When Are Guns Going To 'Bury' Appetite?

[Gnrcane]

14 hours ago, ironmt said:

Not In This Lifetime. 

I beat you to this 3 days earlier on the first reply to the thread! :-)

[ironmt]

2 hours ago, Gnrcane said:

I beat you to this 3 days earlier on the first reply to the thread! :-)

Good job. and true. Sorry I missed that.

[Fashionista]

On 9/11/2018 at 3:31 PM, Wagszilla said:

In Utero was basically Kurt's statement against Nevermind. 

It was consciously crafted to be the anti-thesis of everything that Nevermind was.

It's kind of like In Bloom writ large. 

Great record.

And as much as I like Unplugged, it's half covers, but a musical direction they could've / should've explored.

Kurt's last song, "You Know You're Right" is something he was immensely proud of, as a sonic relation to AIC but kind of the direction I wouldn't really cared for them to take. 

In Utero, though, it must be remembered, was a commercial flop before Cobain's death.

[Apollo]

On 9/10/2018 at 8:22 AM, gnfnrs1972 said:

I don't believe anyone has ever forced you to buy it, listen to it, or read about it. You can bury it yourself if you want.

Isn’t the OP referencing a quote from Axl Rose where he said he wanted to “bury” Appetite? And then later said he never wanted to be an artist that didn’t create new music and instead just lived off their old material. 

Your point is true. No doubt. 

But shouldn’t fans be able to comment on things that Axl Rose has actually said?

It was also said that Axl was trying to create a masterpiece with CD. That he was trying to create the next legendary album. 

I agree that at this stage of his career GnR shouldn’t be worried about burying their greatest album. 

But it would be amazing if Axl decided to share some of his latest (even if that means 15 year old) songs with his millions of fans. Slash and Myles aren’t trying to create the greatest rock album of the last 20 years. They are just a pair of musicians trying to create an album that their fans will enjoy. Wish Axl has the mindset concerning his fans. 

I don’t care if CD2 isn’t on the same scale as Appetite. I just yearn to hear new material with Axl on vocals. 

Edited September 14, 2018 by Apollo

[gnfnrs1972]

10 minutes ago, Apollo said:

Isn’t the OP referencing a quote from Axl Rose where he said he wanted to “bury” Appetite? And then later said he never wanted to be an artist that didn’t create new music and instead just lived off their old material. 

Your point is true. No doubt. 

But shouldn’t fans be able to comment on things that Axl Rose has actually said?

The post doesn't say it has been edited, but when I just went back to read it just now it seems that it has been changed up a little. If I am wrong about it being reworded and changed I apologize. Not for my post you quoted but being wrong about it being changed.

[gnfnrs1972]

Nevermind, I reread the Op again. I still stick by my original comment. I have a lot of shit going on in my life at the moment.

[Fashionista]

11 hours ago, Wagszilla said:

And?

 

It wouldn't have half the legacy it does if Kurt had lived in my opinion. And I say that as a Nirvana fan. If Kurt had lived, In Utero would've been seen much like the UYIs - a challenging, interesting record with some great singles moving in a new, softer direction. 

[Fashionista]

On 9/11/2018 at 2:11 PM, 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.

 

Just wanna comment on the last point - The only record I've ever heard in full by The Kinks is the Lola album and it reminds me of the Stones. 

[Len Cnut]

7 minutes ago, Fashionista said:

 

Just wanna comment on the last point - The only record I've ever heard in full by The Kinks is the Lola album and it reminds me of the Stones. 

You should listen to the first two or three, i think you'd like them.  Start from the debut. 

[DieselDaisy]

On 9/11/2018 at 9:54 PM, 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.

Further on this, The Stones had their very own ''English phrase'', 1966-67, ''Mother's Little Helper'', the entirety of Between the Buttons but especially ''Something Happened to Me Yesterday'', ''Dandelion'', Bill's ''In Another Land''. ''Lady Jane'' is baroque courtly Tudor, 

Quote

 

My sweet Lady Jane
When I see you again
Your servant am I
And will humbly remain
Just heed this plea, my love
On bended knees my love
I pledge myself to Lady Jane

My dear Lady Anne
I've done what I can
I must take my leave
For promised I am
This play is run, my love
Your time has come, my love
I pledge my troth to Lady Jane

Oh, my sweet Marie
I wait at your ease
The sands have run out
For your lady and me
Wedlock is nigh my love
Her station's right my love
Life is secure with Lady Jane

 

 

[F*ck Fear]

Anyone expecting a b(r)and in their 50's to bury an iconic album from 30 years ago, is deluded.

They didn't do it with the Illusions records so it's never going to happen.

[Len Cnut]

23 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Further on this, The Stones had their very own ''English phrase'', 1966-67, ''Mother's Little Helper'', the entirety of Between the Buttons but especially ''Something Happened to Me Yesterday'', ''Dandelion'', Bill's ''In Another Land''. ''Lady Jane'' is baroque courtly Tudor, 

 

There's a fair bit else about The Stones that is very English really but I was reticent to elaborate on it all because it feels like picking peanuts out of poo, your points here are quite pertinent though.  Backstreet Girl feels quite English to me somehow but I struggle to explain how.

[Fashionista]

It's hard to explain for me but even when the Stones at their most "British", it never comes close to the old, teddy bear feel The Beatles had. Also, I never liked the Disney-esque gimmick that these were cool good boys, close lads, friends, like there's this fuckin Harry Potter vibe to The Beatles, "Oi, it's John, Paul, George and Ringo", it was all too "we're all best of friends we are o' course" bullshit. The Stones never seemed like that. And Mick and John were about as far apart as people as two could be. Mick to me is like an honorary American. The Stones, even when they were doing stuff like Lady Jane, there was a very "tongue-in-cheek" vibe to it. When The Beatles did that kind of thing, it was dead serious. That same aspect of British culture that I hate about Oasis. Hard to explain but that's how it looks from this American's perspective.

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, Len Cnut said:

There's a fair bit else about The Stones that is very English really but I was reticent to elaborate on it all because it feels like picking peanuts out of poo, your points here are quite pertinent though.  Backstreet Girl feels quite English to me somehow but I struggle to explain how.

Carnaby Street. Saville Row. That is what that song says to me. Swingin' London town. Twiggy. Miniskirts.

[Len Cnut]

7 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Carnaby Street. Saville Row. That is what that song says to me. Swingin' London town. Twiggy. Miniskirts.

Yeah.  And not only that but thematically.  Sort of like the tart and the toff type of feel.  .  There's mention of riding horses and being common and coarse and curtsies and that, its fetishistic in an odd way.  Has a wonderful little melody too.  It kinda has that Lady Jane feel but Lady Jane lays it on a bit too thick. 

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, Len Cnut said:

Yeah.  And not only that but thematically.  Sort of like the tart and the toff type of feel.  .  There's mention of riding horses and being common and coarse and curtsies and that, its fetishistic in an odd way.  Has a wonderful little melody too.  It kinda has that Lady Jane feel but Lady Jane lays it on a bit too thick. 

They always chucked a lot of Englishisms into even their more American recordings such as the citation of 'Dixie Dean' in ''Rip this Joint''. 

[Len Cnut]

36 minutes ago, Fashionista said:

When The Beatles did that kind of thing, it was dead serious.

I disagree with this, I don't think The Beatles were serious when they did anything.  About 90% of it had a fun and piss takey feel about it, which you can't really say about The Stones but then I guess you could equally hold that against The Beatles.  And if you think they were being dead serious when they were doing stuff like When I'm 64 then you've really missed the point   And also, they sort of were friends in that way, I mean they lived in each other pockets almost from their teens til their late 20s/30s, they were about as close as you can get.  But to say they were always putting on a facade of closeness even in public, again, is just wrong.  John at least is constantly taking the mickey out of others in interviews or gettin' little barbed quips in.

7 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

They always chucked a lot of Englishisms into even their more American recordings such as the citation of 'Dixie Dean' in ''Rip this Joint''. 

Yeah see this is the stuff I was talking about when I was saying I didn't wanna get into it all because it'd be like picking peanuts out of poo. 

[DieselDaisy]

An American isn't going to know who the hell Dixie Dean is? One of those culturally specific things. Sgt Pepper incidentally has Albert Stubbins on the front. 

[Len Cnut]

I'm still getting over the 'The Beatles were dead serious when they did that sort of thing' comment.  When I'm 64, serious?  These fuckin' LSD figureheads of the permissive society writing a song like that is being dead serious?   'doing the garden digging the weeds, who could ask for more?' serious?  'Yours sincerely, wasting away', serious?   What song has he been listening to?

[Fashionista]

5 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

I'm still getting over the 'The Beatles were dead serious when they did that sort of thing' comment.  When I'm 64, serious?  These fuckin' LSD figureheads of the permissive society writing a song like that is being dead serious?   'doing the garden digging the weeds, who could ask for more?' serious?  'Yours sincerely, wasting away', serious?   What song has he been listening to?

Ya know what I mean. Compare "When I'm 64" to "Something Happened to Me Yesterday" one could seriously be used in like a Disney type film or a cutesy romance, it can be taken rather seriously, it's very Pooh Bear. The latter is obviously a pisstake on that sort of song "Don't know if it's against the law..."

A lot of things with bands come down to the personalities or personas of those involved and I guess I simply relate to the Stones as an American more than The Beatles:

John - artistie. Holier than thou. Blargh. Fuck that.
Paul - Looks like my grandma, makes pretty pop songs, as commercial as an artist can get. Blargh.

George - Coolest member of the group for me. Hippie guy. I dig that.

Ringo - He's Ringo. He's not bad.

Really, it's John and Paul who get on my nerves. Now, Stones in terms of personas....

Mick - Tongue in cheek sense of humor, everything is always a bit of a joke, could be at home equally in NYC or London

Keith - Nice guy with a tough guy pose, but it works, with the accent and everything

Brian/Mick/Ronnie - A mixture of fashionable madness and musical versatility, shyness and guitar heroics, and a ruffled raven lookin guy who doesn't talk much
Bill - Quiet, odd guy in the back who cracks a smile once in a while, honest, down to Earth

Charlie - Never cracks a smile, dry, could've had a career in Monty Python as such, has a sense to look so miserable that it falls into self parody.

The Beatles could never be punny or write a song with the title "Turd on The Run". They may have had a sense of humor but it was waaaaaay different and much more British, as such when they do their joke songs, I don't feel in on the joke, I don't get the punch line, it's something more a stab at their own culture than mine. Like, take Sweet Black Angel by the Stones, half serious, half joke; but I can GET it. Or Far Away Eyes. I'm no country boy but that's a song I can understand and have a laugh at cause the type is stereotype nowadays here in the US and obviously was in 1978 too. When The Beatles have a laugh, they're having a laugh on old British culture or what have you.

Edited September 14, 2018 by Fashionista

[DieselDaisy]

I think what you mean is McCartney did music hall whimsy?

[Len Cnut]

26 minutes ago, Fashionista said:

Ya know what I mean. Compare "When I'm 64" to "Something Happened to Me Yesterday" one could seriously be used in like a Disney type film or a cutesy romance, it can be taken rather seriously, it's very Pooh Bear. The latter is obviously a pisstake on that sort of song "Don't know if it's against the law..."

A lot of things with bands come down to the personalities or personas of those involved and I guess I simply relate to the Stones as an American more than The Beatles:

John - artistie. Holier than thou. Blargh. Fuck that.
Paul - Looks like my grandma, makes pretty pop songs, as commercial as an artist can get. Blargh.

George - Coolest member of the group for me. Hippie guy. I dig that.

Ringo - He's Ringo. He's not bad.

Really, it's John and Paul who get on my nerves. Now, Stones in terms of personas....

Mick - Tongue in cheek sense of humor, everything is always a bit of a joke, could be at home equally in NYC or London

Keith - Nice guy with a tough guy pose, but it works, with the accent and everything

Brian/Mick/Ronnie - A mixture of fashionable madness and musical versatility, shyness and guitar heroics, and a ruffled raven lookin guy who doesn't talk much
Bill - Quiet, odd guy in the back who cracks a smile once in a while, honest, down to Earth

Charlie - Never cracks a smile, dry, could've had a career in Monty Python as such, has a sense to look so miserable that it falls into self parody.

The Beatles could never be punny or write a song with the title "Turd on The Run". They may have had a sense of humor but it was waaaaaay different and much more British, as such when they do their joke songs, I don't feel in on the joke, I don't get the punch line, it's something more a stab at their own culture than mine. Like, take Sweet Black Angel by the Stones, half serious, half joke; but I can GET it. Or Far Away Eyes. I'm no country boy but that's a song I can understand and have a laugh at cause the type is stereotype nowadays here in the US and obviously was in 1978 too. When The Beatles have a laugh, they're having a laugh on old British culture or what have you.

You can be a bit reductive in general about sussing out peoples personalities.

Rocky Raccoon wasn’t in a similar vein to Far Away Eyes?  Back in the USSR isnt punny?  Ob La Di, if you know anything of Ska is similarly in that Far Away Eyes vein.  Yer Blues, conceptually and in terms of its title, though the content is pretty sincere is similar...but its kind of sincerity wrapped in a joke.

Basically there was more wit and subtlety to The Beatles humour and The Stones one, the ones you catch onto anyway, have to have a certain blatant-ness to them.  

[Fashionista]

4 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

You can be a bit reductive in general about sussing out peoples personalities.

Rocky Raccoon wasn’t in a similar vein to Far Away Eyes?  Back in the USSR isnt punny?  Ob La Di, if you know anything of Ska is similarly in that Far Away Eyes vein.  Yer Blues, conceptually and in terms of its title, though the content is pretty sincere is similar...but its kind of sincerity wrapped in a joke.

Basically there was more wit and subtlety to The Beatles humour and The Stones one, the ones you catch onto anyway, have to have a certain blatant-ness to them.  

That's why the last 3 Beatles records are pretty much the only ones I like by them. The earlier records are something I feel are more to be studied for their musical competence and melodic pop structure than enjoyed in 2018.

Edited September 14, 2018 by Fashionista

[Len Cnut]

47 minutes ago, Fashionista said:

That's why the last 3 Beatles records are pretty much the only ones I like by them. The earlier records are something I feel are more to be studied for their musical competence and melodic pop structure than enjoyed in 2018.

I guess after a certain point all the talking in the world can’t change the way something sounds to a persons ears.

[Tom2112]

On 11/09/2018 at 3:42 PM, Fashionista said:

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

Yep they were family friendly (in the beginning, but by the 2nd or 3rd release they were far from family friendly - dropping and singing about acid trips etc) but the Beatles we're much more consistent during their short run and better musicians.

Beatles or stones. Beatles all the way, every time. But I can appreciate the stones when their on form.