Jump to content

Was Axl a Poser during UYI Era?


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, rocknroll41 said:

If there's one thing Ive learned here, it's that Mike Patton is an even bigger asshole than I thought.

on topic, the Making Fucking Videos series is proof enough that Axl was turning into a poser. The way he behaves in those is cringey and the rants during the UYI tour seem so childish in hindsight.

The CD era was even worse when he wore the jerseys and had cornrows and the rants got even more absurd ("slash should've never been in guns").

At least now he's mellowed out and doesn't do any stupid rants anymore. He seems to have accepted his place in the world as a hard rock nostalgia act (and I mean that as a compliment, cause nostalgia acts have their benefits and can still come out with good new music).

Agreed. The pompousness is off the charts in making fucking videos.

Del James is a talentless hack. Slash should dedicate "beggars and hangers-on" to him at one of the NITL shows. :P

Re: Patton, I think he found Axl and GnR's excess to be of cartoonish proportions and easy to mock. I imagine it would have been easy to troll a guy wearing tiny bicycle shorts and a giant fur coat. Allegedly one of Axl's posse told told Patton that Axl was a fan of one of their singles in heavy MTV rotation back in the day -- Patton figured Axl was a phony as a result of that. Key word being, allegedly.

Reminds me of these Chris Cornell Quotes:

 Chris Cornell interview in Blender:

What do you remember - if anything - about touring with Guns N' Roses in 1992?
Bottlerocket1, Saginaw, MI

There were two main things: First, they had this enormous aluminum stage with catwalks, and at the end of each catwalk was a teleprompter so Axl could read the lyrics to his own songs. Which I thought was a little weird, since they only had two albums. The other thing was that you were not allowed to be in a hallway or anywhere where Axl might see you when he was walking between the dressing room and the stage... unless you were Chris Cornell. So, one day, I see a security guard walking him down this long corridor where there's no one except for me, and it's like they want me to see him. He's wearing his Axl Rose tennis shoes that say AXL ROSE on them and these teeny-tiny, painted-on red shorts, a backwards baseball cap and a fur coat that goes to the floor. And he just walks by and goes, "Hey, bro!" And that was it. At that point, it's one of those moments where you think about your life as a comic book - and this isn't really happening.

 

You toured with Guns n' Roses in 1991. Got a good Axl story?

He was always hidden somewhere having a personal crisis -- always. One time I was in the room when he was talking to his manager, Doug Goldstein, about wanting the Goodyear blimp for the show. I said this as a joke -- even though it was true -- that the Fuji blimp was the largest blimp in the world. Axl was like, "That's it! It's gonna be the Fuji blimp!"

 

"What I remember most was Duff [McKagen] and Slash and everyone else being regular, sweet, warm guys in a rock band that just wanted to play rock music," he told the magazine. "And then, like, there was this Wizard of Oz character behind the curtain that seemed to complicate what was the most ideal situation they could ever have been in.

"They were the most successful and famous rock band on the planet. Every single show, hundreds of thousands of fans just wanted to hear songs.

"For some reason there seemed to be this obstacle in just going out and participating in that. That's what I remember most. It's sad."

 

Patton eventually did say this:

 

Arguably, Faith No More’s strange career can better be explained by a category error. They may have broken through, with 1989’s platinum album The Real Thing, in the era of Guns N’ Roses and Poison, but they originated in San Francisco in the early 80s. They were post-punk misfits who became mistaken for metalheads. It was bound to cause problems.   Faith No More’s fortunes changed when they sacked Mosley and replaced him with 20-year-old Patton in 1988. The singer’s nomadic solo career has explored his art-rock sensibility and remarkable six-octave voice, but back then he looked like a long-haired MTV pinup and could sing like Axl Rose. 

“We didn’t really relate to the era that accepted us,” Gould agrees. “We grew up going to shows where there was always a bit of confrontation. That was part of the fun. All of a sudden we’re playing in front of Poison fans and they’re not experienced in that. They think if they throw something at us we’re going to be hurt and offended but it actually excites us. Even if people get mad there’s an engagement.”

They are genuinely disbelieving when I tell them that I remember Angel Dust, now considered their masterpiece, getting great reviews. When it came out, they were supporting Guns N’ Roses and their crowd didn’t take to it at all. The dissonance triggered an existential crisis that Faith No More dealt with by waging guerrilla warfare on the headliners. It got so bad that they were almost fired from the tour. When Axl Rose has the moral high ground, you know you’ve gone too far.

“If it hadn’t gone on as long it would have been OK but we did it for about six months,” Gould says. “It got to be like this was our life. It’s like working in a job with people you don’t understand and who don’t understand you.”

“We were smart-alec obnoxious people,” Bottum says. “We shit all over that camp. We had to prove that we weren’t that.”

“It makes you examine yourself,” Patton says. “‘Is this who we are now? This isn’t my deal.’ You overdo it sometimes. There I am, peeing on [Axl Rose’s] teleprompter.” He looks rueful: “I didn’t really have to do that.”

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

3 hours ago, ZoSoRose said:

I have met Bumble and talk with him once in a while since he always graciously answers questions, I hope he likes me too lol

Oh wow! That's cool... hey, can you ask him something for me then? I still wanna know why the hell he couldn't announce that he quit GNR for so long...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Billsfan said:

Oh wow! That's cool... hey, can you ask him something for me then? I still wanna know why the hell he couldn't announce that he quit GNR for so long...?

If he didn't say why, I feel like there's good reason. That's a personal question

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, GnR Chris said:

I am not as familiar with the history of The Rolling Stones, so then forcing me to simply answer yes or no is unfair. Izzy left on his own accord. Axl shouldn't be punished by not being able to continue GNR. From what I know of the Stones, Jagger and Richards were akin to Axl and Izzy in they were the key songwriters, right? So then if you're asking me if Richards left the band and Mick wanted to continue, would it still be The Rolling Stones? Sure. 

The two have been together much longer than Izzy and Axl or Axl and Slash. 50+ years. Brian Johnson is the last one standing in AC/DC and he's still calling it AC/DC. 

What a way to avoid a simple question :lol:

Mick Jagger was honest enough to use his own name when making a solo record. Same for Jon Bon Jovi, Bruce Dickinson and many others...

Angus milking the legacy with a completely different band and a new singer covering ACDC is just as pathetic as NuGNR. Rock fans are dumb so he knows he can exploit them. Just like Axl.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, maynard said:

What a way to avoid a simple question :lol:

Mick Jagger was honest enough to use his own name when making a solo record. Same for Jon Bon Jovi, Bruce Dickinson and many others...

Angus milking the legacy with a completely different band and a new singer covering ACDC is just as pathetic as NuGNR. Rock fans are dumb so he knows he can exploit them. Just like Axl.

 

How did I avoid the question when I answered unequivocally? While also likening it to AC/DC and Angus Young (mistakenly said Johnson)?

Right ... rock fans are "dumb" for wanting to go out and hear some of their favorite songs and see some of their favorite performers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, GnR Chris said:

How did I avoid the question when I answered unequivocally? While also likening it to AC/DC and Angus Young (mistakenly said Johnson)?

Right ... rock fans are "dumb" for wanting to go out and hear some of their favorite songs and see some of their favorite performers.

You don't have to be familiar with any band to say yes or no if they singer decided to hire a bunch of musicians and still keep the band's name.

So Mick Jagger + hired musicians. Is it a Rolling Stones record or not?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, tremolo said:

Cobain wanted to play for millions, but he didn't want what came with it. That's one of the things he loved about REM: great band, everybody knew who they were, they were big, they could fill clubs, etc, but they were not in the mainstream. Media wasn't after them, the record label wasn't trying to squeeze every fucking possible dollar out of them... they were great and managed to stay under. I think that's why In Utero was supposed to be Nirvana's last studio release, and why Cobain started shifting towards folk music, and why in the end he decided to focus on painting as a creative outlet instead of music: it was just as expressive, without any of the bullshit.

 

I know everything you're saying, I mean... I've read more Cobain and Nirvana books than what was good for me when I was a kid. But what I was trying to say is that a lot of people think they have Cobain figured out because they've been reading a lot about him, but I don't think many people really knew him and what made him tick. A lot of stuff that was written about him is not true or only parts of it, and he liked to play with this image of himself that he was often portraying.

Also, I made the Pearl Jam reference because they were signed to a major label too but they decided to cut back on promoting their new album in 1993 because of all the attention, and Cobain could have done the same thing but he didn't... and that's fine, but it's a bit hypocritical that he was criticizing Pearl Jam while they were being less commercial than Nirvana in 1993.

And about the R.E.M. comment... they definitely were in the mainstream by 1991 after Losing My Religion became a massive world wide hit. In the 80's they were already a big band, but they hit the mainstream in 1991 with the album Out Of Time.

 

 

 

33 minutes ago, tremolo said:

Those statements are both false.

They went with Albini because of the sound in Surfer Rosa, and because they liked his sonic approach and work ethics. They didn't want a producer (Albini is not a producer) that would try to manipulate the band's sound into something else. As great as the production is on Nevermind, that's all Butch Vig's sound and Cobain wasn't happy doing overdubs and doubling tracks, in fact Butch had to convince him to do so after Cobain rejected the idea a few times before.

The remix of 2 tracks (Heart-Shaped Box and Pennyroyal Tea, I believe) happened because the label wasn't happy with them. When they had the finished album with Albini, Cobain and the band were happy with it, but the suit guys at the record label weren't. The band had to compromise to get the album released.

Wrong. There were many reasons to work with Steve Albini like you mentioned, but one of those reasons was what I said. Go read interviews from that time. Also, he did say in interviews that he wanted some songs to sound more like Nevermind, so don't tell me those statements are false. And you're right about the band being happy at first, but then they changed their mind again and did a remix on a few songs with Scott Litt. But that goes back to what I was saying earlier... Cobain contradicted himself constantly. The band wasn't happy later on with the vocals and bass being too low in the mixes, so that was one of the reasons to remix a few songs and why they did a new mastering on the album.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, maynard said:

You don't have to be familiar with any band to say yes or no if they singer decided to hire a bunch of musicians and still keep the band's name.

So Mick Jagger + hired musicians. Is it a Rolling Stones record or not?

Yes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, maynard said:

What a way to avoid a simple question :lol:

Mick Jagger was honest enough to use his own name when making a solo record. Same for Jon Bon Jovi, Bruce Dickinson and many others...

Angus milking the legacy with a completely different band and a new singer covering ACDC is just as pathetic as NuGNR. Rock fans are dumb so he knows he can exploit them. Just like Axl.

 

Angus should either retire or go solo. Either way, Axl has a hard enough time working on GnR stuff as it is, the AC/DC distraction is not going to help. Cutting an album with Angus would probably delay the proposed GnR record by another decade. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/14/2017 at 6:34 AM, EvanG said:

I understand what you're saying, but I think it's up to artists to do whatevery they want. Even if that doesn't please their fanbase. It's better to follow your heart and be true to yourself as an artist, then only change a few things in your music just to please your fans and to not scare too many people away. Then you're just a phony.

There are bands and artists who changed completely in sound from one album to the other, to a point where I don't even like them anymore, but I still respect them for being true to themselves and not worrying about losing most of their fanbase with the new sound.

I think we pretty much agree, I suppose where we disagree is that Axl's proposed direction for the band in the mid 90's seemed more like an attempt to prove to his peers that he was hip and could do what they were doing and be accepted by the alternative/indie crowd who had turned their backs on GnR. He was overreaching beyond his abilities. Perhaps he could do grunge or industrial, but should he? 

Sure he was influenced by and enjoyed the music of his peers like Reznor but Oh My God feels more like a copycat attempt than some organic progression of the GnR sound. That's why I disagree when Axl says he wasn't chasing fads and trends of the time. There are still nu-metal influences on Chinese Democracy. OMG is exactly the kind of shit that was constantly being pumped out by rock radio in the late 90's. I was in high school at the time and even though I like OMG, it was a collective eye roll from my friends and I when we heard the song because it felt like GNR was trying to do Manson/NIN. Many of us were sick of that shit by then. Axl was already late to the party with that song.

One of the things I hated about MJ was that he was a slave to following fads -- all of his later albums were ruined by trying to stay mainstream and current instead of blazing a trail like he did with Off The Wall and Thriller. To me, it felt like Axl was doing the same thing. There is a certain desperation from that which would have made people reject the material even more. OMG was not well received by either GnR fans or mainstream rock fans. The new direction was rejected...perhaps people didn't like it because it didn't feel authentic. Rather a calculated move to stay relevant.

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

8 hours ago, maynard said:

You don't have to be familiar with any band to say yes or no if they singer decided to hire a bunch of musicians and still keep the band's name.

So Mick Jagger + hired musicians. Is it a Rolling Stones record or not?

Bro, you have been posting long enough to know that a large % of Axl fans hold him to a different standard than they hold others to. 

The same crew that loves that Axl "doesn't give a shit" and will speak his mind about other bands and people also get angry and bash anybody that dare say a negative word about Axl. Situational standards.

Somebody on here actually said that Hetfield was jealous of Axl. Patton is a jerk. No respect for Manson. Cobain is overrated. I.E.: we love to hear Axl rant, but must hate anybody who says something negative about him. It's actually quite hilarious to watch. 

So the answer you are seeking is very simple. CD is a GnR album, simply because Axl is on it. The same people wouldn't accept Mick calling his album the Stones. Again - Axl is held to a different standard. 

The answer to your question in the real world and not on a GnR forum? Of course not. Both albums should be called solo albums. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, RONIN said:

I think we pretty much agree, I suppose where we disagree is that Axl's proposed direction for the band in the mid 90's seemed more like an attempt to prove to his peers that he was hip and could do what they were doing and be accepted by the alternative/indie crowd who had turned their backs on GnR. He was overreaching beyond his abilities. Perhaps he could do grunge or industrial, but should he? 

Sure he was influenced by and enjoyed the music of his peers like Reznor but Oh My God feels more like a copycat attempt than some organic progression of the GnR sound. That's why I disagree when Axl says he wasn't chasing fads and trends of the time. There are still nu-metal influences on Chinese Democracy. OMG is exactly the kind of shit that was constantly being pumped out by rock radio in the late 90's. I was in high school at the time and even though I like OMG, it was a collective eye roll from my friends and I when we heard the song because it felt like GNR was trying to do Manson/NIN. Many of us were sick of that shit by then. Axl was already late to the party with that song.

One of the things I hated about MJ was that he was a slave to following fads -- all of his later albums were ruined by trying to stay mainstream and current instead of blazing a trail like he did with Off The Wall and Thriller. To me, it felt like Axl was doing the same thing. There is a certain desperation from that which would have made people reject the material even more. OMG was not well received by either GnR fans or mainstream rock fans. The new direction was rejected...perhaps people didn't like it because it didn't feel authentic. Rather a calculated move to stay relevant.

I really don't know. Maybe you're right, but I can't make a judgement on that because I don't know him in person. I don't know if he was chasing trends of the time or if he was just getting inspired by these new trends and incorporating it into this music. That happened in the 60's constantly... when the Beatles put out a new album all the other artists got inspired by it and used that inspiration on their new record again. Artists inspire each other, doesn't mean they are chasing trends. David Bowie started flirting with electronic music in the 90's when that genre became more popular, does that mean he was chasing trends or did he just get inspired by this new music? Whether the fans liked Axl's new sound or not isn't relevant to this particular discussion.

I don't perceive Axl as someone who is chasing trends, but like I said... I don't know him. And for the record, I really didn't care for nu-metal and industrial rock at all, but that doesn't mean Axl couldn't have been really into it and getting inspiration from it. 

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

16 hours ago, GnR Chris said:

Yes. 

I really love these Iron Maiden records: Balls to Picasso, Accident of Birth and Chemical Wedding. They were recorded by Bruce Dickinson and hired musicians but they are Iron Maiden records, just like Piece of Mind, Fear of the Dark, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, maynard said:

I really love these Iron Maiden records: Balls to Picasso, Accident of Birth and Chemical Wedding. They were recorded by Bruce Dickinson and hired musicians but they are Iron Maiden records, just like Piece of Mind, Fear of the Dark, etc.

If they were released as Bruce Dickinson records and the other guys weren't hired on to be part of Iron Maiden, then they're not Iron Maiden records. Not sure why you can't see the distinction. That was a terrible example. 

Michael Monroe put out solo records then teamed up with Andy McCoy and called it Hanoi ReVisited. Then they decided to restart the band and called it Hanoi Rocks. And get this: two of the members of Monroe's solo band were recruited for the new Hanoi Rocks lineup.

They put out a record and it was Hanoi Rocks. 

Edited by GnR Chris
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's funny when you read an interview from Bruce, Adrian or Nicko about a Maiden record and they say... "Well, you'll have to ask Steve" or "Steve is still working on some songs". So similar to NuGNR, they are both real bands where the band members work together on the music, decide when to release it, what details they can tell us, etc.

NuGNR was a real band, not only that, it was a legitimate GUNS N ROSES lineup. The same band that released AFD released CD 20 years later. Of course. It's not a solo project at all, even though Ron BF Thal, Richard Tobias and Robin Finch had no idea when the album was going to be released. Tommy Stuson was calling all the shots, just like Axl. Of course. A real band.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14.3.2017 at 6:53 PM, Sunset Gardner said:

dear gnr chris,

it is a FACT that CD was written and recorded by employees working for their boss.  that is not a band.  that is not guns n' roses.  CD was so un-organic and it shows in the mess that it was released as.  it's NOT gnr.  this is a fact.  not an opinion.  get it straight, kid.  this argument is old but still nessecery until people realize CD was written and recorded by people axl rose hired to work with him.  they were and always will be EMPLOYEES of their boss axl rose.  it's clown sites like GNRTRUTH that send out these fictitious versions of different lineups and casts.  no, rob garder and tracy guns were not a legitimate lineup of gnr.  nor was any of the million ridiculous cartoon characters axl hired for his solo record and solo tours.  

I HAVE ONE QUESTION, and it's yes or no only.  if mick jagger hired people to write with him and for him on a new record and it was mick and ONLY MICK would you call it a rolling stones album?  would you call it a rolling stones tour if it was only mick?  

of course you wouldn't. 

but staying on topic… axl was never a "poser", ever, it was always real.  it was always real until he lied to himself and to his fans and called his solo project "guns n roses" to spite his real bandmates and to sabotage himself.  he was posing then.    

 

I really don't like this argument, there are many bands out there which have only one or two original members left or even none, but nobody would argue they're still that band.

One example could be AC/DC, guess most wouldn't argue it's not AC/DC anymore although only Angus is left. Or Simple Minds, same. Or Depeche Mode, same. Nobody would say "no, it's not Depeche Mode" or "no, it's not Simple Minds".

At that time, Axl legitimately hold the name Guns N' Roses for his band, and no matter whomeever he hired or how that album was made, for that reason alone CD is a legitimate Gn'R album, of course not a classic one, but anyway.

Edited by Zurimor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, tremolo said:

Even with the huge success of Out of Time, especially Losing my Religion, REM managed to stay under. Kind of like The Cure after Friday I'm in Love... they never became a massive mainstream band, they kept being very popular, but more as a cult band than a mainstream popular act.


It's hard to know what was the deal with Cobain hating Pearl Jam, I don't blame him, I don't like the band. Maybe he was talking about the sound? PJ to me sounds generic, too easy to listen to, kinda like Foo Fighters... it's broad's rock, and while fun and catchy, it doesn't have balls. Cobain went from Nevermind to In Utero and exploring folk and noise rock, he drifted away from what caught people's attention and made them huge. That's another angle to look at it.

The Albini thing... to be honest I've never read anything about Cobain wanting to have a more "Nevermind" sound in the album or any specific songs when they recorded In Utero. It could be pure ignorance from my part. It would be cool if you had a source/interview that mentioned that. The remixing of the songs after Albini was done with the album were just pressure from the label. Everyone was happy with the original mix, they took the album to the label and all of a sudden boom... I think Albini is a great source of information on this whole thing.
Of course Cobain contradicted himself, he wasn't the god or angel that many brain-dead fans think he was. He was a flawed human, just like everybody else, that doesn't make him a fake, or any less of an artist.

I never said he was a fake, just that he contradicted himself all the time. He talked many times about being happy with the way In Utero was recorded but that the vocals and bass were too low in the mix after they finished recording, whether he was saying that because of the record company or because he really felt that way, who knows? When you contradict yourself so much it's hard to know what's real and what not. http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/kurt-cobain-the-rolling-stone-interview-19940127 

Quote

I think there are a few songs on In Utero that could have been cleaned up a little bit more. Definitely "Penny Royal Tea." That was not recorded right. There is something wrong with that. That should have been recorded like Nevermind, because I know that's a strong song, a hit single. We're toying with the idea of re-recording it or remixing it.

I disagree with the R.E.M. comment. Losing My Religion was one of the biggest selling songs from 1991... I'd say that you're in the mainstream then. And a year later they had another massive hit with Everybody Hurts and Man On The Moon. When you're in the top ten in most countries and everyone seems to know your song, you've reached the mainstream. In the 80's they were already a big band, selling a lot of albums and playing huge festivals in Europe, but they hadn't exactly reached the mainstream yet, but that changed with Losing My Religion. The only difference is that R.E.M. decided not to tour for their two hit albums in the early 90's because they didn't feel like it, but that doesn't mean they didn't reach the mainstream. Maybe we have a different definition of mainstream.

The feud with Pearl Jam was because both decided not to be on the cover of Time Magazine, but then they put Eddie Vedder on it anway and Kurt didn't like that even though Eddie couldn't help it. I don't know, it was silly I'm sure. I don't agree with what you say about Pearl Jam's music, I love them, but that's subjective. Everyone has a different taste.

I wouldn't call In Utero exploring folk just because he used the acoustic guitar on two songs, but each to their own.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zurimor said:

I really don't like this argument, there are many bands out there which have only one or two original members left or even none, but nobody would argue they're still that band.

One example could be AC/DC, guess most wouldn't argue it's not AC/DC anymore although only Angus is left. Or Simple Minds, same. Or Depeche Mode, same. Nobody would say "no, it's not Depeche Mode" or "no, it's not Simple Minds".

Up until 2015 it was AC/DC for the most part. And why would it not be Depeche Mode? They still got 3 out of the 4 main members.

Edited by PatrickS77
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Axl, well, there might be some solo work out one day...maybe...it depends what mood he's in 


'I want to do some stuff on my own, but not for my sense of identity.' The notorious frontman declared. 'I want to do some things like the song My World on Use Your Illusion II. I want to do a project like that with myself and a computer engineer with anyone who wants to be on it - raw expression.'

Ask him to elaborate on this one-off project, and Axl mentions that he'd like to create with Nine Inch Nails Trent Razor and former Janes' Addiction and current Red Hot Chilli Peppers guitarist Dave Navarro (who if you recall, was once rumored to place Izzy Stradlin when he quit GN'R)


'Those are the two people I want to work with more than anybody else.' admitted Axl. 'I've talked with Trent about doing this industrial synth thing and if we're able to work it out, we'll do a whole project or at least one song. And I definitely want to work with Dave on something. I've always been curious to see what it would sound like to have him and Slash on at least one song.'

http://www.oocities.org/rattlesnake_suitcase/hp94.htm

According to this source, there has always been an overweening ambition behind Rose's creative madness: "Axl used to sit around and talk about world domination. From the very beginning he has always gone for the big ring." 

Unfortunately for Axl, his talk of world denomination could well be a concept better suited to the past.

Malcolm Dome, editor of Kerrang! - a former bastion of Guns mania - sees the Axl-Slash split as "total bloody suicide. Axl's new band could very easily come out and die the death. From what I can tell you, from our readers' reaction, they just don't care that much about Axl anymore."

A promoter in France notes, "In 1992 Guns played to 30,000 people on Paris, in '93 to less than half that number. If Slash were still in the band, he'd book them into a 60,000 seater." 

"In his years away from the stage, Axl Rose's thunder has been stolen by younger performers," an American promoter points out. "If the kids want a bad-ass hellion to admire, Phil Anselmo of Pantera, Jonathan Davis of Korn, and the singer from Tool do the whole 'I'm a fucked-up child and now you're going to suffer' routine. And if you want the beer-swilling drug-taking hooligan with charisma who sometimes doesn't turn up to gigs - look no further that Oasis's Liam Gallagher

http://www.oocities.org/rattlesnake_suitcase/icon97.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, PatrickS77 said:

Up until 2015 it was AC/DC for the most part. And why would it not be Depeche Mode? They still got 3 out of the 4 main members.

No idea, I just remembered they had a lot of rotations on the keyboards in the past and someone might argue, "no, that's not Depeche Mode anymore, too many changes". :)

Edited by Zurimor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Zurimor said:

No idea, I just remembered they had a lot of rotations on the keyboards in the past and someone might argue, "no, that's not Depeche Mode anymore, too many changes". :)

They had no rotation at all. Vince Clark left after 1 year and Alan Wilder left 20 years or so ago. The other 3 stayed the same since almost 40 years. No comparison whatsoever. They are a band.

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...