Jump to content

Underrated NuGN'R Peformance


Recommended Posts

On 9/21/2016 at 7:21 AM, kanecrescente said:

Is this some kind of joke?

 

1) the majority of the vocals from this gig were heavily edited prior to release 

2) The layer of vocals in this song which are quite audibly Axl's from the night are distinctively 'Mickey' throughout

3) There's so many layers added vocally that you can hardly tell what's being said at times

Re-recorded vocals? Are you talking about the backing vocals and backing track vocals that were on EVERY date of the tour? 

Those vocals are live and unedited. Bands don't go back into the studio to fix live dates that aren't going to be released. Also, GNR didn't even fix Appetite for democracy so they DEFINITELY didn't fix the London gig.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could've considered 2001-2002 a real original band if they had released a great modern, industrial, metal album a la OMG. Axl had all the tools. BH, Brain and Finck were perfect for the job. But he chose to use them to cover 99% of AFD in semi-tours.

06-07 had a back to hard rock Axl still featuring Finck on guitar - interesting cover band. It wa great to listen to Better, Axl's only good song.

09-14 - Axl singing great, hired band was a catastrophe. CD was a disappointment. Dark years to be an Axl fan.

I'm glad GNR returned and Axl finished his solo career, also called GNR.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, maynard said:

I could've considered 2001-2002 a real original band if they had released a great modern, industrial, metal album a la OMG. Axl had all the tools. BH, Brain and Finck were perfect for the job. But he chose to use them to cover 99% of AFD in semi-tours.

 

Yep. What a waste.

To be honest I was more "excited" by the band then. Although the reunion is great, it is just yet another permutation of the same band playing the same permutation of songs.

At the time, and since, "NuGnr" received much criticism, in my opinion some justified and much not, however 2000-2003 ish (before messed tours and Buckethead leaving) was the only real line up that could have been a true exciting "band".

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tom2112 said:

Re-recorded vocals? Are you talking about the backing vocals and backing track vocals that were on EVERY date of the tour? 

Those vocals are live and unedited. Bands don't go back into the studio to fix live dates that aren't going to be released. Also, GNR didn't even fix Appetite for democracy so they DEFINITELY didn't fix the London gig.

Yes, they really did fix it... Look at fan filmed footage of songs like YCBM compared to the published version and tell me it's not fixed..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, ToonGuns said:

Yep. What a waste.

To be honest I was more "excited" by the band then. Although the reunion is great, it is just yet another permutation of the same band playing the same permutation of songs.

At the time, and since, "NuGnr" received much criticism, in my opinion some justified and much not, however 2000-2003 ish (before messed tours and Buckethead leaving) was the only real line up that could have been a true exciting "band".

Yeah I could say I agree with you although I enjoy the reunion for what it is. It would also be important that the 2001 lineup had a good Axl on vocals, which was not the case. Knowing he was in such a poor form makes it less hurtful to think about the wasted potential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kanecrescente said:

Yes, they really did fix it... Look at fan filmed footage of songs like YCBM compared to the published version and tell me it's not fixed..

No, it's not fixed. Are you talking about the video synch not being exact? I see that. However what I hear is a very mickey Axl who's out of breath... if he was in the studio he would not be out of breath, and he would be much stronger vocally. 

Band DO NOT re-record live shows that aren't intended for release. How do I know it wasn't going to released? I don't, maybe at one point it was on the table... but! listen to the mix? It's a really rough mix (I'd consider this unmixed), not even half as good as the streams available from a Rock AM Ring gig. If Axl was replacing vocals, the live show would have been mixed to a better standard first, and then he would have put his vocal over it. 

Replacing a live vocal is a pain, especially if you're going to do it well. Watching both nights from London 2012 and then comparing them to the pro shot shows me that there was no fixing. Did they need fixing for a release? IMO, yes! but this is a direct feed with no changes. Again, If Axl didn't bother replacing flubs on AFD (His or the bands) then he definitely wasn't going to do it for London. 

If you still think you're right, find me the exact clips, so we know 100% that we're both hearing the same thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread in

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

The only good thing to say about Nugnr is that, for the first period at least (say, c. 1999 - 2002, diminishing thereafter) Axl still seemed to care about releasing new material on some considerable scale. He has sadly never really cared much since!!

2006 Axl was into the idea of releasing music, and he was definitely motivated... The record didn't get finished 'til the end of 2007, but! he was on the road throughout 2006 and a good part of 07 so that delay wasn't the worst, and then he had to negotiate for ever after he handed over the record to finalise release agreements, artwork etc.  

I think Nugnr 2006-2010 was the band at it's peak (not talking about gnrs whole career just nuGnR), 1999-2004 was a band incapable of getting its shit together, the leader was all over the place and not really fit, whereas 2006-2010 had a leader who was focussed and nailing it, alongside a band that was getting tighter and tighter the more they played together. by 2009 the band sounded incredible despite DJ's hiring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tom2112 said:

2006 Axl was into the idea of releasing music, and he was definitely motivated... The record didn't get finished 'til the end of 2007, but! he was on the road throughout 2006 and a good part of 07 so that delay wasn't the worst, and then he had to negotiate for ever after he handed over the record to finalise release agreements, artwork etc.  

That is just all Axley bollocks. The record was finished in 2001 but Axl couldn't bring himself to plonk the songs on a disc and hand it to the record company, content to ruin the thing with overdubs. 2006-07 was a pointless tour - although his voice was good.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

That is just all Axley bollocks. The record was finished in 2001 but Axl couldn't bring himself to plonk the songs on a disc and hand it to the record company, content to ruin the thing with overdubs. 2006-07 was a pointless tour - although his voice was good.

 

:blink: Diesel you are such an Axlite. ;) :lol:

Edited by cooker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

That is just all Axley bollocks. The record was finished in 2001 but Axl couldn't bring himself to plonk the songs on a disc and hand it to the record company, content to ruin the thing with overdubs. 2006-07 was a pointless tour - although his voice was good.

 

I agree, the record was pretty much ready to go by 2001, at least from whatever information we have available. 

2006-7 tour was probably supposed to build hype - It did. But the hype should have been met directly with a release in 2006, not late 2008. We can all agree on that. In saying all that, we just don't know for FACT why the release took so long when the record was practically finished 7 years before it's eventual release.

We have put it together that Axl was taking his merry time getting to the studio, but I would bet there was a LOT of back and forth between the Axl and the label, arguing how to the handle to record. I bet that the real behind the delay was just that Axl didn't believe the label would work the record the way he wanted them to, and that he was willing to wait them out until they came around... the final release of the record probably happened because the cost of waiting eventually got so much that Axl had no choice financially but to release the record, even though he still wasn't happy with how things were being dealt with. BUT i don't know any of that to be true, it's just my guess. One day we'll get the 80,000 word Axl Rose tell all, and we'll know everything :P.

 

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...