When Are Guns Going To 'Bury' Appetite?

[soon]

12 hours ago, Silverburst80 said:

I haven't gone through all the replies here but you have to realize the feelings an artist has towards his/her own music is very different to the fans. it's quite possible Axl prefers UYI and CD over AFD...of course they aren't going to stop playing AFD songs because they know how much the fans love them.

I think this is the case. Well said. Not even UYI double release, massive tours, trilogy of big budget videos, could take the audiences' focus off of AFD.

Just speaking for myself, theres even an argument to be made that the style of AFD was already, at the time of its release, a throw back to an earlier time. Like they sounded and looked more like classic Aerosmith then they did like Motely Crue. And they certainly were a vintage rock sound compared to New Order and Talking Heads. I think this all could speak to the powerful nostalgia factor AFD retains today. And for me as a CD fan it helps explain why a futuristic sounding album with more thoughtful lyrics is so off-putting to many Guns fans.

Edited September 11, 2018 by soon

[Towelie]

On 10/09/2018 at 2:35 PM, Len Cnut said:

 Having said that I'd take Please Please Me over Appetite any day.

That is gayer than two dicks touching.

Edited September 11, 2018 by Towelie

[Len Cnut]

9 minutes ago, Towelie said:

That is gayer than two dicks touching.

Says the Queen fan   And the Jacko fan And the bloke whoose fuckin' laudin' a bunch of arseless chaps wearing Sunset Boulevard glam-mongers over the greatest band ever

Edited September 11, 2018 by Len Cnut

[Towelie]

9 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Says the Queen fan   And the Jacko fan And the bloke whoose fuckin' laudin' a bunch of arseless chaps wearing Sunset Boulevard glam-mongers over the greatest band ever

I’m not a Queen fan, but I’ll give ya MJ.

I do think early Beatles music is a load of wank, and only revered because of who they are and what they went onto create.

Take your fan goggles off for five seconds, take a cold shower and calm down your raging boner for John Lennon and you will see that The Beatles didn’t start getting good until Rubber Soul.

Wasn’t it Quincy Jones who said that his first impression of The Beatles was that they were “the worst musicians I’ve ever heard”?

Edited September 11, 2018 by Towelie

[Len Cnut]

7 minutes ago, Towelie said:

I’m not a Queen fan, but I’ll give ya MJ.

I do think early Beatles music is a load of wank, and only revered because of who they are and what they went onto create.

Take your fan goggles off for five seconds, take a cold shower and calm down your raging boner for John Lennon and you will see that The Beatles didn’t start getting good until Rubber Soul.

Wasn’t it Quincy Jones who said that his first impression of The Beatles was that they were “the worst musicians I’ve ever seen”?

Well he's not wrong if he's comparing them to the maestro standards of who Motown and them tended to have in-house but then they were never meant to be silky smooth stuff, they were a rock n roll band, an English immitation rock n roll band at that.  And I disagree with you about didn't get good until Rubber Soul, in fact I've always prefered (perhaps too strong a word because i love all their shit but my go to stuff I mean) is their earlier stuff.  You don't have to be good musicians to play good pop songs, its not rocket science, its pretty simple shit. 

This whole 'they didn't get good until Revolver' shit is to do with this obssession people have of trying to make art out of pop music, to me its just a bit of fun and it can do enough whilst being a bit of fun, it doesn't need to be some kinda of fuckin' art statement. 

And my boner rages equally for all The Beatles I'll have you know

[Fashionista]

The one thing I hate bout the AFD nostalgia marketing is all the fucking skills in the imagery. What is this, Iron Maiden? I associate skull in rock music with metal bands which GNR never was

[Fashionista]

To be honest I don't really care for The Beattles, Stones were The Beatles without the family friendly bullshit,

[Tom2112]

Never EVER going to happen. By far their most popular selection of songs on any of their albums. Still sells crazy amounts per year, it will always be the focus and flagship record.

And nearly 30 yrs later that "I want to bury appetite" is still being misinterpreted. He didn't want to forget about the record, or for others to do so. He basically was saying that in his mind he had no intention of hanging his hat on that one record, that obviously didn't happen in most people's eyes, for an assortment of reasons. I would bet that every band wants to top their best record, it's not so strange.

[Len Cnut]

2 hours ago, Fashionista said:

To be honest I don't really care for The Beattles, Stones were The Beatles without the family friendly bullshit,

Bunch of marketing bullshit.  There was nothing that The Stones did to justify a bad boy image that The Beatles didn't.  Background-wise The Beatles (with the possible exception of John who was lower middle class at best) lived the life and were born into it.  Other than that its just imagery.  I mean what did The Stones do to place them as non family friendly, what, take a slash in a forecourt in Essex?  And anyway, whys this being a 'bad boy' such a priority?  Be yourself.  I think perhaps you have to be from England to see the realities of what The Beatles and The Stones were.  The Stones (and their fans) seemed to hang onto this bad boy image shit like its something they need to compete with The Beatles but they really don't, it lets em down a bit to be honest (not the image, just the way its used in the context of discussions such as this).  John Lennon battered a fuckin' reporter and used to slap women about...but whats it all worth?  What Stones song was there of that particular era that was as aggressively masculine as 'Run For Your Life'?  The Beatles were the band that played in Hamburg strip clubs while The Stones played jazz and blues places in London for middle class students and obscure record collectors, The Beatles played working mens clubs (played fuckin' everywhere actually!).  I guess the difference is between being a tough guy and acting like one.  In reality Ringo is the one from the roughest manor out of all The Beatles and The Stones and not much is made of it but he was a dodgy little character in his younger days.  But so what?

[DieselDaisy]

The willingness of The Beatles to compromise with the suit thing hurt them a bit. They never looked cooler, The Beatles, then when they looked like this,

Epstein made them look like a bunch of office stamp lickers. 

[Fashionista]

3 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

Bunch of marketing bullshit.  There was nothing that The Stones did to justify a bad boy image that The Beatles didn't.  Background-wise The Beatles (with the possible exception of John who was lower middle class at best) lived the life and were born into it.  Other than that its just imagery.  I mean what did The Stones do to place them as non family friendly, what, take a slash in a forecourt in Essex?  And anyway, whys this being a 'bad boy' such a priority?  Be yourself.  I think perhaps you have to be from England to see the realities of what The Beatles and The Stones were.  The Stones (and their fans) seemed to hang onto this bad boy image shit like its something they need to compete with The Beatles but they really don't, it lets em down a bit to be honest (not the image, just the way its used in the context of discussions such as this).  John Lennon battered a fuckin' reporter and used to slap women about...but whats it all worth?  What Stones song was there of that particular era that was as aggressively masculine as 'Run For Your Life'?  The Beatles were the band that played in Hamburg strip clubs while The Stones played jazz and blues places in London for middle class students and obscure record collectors, The Beatles played working mens clubs (played fuckin' everywhere actually!).  I guess the difference is between being a tough guy and acting like one.  In reality Ringo is the one from the roughest manor out of all The Beatles and The Stones and not much is made of it but he was a dodgy little character in his younger days.  But so what?

Ain't the marketing thing, it's the family friendly vibe, the granny songs, the family friendly teddy bear bullshit like "When I'm 64" and all that horseshit. John Lennon was a genius songwriter but also a pretentious little asshole with all his cause celebre bullshit like he was so above everything, and took himself way too seriously, too. In fact the only member of the band I like was George.

[Len Cnut]

58 minutes ago, Fashionista said:

Ain't the marketing thing, it's the family friendly vibe, the granny songs, the family friendly teddy bear bullshit like "When I'm 64" and all that horseshit. John Lennon was a genius songwriter but also a pretentious little asshole with all his cause celebre bullshit like he was so above everything, and took himself way too seriously, too. In fact the only member of the band I like was George.

In Johns defence, fuck me, if that happened to anyone it’d go to their head.  I mean the attention they got, its unprescedented, at the time, with it getting bigger and bigger, being hailed not only as a popstar but some kind of genius artist, I mean when no one in the world has done it before, you must stop and think ‘wow, fuck me, where the fuck is this gonna end, who am I, am I fuckin’ somethin’ special?’. 

Loads of popstars have gotten big since so there’s a blueprint there, a framework...but literally everything those bastards did was highly acclaimed for a LONG time.  To be the first to stand on stage at a stadium and look out onto tens of thousands of people, all their and screaming their nut off over something as ridiculous as pop music.  Then having his spare time nonsense writing acclaimed by high end literature publications...its gotta go to your head a bit.  For what they were I’m surprised they (and he) stayed as grounded as they/he did.

And as it happens I think When Im 64 is brilliant but thats probably more to do with a love of my culture, I understand how it might be difficult to explain to an American, in the same way that rebel songs of the old south are difficult to explain to an English person (though i find that shit pretty cool too).  In the middle of a psychedelic rock album too, its fantastic.

Edited September 11, 2018 by Len Cnut

[Fashionista]

5 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

In Johns defence, fuck me, if that happened to anyone it’d go to their head.  I mean the attention they got, its unprescedented, at the time, with it getting bigger and bigger, being hailed not only as a popstar but some kind of genius artist, I mean when no one in the world has done it before, you must stop and think ‘wow, fuck me, where the fuck is this gonna end, who am I, am I fuckin’ somethin’ special?’. 

Loads of popstars have gotten big since so there’s a blueprint there, a framework...but literally everything those bastards did was highly acclaimed for a LONG time.  To be the first to stand on stage at a stadium and look out onto tens of thousands of people, all their and screaming their nut off over something as ridiculous as pop music.  Then having his spare time nonsense writing acclaimed by high end literature publications...its gotta go to your head a bit.  For what they were I’m surprised they (and he) stayed as grounded as they/he did.

And as it happens I think When Im 64 is brilliant but thats probably more to do with a love of my culture, I understand how it might be difficult to explain to an American, in the same way that rebel songs of the old south are difficult to explain to an English person (though i find that shit pretty cool too).  In the middle of a psychedelic rock album too, its fantastic.

Elvis was a good precedent for the massive level of fame the Beatles would later have and he still stayed a pretty grounded guy (even with the drug addiction). He didn't become holier than thou. For that matter, neither did the other 3 Beatles, really, at least publicly. John's personality was just that of a pretentious artiste. None of the other 3 were. 

I get that it's a tribute to music hall music but in American culture, that sort of sound is basically, it sounds like Winnie the Pooh music. And it's not just that song, but all of Paul's shit that was like it. The Beatles, like Oasis, are just too British musically for me. And yeah, the Stones were British guys too but they acted the part of Americans in a sense, so they're more relatable in a way. The Beatles' personas and their music was just so much more British.

[DieselDaisy]

11 minutes ago, Fashionista said:

Elvis was a good precedent for the massive level of fame the Beatles would later have and he still stayed a pretty grounded guy (even with the drug addiction). He didn't become holier than thou. For that matter, neither did the other 3 Beatles, really, at least publicly. John's personality was just that of a pretentious artiste. None of the other 3 were. 

I get that it's a tribute to music hall music but in American culture, that sort of sound is basically, it sounds like Winnie the Pooh music. And it's not just that song, but all of Paul's shit that was like it. The Beatles, like Oasis, are just too British musically for me. And yeah, the Stones were British guys too but they acted the part of Americans in a sense, so they're more relatable in a way. The Beatles' personas and their music was just so much more British.

You'd have a bigger problem again with The Kinks and Who presumably, or The Floyd ('60s Pink Floyd)? These groups were significantly more 'English' than The Beatles. 

[Len Cnut]

2 minutes ago, Fashionista said:

Elvis was a good precedent for the massive level of fame the Beatles would later have and he still stayed a pretty grounded guy (even with the drug addiction). He didn't become holier than thou. For that matter, neither did the other 3 Beatles, really, at least publicly. John's personality was just that of a pretentious artiste. None of the other 3 were. 

I get that it's a tribute to music hall music but in American culture, that sort of sound is basically, it sounds like Winnie the Pooh music. And it's not just that song, but all of Paul's shit that was like it. The Beatles, like Oasis, are just too British musically for me. And yeah, the Stones were British guys too but they acted the part of Americans in a sense, so they're more relatable in a way. The Beatles' personas and their music was just so much more British.

It happened with Elvis yeah but with Elvis he was never really anything other than a pop star.  He was just a singer.  Probably my favourite solo artist of all time and an absolute cultural behemoth but he didnt have that artsy intellectual edge that John had, Elvis was never gonna come out and say anything against the established order, Elvis was never gonna be at the forefront of a counter culture, Elvis never had the chance to fly across the world in the age of mass media and telly to have these images sent home of entire miles and miles of city block shut down by an ocean of bodies whilst The Beatles stood on a balcony giggling.  His level of fame was most definitely comparable but at the same time it never got the chance to be so vividly fleshed out.  Like the Shea Stadium example I gave, who did that before The Beatles?  In the relatively simple times of the early to mid 60s you must have some pretty high ideas about yourself or you’d die of fright before you got to the stage.

And then everything you do, everything you wear, the drugs you take, every type of haircut you get, every hat you put on all becomes like...chic.  I can imagine someone in that position in life becoming a bit fuckin’ mental.

And yknow, I got a lot of time for the artiste types.  I like the opposite too, dont get me wrong but like...there’s room for all.  I think John was a prodigy to be honest.  So talented in so many avenues, such a naturally sharp wit, a bit of a bully with it too really, definitely not without his faults but a brilliant fella.  I think the same about Paul too, whoose contribution to even the artsy expansive free thinking side of The Beatles is immensely underrated.  And George Harrison was a brilliant understand guitar player, had this instinctive knack of transforming entire songs with just these little touches.  And Ringo to me is as important to The Beatles as Charlie Watts is to The Stones.  Despite what many drum snobs will tell ya Ringo put a distinctive stamp on those songs.

4 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

You'd have a bigger problem again with The Kinks and Who presumably, or The Floyd ('60s Pink Floyd)? These groups were significantly more 'English' than The Beatles. 

I always wondered how Americans ever swallowed The Kinks.  Their first album was very American but then almost immediately they were off on their own thing.  But I dont think cultures are necessarily devisive, its an exchange of information isn’t it, like how me and you are into so much yank stuff, on paper the blues for instance shouldn’t appeal to us.

[DieselDaisy]

3 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

It happened with Elvis yeah but with Elvis he was never really anything other than a pop star.  He was just a singer.  Probably my favourite solo artist of all time and an absolute cultural behemoth but he didnt have that artsy intellectual edge that John had, Elvis was never gonna come out and say anything against the established order, Elvis was never gonna be at the forefront of a counter culture, Elvis never had the chance to fly across the world in the age of mass media and telly to have these images sent home of entire miles and miles of city block shut down by an ocean of bodies whilst The Beatles stood on a balcony giggling.  His level of fame was most definitely comparable but at the same time it never got the chance to be so vividly fleshed out.  Like the Shea Stadium example I gave, who did that before The Beatles?  In the relatively simple times of the early to mid 60s you must have some pretty high ideas about yourself or you’d die of fright before you got to the stage.

And then everything you do, everything you wear, the drugs you take, every type of haircut you get, every hat you put on all becomes like...chic.  I can imagine someone in that position in life becoming a bit fuckin’ mental.

And yknow, I got a lot of time for the artiste types.  I like the opposite too, dont get me wrong but like...there’s room for all.  I think John was a prodigy to be honest.  So talented in so many avenues, such a naturally sharp wit, a bit of a bully with it too really, definitely not without his faults but a brilliant fella.  I think the same about Paul too, whoose contribution to even the artsy expansive free thinking side of The Beatles is immensely underrated.  And George Harrison was a brilliant understand guitar player, had this instinctive knack of transforming entire songs with just these little touches.  And Ringo to me is as important to The Beatles as Charlie Watts is to The Stones.  Despite what many drum snobs will tell ya Ringo put a distinctive stamp on those songs.

I always wondered how Americans ever swallowed The Kinks.  Their first album was very American but then almost immediately they were off on their own thing.  But I dont think cultures are necessarily devisive, its an exchange of information isn’t it, like how me and you are into so much yank stuff, on paper the blues for instance shouldn’t appeal to us.

At first sight but I remember Eric Burdon (of Newcastle) discussing hearing the blues for the first time, and the lyric was ''I'm a docker slaving away and my woman went away'', and saying, ''there were blokes on my street that happened to!''. Never doubt the universality of music.

[Len Cnut]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

At first sight but I remember Eric Burdon (of Newcastle) discussing hearing the blues for the first time, and the lyric was ''I'm a docker slaving away and my woman went away'', and saying, ''there were blokes on my street that happened to!''. Never doubt the universality of music.

Yeah i remember Chris Stamp (brother of Terence, manager of The Who) saying like how his old man was off at war and his Mum used to collect his wages from the office and they show up one day and the guy goes ‘sorry Mrs Stamp, no wages today, your husbands dead’ and that was sort of the value of the working class.  But these are very broad correlations.  But as you say about the universality of music anything can resonate, even if the words mean nothing to you the way in which the singer puts it across or the musician plays it can get you right where you live on some level.

But I always have this idea in the back of my mind when discussing some of this stuff like ‘steady on lad, what do you fuckin’ know of the Mississippi Delta anyway?’   

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, Len Cnut said:

Yeah i remember Chris Stamp (brother of Terence, manager of The Who) saying like how his old man was off at war and his Mum used to collect his wages from the office and they show up one day and the guy goes ‘sorry Mrs Stamp, no wages today, your husbands dead’ and that was sort of the value of the working class.  But these are very broad correlations.  But as you say about the universality of music anything can resonate, even if the words mean nothing to you the way in which the singer puts it across or the musician plays it can get you right where you live on some level.

But I always have this idea in the back of my mind when discussing some of this stuff like ‘steady on lad, what do you fuckin’ know of the Mississippi Delta anyway?’   

When the blues when to Chicago, for Chicago witness Newcastle, Manchester, London.

[Len Cnut]

4 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

The willingness of The Beatles to compromise with the suit thing hurt them a bit. They never looked cooler, The Beatles, then when they looked like this,

Epstein made them look like a bunch of office stamp lickers. 

They would've never been The Beatles if they had stuck with that, they would've looked anachronistic and just a bunch of Gene Vincent knock offs, I don't think Epstein hurt them at all by getting them out of those, I think it was one of the best things that happened to them, they started dressing like men (for a while anway ) instead of boys.  You've got to have your own thing.  Those mod suits were brilliant, they were contemporary, same with those haircuts (which they got in Hamburg before there was an Epstein anyway so they were sort of naturally growing out of that look), they looked sharp and striking.  Don't get me wrong the leather look looks slick too in its own way but that kind of shit was going out and in that day and time they would've never been at the forefront culturally had they clung to that kind of an image.  Remember in those days a picture could end up defining you, not everyone was in to see you on telly or watch interviews, there wasn't an overload of media out there about you, there are people that tell stories of seeing pictures of Elvis on album covers before they ever heard the music, image was (and I believe still is, despite the fact that it makes a lot of people grind their teeth) important in popular music.

Edited September 11, 2018 by Len Cnut

[UsedYourIllusion]

I think there's nothing wrong with moving past a record. Nirvana wanted to move past Nevermind, and their acoustic show in '93 for MTV showed they still had something to say; GN'R probably wants to do the same thing, but I could never picture them not playing Jungle, It's So Easy or Nightrain

[RussTCB]

10 minutes ago, UsedYourIllusion said:

I think there's nothing wrong with moving past a record. Nirvana wanted to move past Nevermind, and their acoustic show in '93 for MTV showed they still had something to say; GN'R probably wants to do the same thing, but I could never picture them not playing Jungle, It's So Easy or Nightrain

It would appear I can't help but derail this thread lol but I don't think of Nirvana Unplugged as any sort of movement past Nevermind. I do however, see In Utero as a gigantic step past it.
 

[Propaganda]

They have already re-record it, but the fans said: No trickery Please!

[ironmt]

Not In This Lifetime. 

[ZoSoRose]

On 9/10/2018 at 3:37 PM, RussTCB said:

IMO yes, definitely. 

Not to derail, but I think WYWH, Animals and The Wall are all better than DSotM. 

I lean that way too but I still love DSotM

[RussTCB]

48 minutes ago, ZoSoRose said:

I lean that way too but I still love DSotM

Oh, well, of course. I go through phases where I absolutely ADORE Dark Side. I never dislike it but I do think those other albums are better overall.