Aussiegun

"management say this time AXL will be ON TIME!"

If it does flop, it will be because of a few reasons outside of the "no slash" argument.

I'm from Australia and even I think the better option would be to be in the studio now.

I think they placed that part of the song perfectly in T2, but as a full song its just ok. Intro is good but the lyrics and solo are meh.

I notice some of the scalpers on ebay didn't sell, especially the one selling at $1,200 who has relisted their price to $980. If this is illegal then I wonder why ebay allows them to sell, they asked me for details on the reports I made but if you have all been reporting and they're still up for sale I'd say ebay couldn't care less. Very unfair.

http://cgi.ebay.com....em=140910952758

Lets hope nobody buys. Or what happens if we all bid and then don't pay up at the end - can we be in trouble?

you can be in trouble, but you could play the 'it's illegal to scalp tickets' card.

ebay dont give a shit, they're making shitloads of scalping. the only time they actually enforced anything is when football grand finals come up..

GNR didnt play Melbourne last time, so understandable they sold out.

I think a lot of songs on CD lack a decent intro (whether guitar or drum loop based or whatever). They seem like radio edits and not really something that classic GNR would've done (sans the SCOM real radio edit).

Best

Shacklers

Better

TWAT

Worst

If The World

Sorry

Prostitute

Pimp daddy

Yeah, exactly...it is about the name. And my point is relevant cause the only thing that's the same is the name, the drummer and the bass player. In the case of Fleetwood Mac - it's a precedent.

Makes me think that if Axl had released albums right away or close to after the breakup of the original line up, it would have been easier for the public to accept but who knows.

I think you have answered your own question in the topic about Fleetwood Mac. The public would've accepted whatever Axl incarnation if it was popular/successful/highly acclaimed.

My question was more about if it was valid for Axl to keep the name. I presented Fleetwood Mac as an example of why I think it was valid. You know, morally.

I'm not an Axl or Slash fanboy, so it's easy for me to sit on the fence and say in heinsight it was immoral, and moral if the new band had've stuck together and released a few quality albums. The morality argument is hard. Pink Floyd is a more interesting situation because Barrett was kicked out before Dark Side of the Moon, and then Waters pretty much became Axl, and then did a Slash and left - thinking that Floyd wouldn't dare go on without him, and then tried to sue them because they did.

Yeah, exactly...it is about the name. And my point is relevant cause the only thing that's the same is the name, the drummer and the bass player. In the case of Fleetwood Mac - it's a precedent.

Makes me think that if Axl had released albums right away or close to after the breakup of the original line up, it would have been easier for the public to accept but who knows.

I think you have answered your own question in the topic about Fleetwood Mac. The public would've accepted whatever Axl incarnation if it was popular/successful/highly acclaimed.

Sometimes I tend to wonder why Axl never made a solo record. If all that mattered was the music he could have made a new album anytime under any name, band or solo.

Could it be that all he wanted to prove with all his actions namely the name rights issue, the new lineup under the GNR name , the way he handles the band situations etc, was that he actually IS Guns N' Roses?

He tries to bury everything that is old band related. And that is not something bands with lineup changes do usually. Nor is it normal when all your truly successful history is behind you.

What is the motive that Axl had by handling GNR the way he did over the years? I can't seriously think that Axl had just a different vision for music and that it had to be done this way only.

There must be an explanation for all that. I don't know if Axl is just so problematic or if he had something different in mind for the past 20 years of his carreer.

Axl gets wound up over all sorts of crap, and the GNR name is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, so everyone wants a piece of it. Sebastian Bach, Bret Michaels and Vince Neil don't headline arenas do they...

It also comes down to why Billy Corgan tours as Smashing Pumpkins and not as Billy Corgan or Zwan.

He had his explanation for what an Axl Rose solo album would be.

"Axl Rose" wouldn't have been able to play MSG or headline festivals. The rights ownership just means Slash and Duff can't legally tour as GNR. If Doug hadn't had them sign the rights over, Slash and Duff could've legally blocked Axl from using the GNR name, and could've toured as GNR because they had the 3 way partnership. I doubt Slash and Duff would've done it unless it was with the intent to piss Axl off. Why did Dave Gilmour tour as Pink Floyd without Roger? Because Roger said to him "you wouldn't fucking dare". So Axl has the name and can play shows with the name, sell t-shirts with the name, but as far as the cross logo and all that, Slash and Duff prob. have stake in that.

But Billy Corgan wrote all the Smashing Pumpkins music save a few tracks, it makes sense for him to keep the name.

What about Fleetwood Mac?

what about it? 4 out of the 5 that made Fleetweed Mac mega famous are still with the band.

Are you joking? It's a completely different band compared to the Peter Green era.

So is original GNR compared to Appetite GNR compared to UYI tour GNR, but a core is intact

Umm...no. I just said it's a completely different band. It's like Appetite Gn'R compared to New Guns.

Yeah, Appetite to Chi Dem is a big jump, but I just look at Green to Buckingham/Nicks era as Appetite to UYI era, some old style there and some new, and the end product is something different.

Anyway, this thread is about the name. The Rumours line up made Fleetwood Mac, despite the small success that Green era had.

Sometimes I tend to wonder why Axl never made a solo record. If all that mattered was the music he could have made a new album anytime under any name, band or solo.

Could it be that all he wanted to prove with all his actions namely the name rights issue, the new lineup under the GNR name , the way he handles the band situations etc, was that he actually IS Guns N' Roses?

He tries to bury everything that is old band related. And that is not something bands with lineup changes do usually. Nor is it normal when all your truly successful history is behind you.

What is the motive that Axl had by handling GNR the way he did over the years? I can't seriously think that Axl had just a different vision for music and that it had to be done this way only.

There must be an explanation for all that. I don't know if Axl is just so problematic or if he had something different in mind for the past 20 years of his carreer.

Axl gets wound up over all sorts of crap, and the GNR name is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, so everyone wants a piece of it. Sebastian Bach, Bret Michaels and Vince Neil don't headline arenas do they...

It also comes down to why Billy Corgan tours as Smashing Pumpkins and not as Billy Corgan or Zwan.

He had his explanation for what an Axl Rose solo album would be.

"Axl Rose" wouldn't have been able to play MSG or headline festivals. The rights ownership just means Slash and Duff can't legally tour as GNR. If Doug hadn't had them sign the rights over, Slash and Duff could've legally blocked Axl from using the GNR name, and could've toured as GNR because they had the 3 way partnership. I doubt Slash and Duff would've done it unless it was with the intent to piss Axl off. Why did Dave Gilmour tour as Pink Floyd without Roger? Because Roger said to him "you wouldn't fucking dare". So Axl has the name and can play shows with the name, sell t-shirts with the name, but as far as the cross logo and all that, Slash and Duff prob. have stake in that.

But Billy Corgan wrote all the Smashing Pumpkins music save a few tracks, it makes sense for him to keep the name.

What about Fleetwood Mac?

what about it? 4 out of the 5 that made Fleetweed Mac mega famous are still with the band.

Are you joking? It's a completely different band compared to the Peter Green era.

So is original GNR compared to Appetite GNR compared to UYI tour GNR, but a core is intact

I think the label are waiting for a radio hit.

Sometimes I tend to wonder why Axl never made a solo record. If all that mattered was the music he could have made a new album anytime under any name, band or solo.

Could it be that all he wanted to prove with all his actions namely the name rights issue, the new lineup under the GNR name , the way he handles the band situations etc, was that he actually IS Guns N' Roses?

He tries to bury everything that is old band related. And that is not something bands with lineup changes do usually. Nor is it normal when all your truly successful history is behind you.

What is the motive that Axl had by handling GNR the way he did over the years? I can't seriously think that Axl had just a different vision for music and that it had to be done this way only.

There must be an explanation for all that. I don't know if Axl is just so problematic or if he had something different in mind for the past 20 years of his carreer.

Axl gets wound up over all sorts of crap, and the GNR name is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, so everyone wants a piece of it. Sebastian Bach, Bret Michaels and Vince Neil don't headline arenas do they...

It also comes down to why Billy Corgan tours as Smashing Pumpkins and not as Billy Corgan or Zwan.

He had his explanation for what an Axl Rose solo album would be.

"Axl Rose" wouldn't have been able to play MSG or headline festivals. The rights ownership just means Slash and Duff can't legally tour as GNR. If Doug hadn't had them sign the rights over, Slash and Duff could've legally blocked Axl from using the GNR name, and could've toured as GNR because they had the 3 way partnership. I doubt Slash and Duff would've done it unless it was with the intent to piss Axl off. Why did Dave Gilmour tour as Pink Floyd without Roger? Because Roger said to him "you wouldn't fucking dare". So Axl has the name and can play shows with the name, sell t-shirts with the name, but as far as the cross logo and all that, Slash and Duff prob. have stake in that.

But Billy Corgan wrote all the Smashing Pumpkins music save a few tracks, it makes sense for him to keep the name.

What about Fleetwood Mac?

what about it? 4 out of the 5 that made Fleetweed Mac mega famous are still with the band.

Maybe they should go record with Scott Weiland or Myles

It would be Slash's Snakepit all over again. Axl wouldn't be happy if they managed to come out with some GNR worthy stuff.

1pm the earliest GNR start ever?

China...

been there, done that.

Antarctica

I think it's just a bad translation. DVD naturally didn't exist 20 years ago, but it was probably meant to read as "First concert home video in 20 years" which is accurate as the Tokyo release was filmed and released in 1992 and later DVD. If this is true and gets released, I imagine it'll receive a standard DVD release and then a 3D Blu-ray release, probably as a combo pack too with the standard DVD, standard Blu-ray, and then 3D Blu-ray.

Of course, we'll wait and see. Things can easily change.

But I thought a couple of 2006 gigs were released on DVD, such as Rock in Rio Lisboa?

Wouldn't have been an official DVD, just a proshot put onto DVD

I think the majority of songs on CD are halfway there to becoming masterpieces, but generally just miss just something. IMO the only songs that sound great from start to finish is Better, Madagascar & Street of Dreams, but even then each of those songs have some hiccups in it (Better with the drum machine crap at start, Madagascar with the quotes in the solo, Street of Dreams without the The Blues intro)

Bumbles Snakepit

While on the topic, I dont think it's dead, but most of the genuine big rock bands are just bands still around from the 80s/90s. Of the recent big bands, you have a metal/nu-metal group (eg Linkin Park/Slipknot/System of a Down, etc) and a old style rock group (eg Black Keys, Kings of Leon, previously White Stripes), and while those bands are big, I don't think they match what the big bands were like in the 80s/90s.

Marc is right though, there's a fair bit more choice and the media these days makes it easier to 'find' your new favourite band, plus the shift from rock to electronic is changing every year. Even corporate whore 'rock' bands like Maroon 5, Nickelback, Coldplay, Matchbox 20 etc are going the autotune route.

And 20 years later the shows go for a good hour longer.

Question, what happened during Civil War for Axl to chuck a tanty?

Needs a good intro (like a lot of songs on CD). Maybe music from 1.28 or 4.26 could've been put at the start.