thunderram

14 hours ago, T-Minus said:

As opposed to accepting the late starts, the ridiculous hours of doing nothing, wasting money and tolerating Axl's ludicrous and out of control ego and behaviour.  By not sitting idly by and allowing it to continue he was putting his foot down...
 

This is an odd perspective given that IZZY put up with it for at least 6+ years of the GN'R era (85-91) and also the beginning of the '14 Years' he and AXL were in bands together before that.

So his tolerance was really no different than anyone else in the band. In fact, SLASH and DUFF put up with it for a lesser period of time when you really get down to it. IZZY just tapped out at an earlier date because he'd already been with him so much longer. But the reality is he spent more time in bands with AXL and tolerated his antics longer than anyone else.

SLASH was really the 1st one to really put his foot down. That's why they had a 20 year feud while IZZY was still showing up at some of GN'R shows during that time.

8 hours ago, Tom-Ass said:

Didn't there used to be a vomit emoji? I could sure use it now..

The Tobias comments were worthy of it first ... then it continued to go down hill from there.

I wonder if Niven also believes Van Halen should disassociate from their song ‘Jump’ if it’s ever discovered to have inspired someone to jump off a bridge? 

What a tool. 

Also, does he realize that Slash has a song called ‘Serial Killer’? 

How about holding people responsible for their own actions instead of blaming others? SMH.

If I wrote a song titled ‘Give Me All Your Money’ and someone does, I’m pretty sure Niven would label them a moron rather than me a genius. 

If IZZY or any other member of the band could have kicked AXL's ass back in those days, he wouldn't have got away with most of the things he did.

While not a big guy at all, AXL was in better shape than any of them and considered crazy enough not to mess around with.

Sorum was probably the only one that might have tried, but not being one of the original members probably kept him in check. He had too much to lose.

Metallica surely didn't release their streaming data cause they'd no doubt be on that list somewhere.

That's the real key. Only artists that released the info were included.

22 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

It probably stops some of the ones not posting in this thread?

Whomever they may be, sure.

On 11/30/2018 at 7:58 AM, GnR Chris said:

Uh ... no. Axl returned in 2001 with Guns N' Roses, not a solo band. You can't argue facts.

Heed your own advice. Cause you're arguing against facts.

While it is certainly a fact the band that surfaced around AXL in 2001 was using the GN'R name (due to a legal technicality), it is also a fact that there was only 1 member from that band that actually created their previous work. You know, the albums/songs that actually made the GN'R name famous in the first place.

I think some people are under the illusion (pun intended) that GN'R or any band for that matter is like some type of sports franchise where players come and go for decades and decades and work under the same team name.

If Hall and Oates had ever broken up, nobody would have taken either one of them seriously if they went out on tour with some yahoo nobody knew all while using the same band name. Sonny and Cher weren't Sonny and Cher w/o Sonny or Cher.

In the case of GN'R, it's been argued for 2 decades who the most important pieces really are. Is GN'R just AXL and SLASH? Is it AXL and IZZY? Is it AXL, SLASH and IZZY? AXL, SLASH, and DUFF? Or is it the original AFD 5 and nothing else??

What ever side an individual fan is inclined to fall on, what is universally accepted is that GN'R is not just one person. Never was, never will be. So what rolled out on stage in 2001 was in no way GN'R. It was no different than what SLASH, DUFF and IZZY were doing on their own except that they never would have had the hubris to refer to it as GN'R even if they owned the name. That's precisely why CD is referred to as a solo record, regardless what the packaging says.

If Mars Inc. started taking M&M's packaging and wrapping it around a Twix bar, nobody would be fooled. And nobody would refer to it as M&M's.

On 11/22/2018 at 3:23 AM, killuridols said:

First, none of us here can affirm that he is taking medication for mental health, so talking like that is a bit irresponsible.

So is speculating about his appearance when nobody really knows the reasons for the seemingly drastic changes.  But that doesn't seem to be stopping anybody.

10 hours ago, PatrickS77 said:

No. It's not. Axl is a "stupid" rock star, only responsible for himself. Trump is the president of the USA. A person, who should serve the people of the USA. A person, who should be a leading example. And as that, even a "stupid" rock star can call him out, without looking like a hypocrite. And as you said, Axl has cleaned up his act for the most part.

I don't disagree with you. I should have worded it better. It has the 'appearance' of hypocrisy given history. But we've both covered why it really isn't.

12 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

That's because there's an assumed hypocrisy in Slash advocating teetotalism

To add to your point (which I agree with) that while there is a perceived hypocrisy in the example about SLASH, there's also the avenue of SLASH being an experienced person to speak about said topic. When addicts go to rehab, it's former addicts that sponsor them and/or give the speeches about how to recover and avoid using. When juvenile delinquents are 'scared straight', it's current or former convicts that preach not to go down the road they did. Conversely, when young teens start to learn about sex ed, they don't want to hear about it from a nun that's sworn to celibacy and has no 1st person frame of reference. It's always customary to hear things from someone that has walked the path -- rightly or wrongly.

But in the case of AXL, you're spot on. There shouldn't be any perceived hypocrisy regarding his comments on the forests/fires or even politics. However, if/when he chastises 45 over boorish and/or unprofessional behavior, that would certainly be hypocritical. Except for the fact that AXL looks as though he'd apply to what I stated above. He's a guy that has seemingly cleaned up his act (not tardy, ranting, or inciting violence anymore) and could advise others why not to go down the road he did many years ago. As long as he continues to toe the line with his behavior in the here and now, I don't believe he'd be hypocritical in pointing out someone else's poor behavior. Same with SLASH. Considering he's been sober and smoke free for years now, he's ok to preach about the virtues of not going down that road (should he ever do that) as far as I'm concerned. Those that made the mistakes but reformed are usually the best teachers.

Quote

After he left I even had a talk with Axl one time like, "You know, you're changing the sound of the band and it's really just you and we're all new dudes and we all come from cool places. But have you ever thought of just saying, f--- Guns N Roses. That name is dead. The band is over. We are now called 'blank.'"

And he goes, "Yeah you're not the first person who's told me I should probably do that. But Guns N' Roses is an international brand name, and to start over when I can just use the brand name that everybody knows, I can't sacrifice the branding that's already been established."

19 hours ago, WhazUp said:

I found this to be very interesting.  Because Axl throughout the years has always argued for why he kept the name, stuff like "I was the only one interested in keeping the sinking ship afloat" and all that

It makes sense that the biggest factor would be money/funding/brand recognition.  I just wish still though that he would have gone and done it under a different band name, or his own.  His work would have been much better received and it isn't like there would have been no publicity - there would have been tons of publicity and talk about anything Axl Rose would have done at that point in time.  

Under the guise of a solo project it would have been easier for him to do all the crazy musical shit he wanted to do without backlash and lawsuits

Some bands evolve and do different things, sure.  But most bands don't replace every single member in order to achieve it lol.  Axl could have saved himself a lot of hardship

And thus the false advertisement. In no way, shape, or form was CD ever GN'R musically. Only in name because, as that quote shows, AXL wanted to give it what he believed was its the best chance to sell.

Musically, CD was no more GN'R than anything Snakepit, Loaded, JuJu Hounds or Velvet Revolver ever released. Like all those releases, CD was just one man's vision lacking collaboration from the others.

I happen to be a big fan of CD. I've grown to like all but about 2 tracks over the past decade. I also like vast majority of SLASH's work too. But I can easily recognize that neither is GN'R on it's own. Why that is so hard for others to grasp is beyond me.

14 hours ago, Azifwekare said:

Yeah, because AC/DC are so unique and interesting. You never know what you're gonna get with those guys. Not everyone is satisfied with listening to the same generic riffs for 40+ years. 

The Beatles work with George Martin was revolutionary in the 60s, but music and production has progressed so far since then that the same sound and production values would just be weak and, to be brutally honest, laughable 50 years later. Aerosmith have experimented with modern production over the years - critics pissed all over the Just Push Play album but fuck those guys, big kudos to the 'Smith for doing whatever they wanted. Even the Stones, or Mick Jagger at least, have mixed it up every now and then.

If GN'R don't go balls out on CD2, I at least hope the next album will be somewhere between UYI and CD. If we just get a Slash album with Axl vocals or an AFD rehash, it would just be sad.

You're missing the point. It's not about whether ALL fans are satisfied. The point was that the Stones, AC/DC, Aerosmith and many others still have millions of fans and remained relevant for decades w/o having to bow to the pressure of following trends. So it's been proven that a band doesn't have to drastically change or follow trends to remain relevant. That's all I was challenging. Modern production has nothing to do with any of that. I don't even know why you brought that up. It's about drastically changing musical direction.

None of the bands mentioned created a 'grunge' sounding album, did they? And they all seem to be better for it.

Like it or not, when the name GN'R is on the package, there's an expectation that the music is going to sound like ---- well, GN'R. While all things evolve and change over time, the key elements should remain the same. GN'R is a rock and roll band. Always has been. They aren't some experimental band. While there are notable differences between AFD, Lies and the UYI albums -- they still contained key elements that made them rock and roll albums. The only thing on UYI that didn't fit that description (My World) was widely panned and disliked. Because it wasn't Guns N'f'n Roses.

If AXL wants to be an experimental band, he needs to do it with mates that aren't part of GN'R and title it appropriately. Cause IZZY, DUFF, SLASH and STEVEN or MATT don't want to go down that road. They never did. It's not what they are, were, or what they want to be. Slapping the GN'R name on something like that is false advertisement, pure and simple.

While we all want new music, the vast majority want something that is still recognizable as GN'R. You say "If we just get a Slash album with Axl vocals or an AFD rehash, it would just be sad." ..... but that's you. Besides, if they do it right and collaborate, any new music would contain a bit of all parties involved. Which should give it the uniqueness you're looking for. They don't need to drastically change musical direction or sound in order to accomplish that,

The notion that a band needs to change with the times is laughable.

The Rolling Stones, Aerosmith and AC/DC have been doing the same thing for upwards of 50 years and seem to still be doing just fine. The Beatles last album was released in 1970, yet they remain as popular and influential as ever. In 2016, 3/5 of original GN'R lineup awoke from a 23-year 'COMA' to produce the 4th highest tour of all-time doing what they did 25 and 30 years ago.

While the members of GN'R surely aren't "a bunch of '80s strung-out-on-heroin dudes on Sunset Boulevard anymore", the attitude they had at that time and the music they created during that era is what people remember most. It's what made the band a household name.

While new music would certainly be nice, the musical formula and style doesn't have to be drastically different. In fact, that's typically a recipe for failure. Hip Hop and modern country are quite popular these days, but does anyone believe GN'R should go that direction? Adding an 'electronic element' back in the late 90's would have been just as silly and ridiculous. That sound was never 'Guns N' Roses' and never will be. If AXL truly wanted to make that kind of music, or if he still does, he give it an appropriate name other than GN'R.

Mike Patton creates a lot of different types and styles of music aside from what he contributes to 'Faith No More'. And all of those differing styles are released under a different name. Because it's not FNM.

It's one thing to create new music that is current to what the band is like now, but an entirely different thing to go from a true rock and roll band to something electronic. Or whatever the trends might be today.

I'm so glad the musicians I loved from the 60's and early 70's never went 'disco' and stayed true to themselves and their fans.

3 hours ago, GNRfanMILO said:

Official GNR Halloween flash sale

Down to $699 on the US

$499 and I might do it. It would look very cool on top of my pinball machine next to the topper.

7 hours ago, Ralphelmo said:

And what made you think Duff ignored Myles? Was he ignoring him when he asked him personally to take part in RORHF? 

 

People...

Exactly.

Went out of his way in a tweet to label Myles a 'killer singer': https://twitter.com/DuffMcKagan/status/482216140450852864?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

Didn't exactly ignore him for the final bow after this performance of PC either:

What do you think the odds are that AXL ever sees this video?

That's how the song is supposed to be played.

1 hour ago, ToonGuns said:

My opinion is that Slash's opinion is correct: Buckethead IS a fucking amazing guitar player.

He is. But that's doesn't make him better than SLASH. That's been the point all along. Better is a subjective term, just like beauty. It's in the eyes and ears of the beholder. My main point beyond that is that SLASH is liked and appreciated by a lot more fans than is Buckethead. And there's numerous reasons for that. As good as he may be, Bucket is niche and appeals to a much smaller faction of fans. Why that fact is taken negatively is beyond me.

I happen to love the Chinese Democracy album. While initially I only liked 3-4 songs on it, over time I've grown to like and appreciate all but about 2 songs on it. And I like Buckethead's contributions to it. But I can easily admit that the album is niche and I'm in the vast minority. There's nothing wrong with that. While it's a great album to ME, the vast majority of rock music listeners tells us that it's not an all-time great album. And I'm ok with that. It doesn't affect my enjoyment of listening to it.

But I'm also not about to proclaim it better than say Led Zeppelin's IV or Pink Floyd's Dark Side or even GN'R's AFD simply because it might be viewed as more technically advanced or proficient. If that was the primary qualifier, then a band like Dream Theater would dominate the best albums of all time lists. Despite having been one of the most technically proficient and musically educated bands around, DT's music and sound isn't better than a lot of lesser proficient//educated bands (except to their hardcore fans). Same logic applies to guitar playing or any instrument for that matter.

On 10/11/2018 at 2:53 PM, Free Bird said:

There's no bigger proof to that than the past two decades

Yep. Exactly one of the points I made too. Despite carrying the GN'R name and having AXL in the band, the CD album was niche. AXL's direction was a big part of that, but so was the lineup and their musical styles. They have many fans, but nowhere near what the band had before. There are numerous reasons for that. One of which, is that it's not considered near as good as the previous work -- no matter the level of technical proficiency and difficulty. That's one of the beautiful things about art. Technical proficiency and difficulty don't often matter. As the old adage goes, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". Same applies to art and music. Whatever makes your eyes or ears happy.

On 10/11/2018 at 2:55 PM, F*ck Fear said:

I've always preferred Slash's style to that of Buckethead. That being said, there is no doubt that Buckethead is the better player.

Better player to YOU. And the minority that think like you. But run a National poll and who is really considered the better player when ALL factors are considered? It ain't Buckethead no matter how much anybody tries to argue otherwise.

People keep saying popularity or majority doesn't matter. But it does when discussing matters like these. For example, AFD is an all-time great album because the majority embraces it. While some out there may like some random Iron Maiden album better, it's the majority that says that album isn't is as good as AFD. It's like arguing against the sky being referred to by the majority as 'blue'. Someone can say it's 'green' to them but in the end, they're perceived as crazy for it. Because the majority sets the standards we live by, like it or not.

18 hours ago, Azifwekare said:

Buckethead is a guitarist's guitarist. He can play literally any style he wants (he plays his guitar like a cat plays with it's prey), and it's that reluctance to be easily categorised that limits any musician's reach and popularity. 

Slash is an icon in part because of his "image" (easily recognisable, top hat, Les Paul, big hair, glasses), because of his footing as a reliable blues rock musician who rarely deviates (you know exactly what you're gonna get), and his partnership with 3 other musicians who are just as talented as he is plus Steven (jk).

Not to mention the obvious point that we're all aware of that popularity in no way guarantees quality - just a simle look at the Top 40 charts confirms that.

Agree with a lot of what you say, but I also think you're missing something key. You say "popularity in no way guarantees quality" .. but what does that necessarily mean? If a great deal of people like something -- in the case of SLASH millions and millions of people -- then doesn't that qualify it as quality? As the old adage goes, "the majority rules". The majority sets standards of what's acceptable and good and what is not. An individual doesn't have to agree with the majority, obviously. But if the majority considers something quality, then it really is.

I'm a musician/guitarist. Been playing for over 25 years. While I can recognize technical prowess, it doesn't make that person a better guitar player in my eyes/ears.  For example, Michael Angelo Batio is one of the fastest players you'll ever see. And a great deal of guitar players can't do the things he does. But that doesn't make him the greatest player of all time or even among them. Because he's missing other elements/qualities that make up the whole.

You said popularity in no way guarantees quality. Well I'll counter by saying technical proficiency and speed in no way guarantees quality either.

Lastly, the 'image' you call out regarding SLASH is also one of the key elements that make up the whole that many players don't have. Some just have gimmicks. SLASH doesn't have gimmicks. And he's not just an image. He plays from a place inside of him that fans recognize. It speaks to them. And he's technically proficient in what he does. Most of all, he found a sound & style that most go a lifetime looking for but never find for themselves. All of those are reasons why he's popular and an icon.

12 hours ago, smeagol2124 said:

They would have to dumb-down bucket's work for slash.  The hatchet job done to TWAT is only a microcosm.  Bumble's parts? - No     

Could slash replace Finck's parts?  Probably.  Tobias or Ashba?  Sure.     Big B?  Not a prayer

Funny, cause one is a legendary guitar player and the other is mostly unknown to the masses despite having been around for a long time. And there's good reason for that.

Bucket may be some peoples cup of tea and has a loyal following of fans, but he's obviously not the majority's cup of tea judging by overall popularity and impact on the music scene. He's pretty much a niche guitarist.

I find the obvious dig on SLASH (using the phrase 'dumb down') as completely disrespectful and naive considering that Bucket can't do what SLASH does either. It goes both ways.

3 hours ago, Tom-Ass said:

Except Rocket Queen!! hahaha. Rocket Queen was always the highlight of his solo shows for me and I love the long ass jams.. Not a fan of the long NITL version but I eat the SMKC version up!  I can't tell you how many of those I have watched on youtube.. never gets old for me! That and Anastasia are the only songs I will really regret missing next week. 

Glad you said this, cause I was gonna say the exact same thing! RQ is among my all-time favorite GN'R songs (might be my fav depending upon the day of the week) and I really dig the long jam session to that beat and bassline. I've never understood the hate some have over it. At all. (unless one just happens to dislike RQ; which would be ridiculous unto itself LOL)