They should play something from Slash

[RussTCB]

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I suppose you consider Paul McCartney to be ''covering'' a Beatles song when he plays, say, 'We Can Work It Out''?

Kinda OT, kinda not but it irritates me to no end when I look at Jack White setlists and they list songs like Seven Nation Army as "White Stripes cover". Every setlist I've seen on sites like setlist.fm are like that. It'll be like:

Fell In Love With A Girl (White Stripes cover)
Blunderbuss
Three Women
Hotel Yorba (White Stripes cover)
Lazaretto
Alone In My Home
Love Interuption
Hello Operator (White Stripes cover)

...and so on. It just irritates the shit out of me. Stripes were a 2 piece band for christssake, and JWIII wrote all the songs. So because he's playing his own songs with someone else on drums it's a cover??

[SoulMonster]

11 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

So you are not even going to accommodate the fact that, if GN'R play 'Slither', you will be witnessing two of the creators playing that song? Moving from 'Slither' to 'The Seeker' we are filing a song co-written by Slash and Duff, evident on stage before our eyes, with a song written by Pete Townsend before Guns N' Roses were conceived!!

I suppose you consider Paul McCartney to be ''covering'' a Beatles song when he plays, say, 'We Can Work It Out''?

What an idiot.

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.

2 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

Kinda OT, kinda not but it irritates me to no end when I look at Jack White setlists and they list songs like Seven Nation Army as "White Stripes cover". Every setlist I've seen on sites like setlist.fm are like that. It'll be like:

Fell In Love With A Girl (White Stripes cover)
Blunderbuss
Three Women
Hotel Yorba (White Stripes cover)
Lazaretto
Alone In My Home
Love Interuption
Hello Operator (White Stripes cover)

...and so on. It just irritates the shit out of me. Stripes were a 2 piece band for christssake, and JWIII wrote all the songs. So because he's playing his own songs with someone else on drums it's a cover??

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.

[bigpoop]

Who gives a fuck if it's a cover, he should just play it as an accommodation to Slash. This I Love is one of the worst songs ever recorded and Slash goes out and there plays it every night. He shouldn't get something in return?

[SoulMonster]

14 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

What an idiot.

No need to add ad hominem attacks to the list of your fallacies.

[DieselDaisy]

9 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

Kinda OT, kinda not but it irritates me to no end when I look at Jack White setlists and they list songs like Seven Nation Army as "White Stripes cover". Every setlist I've seen on sites like setlist.fm are like that. It'll be like:

Fell In Love With A Girl (White Stripes cover)
Blunderbuss
Three Women
Hotel Yorba (White Stripes cover)
Lazaretto
Alone In My Home
Love Interuption
Hello Operator (White Stripes cover)

...and so on. It just irritates the shit out of me. Stripes were a 2 piece band for christssake, and JWIII wrote all the songs. So because he's playing his own songs with someone else on drums it's a cover??

A Neil Young setlist will include songs recorded under '....with Crazy Horse', written/recorded as part of 'Buffalo Springfield', 'Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young' and incidental groups such as 'Stills-Young', 'Blue Notes' and 'Promise of the Real', yet at no point is anyone sitting there, seeing 'Mr Soul' or 'Helpless', and thinking ''another lame cover - time for a beer break''. There is a world of difference between Guns (as it is now) playing something like 'Slither', the creative/recording output of two GN'R members' craft, and The Seeker, a Who song written by Pete Townsend c.1970 - a world of difference. Yet by regarding Slither as a 'cover' we are chucking the song in the same mix as outright covers such as 'The Seeker' and 'Live And Let Die' and refusing to acknowledge it being identifiable with two of the members on stage. It is absurd - Soul's thinking!

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

No need to add ad hominem attacks to the list of your fallacies.

...as opposed to your ad hominem attacks (e.g. questioning my intelligence level, etc.) - you started this so I will sure as hell continue it?

Edited August 15, 2016 by DieselDaisy

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

A Neil Young setlist will include songs recorded under '....with Crazy Horse', written/recorded as part of 'Buffalo Springfield', 'Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young' and incidental groups such as 'Stills-Young', 'Blue Notes' and 'Promise of the Real', yet at no point is anyone sitting there, seeing 'Mr Soul' or 'Helpless', and thinking ''another lame cover - time for a beer break''. There is a world of difference between Guns (as it is now) playing something like 'Slither', the creative/recording output of two GN'R members' craft, and The Seeker, a Who song written by Pete Townsend c.1970 - a world of difference. Yet by regarding Slither as a 'cover' we are chucking the song in the same mix as outright covers such as 'The Seeker' and 'Live And Let Die' and refusing to acknowledge it being identifiable with two of the members on stage. It is absurd - Soul's thinking!

...as opposed to your ad hominem attacks (e.g. questioning my intelligence level, etc.) - you started this so I will sure as hell continue it?

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.

[AxlCole]

1 hour ago, bigpoop said:

Who gives a fuck if it's a cover, he should just play it as an accommodation to Slash. This I Love is one of the worst songs ever recorded and Slash goes out and there plays it every night. He shouldn't get something in return?

Does it strike you that maybe he likes "This I Love" and enjoys playing it, and doesn't _want_ or _care_ to play "Slither"? 

[Ktex]

I would very much like to hear:

 

Yesterdays

The Garden

You're Crazy- Lies Version

Breakdown

Dead Horse

So Fine

 

But that being said, what they are playing is so bad ass, it's not that big of a deal.

[Changes]

11 minutes ago, AxlCole said:

Does it strike you that maybe he likes "This I Love" and enjoys playing it, and doesn't _want_ or _care_ to play "Slither"? 

Honestly I find that unlikely. He was never a fan of the piano ballads and I think he made some derogatory remarks about This I Love back in the day. Instead of spending like a fourth of the shows playing ballads he never liked (and the additions since UYI are arguably of lower quality), I am sure he wouldn't mind playing one of his biggest accomplishments outside GNR once in a while. 

[AxlCole]

3 minutes ago, Changes said:

Honestly I find that unlikely. He was never a fan of the piano ballads and I think he made some derogatory remarks about This I Love back in the day. Instead of spending like a fourth of the shows playing ballads he never liked (and the additions since UYI are arguably of lower quality), I am sure he wouldn't mind playing one of his biggest accomplishments outside GNR once in a while. 

He's also said that it's not true that he wasn't a fan of the piano ballads.  That was actually one of their points of disagreements: Axl claiming he had to push Slash to play the ballads, and Slash saying that wasn't true. 

As far as "Slither", it could also bring up bad memories.  It hasn't been so long since Scott died, and as Slash has said, he didn't enjoy the success they had during that time at all because Scott was such a nightmare to deal with.  So, that, and the fact that it's not a GnR song (even if in name only) and the covers they do aren't any of their other projects, might be some of the reasons why they wouldn't do it. 

But who knows?  Maybe they will eventually.  What I object to is everyone acting like they _know_ that somehow certain songs are being forced on Slash, or doing other ones are a 'concession' to him. 

[DieselDaisy]

3 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

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.

Let's face it, everybody does (attending the show). You do not go to a show by band x desiring band x to play songs by band y: you go to hear band x play band x's songs. Witness the antagonism on here concerning 'The Seeker', a perfectly fine Who single of which I'm sure Guns do a decent rendition. People would much prefer Illusion deep cuts over 'The Seeker'. And also, with a few rare exceptions such as Hendrix's 'Watchtower', covers rarely live up to the original.

 

[Blackstar]

2 hours ago, AxlCole said:

He's also said that it's not true that he wasn't a fan of the piano ballads.  That was actually one of their points of disagreements: Axl claiming he had to push Slash to play the ballads, and Slash saying that wasn't true. 

The truth is Slash didn't like the piano ballads, but he wrote guitar parts and played on them because they were a band or for Axl's sake. He didn't like playing them live. After the Illusions he didn't want to do any more ballads. He has said so himself.

There were never any problems really about the stylistic direction of the band, untill Axl started disagreeing with the rest of us at one moment. It clearly became harder for us to be ourselves, as long as we were working together with him. Can you imagine how sick we were, suddenly having to play ballad-sets with songs like "Estranged", "November Rain", or "Don't Cry". Duff was the first of us who didn't feel like doing that anymore and the whole thing became an essential problem for the band, because we, accomplished musicians, needed to be changed just because of 'stylistic self-circumcision'. At a certain point it was just a war, because Axl didn't like anything anymore that came from us, the others. (Slash interview, 2000)

Well, 'cause... You know, he's not doing... At one point he said he was gonna a solo project, then he decided his solo project he could do with Guns, which I was like, after doing all those videos and this and that and the other, I was like: "No". [laughs]
No, I don't wanna get involved in any kind of Stephanie Seymour ballads or any of that shit. (Slash interview 1994) (The "Stephanie Seymour ballad" was allegedly TIL)

Maybe he has changed his mind now. Musicians' tastes and preferences may change over the years.

I would like them to play a VR song with Axl singing, just for the symbolism of it. I don't care if it is considered a cover or not.

 

Edited August 15, 2016 by Blackstar

[AxlCole]

50 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

The truth is Slash didn't like the piano ballads, but he wrote guitar parts and played on them because they were a band or for Axl's sake. He didn't like playing them live. After the Illusions he didn't want to do any more ballads. He has said so himself.

There were never any problems really about the stylistic direction of the band, untill Axl started disagreeing with the rest of us at one moment. It clearly became harder for us to be ourselves, as long as we were working together with him. Can you imagine how sick we were, suddenly having to play ballad-sets with songs like "Estranged", "November Rain", or "Don't Cry". Duff was the first of us who didn't feel like doing that anymore and the whole thing became an essential problem for the band, because we, accomplished musicians, needed to be changed just because of 'stylistic self-circumcision'. At a certain point it was just a war, because Axl didn't like anything anymore that came from us, the others. (Slash interview, 2000)

Well, 'cause... You know, he's not doing... At one point he said he was gonna a solo project, then he decided his solo project he could do with Guns, which I was like, after doing all those videos and this and that and the other, I was like: "No". [laughs]
No, I don't wanna get involved in any kind of Stephanie Seymour ballads or any of that shit. I took off and then he threatened to sue me, because he wanted the material back that I'd written and already recorded. (Slash interview 1994) (The "Stephanie Seymour ballad" was allegedly TIL)

Maybe he has changed his mind now. Musicians' tastes and preferences may change over the years.

 

Interesting interviews.  Do you have a direct link toe the 2000 one?  It keeps looping me back to this thread.  I ask because the 94 interview sounds like him, but the 2000 one just doesn't sound like him..... the way he talks... the way he phrases things.... the types of words he uses.... it sounds like maybe a bad interpretation from a foreign source.

Anyway, I agree that his preferences may have changed over the years... I mean, a lot has.  I remember him also saying he didn't used to like to play "Sweet Child" but now he does and he's proud of it. 

[Blackstar]

4 minutes ago, AxlCole said:

Interesting interviews.  Do you have a direct link toe the 2000 one?  It keeps looping me back to this thread.  I ask because the 94 interview sounds like him, but the 2000 one just doesn't sound like him..... the way he talks... the way he phrases things.... the types of words he uses.... it sounds like maybe a bad interpretation from a foreign source.

Yes, it is from a German magazine: http://www.gnrevolution.com/viewtopic.php?pid=53912

(I corrected the link in my post above)

Edited August 15, 2016 by Blackstar

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

Let's face it, everybody does (attending the show). You do not go to a show by band x desiring band x to play songs by band y: you go to hear band x play band x's songs. Witness the antagonism on here concerning 'The Seeker', a perfectly fine Who single of which I'm sure Guns do a decent rendition. People would much prefer Illusion deep cuts over 'The Seeker'. And also, with a few rare exceptions such as Hendrix's 'Watchtower', covers rarely live up to the original.

 

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.

[DieselDaisy]

28 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

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.

If, by that, you are implying that my opinion on the the musical quality of 'Slither' is somehow informing my opinion of it not being a cover song, then au contraire: I'm not even keen on Slither (decent riff but not much else)! In fact I'm not that keen on Velvet Revolver!

My belief that it is not a cover is based on the premise that there are two of the song's progenitors playing it before my very eyes (speaking of a hypothetical scenario in which Guns N' Roses play it).

 

Edited August 15, 2016 by DieselDaisy

[Free Bird]

7 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

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.

LOL do you understand what you write? You do understand that NuGuns are a completely different band with completely different artists with the exception of Axl compared to original Guns? So they are all covering songs except Axl. But is Axl alone really GNR? Obviously not. So in your own definition NuGuns is covering original Guns.

 

[James Bond]

6 hours ago, RussTCB said:

Kinda OT, kinda not but it irritates me to no end when I look at Jack White setlists and they list songs like Seven Nation Army as "White Stripes cover". Every setlist I've seen on sites like setlist.fm are like that. It'll be like:

Fell In Love With A Girl (White Stripes cover)
Blunderbuss
Three Women
Hotel Yorba (White Stripes cover)
Lazaretto
Alone In My Home
Love Interuption
Hello Operator (White Stripes cover)

...and so on. It just irritates the shit out of me. Stripes were a 2 piece band for christssake, and JWIII wrote all the songs. So because he's playing his own songs with someone else on drums it's a cover??

I feel the same way when Queen + Adam Lambert set lists credit every song as a Queen cover when the fucking band is still called Queen.

[Powerage5]

7 minutes ago, James Bond said:

I feel the same way when Queen + Adam Lambert set lists credit every song as a Queen cover when the fucking band is still called Queen.

The reason they're all formatted like that is to make the album statistics accurate. Basically, if Another One Bites The Dust isn't listed as a Queen cover, then the album statistics for The Game wouldn't be accurate because setlist.fm treats the Q+AL song as a different song than the Queen song. It is a bit annoying, but it's done like that with good reason.

[James Bond]

13 minutes ago, Powerage5 said:

The reason they're all formatted like that is to make the album statistics accurate. Basically, if Another One Bites The Dust isn't listed as a Queen cover, then the album statistics for The Game wouldn't be accurate because setlist.fm treats the Q+AL song as a different song than the Queen song. It is a bit annoying, but it's done like that with good reason.

Fair enough, but I want fluidity damnit.

[Juliette]

1 hour ago, Free Bird said:

LOL do you understand what you write? You do understand that NuGuns are a completely different band with completely different artists with the exception of Axl compared to original Guns? So they are all covering songs except Axl. But is Axl alone really GNR? Obviously not. So in your own definition NuGuns is covering original Guns.

 

hhahaa a "little " detail, nop? Axl is the owner of the name, he has the rights (When Slash and Duff sued him for the licensy,etc they lost), for that reason the "Nuguns"  (like you call the band in that period) is GNR like it or not.

He is like 60-70% of GNR. Axl is the only irreplaceable member.

Edited August 15, 2016 by Juliette

[SoulMonster]

2 hours ago, Free Bird said:

LOL do you understand what you write? You do understand that NuGuns are a completely different band with completely different artists with the exception of Axl compared to original Guns? So they are all covering songs except Axl. But is Axl alone really GNR? Obviously not. So in your own definition NuGuns is covering original Guns.

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.

[SoulMonster]

3 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

My belief that it is not a cover is based on the premise that there are two of the song's progenitors playing it before my very eyes (speaking of a hypothetical scenario in which Guns N' Roses play it).

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.

[Nosaj Thing]

On 8/13/2016 at 10:32 AM, maynard said:

Anything would be better than the covers they do from Axl's solo album, Chinese Democracy. Oh yeah, and they should remove ALL the cover songs they do.

This.

Songs from Axl's solo record are a buzzkill.  I mean, yeah, Slash's solos are great and improve those woeful, mediocre songs a lot but I think it's been enough.  

[DieselDaisy]

40 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

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.

As you know, I do not consider Nugnr 'GN'R' so how could I regard Nugnr solo songs as 'GN'R'?, but irrespective of that fact, assuming I did regard Nugnr as bona fide, a Richard and Frank song played with the rest of Nugnr certainly qualifies as being more than just a mere cover song. Nobody sat through CSNY and went, ''Springfield cover next; Neil Young cover next; Byrds cover next, etc'' -  CSNY managed to incorporate their former bands and solo endeavors holistically within the project that was CSNY!

Tell me, do you regard 'Reckless Life' or 'Anything Goes' covers? They were written and demoed for a band called Hollywood Rose after all.

PS

And indeed this is why setlistsfm is a nonsense website. Apparently, on their 1974 Tour, 'Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young' covered - I repeat, covered - 'Crosby, Stills and Nash' ninety-five times haha!!

http://www.setlist.fm/stats/covers/crosby-stills-nash-and-young-63d6b61b.html?tour=1974+Reunion+Tour

Further, a ball-busting 597 songs, all those Springfield and solo songs (etc), were covers!

http://www.setlist.fm/stats/albums/crosby-stills-nash-and-young-63d6b61b.html?tour=1974+Reunion+Tour

I suppose you would subscribe to setlistfm's methodology? All-or-nothing.

Edited August 15, 2016 by DieselDaisy