jekylhyde

Hard to tell if it is a new song or just a jam, but it does sound Chinese Democracy-y  

Which would kind of indicate that it is not a jam, because I don't see Slash and Duff coming up with stuff that sounds like CD-era material on their own. I think their jamming would sound a bit more like old school Guns.

57 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

I doubt there's any other band on Earth, past or present, who's fans are having anything near this discussion. 

We would cure cancer, if we'd get a new album. 

I want it all. Every song that has vocals.

41 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

Okay, SCOM was featured in a 1990 movie called State of Grace:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100685/soundtrack/

Well, I guess that's it, we can all go home now. It was fun in the few days it lasted.

Wonder if Guns N' Roses pop up, if you search for "Days of Thunder" or "The Dead Pool"? 

I live in Finland and Guns N' Roses pops as the first artist, when I write the words "State of G".  (There's also three playlists "This is Guns N' Roses", "Guns N' Roses Radio" and "Rock Classics" that come up.) As soon as I type an r, it switches to a band called "State of Grace".

Just thought I'd share my experience. Interesting to see if this means anything.

The First show of a new tour leg with no new songs and Axl's voice in rehearsal mode, which must mean that the band is on its' last legs™ thing again?

This forum never dissappoints. 

Guns N' Roses is a band, not a movie franchise.

On 8/30/2022 at 1:03 PM, Billy Cundy said:

funnily enough, watched T1 and T2 this weekend back to back. Incredible films. 

They really are. T1 is a perfect, claustrophobic scifi-slasher and T2 is just amazing, perfect 90's summer blockbuster from simpler times. It fires all cylinders and everything just lands. Both are really different movies, but they compliment each other so well.

On 8/16/2022 at 1:52 PM, PatrickS77 said:

Really? Where can one liste to that?

Just go to Youtube and type "Kiss in ear monitor".  A channel/user named "Sam Loomis KISS" has at least three recordings of what goes on in their in-ears 

7 minutes ago, EvanG said:

But I think in songwriting it's even harder. Comparing Bryan Adams to Elton John. Yes, Bryan Adams' lyrics and compositions are less complex and more cliché, but they're also a lot more catchy. So how do you decide who the better songwriter is?

This is kind of lame answer, but I personally don't think you can say that one is better than the other, definitely, period and be done with it  . Because a lot of it depends on the context too. It's like wanting a street hot dog and getting a filet mignon. Both are good, but they serve different needs.

The more I bounce this subject around in my head, the more I start go in circles. But I guess, you can analyze things to shreds and you'll get the average that most people like and those things become the parameters for objectivity. Which again might equal "good" or "better" for the majority, but necessarily doesn't mean anything to you personally.

So yeah, I don't think it's even possible to decide something like that. You can only analyze and have an opinion (which can be fleeting/changing because it depends on context and your current preferences and mood) 

54 minutes ago, EvanG said:

How can the level of songwriting ever be compared objectively?

I think it takes some time to wrap one's head around the concept, but I think it is possible and interesting (even beneficial as a music fan) to try to analyze songwriting objectively.

It's like comparing Myles Kennedy's and Duff McKagan's voices. Myles is obviously technically a better singer, you can see/hear what he does and go "oh yeah, that takes a lot practice to get that talented". But still, his singing can leave you cold. Like, it doesn't move you at all. Whereas with Duff you can hear his limitations and objectively hear how he isn't technically a "good" singer, as he kind of talks/shouts/croaks lyrics, but his voice moves you.

There is (or should be) different parameters for objectivety and subjectivety. They might overlap, of course, but they don't necessarily need to. You can appreciate the beauty of something and the effort put into it, even though the beauty itself might not move you at all. 

On 7/27/2022 at 11:07 PM, rocknroll41 said:

Back when I was a delusional teenager I thought I could “make it” in music. Then one day my self-awareness kicked in and I realized I was too “short and fat” for the part (even though I’m skinnier than the average American and around the same height as Axl).

Its a bummer, but self-awareness is also a beautiful thing. I’m comfortable in my own skin, at this point.

This kinda shit is just a part of life for some people. I would like to think Arkeen eventually understood that. Or maybe he died too early. I don’t know.

To be fair, there are musicians who are short and fat. It's all about how you play your strengths. Short and fat wouldn't have worked in Guns N' Roses in the 80's, but as a folk rock or metal musician that kind of look wouldn't have been out of place.

And besides, if you have the desire to do music, you will do music regardless. As a kid most of us want to be musicians, but as adults we usually want to make music. Which is a huge difference. And that desire is more valuable than money, fame etc. I always like to say "if you make it, you've made it".

But I digress big time. 

9 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

It's about the wealthy celebrity in general. The concept of giving rich people money in hope that "poor" people will buy shit because rich people suggest that those poor people need said shit. And that they (and apparently other poor people and with poor I mean, non-rich people) see nothing wrong with it.

I share this sentiment. The culture of idolizing the rich and famous is so fucked up. It distorts our values, our needs and our art, it isn't good for the environment etc. (But I guess that's a different discussion altogether )

They've all been millionaires for the last 30 years or so. They are not some local punk band down the street, whose members we know personally.

I do understand why one can feel betrayed, though. When the NITL tour started, I somehow felt like "my band" was making a comeback. But when I realized they were more interested in money than in art*, the blinders came off. Like these people are some filthy rich musicians who I don't know and who I have nothing in common with. Why should I care about them personally? It's a waste of time to idolize anyone. It gives you nothing back. My fanboyness flew out the window. It was actually good for me, because now I just try concentrate on the music. The art is what matters, not who makes it.

*I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that and I'm sure they genuinely still love playing. But they don't turn down a buck. 

Should've played Absurd.

2 hours ago, Marj said:

I agree…

I’m 44 and I use earplugs even at the movie theatre as loud sounds sometimes hurt. I can’t ear silence…. 😅 I fall asleep with headphones on. 
 

I use them at the movies too.

And that's the thing once hour ears get damaged, a lot of things become a bit of a bitch to deal with.

It's like fracturing your knee or something, it will never be like it was before. 

3 hours ago, Natty said:

The day I would use ear plugs on a concert is the day where I should retire from live gigs.

just my opinion. 

That's so assbackwards. Using earplugs means you don't need to retire from live gigs, because your ears won't get damaged, when you use them. 

5 minutes ago, Natty said:

The noise at airports or building suites is far more loud than a rock concert. That s a fact. 

Didn't say it isn't. Doesn't make rock concerts any less dangerous, though.

5 minutes ago, Natty said:

no one of my friends who also visit a lot of rock shows and are all over 40 and from countries of all over the world has tinnitus. So we all must be very lucky. 🍀

Yes, you are very lucky.

I'm sorry, but contrary to popular belief on the internet, anecdotal evidence doesn't annul scientific studies.

5 minutes ago, Natty said:

Sorry but you don’t get tinnitus from a usual rock concert! I am always front row so I get the whole experience and I never had tinnitus. . . I am 44 years old now and have been to loads of rock concerts from club gigs to stadium tours but I never ever would use an ear plug.

besides if I was already ill..

Stop spreading lies. You can definitely get tinnitus from a rock concert. A lot of people do. There are thousands of people who have gotten tinnitus from their first rock show. Decibels in a rock show usually vary from 90 to 120 decibels. Scientists recommend no more than 15 minutes of unprotected exposure to sounds that are 100 decibels.

Everyone should use earplugs at rock shows. If you go to a lot shows, you should buy plugs specifically designed for gigs. Your ears start to naturally distort louder sounds anyway, so good earplugs actually enhance the musical experience. This isn't the 1970's. There is nothing uncool about using earplugs. You're not a lesser fan, if you do. That's just horse shit. You get one set of ears. Protect them.

Count yourself lucky that you don't have tinnitus.

On 7/10/2022 at 2:23 AM, downzy said:

I know people are giving it a hard time for being “too funny,” but I appreciate a super hero movie that doesn’t take itself too seriously. 

I thought the balance between humor and seriousness was a bit off. Thor: Ragnarok had, in my opinion, the right amount of balance, but this one had just too many gags. And because of that, the style of some the jokes started get old for me. 

Christian Bale was awesome, though, and it was nice to see Guns N' Roses getting some love.

11 minutes ago, Rovim said:

an onslaught of musical ugliness

Perfect description of the song 

In my personal opinion, a full set of Velvet Revolver covers is the only way to go. 

1 minute ago, Hidin´Stradlin said:

Guns and Underwoods

Giggity. 

Just now, Stress Fracture said:

I wish we could have YCBM done in the style of Shackler’s Revenge verses.

That would be sweet