Jump to content

Appetite for Destruction Remastered General Thread


Recommended Posts

Getting a studio quality Shadow of Your Love is still cool. Id like the super box but $600 is insane. If you get one @RussTCB, I definitely want to see it

 

1 minute ago, Carburetta said:

The lithos are totally unnecessary and diminish the product. They seem to have put that Arian Buhler to work to come up with these quick time. They have no connection the products they are supposed to represent (original material from 31 years ago).

I think the artwork is pretty cool

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Won't be buying this. Can't believe believe they're releasing that old rejected song as a single. Hopefully we'll hear more about new music at some point and I'll actually be interested in this band again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The remastering directly from the analogue source and likely Clinks involvement are good signs that it's not gonna be some lame remaster.

As for new music, it would be great, but a brand new song from 2016 doesn't have a place in a release like this. Only in a greatest hits/best of one.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DIST said:

A big part of guns greatness where their live shows, shame they didn't include an HD video concert show of that era.

Yeah, but probably the only concert from that era that exists in such quality is The Ritz '88 and everyone has seen it 1000 times.

Maybe if they weren't one year late they could have released The Ritz '87 before it leaked. That would have been a true rarity, even though not in HD quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, tim10101 said:

koldweather exactly. just like VH in 2012

Not at all. VH took old ideas and completely rerecorded, reworked, and wrote around then for their album. This is just an old remastered track.

Just now, Live Like a Suicide said:

Regardless of the SOYL arguments, i'm just pumped we get a studio quality recording of it. The one on @Gibbo's channel is the clearest one right now.

Agree

  • GNFNR 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's be honest. Outside of the picture book, this is kind of a ripoff. You're paying almost a g for songs all of us have already heard, with the "new single" being just a remastered (not even re-recorded) 32 year old song that the original band only considered B-side level material. This is "ripping off the fuckin' kids", monetizing ancient demos which have been floating around since the 1990s or before.

Are we really to believe that there wasn't a single instrumental track from anytime between 1986 and 1996 that Axl couldn't have laid vocals and lyrics over, with Slash adding new overdubs to make it a new recording?

Look what the Stones did for Exile on Main St. You had several pretty brand new songs that only existed in instrumental form prior to official release, which were given brand new lyrics, vocals and melody by Mick. You had the Plundered My Soul single, which took a backing track from 1972, with Mick Taylor adding new lead lines (his first performance with the Stones since 1974) and Jagger adding vocals and lyrics to create a brand new song out of an instrumental backing track.

And it cost nowhere near 700 bucks.

You're telling me Axl and Slash couldn't do the same?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, koldweather said:

To 95% of the world's population it WILL be new...us die hards here know otherwise but Joe bloggs on the street will not know its from 86 unless explicitly told.

Yeah but Joe isn't buying a 600 dollar box set...or even 180 for that matter. That's what's weird about this, the people it's aimed at already know this stuff, and the people who don't know it wouldn't ever buy something like this.

  • GNFNR 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

The remastering directly from the analogue source and likely Clinks involvement are good signs that it's not gonna be some lame remaster.

As for new music, it would be great, but a brand new song from 2016 doesn't have a place in a release like this. Only in a greatest hits/best of one.

 

I thought clink was for whatever reason was on axls shitlist?.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bigpoop said:

Yeah but Joe isn't buying a 600 dollar box set...or even 180 for that matter. That's what's weird about this, the people it's aimed at already know this stuff, and the people who don't know it wouldn't ever buy something like this.

I'm assuming a single won't be aimed at buying the boxset. 

So Joe public has the single. Diehards have the varying boxsets. Seems everyone wins, to some extent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Fashionista said:

Let's be honest. Outside of the picture book, this is kind of a ripoff. You're paying almost a g for songs all of us have already heard, with the "new single" being just a remastered (not even re-recorded) 32 year old song that the original band only considered B-side level material. This is "ripping off the fuckin' kids", monetizing ancient demos which have been floating around since the 1990s or before.

Are we really to believe that there wasn't a single instrumental track from anytime between 1986 and 1996 that Axl couldn't have laid vocals and lyrics over, with Slash adding new overdubs to make it a new recording?

Look what the Stones did for Exile on Main St. You had several pretty brand new songs that only existed in instrumental form prior to official release, which were given brand new lyrics, vocals and melody by Mick. You had the Plundered My Soul single, which took a backing track from 1972, with Mick Taylor adding new lead lines (his first performance with the Stones since 1974) and Jagger adding vocals and lyrics to create a brand new song out of an instrumental backing track.

And it cost nowhere near 700 bucks.

You're telling me Axl and Slash couldn't do the same?

The Exile rerelease was awesome. So many great "new" songs and they even doctored them up with Mick Taylor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tim10101 said:

I think many have forgotton bout THE PLAGUE possibly being on the boxset

You seem like an overly excited 12 year old going to disneyland. 

And yeah, it might. And it might not. But honestly, are 1 or 2 new songs worth THAT much money? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I still say it is the Mike Clink version.

These type of things, big archival projects, serve a different purpose to normal studio albums. It is unfair to beat it over the head for being something it is not, namely a new original studio album. If this was between albums you'd say, ''this is a nice diversion''. I have to confess though that I owned all of the circulated 1986 demos, stuff like ''Welcome to the Jungle'' #3, on bootleg and never listened to them. I think it was because Appetite had such a brilliant sound that it always sounded very much inferior (it would've been different if they messed up Appetite's production like they did with Illusion). These things you tend to listen to once or twice and say ''that is interesting'' before chucking in a cupboard. How many people still listen to the Hollywood Rose thing?  

I feel a personal bitterness against Hollywood Rose and I don't know why! :lol:

Got that album and I hated it. More over so, I don't know what the fuck Gilby Clarke had to do with a remix of SOYL :facepalm:

 

12 minutes ago, tim10101 said:

killuridols yes it isn't a new song. but it is a new SINGLE RELEASE TO RADIO N THE MASSES OF AXL N SLASH REUNITED. To most THIS IS THE RUNION SINGLE

lol

but who wrote it? It wasn't Axl and Slash..... the original demo of it it's not that great, really, you want to spice it up but as a song, it can't beat any of the AFD officially released songs :shrugs:

Maybe if now they added some new stuff to make it more radio-friendly........ it works...... I have no idea.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ZoSoRose said:

The Exile rerelease was awesome. So many great "new" songs and they even doctored them up with Mick Taylor


Yup. Why exactly couldn't GN'R have done this for AFD? There are at least three songs which we've NEVER heard - The Prowler, Nightcrawler, and the Plague - you're telling me Axl/Slash/Duff couldn't have taken the basic elements of those tracks and made something semi-new out of them? This is just a ripoff, really.

I mean Jesus, Queen - Axl's favorite band - was able to record two whole albums (plus two extra songs) while Freddie was dying from AIDS. What's GN'R's excuse?

They always take the easiest and laziest and most bare bones route, and think the fans are stupid enough to call table scraps treasures. It's insulting.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Live Like a Suicide said:

Yes. SOYL will debut on Australian radio tomorrow and the highest-viewed demo on Youtube has been blocked by UMG on copyright grounds.

Is there a source for this info? I've seen you post it a few times and I'm curious where the info that it'll be debuted on Australian radio comes from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Live Like a Suicide said:

Yes. SOYL will debut on Australian radio tomorrow and the highest-viewed demo on Youtube has been blocked by UMG on copyright grounds.

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Cool! 

I think this signals that things will be moving along in the coming years.

 

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...