Jump to content

Biggest wastes of talent


bacardimayne

Recommended Posts

Perry wrote some good riffs, Get the Lead Out, Draw the Line, Back in the Saddle (on a 6 string bass), Walk this Way et al.

Finally a voice of reason. Is Joe Perry an all time great on the level of Hendrix or Page? No. But to call him a shit guitarists or a terrible musician is just plain ignorant. His riff he wrote on walk this way alone puts him in good company imo. I'm not going to say he is better than any of the "technical" wizard guitar players that so many of you love to materbate to, but at the same time NONE of them have written a riff half as good as Walk this way, Get the lead out, moving out, and more. It just amazes me how some of you can so blindly follow flash and flair over substance, because Perry's playing has a lot more substance to it than many "shredders". Again I'm not saying he is a better guitarist than anyone, but at the same time, many of you are missing the point. A lot more to music and songwritting than just guitar instrumentals.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perry wrote some good riffs, Get the Lead Out, Draw the Line, Back in the Saddle (on a 6 string bass), Walk this Way et al.

Finally a voice of reason. Is Joe Perry an all time great on the level of Hendrix or Page? No. But to call him a shit guitarists or a terrible musician is just plain ignorant. His riff he wrote on walk this way alone puts him in good company imo. I'm not going to say he is better than any of the "technical" wizard guitar players that so many of you love to materbate to, but at the same time NONE of them have written a riff half as good as Walk this way, Get the lead out, moving out, and more. It just amazes me how some of you can so blindly follow flash and flair over substance, because Perry's playing has a lot more substance to it than many "shredders". Again I'm not saying he is a better guitarist than anyone, but at the same time, many of you are missing the point. A lot more to music and songwritting than just guitar instrumentals.

Joe Perry = Slash.

But Slash has a plus, he really is a popular culture icon.

We can discuss for eternity who is better than who, but there's not point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe Perry is fucking atrociously bad.

then wouldn't he have maximized his lack of talent if he was atrociously bad? just saying dude's been around 40+ years
He's been Steven tyler's Dead weight for 40 years. The only Aerosmith riff I can think of off the top of my head is walk this way and it isn't even very good. Edited by bacardimayne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe Perrys a crackin' guitarist, what are you lot talkin' about?

I would like to see Bacardi take Len up on his rebuttal - could become a very interesting debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ace Frehley & Peter Criss definitely wasted a lot of talent in their prime. They still were able to make a substantial impact in just a short period of time, however.

Axl Rose, for all reasons listed earlier in the thread.

Layne Staley and Kurt Cobain come to mind as well.

Andrew Wood, Mother Love Bone could and should have been massive. Apple is pretty flawless

It's a shame he died so early in his career as well. Although his death did "give" us TOTD, PJ, and Soundgarden. Even with that being said MLB is my favorite of those bands.

If I had to chose just one person, I think I'd go with Hendrix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we're talking untimely death, gotta be Stevie Ray Vaughan. The guy was easily the greatest guitar player who ever lived, in my opinion, in terms of raw talent. Died before he could even really get his sea legs going. As Eric Clapton said, Stevie didn't "play the guitar." The guitar was an extension of his soul, and if anyone was playing anything, the guitar played Stevie.

If we're talking about wasted potential by a musician that just stopped, I'd go with Creedence, John Fogerty specifically. CCR were one of the all-time monsters of song writing. 7 albums in 4 years and not a single dud of a song in the bunch. Just imagine, if they hadn't broken up for another 3-4 years, we could have had 5 more records. Fogerty's been OK solo since, but never got back to the hunger and grit on those early records. Any one of those CCR records is up there with the all-time greats. Put them together, and it's a stunning catalog; throw in the fact that the self-titled first record dropped in 1968 and the last record came out in 1972, and it's just unfathomable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Len B'stard

Joe Perrys a crackin' guitarist, what are you lot talkin' about?

I would like to see Bacardi take Len up on his rebuttal - could become a very interesting debate.

No it wouldn't cuz I dunno fuck all about Aerosmith really :lol: But I mean, i've heard...what Aerosmith albums have i heard, Pump, Rocks, Get A Grip, a few Greatest Hitses, thats Joe Perry on em and he's sick, he's bluesy, it fits the music. I mean, lets clear something up here you have people who think a good guitarist is how many styles you can play etc etc and to me, if you can make good songs with your guitar, regardless of whether your playing is rudimentary then you can't really justifiably be called a bad guitarist I mean what is the function of this thing in terms of popular music, to entertain right? So if millions of people all around the world instantly recognise his guitar playing and get off to it then he's a fuckin' good guitarist in my book, it ain't just about playing the shit it's about having the nouse to come up with it too, surely?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Len B'stard

Johnny Thunders? Not sure I can justify that though because i think his work, end to end, was amazing. But he is generally considered this like, waste of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe Perrys a crackin' guitarist, what are you lot talkin' about?

I would like to see Bacardi take Len up on his rebuttal - could become a very interesting debate.

No it wouldn't cuz I dunno fuck all about Aerosmith really :lol: But I mean, i've heard...what Aerosmith albums have i heard, Pump, Rocks, Get A Grip, a few Greatest Hitses,

Try and check out their 70s stuff, some pretty mean bluesy rock going on there. Rocks, Get Your Wings, Toys In The Attic, Draw The Line especially. I've a feeling you'll dig 'em.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2001 Guns could have been very very good. Axl Rose fits the thread perfectly.

nah, not really. axl isn't a great musician, he had a good voice, but i don't see how he wasted his talent: afd was a fantastic album, uyi was good and cd is mediocre. axl reached his limits in afd. i don't see any waste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2001 Guns could have been very very good. Axl Rose fits the thread perfectly.

nah, not really. axl isn't a great musician, he had a good voice, but i don't see how he wasted his talent: afd was a fantastic album, uyi was good and cd is mediocre. axl reached his limits in afd. i don't see any waste.

I owe you a like because I 100% agree with this.

Axl already gave us the best he had and did the best he could have ever done. He reached his peak, so no waste of talent at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it wouldn't cuz I dunno fuck all about Aerosmith really :lol: But I mean, i've heard...what Aerosmith albums have i heard, Pump, Rocks, Get A Grip, a few Greatest Hitses, thats Joe Perry on em and he's sick, he's bluesy, it fits the music. I mean, lets clear something up here you have people who think a good guitarist is how many styles you can play etc etc and to me, if you can make good songs with your guitar, regardless of whether your playing is rudimentary then you can't really justifiably be called a bad guitarist I mean what is the function of this thing in terms of popular music, to entertain right? So if millions of people all around the world instantly recognise his guitar playing and get off to it then he's a fuckin' good guitarist in my book, it ain't just about playing the shit it's about having the nouse to come up with it too, surely?

If you can make good songs with your guitar, you are a good composer, not necessarily a good guitarist. No offense, but I'm seeing a pattern by non-musicians on this board (and in real life too) of not really understanding the difference between popularity and skill (this is a reductionist dichotomization of your argument, I admit). If your playing is rudimentary, you can absolutely say that someone is a bad guitar player, but like I said, it doesn't mean they can't be a good composer. Part of the problem is that most (maybe not even most, but a large portion of) non-musicians don't really get into instrumental/complex music (which is fine, I'm not saying they should have to), so it's tough for people to understand that Guthrie Govan is 100x better than Brian May even though you've never heard of this Guthrie fellow (I think Mike was alluding to this concept in one of his earlier posts). I don't just mean technically better either, I mean, all around better.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that Guthrie's (or Jeff Loomis, or Chris Broderick, etc.) ability to play many many things that May could never dream of playing does make him (them) a better guitar player(s). Not even all guitarists would agree with this (I think Mike will disagree, which I understand). But the argument that, "musical quality is only measured by the enjoyment of the listener," I think is bogus, and perhaps even trying to save face for people who aren't as technically inclined. I will say, it doesn't make you any less of a musician to play simpler things, Brian May is just as much of an artist as Marty Friedman is, and I personally get equally as much enjoyment from listening to Albert Collins as I do from listening to Megadeth. Of course part of this relates to cultural/technological progress that allowed for more complicated pop music to be made. But you can take the example of Baroque composers, Bach in particular composed incredibely complex music - interestingly, many classical music listeners do consider some composers to be more skillful than others. For many reasons, there's a lack of will by the modern musical audience to accept that this difference occurs in modern music. To reiterate: it doesn't decrease the value of said music, it's just the way the world works... some people are better than others at things. And there are numerous (controlable and uncontrolable) variables that affect a person's musical prowess.

Now it's unlikely that either my view, or the opposing view, or somewhere in between, is wholly correct. I think it's near impossible to form a cohensive theory about this because too many people have too different of an opinion on the matter.

Also len, if you haven't, you should really listen to all of the 70's stuff, most Asmith fans agree it's pretty superior to the later stuff. I do like some of Get A Grip a lot though. moreblack hit's the nail on the head here:

Try and check out their 70s stuff, some pretty mean bluesy rock going on there. Rocks, Get Your Wings, Toys In The Attic, Draw The Line especially. I've a feeling you'll dig 'em.

+ the debut album of course.

A note on the Perry discussion continuously permeating this thread: I actually really like the J. Perry Aerosmith songs (Bright Light Fright, Walk On Down, etc.), they are honestly some of my favorite Aerosmith songs. I'd rather hear those two than Livin' On The Edge, Last Child, Walkin' The Dog...

But we shouldn't overstate Perry's contribution to Aerosmith, yes he was absolutely fundamental in writing some of their biggest hits, and without him the band probably would not have achieved their current status. But Brad Whitford plays lead guitar (and wrote) on a number of the tracks that have been mentioned in this thread. I'm not an Aerosmith expert, but I'm pretty sure Brad wrote the music to songs such as Last Child, Round and Round, Kings and Queens, and Nobody's Fault - those are some pretty classic diehard Aero songs. If anyone here is an expert on who wrote what, it would be nice if you could chime in and give a (brief) detailed run through.

Oh, and I always disliked the Walk This Way riff, the main riff of the song I always found sort of... annoying I guess, I don't have a good word for it. The verse riff is kinda cool though.

Now, I'm sure there are numerous typos in this post so please bear through them, and I've said some pretty controversial things here, and I could easily see myself re-reading this post in three weeks and thinking, "ffs, did I really type that?" But fellow music-lovers of MyGNR, please don't ostracize me. :nervous:

:P

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it wouldn't cuz I dunno fuck all about Aerosmith really :lol: But I mean, i've heard...what Aerosmith albums have i heard, Pump, Rocks, Get A Grip, a few Greatest Hitses, thats Joe Perry on em and he's sick, he's bluesy, it fits the music. I mean, lets clear something up here you have people who think a good guitarist is how many styles you can play etc etc and to me, if you can make good songs with your guitar, regardless of whether your playing is rudimentary then you can't really justifiably be called a bad guitarist I mean what is the function of this thing in terms of popular music, to entertain right? So if millions of people all around the world instantly recognise his guitar playing and get off to it then he's a fuckin' good guitarist in my book, it ain't just about playing the shit it's about having the nouse to come up with it too, surely?

If you can make good songs with your guitar, you are a good composer, not necessarily a good guitarist. No offense, but I'm seeing a pattern by non-musicians on this board (and in real life too) of not really understanding the difference between popularity and skill (this is a reductionist dichotomization of your argument, I admit). If your playing is rudimentary, you can absolutely say that someone is a bad guitar player, but like I said, it doesn't mean they can't be a good composer. Part of the problem is that most (maybe not even most, but a large portion of) non-musicians don't really get into instrumental/complex music (which is fine, I'm not saying they should have to), so it's tough for people to understand that Guthrie Govan is 100x better than Brian May even though you've never heard of this Guthrie fellow (I think Mike was alluding to this concept in one of his earlier posts). I don't just mean technically better either, I mean, all around better.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that Guthrie's (or Jeff Loomis, or Chris Broderick, etc.) ability to play many many things that May could never dream of playing does make him (them) a better guitar player(s). Not even all guitarists would agree with this (I think Mike will disagree, which I understand). But the argument that, "musical quality is only measured by the enjoyment of the listener," I think is bogus, and perhaps even trying to save face for people who aren't as technically inclined. I will say, it doesn't make you any less of a musician to play simpler things, Brian May is just as much of an artist as Marty Friedman is, and I personally get equally as much enjoyment from listening to Albert Collins as I do from listening to Megadeth. Of course part of this relates to cultural/technological progress that allowed for more complicated pop music to be made. But you can take the example of Baroque composers, Bach in particular composed incredibely complex music - interestingly, many classical music listeners do consider some composers to be more skillful than others. For many reasons, there's a lack of will by the modern musical audience to accept that this difference occurs in modern music. To reiterate: it doesn't decrease the value of said music, it's just the way the world works... some people are better than others at things. And there are numerous (controlable and uncontrolable) variables that affect a person's musical prowess.

Now it's unlikely that either my view, or the opposing view, or somewhere in between, is wholly correct. I think it's near impossible to form a cohensive theory about this because too many people have too different of an opinion on the matter.

Also len, if you haven't, you should really listen to all of the 70's stuff, most Asmith fans agree it's pretty superior to the later stuff. I do like some of Get A Grip a lot though. moreblack hit's the nail on the head here:

Try and check out their 70s stuff, some pretty mean bluesy rock going on there. Rocks, Get Your Wings, Toys In The Attic, Draw The Line especially. I've a feeling you'll dig 'em.

+ the debut album of course.

A note on the Perry discussion continuously permeating this thread: I actually really like the J. Perry Aerosmith songs (Bright Light Fright, Walk On Down, etc.), they are honestly some of my favorite Aerosmith songs. I'd rather hear those two than Livin' On The Edge, Last Child, Walkin' The Dog...

But we shouldn't overstate Perry's contribution to Aerosmith, yes he was absolutely fundamental in writing some of their biggest hits, and without him the band probably would not have achieved their current status. But Brad Whitford plays lead guitar (and wrote) on a number of the tracks that have been mentioned in this thread. I'm not an Aerosmith expert, but I'm pretty sure Brad wrote the music to songs such as Last Child, Round and Round, Kings and Queens, and Nobody's Fault - those are some pretty classic diehard Aero songs. If anyone here is an expert on who wrote what, it would be nice if you could chime in and give a (brief) detailed run through.

Oh, and I always disliked the Walk This Way riff, the main riff of the song I always found sort of... annoying I guess, I don't have a good word for it. The verse riff is kinda cool though.

Now, I'm sure there are numerous typos in this post so please bear through them, and I've said some pretty controversial things here, and I could easily see myself re-reading this post in three weeks and thinking, "ffs, did I really type that?" But fellow music-lovers of MyGNR, please don't ostracize me. :nervous:

:P

There is a Bumblefoot fan here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a Bumblefoot fan here.

Hah, well, sort of. I do like most of BBF's playing. He's obviously a really talented guitarist/musician. I like a lot of his solo stuff. But, I also don't like a lot of his solo stuff. So, fan? Yeah. Diehard defender of BBF to the death? Not really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@OmarBradley,

I get what you are saying, and I agree with most of it. Guys that can play like BBF, Satriani, Vai, Buckethead and others are extremely talented guitarists. You could even make the case that they are better "instrumentalists" than many of their more traditional contemporaries. By instrumentalists I mean strictly ablility on the instrument, not instrumental music per say. They are without a doubt the cream of the guitar crop, but my problem with a lot of these guys is that they are so good that they "act" like certain things are below them. They don't write easy riffs, instead they try and write complex riffs. My problem with this is some of the best riffs ever are really very simple (smoke on the water, welcome to the jungle, heartbreaker). So when these type players try to keep everything complex, they are actually losing something imo.

I guess the best way I can pose this question is to put the players into two catagories;

blues influenced penatonic players vs virtuosos.

By definition the virtuosos are going to appear like the more skilled players, what they can play appears limitiless, which is quite an amazing feat. But then you take a guy like Stevie Ray Vaughn. I don't think Stevie ever played a single solo outside of the blues penatonic scale, but the way he played and felt those notes was amazing. I'm sorry but you could put Buckethead or whomever else you want to name on the stage with Stevie, and Stevie is going to out solo anyone of those guys. (as long as they are playing blues type stuff). But if you put Stevie on Buckethead's stage with robots and astro music, than Stevie's playing would seem out of place. So who is really better than who? It's all very subjective. But who said music is a competition in the first place?

Bringing this back around to Joe Perry, he is not as talented of a guitarists as someone like Buckethead, no. But is Buckethead a better musician? No. Why? Because A big part of music is releasing your creativity, being an artist. So because Joe perry's art and creativity fall in the realm of blues influenced guitar playing that some how means it is worth less than a virtuosos playing? Not in the slighteset. If anything it is actually easier to make a case for Joe Perry being the superior one, why? Because facts and statistics can be used to make a case for Joe Perry; more famous, more albums sold, music is more universal, music is more well know, etc. But then the other side would say popularity doesn't mean shit, and they have a point. But my point is it is all sunbjective, and as I said before, Buckethead and other virtuosos are better guitarists yes, but better musicians or artists? No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Len B'stard
If you can make good songs with your guitar, you are a good composer, not necessarily a good guitarist. No offense, but I'm seeing a pattern by non-musicians on this board (and in real life too) of not really understanding the difference between popularity and skill (this is a reductionist dichotomization of your argument, I admit). If your playing is rudimentary, you can absolutely say that someone is a bad guitar player, but like I said, it doesn't mean they can't be a good composer. Part of the problem is that most (maybe not even most, but a large portion of) non-musicians don't really get into instrumental/complex music (which is fine, I'm not saying they should have to), so it's tough for people to understand that Guthrie Govan is 100x better than Brian May even though you've never heard of this Guthrie fellow (I think Mike was alluding to this concept in one of his earlier posts). I don't just mean technically better either, I mean, all around better.

Thing is we come to music in the form of pop music, the forum we're on is for pop music, the artists and bands, by and large, that we listen to are popular music, i don't think I've misunderstood you i think you misunderstand me. I'm not confusing popularity and skill, I'm highlighting a broader parameter of what comes under skill because i believe that the ear to create the sounds that speak to a wide range of people is a skill in and of itself and that can make you a BRILLIANT guitarist with relatively rudimentary skill set in terms of the textbook stuff.

End of the day music is a form of communication, so the more people a piece of communicates to the better it is in my opinion, on one level at least.

Edited by sugaraylen
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think thats why it is important to seperate being a instrumentalist from being a great musician/composer/artist. Sure a great instrumentalist can also be a great composer/musician/artist also, but it does appear that many great instrumentalist do lack something in the composing area. Not that they don't compose technically great music, because they do. But their music is like niche' type music, it is not for a lot of people. I've been using Buckehead as an example and will continue to do so, his music is great for his niche' and for the people that like that kind of music, but not for the masses, or even for the rock audiences (which we are no longer part of the masses either). Where as someone like Joe Perry has created or helped create music that has found a significant larger audience than Buckethead has. Does that mean that Joe Perry is the better musican? No. But he might be the better composer. He has a better ear for music that other people will respond to. While Buckethead and others tend to create music that THEY respond to. Which isn't a bad thing, but it is creating an elitist type attitude. Which imo as a musician, the more people that respond positivly to your music the better. I'm not passing judgement or saying that one attitude is better than the other, but for me, I prefer music that is more inclusive by nature, not exclusive. Which imo most guitar virtuoso music is VERY exclusive, only certain people get it. But just about everyone can "get" Walk this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Len B'stard

The way i see it is, like i said before, it's a form of communication...so on the one hand you got Johnny Ramone and he's sold loads of albums (relatively speaking) is something of a legend and all these musos go 'he's shit, he's shit, it's just barre chords!'

But this bloke over in Eastern Europe somewhere called Darius Witkowski who three nerds out of Leicester University have heard of is shitloads better cuz he could fuckin' play every chord known to mankind and shred for 40 minutes without breaking a sweat, sorry but i just don't buy that.

I suppose one answer to my position could be 'OK, your rudimentary pop guitarist speaks to millions and the muso types speak to less people with their complex music but they say something a lot grander with it' which, OK, that could be the case too but then what good is the profound if you need 3 degrees to clock its profundity?

Pop music is a dirty word to a lot of people but i love it, most of the music i listen to is pop music and i think that goes for most people on here so like, y'know, you can excel within that sphere the way chaps like Jimi and Page and them did...but try not and lose sight of exactly what this shit is and is about and is for.

The level of arrogance is incongruous with the sphere that those people are operating within, you don't have the right to develop a superiority complex over that shit, whatever you layer on top of however slick you are on the fretboard it's still rock n roll. People that compose operas, concertos, stuff like that, those are the people of that breed, you can't transplant those values wholesale onto popular music, it would destroy it.

And i don't mean that to be rude I mean sincerely, those other forms of music offer a challenge for people of that kind of mentality, there's just so much more you can do with it, it's the place for it, its designed for that sort of grandeur of scope and intent. Not saying popular music should never reach for something more cuz it should but it will always fundamentally be pop music. People that are THAT talented are doing themselves a disservice sitting around comparing themselves to Johnny Ramone and Joe Perry, it's like Messi wondering what the local primary schools 5 a side team is doing, those people should be up in their in their proper weight class.

UNLESS...the king doesn't have any clothes and they really aren't as talented as they say and their prediliction towards slumming with the rock n rollers is indicative of this lack in talent, its easy to be a big fish in a small pond and give it large like that than it is to get there in amongst the big boys and show your worth.

Edited by sugaraylen
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name="sugaraylen" post="3708862" timestamp="1395841665"

UNLESS...the king doesn't have any clothes and they really aren't as talented as they say and their prediliction towards slumming with the rock n rollers is indicative of this lack in talent, its easy to be a big fish in a small pond and give it large like that than it is to get there in amongst the big boys and show your worth.

Interesting thought.

I'll add that it is these guys own ego's that get in the their own way imo. How is it that as soon as Buckethead joined gnr, he became a lot more relevant? Same goes for Vai and Satriani. When Vai teamed up with DLR during the 80's, that's when he made his most enduring and recognizable music. When Satriani teamed up with Hagar to form Chickenfoot, his popularity alos increased (realitvly speaking, he did find a larger audience.) But my point is that these guys are so talented on the guitar that they let their ego's get in the way. It's like they refuse any outside help creating music, it has to be 100% their's or they don't want to be a part of it. But as soon as they get a good songwritting partner, they reach a new level of success. But at least in Vai's and Buckethead's case, they couldn't wait to quit and go back to doing their "own" music on the smaller scale? Why??? I know many would argue artistic credibilty or that they don't need help, but that is clearly not the case. I'm not a huge Buckethead fan, but I would say without a doubt his greatest guitar work is on Chinese Democracy, but yet he couldn't wait to get out of gnr (we can blame Axl for that all day long, but Buckethead clearly didn't really want to be there, it was just a platform for him to get more exposure for his solo stuff.) My verdict is that these guys are great guitarists, but none of them can write a vsong worth a damn. So instead they write guitar instrumental pieces, which even though they are "amazing" they are hiding the fact that as Lenny said "The king has no clothes." It sure does beg the question.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try and check out their 70s stuff, some pretty mean bluesy rock going on there. Rocks, Get Your Wings, Toys In The Attic, Draw The Line especially. I've a feeling you'll dig 'em.

+ the debut album of course.

I'd say tread with caution re: the debut album, Steven's voice sounds terrible on that one.

Edited by moreblack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try and check out their 70s stuff, some pretty mean bluesy rock going on there. Rocks, Get Your Wings, Toys In The Attic, Draw The Line especially. I've a feeling you'll dig 'em.

+ the debut album of course.
I'd say tread with caution re: the debut album, Steven's voice sounds terrible on that one.

I wouldn't say he sounds "terrible" but he does sound different. He still does that voice on occasion in concert. It is Tyler's Mickey Mouse, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Len B'stard

Thanks, i'll have a listen. Actually really used to like em when i was little. Not that i dont now its just i dont listen to em much anymore. I kinda never got round to the earlier stuff and then when i heard Sing for the Moment by Eminem my mate told me that was Tyler on the chorus and it was like damn, so thats what he sounds like on the early stuff? Kinda put it on the back burner for me. Then i read Slashes book bigging up Rocks so i went and got it and it was like OK, that voice is better, thats what im talking about, back in the saddle, vocals on that are sick.

I used to have arguments with this guy who worked in CD Warehouse like 'Aerosmith vs GnR' with me being on the Guns side, this was around the time Honkin' on Bobo came out.

Edited by sugaraylen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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