Dr. Who

There was a bit more to the story:

"[Axl's guitar playing] tripped me out when I first came back,' Slash says. 'I figured 'Okay, that's where his focus has been. I haven't really talked to him about it, to tell the truth. I guess he's just been sitting at home, figuring out chords or something. Maybe he's been taking lessons." (Slash, Total Guitar, 01/97)

"Axl is rhythm guitar on his own songs for the time being." (Slash chat, 07/30/96)

"For the last couple of years, [Axl] started to go, 'Okay, I'm going to play guitar and actually learn what these notes are.' It's an innocent guitar, not unlike Izzy (Stradlin, ex-GN'R guitarist) was, but Axl's got a lot more musically than Izzy ever did.'" (Duff, Addicted to Noise, 08/30/96)

"Right now, Axl's playing [rhythm] guitar and it's like he plays that instrument for ten years." (Matt, 09/23/96)

Awesome! I've been looking for these quotes for a long time! It's been a while since I remember reading it, but it always stuck with me how impressed everyone was by Axl's ability to learn a new instrument.

The whole band is incredibly talented. But I think Axl takes it to another level when he's obsessed with something.

It makes me wonder how much of CD's guitar work was composed by Axl. I don't think Axl is the simplistic player who only knows 2 chords like he did back in 1988. I mean for Duff - when sober - to compare Axl's playing with Izzy's in terms of quality - says something.

Rock or at least rock n' roll existed as early as the middle 50s...Rock certainly existed in the early 60s so yes. They weren't just doing blues covers but also rock stuff like Susie Q, Under the Boardwalk, Carol etc.

You stated Rock Band, which is something very specific, rock n roll is something else altogether, THAT existed from the mid 50s.

No, but, when it's 66, it makes your image more in touch with the youth than suits do.

No it doesn't, it means nothing, it's clothes, in and of itself it has very little value, particularly because they were dressing in a fashion that wasn't a lot to do with the music they were into, they were not mods by any stretch of the imagination so suddenly picking up the clothes to try and look part of something you're clearly not a part of just comes off as obvious.

So, John Lennon, who consistently blasted Paul's songs as "granny music", using the exact same terminology, didn't have any idea about it either?

Right, which is exactly the reason you're regurgitating it, because John Lennon said it because he was trying to slag off his mate that he was having acrimony with, it is as valid a criticism as Yoko saying Paul made 'june and spoon' type music, whereas John was consistently deeper, it just a surface level poor mans assessment.

(I mean, have a read about the making of Maxwell's Silver Hammer - Paul tortured the rest of the band, who hated the song, re-recording it to make it single material)

So a pop song about a deranged student bludgeoning people to death set to a jaunty little number is safe and disney is it?

As Tears Go By is a pop song yes, same intent as something like Yesterday...It's done a little less twee in my book, though. It's bittersweet as composed to music hall, grand nanny sounding.

Your ears need syringing if you think Yesterday is twee and As Tears Go By isn't.

You talk entirely out of your arse Miser, you waffle on about how the blues is boring and uniteresting and the cool people are all the wonderful pop groups who came afterwards and used it as a springboard to go off in different directions but then everytime a band is talked about going in any kind of different direction you start moaning about why they aren't more hard and raw like the original blues that you were slagging off in the first place

Quite honestly, i don't think you like any of the music you say you do. In fact i don't think you really like music in general, i think you just like the stories around celebrities and like using them as a way to have conversations with people where you can try and look clever. I mean I've literally seen you laud and slag off at varying times every single band and artist thus far mentioned in this discussion, it just depends what mood you are in on a given day and what argument you feel like having.

I honestly don't understand the difference between "rock" and "rock n' roll", I get that they're designated into two separate boxes but I've honestly never understood why. I mean, The Crickets - rock band, rock n' roll band? The idea - guys playing music in a group setting in a rock or rock n' roll genre- at least in some concept exist prior to 1960. Maybe it wasn't as clearly defined or as neatly organized as it is now, I've reading articles circa 1961 which declare rock n' roll or rock music to have been a passed fad, a dying, niche genre...

Would you not agree with the premise that in pop music (I mean, as in popular music, not 'pop music' the genre), image is incredibly important? Yeah, it's the clothes one wears but when you're a musician, what you wear, how you wear your hair, if you've gotten fat, these things all matter. It's not a matter of being mods or not but I mean, have you ever seen say, a 1960s home movie? Kids who weren't even really consciously pop cultural were dressing a certain way in 1965/1966 and The Beatles didn't seem to be the best on top of it. And by the mid 60s you did already have teen and youth culture and that was a driving force behind the success of all these bands. I just think still wearing suits and looking all identical as late as 1966 is a little behind the curve. They came ahead of the curve in '67 with the big moustaches and psychedelia but I'm talking about a very narrow period of time - 1965/1966.

I honestly and truly despise "When I'm 64", John Lennon could come out the grave and proclaim it the greatest song ever released in the history of music and I'd still loathe it. Maxwell's Silver Hammer is a good song but it was a desperate attempt at making a hit. I just don't like a lot of the McCarthy solo Beatle songs...I like his post-Beatles solo work but in the context of The Beatles, John and George's contributions are a lot more exciting and interesting. Can you not see how something like Eleanor Rigby or Penny Lane comes off kind of dated in a way say a song like "Helter Skelter" isn't? Musically speaking?

Thing with me is I see an issue from every possible side of it, which is kinda paralyzing for me even in basic things like "Should I dress preppy or casual today"...I can argue you either side of a point and find myself agreeing with both ends, be it politics, religion or music. Politically say, liberals think I'm a conservative and conservatives think I'm a communist. I'm the most indecisive person I know. I do love music a lot, though. It's just, I can see either side of the issue. I can see why one would point to Zeppelin and be like "that fucking sucks", and I can see why it rocks, too. I mean, day to day, one day I'll dress in slacks and a dress shirt and loafers and slick my hair, the next I'll wear double denim....It's not about wanting to have conversations or look clever because I don't think I'm clever, I'm contradictory and a cunt....

That I can dig.

It's kinda probable he didn't make much money...I mean the UYI money was divided 12 ways (including Zizag, the horns and Tracy and Roberta), with Axl, Slash and Duff I imagine getting the biggest cut...And Slash in his book talks about how they just barely broke even or were even in the red because of Axl's theme parties, which neccessitated them going on tour in 1993 just to be in the black...Also, I mean the last time the UYI albums really moved units was in 1997 or 1998 and I imagine Dizzy didn't see that much in the way of royalties to begin with, and CD didn't sell that much....Then factor in that Guns haven't exactly been huge earners on their tours in recent tours coupled with the fact that he lives in California which has a pretty high cost of living...He probably actually is hard up after expenses and probably lives at best upper middle class, if that.

I mean you want to hear a beautiful, lost love song from that era? Dee Clark, Raindrops...Or for a truly revolutionary song, A Change is Gonna Come, Sam Cooke.

''Parachute Woman'' is blues. It is as primitive a blues song as the Stones ever recorded. Th rhythm, the stomp, the entendre lyrics - Muddy Waters could have written and recorded it in 1959 and it would not have differed very much. If you were discussing something like ''Gimmie Shelter'' whereby the roots are fused with other influences, I may have been able to see your point, but you have selected one of the purist blues songs the Stones ever recorded!

Gimme an example of a Muddy Waters or Howlin Wolf song with a similar sound?
When I'm talking about not being into primitive blues, I'm talking about Robert Johnson, Big Mama Thorton, Bessie Smith....

I mean in '65, when The Beatles were putting out "Yesterday" and "Ticket to Ride".. nice, pretty pop songs....The Stones were putting out stuff like "Satisfaction" and "Play With Fire", one a working class, mid '60s anthem of unhappiness and the other a threatening sort of dark song.

Satisfaction has got nothing on Yesterdays, Satisfaction is just a REALLY good riff with Mick Jagger nicking a load of blues-isms, Yesterday is a marvel, it's AMAZING that a young working class kid from Liverpool wrote that song, it's achingly beautiful, it's more than a nice pretty pop songs, the charts are full of nice pretty pop songs, they don't end up being one of the most played pieces of music of the 20th Century...and Ticket to Ride is heavy, it's well played and thundering and loud, Play With Fire with a joke in comparison.

Satisfaction may be simple lyrically but it was an anthem of discontent which obviously rang true with a good number of people given how big a hit it was. This was a song attacking the staid commercial advertising world of the 1960s...Yesterdays while a beautiful song, was at its heart a quaint bittersweet love song, something even fucking Patti Page and Connie Francis was doing, bittersweet love songs about lost love weren't anything revolutionary in substance - it was the presentation and styling which set a song like Yesterdays aside from the pack. Yeah, it's amazing a young kid from the streets could write a song like Yesterdays but no one here is denying The Beatles were talented. But then, at the same age, The Stones were writing As Tears Go By, at the same age Axl Rose was penning Sweet Child O' Mine. Lyrically it's not anything THAT special, it's the musical presentation that makes it so. If you want to talk about a lyrical and musical masterpiece by The Beatles from this era, In My Life is astounding - that's something you don't see, a young kid reflecting back on his life with the bittersweet memory an older man would have.

Ticket to Ride is a good song but I'm saying of the songs, which do you think spoke to the youth's growing discontent with society - which was more real in 1965?

In the end, The Rolling Stones are and always have been primarily a rock band.

Really? So when they formed in the early 60s playing blues clubs, back when there wasn't such a thing as rock music, were they a rock band then?

The Beatles were ground breaking in many ways, but, image wise, they were soft. They were safe. John Lennon was a brilliant man and an interesting character outside of The Beatles, but I'm talking The Beatles as a group.

Why, cuz they wore suits? Dressing casual makes you hard, is that what you're getting at?

You don't have anything as cheesy as Paul's granny songs on Stones records.

The only reason and the only people who make such comments are ones that have absolutely no idea of the musical tradition that those songs come from, the sense of humour behind them having been made and the intent behind them. In the same way that you have no idea about the actual places that bands like The Beatles and The Stones came from and how that effects and influences who and what they were, so you just end up breaking it down into this stupid notion of 'they wore suits so that makes them soft', it's a shortcut to an intelligent observation. Cheesy denotes something that is hackneyed or false or an oft-repeated formula...so tell me, where had you heard of songs of the sort Pauls 'granny' songs were?

Also, have a listen to As Tears Go By maybe?

I get that some want to worship The Beatles because there's some connection there to punk rock, but there's just as big a connection to punk rock with the early Stones material (mainly the 1960s garage rock stuff).

Yeah, punks loved The Beatles, definitely

This whole conversation about the blues...I've personally always found the blues rather boring and irrelevant.

When a great percentage of the music you listen to is just shit versions of the blues basically

And I've never understood the argument that Led Zeppelin is "hollow". Is a song inspired by Lord of the Rings any more cheesy than a song about Bungalo Bill? People act like every song of Zeppelin's was fairy tale stuff but the core of their first two albums was blues rock, the third was a mix of folk rock and blues, and the fourth is really where you have two tracks like that, Stairway and Battle of Evermore. The fifth is prog rock and experimentalism, Physical Graffiti is everything, Presence is heavy blues rock and In Through the Out Door is pop-rock.

No one cares cuz they're shite. And shite plaguarists at that.

You are criticising the blues yet appreciate Parachute Woman? I'm sorry: you've lost me!

He's a wanker thats why

Rock or at least rock n' roll existed as early as the middle 50s...Rock certainly existed in the early 60s so yes. They weren't just doing blues covers but also rock stuff like Susie Q, Under the Boardwalk, Carol etc.

No, but, when it's 66, it makes your image more in touch with the youth than suits do.

So, John Lennon, who consistently blasted Paul's songs as "granny music", using the exact same terminology, didn't have any idea about it either? I get that they're tongue in cheek songs, meant to be as parody of music hall type older people music, but still, it's on the record (I fucking hate "When I'm 64"). Perhaps cheesy was the wrong descriptor, but basically, cutesy, Disney-like, safe, transparently commercialized (I mean, have a read about the making of Maxwell's Silver Hammer - Paul tortured the rest of the band, who hated the song, re-recording it to make it single material)...I'm not saying that of all Beatles music, mainly Paul's later contributions to the band. Honestly, I prefer The Beatles' solo material in many cases to their group work, so it's a matter of taste more than anything else.

As Tears Go By is a pop song yes, same intent as something like Yesterday...It's done a little less twee in my book, though. It's bittersweet as composed to music hall, grand nanny sounding.

See, that's where we differ. I think the stuff I listen to (and it isn't just Led Zeppelin or Gns N' Roses or Queen, it's stuff like Rick Nelson and Pat Boone and Elvis as well) took the blues template and made it better. I don't really find excitement in primitive blues music and that's where it bores me. A song like Parachute Woman infuses the basic blues thing with a groove and a rhythm that makes it interesting, at least for me.

Led Zeppelin is pretty damn cared about by a lot of people. They're only one of the most influential bands of all time for one and when they reunited over 20 million people were vying for a ticket...To act as if "no one gives a shit", even Nirvana, your idols, were inspired by Zeppelin at least in part.

Those Beatles suits are moddish. Look at the Regency era cut of them, the lapels? I hate the early businessman suits also but The Beatles were moding it up by 1966. And the blues is anything but boring and irrelevant.

Yeah they were less stuffy than the suits of '64, but The Stones, at least in imagery, were reflecting what the youth was wearing and thinking, I feel, a lot more than The Beatles were at that point. Even though The Beatles were working class by origin, I feel their music - not their personalities or life histories - is more posh, more upper crust. I mean the poppy scmaltzy arrangements, the Eleanor Rigby type songs, the Penny Lane pop....

I mean in '65, when The Beatles were putting out "Yesterday" and "Ticket to Ride".. nice, pretty pop songs....The Stones were putting out stuff like "Satisfaction" and "Play With Fire", one a working class, mid '60s anthem of unhappiness and the other a threatening sort of dark song. The Stones might've been posh in origin but the stuff they were putting out was a lot more real, to the underbelly of the 60s and the discontent growing there, than The Beatles were. Now, John Lennon as a solo artist is a different story - I'd put his early work on par with Bob Dylan as a "voice of a generation"...But in the middle-late 60s I think The Stones were a better voice for the unhappy part of the '60s.

I mean flashforward to '69, The Beatles were putting out "Here Comes the Sun", the Stones were releasing "Gimme Shelter"...I think we know which was more relevant to the sentiments of the period.

I've personally always found the blues rather boring and irrelevant.

You're boring and irrelevant.

Chuck was an abusive cunt, but Keith didn't hold it against him. One night during a rehearsal, Chuck left his guitar alone in the case and Keith just couldn't resist, he picked it up and started playing it. Chuck punched him in the face.

I just have never seen how one could find "Me and the Devil" more exciting musically than say, Parchute Woman. I think the black bluesmen laid a good foundation that others built upon and made more interesting. And I've never understood the argument that Led Zeppelin is "hollow". Is a song inspired by Lord of the Rings any more cheesy than a song about Bungalo Bill? People act like every song of Zeppelin's was fairy tale stuff but the core of their first two albums was blues rock, the third was a mix of folk rock and blues, and the fourth is really where you have two tracks like that, Stairway and Battle of Evermore. The fifth is prog rock and experimentalism, Physical Graffiti is everything, Presence is heavy blues rock and In Through the Out Door is pop-rock.

In the end, The Rolling Stones are and always have been primarily a rock band. I don't go in for this sociological Marxian crap - it's rock n' roll. The Beatles were ground breaking in many ways, but, image wise, they were soft. They were safe. John Lennon was a brilliant man and an interesting character outside of The Beatles, but I'm talking The Beatles as a group. You don't have anything as cheesy as Paul's granny songs on Stones records. I get that some want to worship The Beatles because there's some connection there to punk rock, but there's just as big a connection to punk rock with the early Stones material (mainly the 1960s garage rock stuff). This whole conversation about the blues...I've personally always found the blues rather boring and irrelevant. The takes that people like The Beatles, Stones, John Mayall and even Led Zeppelin did on the blues music was much more exciting.

1966, The Beatles were still wearing their mop tops and suits

The Stones in '66

I nearly killed a senior citizen watching Independence Day...no shit

...Details?

Don't people realize piano on GN'R songs predates Dizzy? The first use of piano in a Guns song was during the outro of One in a Million and the piano player was Howard Tenman. People only dislike Dizzy cause he sided with Axl in the breakup. I really doubt there were any complaints in 1990/1991, like "You know, GN'R used to be awesome but then they got this keyboard player and now the band sucks."

No, that can be/could have been Dizzy. Dizzy, the touring member, not Dizzy who was brought into the band to play piano by Axl but then plays on all the shit that's not Axl's.

"Dizzy came in and played three songs he'd never heard before - songs that were never planned to put a piano on - like heavy metal. But he put heavy metal piano into it, and it was amazing." Axl on why Dizzy was hired, 4/28/1990. So, no he wasn't brought in to play piano by Axl live. He was brought in cause Axl liked what he added to the band.

anyone else love Quantum Leap?

Ehh, I'm sure there will be a lot of differences. Let's face it, Star Wars will always have those kinds of things. It'll depend on what else is going on in the trilogy.

An inventive way to go about it would've been to do something radical, like this:

Three hundred years have passed since the Battle of Endor

saw the crushing defeat of the Galactic Empire and with it,

the death of its wicked and cunning Emperor. A new Republic

formed from the ruins of tyranny and peace reigned.

Luke Skywalker, the last of the old Jedi, and first of the new,

created a new Order of force users, who have worked to maintain

order in the Galaxy. The new Jedi became so powerful that Time itself

became theirs.

Yet in the idylls of peace, there comes decay. Stirrings of revolt,

and rumors of corruption have thrown the Republic into chaos and disarray.

A radical group of Jedi, who have sought to use the force to bend the minds

of others to enforce peace have arisen, and their mindless slaves now wage

unending war upon the galaxy. Out of the memories of the past, a legendary band

of heroes have once more become A New Hope."

Sounds worse than a movie full of Jar Jar.

I had to work the original cast in there somehow. Time travel sounded cool.

Ehh, I'm sure there will be a lot of differences. Let's face it, Star Wars will always have those kinds of things. It'll depend on what else is going on in the trilogy.

An inventive way to go about it would've been to do something radical, like this:

Three hundred years have passed since the Battle of Endor

saw the crushing defeat of the Galactic Empire and with it,

the death of its wicked and cunning Emperor. A new Republic

formed from the ruins of tyranny and peace reigned.

Luke Skywalker, the last of the old Jedi, and first of the new,

created a new Order of force users, who have worked to maintain

order in the Galaxy. The new Jedi became so powerful that Time itself

became theirs.

Yet in the idylls of peace, there comes decay. Stirrings of revolt,

and rumors of corruption have thrown the Republic into chaos and disarray.

A radical group of Jedi, who have sought to use the force to bend the minds

of others to enforce peace have arisen, and their mindless slaves now wage

unending war upon the galaxy. Out of the memories of the past, a legendary band

of heroes have once more become A New Hope."

By the way, my response was a parody in response to Bacardi's and was not meant in any serious way, just to clarify. I would hope the over-the-top nature of the post would give that aspect of it away.

On topic, though, the film is beginning to seem like a retread of the original film:

I'm looking forward to Han Solo's death scene. Hopefully Finn does it #SJW

and then fucks his daughter while JJ Abrams appears in an inset on screen, explaining why the white race is evil and needs to be genocided at once?

Ideally, Han would still be dying, not dead while this was happening, made to watch as J.J. gives his commentary, and we had John Williams compose space-style 70s Funk Porno music, as Rey Solo is put on top of a space pinball machine like in The Accused.

SCOM. That song is Guns N' Roses right there - hard, soft.

Ha ha - I totally forgot about SCOM when I was thinking about it.

I'm going to stick with RQ though!

I love RQ but the thing is I think given how explicit it is, it might be a turn-off to a newb, you know? I mean, it does have the cool segue, but...Hearing the first part alone might make someone think "Oh it's just 80s hair metal"...I chose SCOM because it has the sweetness Axl's lyrics could have (without being overwrought), it has Slash's guitar talent on display (without a 2 minute long solo), it has the whole band jelling, and even now in 2015, it's catchy. But it's got that uncertainty at the end "Where do we go now?" that you don't see in most sweet love songs.

SCOM. That song is Guns N' Roses right there - hard, soft.

I'm not much of a Zeppelin fan but Mercury had a phenomenal canon of LPs to his name, fifteen Queen albums and two solo. Now many of those Queen albums are masterpieces. I would rate Queen II, Sheer Heart Attack, A Night At The Opera, A Day At The Races, News Of The World and Innuendo as fullly blown masterpieces, and Queen and The Game as near masterpieces. Even the weaker albums, all except Hot Space (some would say Jazz also), are good solid albums. (I'm trying to be objective here by the way as I actually rate Jazz higher than most).

The problem with Axl is we're missing his prime years. A songwriters peak I've read is from around age 28 to early 30s. UYIs offered a glimpse at what might have been had Axl continued on a steady basis throughout his 30s. I mean we have to remember, between 1992 and 1998, Axl didn't even write any new lyrics (by his own admission). Maybe songwriting is something that, if you take too long of a break from it, you lose the momentum. I mean, Estranged and Coma were written lyrically in 1990. It's a good indication of where his talent was at that time.

I wouldn't mind seeing Independence Day II but wish Will Smith would be back. At least we are getting The Goldblum.

But here's the thing with that. I want Will back too but...On the other hand, I would've just preferred with this particular continuation if they went the reboot route. I don't really want to see an old Goldblum, Brent Spinner etc...I'm afraid it'll be a shit fest. Independence Day is one of my favorite movies so yeah. I don't think Hollywood can do disaster films as awesomely as they did in the '90s anyway.

Even though I love Independence Day, I don't think a sequel is really needed. The original was IMO magic.

no luke on the poster?

Yeah, where the hell is Luke? Don't tell me he's in it for 5 minutes and gets killed off! Don't tell me he gets Bryan Cranston'd.

We know Luke plays a prominent role in Episode VIII and it's likley he plays a smaller yet still important role in VII. The fact they are keeping Luke secret is awesome I think. It will make the moment he appears on screen that much better. The Star Wars saga is all abotu the Skywalkers so no need to worry. Luke may die at some point but he's not dying in Episode VII that's for damn sure. He'll be there. I like that they've kept him a mystery.

It reminds me of how they kept Gollum under wraps until The Two Towers was actually in theaters. Everyone had a pretty good idea what he'd look like, but getting to see him for the first time in the context of the film made everyone lose their fucking minds. I was all excited for that to happen again with The Hobbit because they made a point of not showing Smaug in the prologue, but then showed him in all the trailers for the second film.

If they're following the original trilogy's rhythm, then Han = Obi Wan, dies near 3rd Act of this film, and Luke survives until act 2 of Episode IX.