how difficult such concepts are to people here and how so many have such a muddy understanding of concepts like "original" and "real". I have no problems agreeing that in my subjective opinion today's lineup leaves a lot to be desired compared to the AFD lineup, but I don't confuse this sentiment with any silliness about the current Guns N' Roses not being as "real" as the AFD lineup. I am afraid you either have a problems with words or that you are deliberately trolling the forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guns N' Roses anno 2012 is just as real as Guns N' Roses anno 1988. It's not the same, because band members have changed, the musical expression has evolved (albeit still typical GN'R), the look has changed, and so on, but it is still the same band. And the fact that the new music creates new fans, tells me the band is still relevant. To take anything away from people who like a particular lineup, whether it is the AFD or the 2001 lineup, by claiming that that is not the "real Guns N' Roses" is just silly and suggest one is either weak in the head or hasn't thought things through by realizing that many bands go through changes, some ever more drastic than GN'R's, and that one's own feelings of what the real band is may not be universally shared.

:no:

Thank you for not having arguments :D

What arguments?

Do you really thinks that only one member of the glorious band in the current "GNR" is real just as 1988?

And you want arguments?

Laughable.

everybody knows by now SlulMonster makes a tool out of himself everytime he writes anything, he hasn't realized it by now so he keeps doing it, but for your own bennefit, try to avoid him lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vicky: Axl is just…..I mean, he had people thrown out of the forum for wearing top hats (laughs).

AxlDJ.jpg

Not sure how he missed that one if that's the case.

I was at the recent Forum gig and I saw a guy with a top hat/wig there. So, not true.

Ali

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guns N' Roses anno 2012 is just as real as Guns N' Roses anno 1988. It's not the same, because band members have changed, the musical expression has evolved (albeit still typical GN'R), the look has changed, and so on, but it is still the same band. And the fact that the new music creates new fans, tells me the band is still relevant. To take anything away from people who like a particular lineup, whether it is the AFD or the 2001 lineup, by claiming that that is not the "real Guns N' Roses" is just silly and suggest one is either weak in the head or hasn't thought things through by realizing that many bands go through changes, some ever more drastic than GN'R's, and that one's own feelings of what the real band is may not be universally shared.

:no:

Thank you for not having arguments :D

What arguments?

Do you really thinks that only one member of the glorious band in the current "GNR" is real just as 1988?

And you want arguments?

Laughable.

everybody knows by now SlulMonster makes a tool out of himself everytime he writes anything, he hasn't realized it by now so he keeps doing it, but for your own bennefit, try to avoid him lol

Instead of trying to avoid me because you think that whenever I write something I make a tool of myself -- which should really be a reason to engage me as often as possible :D -- you guys could try to not flood the board with your garbled writings (like your post above), flawed thinking (exemplified in your post above) and weak grasp on what words mean (see Motivation).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way I don't think that Axl had anything to do with the Top hat thing at the new shows. It's most likely the venue trying to avoid a problem if they think that it could upset Axl. This is another case of both sides are telling the truth. Vicky was there and saw it happen and Axl didn't give the order to have that done.

Also the thing about Vicky is the band would have still got signed with out her because Tom Zutaut already had the band on his list to see right before Vicky starting to work with the band. However the fact that Vicky was working with the band at the time Tom did see them, gave the band much more clout because of Vicky's track record with the Crue, Poison and stryper. She was the real deal. She also got 30 k in funding that she put into the band in just 3 months (Thats about 4 times more then I had helped with in 1 year) and when the band decided they wanted to work with someone that had more experience to take the signed band to a much bigger level, they dumped her and when the time came where the band had some money, they didn't offer to pay her back the money she had raised for the band. I was not happy about that. The only thing that could have went wrong is someone may have advised the band not to open a can of worms. Maybe if they would have just gave her 50k like Slash and Axl had talked about doing for her when they dumped her, I remember them saying that she will get it when they have it. Maybe the reason they didn't do it was, it may have opened the door for her asking for much more with the court system?

If they felt bad, they could've given her the money anonymously..

Edited by Aussiegun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way I don't think that Axl had anything to do with the Top hat thing at the new shows. It's most likely the venue trying to avoid a problem if they think that it could upset Axl. This is another case of both sides are telling the truth. Vicky was there and saw it happen and Axl didn't give the order to have that done.

Also the thing about Vicky is the band would have still got signed with out her because Tom Zutaut already had the band on his list to see right before Vicky starting to work with the band. However the fact that Vicky was working with the band at the time Tom did see them, gave the band much more clout because of Vicky's track record with the Crue, Poison and stryper. She was the real deal. She also got 30 k in funding that she put into the band in just 3 months (Thats about 4 times more then I had helped with in 1 year) and when the band decided they wanted to work with someone that had more experience to take the signed band to a much bigger level, they dumped her and when the time came where the band had some money, they didn't offer to pay her back the money she had raised for the band. I was not happy about that. The only thing that could have went wrong is someone may have advised the band not to open a can of worms. Maybe if they would have just gave her 50k like Slash and Axl had talked about doing for her when they dumped her, I remember them saying that she will get it when they have it. Maybe the reason they didn't do it was, it may have opened the door for her asking for much more with the court system?

Great response. Thank you for the information and clarity. Nice to hear from people that were actually involved and around - instead of just fans throwing out speculations.

This board has a small section of a negative dynamic to it. There are people who still harbor grudges towards Axl and come here just to bash him. THEN there are a group of posters who worship Axl and if anybody says something negative about him, they imediately go on the attack. So Vicky, who actually worked with Axl and the band, isn't allowed to post her opinion because she is clearly biased.

Any producer that worked with Axl, any band member that worked with him, any music journalist, any band that played or opened for GnR, any human being that has every met Axl............if they say something negative about him, then - according to some on this forum - they are just ignorant, jealous, biased jerks who know nothing. But if they say something positive about Axl - then they are intelligent, non-biased, people giving an honest and well-thought out opinion. It's quite funny to watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guns N' Roses anno 2012 is just as real as Guns N' Roses anno 1988. It's not the same, because band members have changed, the musical expression has evolved (albeit still typical GN'R), the look has changed, and so on, but it is still the same band. And the fact that the new music creates new fans, tells me the band is still relevant. To take anything away from people who like a particular lineup, whether it is the AFD or the 2001 lineup, by claiming that that is not the "real Guns N' Roses" is just silly and suggest one is either weak in the head or hasn't thought things through by realizing that many bands go through changes, some ever more drastic than GN'R's, and that one's own feelings of what the real band is may not be universally shared.

:no:

Thank you for not having arguments :D

What arguments?i

Do you really thinks that only one member of the glorious band in the current "GNR" is real just as 1988?

And you want arguments?

Laughable.

everybody knows by now SlulMonster makes a tool out of himself everytime he writes anything, he hasn't realized it by now so he keeps doing it, but for your own bennefit, try to avoid him lol

Instead of trying to avoid me because you think that whenever I write something I make a tool of myself -- which should really be a reason to engage me as often as possible :D -- you guys could try to not flood the board with your garbled writings (like your post above), flawed thinking (exemplified in your post above) and weak grasp on what words mean (see Motivation).

Nobody is attempting to avoid you,that said you need to realize that everyone will not blindly agree with your opinions. You attempt to come off as arrogance personified,and assume everyone except you have "flawed thinking" or don't have a grasp of the English language.

This topic was created,for some unknown reason to discuss Vicky Hamilton and her role in GNR history. If you care to contribute a thought within those parameters,please do so.

is Vicky the rocket queen girl?

the one Axl has sex with on the record,literally?

No. Pretty sure it was Adrian Smith.

The Rocket Queen voice that spiced up the song is Adriana Smith.

The last I heard she was forming a band. :)

is Vicky the rocket queen girl?

the one Axl has sex with on the record,literally?

No, Sex sounds,literally and the participant was Adriana Smith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way I don't think that Axl had anything to do with the Top hat thing at the new shows. It's most likely the venue trying to avoid a problem if they think that it could upset Axl. This is another case of both sides are telling the truth. Vicky was there and saw it happen and Axl didn't give the order to have that done.

Also the thing about Vicky is the band would have still got signed with out her because Tom Zutaut already had the band on his list to see right before Vicky starting to work with the band. However the fact that Vicky was working with the band at the time Tom did see them, gave the band much more clout because of Vicky's track record with the Crue, Poison and stryper. She was the real deal. She also got 30 k in funding that she put into the band in just 3 months (Thats about 4 times more then I had helped with in 1 year) and when the band decided they wanted to work with someone that had more experience to take the signed band to a much bigger level, they dumped her and when the time came where the band had some money, they didn't offer to pay her back the money she had raised for the band. I was not happy about that. The only thing that could have went wrong is someone may have advised the band not to open a can of worms. Maybe if they would have just gave her 50k like Slash and Axl had talked about doing for her when they dumped her, I remember them saying that she will get it when they have it. Maybe the reason they didn't do it was, it may have opened the door for her asking for much more with the court system?

Great response. Thank you for the information and clarity. Nice to hear from people that were actually involved and around - instead of just fans throwing out speculations.

This board has a small section of a negative dynamic to it. There are people who still harbor grudges towards Axl and come here just to bash him. THEN there are a group of posters who worship Axl and if anybody says something negative about him, they imediately go on the attack. So Vicky, who actually worked with Axl and the band, isn't allowed to post her opinion because she is clearly biased.

Any producer that worked with Axl, any band member that worked with him, any music journalist, any band that played or opened for GnR, any human being that has every met Axl............if they say something negative about him, then - according to some on this forum - they are just ignorant, jealous, biased jerks who know nothing. But if they say something positive about Axl - then they are intelligent, non-biased, people giving an honest and well-thought out opinion. It's quite funny to watch.

Your supposed air of superiority doesn't change the fact that you flip-flop back and forth first supporting the band,then magically become a monotonous uninformed critic.

Marc doesn't need your seal of approval :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not "think" anything, I understand that the name of a band, or the band's "realness", is not tied up in any specific band members being present. You can exchange all members in GN'R and the band would still be as real as ever, just very different and perhaps much worse. I find it perplexing how difficult such concepts are to people here and how so many have such a muddy understanding of concepts like "original" and "real". I have no problems agreeing that in my subjective opinion today's lineup leaves a lot to be desired compared to the AFD lineup, but I don't confuse this sentiment with any silliness about the current Guns N' Roses not being as "real" as the AFD lineup. I am afraid you either have a problems with words or that you are deliberately trolling the forum.

Okay

You have your OWN defintion to original and real. If you aren't understanding what is the real and original means in GNR's case it's your problem.

I am afraid you either have a problems with words or that you are deliberately trolling the forum

So if i don't consider this band as Guns n' Roses i'm a cupcake?

Oh god, how many cupcakes living on this world? :rolleyes:

everybody knows by now SlulMonster makes a tool out of himself everytime he writes anything, he hasn't realized it by now so he keeps doing it, but for your own bennefit, try to avoid him lol

Thanks for the advice, but i tried to avoid the namecallings too...

Edited by Motivation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have your OWN defintion to original and real.

Yes, understanding "original" as meaning the first/earliest and "real" as opposed to unreal, is my very own definitions :D

If you aren't understanding what is the real and original means in GNR's case it's your problem.

Of course I understand that many guys here have a problem expressing that they consider the AFD lineup the best lineup and hence mistakenly refer to it as the "original Guns N' Roses" or "real Guns N' Roses".

So if i don't consider this band as Guns n' Roses i'm a cupcake?

No, but if you continuously express this silly lie in an effort to create noise on a fan board, then you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have your OWN defintion to original and real.

Yes, understanding "original" as meaning the first/earliest and "real" as opposed to unreal, is my very own definitions :D

If you aren't understanding what is the real and original means in GNR's case it's your problem.

Of course I understand that many guys here have a problem expressing that they consider the AFD lineup the best lineup and hence mistakenly refer to it as the "original Guns N' Roses" or "real Guns N' Roses".

So if i don't consider this band as Guns n' Roses i'm a cupcake?

No, but if you continuously express this silly lie in an effort to create noise on a fan board, then you are.

So i'm a liar now...

Please stop the namecallings or i will report you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So i'm a liar now...

Please stop the namecallings or i will report you

If you claim that Guns N' Roses is not going to tour Europe this year, you are lying. There's no other way around it. Sorry.

Oh fuck off!

I'm really tired of you!

The owner of the GNR name touring Europe this year and i hope they put out some good shows and everybody have a great time on here and there, but c'mon...

:thumbsdown:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So i'm a liar now...

Please stop the namecallings or i will report you

If you claim that Guns N' Roses is not going to tour Europe this year, you are lying. There's no other way around it. Sorry.

Oh fuck off!

I'm really tired of you!

The owner of the GNR name touring Europe this year and i hope they put out some good shows and everybody have a great time on here and there, but c'mon...

:thumbsdown:

Hrmph, I'd thought you'd show more gratitude to the person who surprised you with the good news that Guns N' Roses never disbanded after a few guys quit, but kept on through adversity and will be touring Europe this summer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So i'm a liar now...

Please stop the namecallings or i will report you

If you claim that Guns N' Roses is not going to tour Europe this year, you are lying. There's no other way around it. Sorry.

Oh fuck off!

I'm really tired of you!

The owner of the GNR name touring Europe this year and i hope they put out some good shows and everybody have a great time on here and there, but c'mon...

:thumbsdown:

Hrmph, I'd thought you'd show more gratitude to the person who surprised you with the good news that Guns N' Roses never disbanded after a few guys quit, but kept on through adversity and will be touring Europe this summer.

I don't usually like how arrogant you come off with your opinions in posts.....but I have to admit, that was a pretty great response. Made me laugh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...