Powderfinger

9 hours ago, Karice said:

I do thank you guys for calling the question stupid and not me stupid personally. There's a huge difference between the two,

Its a finer line than you think. 

On 8/31/2022 at 3:27 PM, Karice said:

. I think my idea is a good idea. 😀

Your thinking would stick a feather in the ground and expect a fucking chicken to grow. 
I thought you had your own corner or something? 

1 hour ago, Nintari said:

Out of all those, I'd say only Tom Petty was able to match the output of his youth (at least up to the Wildflowers record; after that, even he began to slip). Which just proves my point: unless you can reinvent yourself like Petty, and start making music befitting an older, evolved human being, it just becomes a punch line.

I think you need to expand your listening.
Neil Young released Everybody Knows This is Nowhere aged 24, Ragged Glory aged 45 and a lot of killer albums since. Wallflowers isn’t even Tom Petty’s last great album! Echo, Mojo & Hypnotic Eye are great records especially Mojo, its as good as anything Tom did, the songs thrived live. 
 

16 hours ago, Nintari said:

The Stones should have retired decades ago lol. Even the Simpsons were ripping on them for hanging around for too long... AND THAT WAS THE NINETEEN NINETIES! haha.

Steel Wheels, Bridges to Babylon, Voodoo Lounge, A Bigger Bang & Blue And Lonesome wouldn’t exist.... There’s great tracks on all those records... The tours have been great. 
 

Musicans play music, you can play music until your an old person. What’s the problem. I’m a nobody and I’ll still play guitar at 80. Hanging round too long is a daft thing to say. Bet you’d like to have had a few Pink Floyd albums and tours in the last few years? Rogers doing his thing, it’s not my thing, but I’m glad he’s out there doing it for the people who like it. 

1 hour ago, Nintari said:

There aren't many rock bands who have gone past their 20's and still had it (and by it, I mean remaining at, or eclipsing what they were in their prime without the help of outside writers). Pink Floyd is one, but I'll be damned if I can think any others. Feel free to name them!

Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, RHCP, Iron Maiden, AC/DC, Megadeth, Testament, Pearl Jam, Mudhoney, The Rolling Stones, The Who, David Bowie, Neil Young, Bob Dylan, Tom Petty, Tom Waits, Leonard Cohen, REM, Radiohead, Buddy Guy, Muddy Waters, Fred McDowell, Blondie, The Ramones, The Jesus & Mary Chain, Primal Scream, The Kinks.

Look theres a 100 more who made and released great music in their 30s and well past it. 

I really hope it never happens.

The Beatles, though I’m not a massive fan, have set the benchmark for me in relation to their past and documenting it. The Anthology series in the 90s was a 6-8 part documentary 11.30 hours long in total. Really detailed and had new interviews with the 3 surviving Beatles. They also released an audio portion for the Anthology project with 6 CDs in total of outtakes, demos, home recordings and live stuff. The recent “Get Back” documentary is 7.5 hours long and in 3 parts. 
 

That’s the stuff that gives nerds instant orgasms. Not looking at some chick squirt across the room. 

On 8/25/2022 at 5:37 AM, allwaystired said:

I'm pretty much in the 'retire before it gets embarrassing' camp for any band or act. There's a reason Nirvana, The Doors, Hendrix etc are all so reverred after all, and it's not just the music.

The Doors may have been done irrespective of Jim’s death. LA Woman was the last album required by contract, it was also nearly full circle for the band who returned to the bluesy songs they started with before the first album. It also seems Morrison was done with the music thing by that point and was focusing on writing.

Nirvana also likely we’re done irrespective of Kurts death. He’d been pretty vocal about wanting something different in the last year before his death. I could see a Neil Young route been taken by Cobain. 
 

Hendrix too seemed to have been going in another direction, a more acoustic route. 

You guys have done great work with this. Fast becoming the definitive source. 

9 hours ago, Nintari said:

Good point. Not everyone can--or has to--be the Beatles. The Rolling Stones comes to mind as well. There was a little progression there, but not much, and it certainly didn't hurt them. Hell... the Stones were the biggest (literally) draw last year, even outselling Harry Fuckin' Styles lol.

The Stones covered all styles of Music on their records. They’ve had gospel, country, blues, rock, psychedelia, disco, baroque etc on their albums. Jagger tries to keep them relevant and Keith tries to keep them “The Stones” 

People always reference the Beatles but I always thought Buddy Holly made one of the biggest jumps in music. He started with a guitar and ended with strings inside 2 years. 

I don’t like the drugs, but the drugs like me. 

@Karice This site has been around a long time, almost every aspect of the band, band members, albums, songs etc has been discussed in detail ad nauseam. Search through the forums and see if the topic you have in your head to discuss has already been talked about. See if a thread already exists. 
 

1 minute ago, Sosso said:

That would have been a good idea for Pele

What happened that dude? 

20 minutes ago, Karice said:

I thought this would be a good idea due to how much people are resenting my threads. Give me some credit for recognizing that my threads are getting resentment and starting this thread...

So all future ramblings will be confined to here? 

12 hours ago, Karice said:

I think that Axl taking over Guns N' Roses was a conflict of interest. He was too close to The Band and too emotionally involved to become Manager/Owner of it. The Owner/Manager of Guns Roses should have been objective, not subjective. Besides, Axl was a mess when he decided to take over Guns N'Roses. He claimed the Band was a wreck. He was a wreck himself in control of a wreck. Bad combination. Remember at this time, Axl was very mentally unstable. And had a lot of anger management problems . He should have given control of Guns N'Roses to a stable, professional, and objective Manager, say let David Geffen be the Manager/Owner of Guns N'Roses He should have been focused on singing and performing, what he truly was, and is, as Frontman and Co-founder of Guns N'Roses. not also Manager/ Owner. Just because someone is the Co-founder of a band and the Frontman and Main Focus of Band doesn't mean they'd make a great Owner/Manager/...🤔

 

It’s not really a football team, band management is a different type of management I guess, the lines are blurred more.
 

Others can verify but I believe the contract Guns signed with Geffen gave them creative control and the final say on most things from material, album covers, singles etc. It was the band’s decision to tour say, not the record companies. So with that type of situation as a manager you have no real say, other than what the band says. So in some shape or form Axl has managed himself for the last 35 years. 

 

12 hours ago, Karice said:

He should have given control of Guns N'Roses to a stable, professional, and objective Manager, say let David Geffen be the Manager/Owner of Guns N'Roses

Sign ownership to David Geffen??? There’s hypotheticals and there’s insanity. 
 

I think all a “real” manager or management team like QPrime could have done was build the brand more, I don’t think they could have gotten Axl to tour in the wilderness years, I don’t think they could have gotten more material out of him, I don’t know if they could have gotten a reunion quicker. I think only the GnR Brand could have been better served with better management. 

Met Slash after a Conspirators gig in 2012. Got his autograph but no pictures. He had a rather large bouncer wit him that kept the line flowing. Slash was smaller than I expected, I’m not tall but I was a good head taller than him. It was a brief exchange but one I’ll value. GnR and other bands were my entire life when I was a kid, music kept me alive and was an escape from real life back in the 80s. To be able to look Slash in the eye and say thanks for the music you created and shake his hand was a cool experience. 

3 hours ago, Karice said:

This is a Fan Fiction I came up with..

There’s other descriptions for it....

New Rose could be a cool opener.

2 minutes ago, Gordon Comstock said:

You're Crazy (slow version) was a cool opener for some of the '88 shows and would be a good one for the current band. The drum beat starts, the stage lights go on, and Slash kicks into that riff.

Pretty Tied Up would be a good one for this lineup, too.

 

 

Coma opened Richfield '91 and one of the Tokyo '92 shows. Pretty Tied Up opened Rio and a couple other '91 shows. But I can't remember which show YCBM opened, and I thought Brownstone only opened 1 show...

Thanks. 

8 minutes ago, kingcanyon said:

Guns have opened with loads of different songs especially during the UYI tour but what if they did it now what other songs could work as openers. I'd say Rocket Queen, My Michelle and SCOM but what other songs would work as openng songs

 

during the UYI tour they opened with acording to https://www.setlist.fm/stats/average-setlist/guns-n-roses-7bd69e24.html?tour=4bd61b62

Nightrain 29 times

Welcome to the Jungle 28 times

it's so easy 26 times

Perfect Crime 25 times

Pretty tied up 6 times

Right next door to hell 5 times

Out Ta Get Me 4 times

Coma & Mr Brownstone 2 times

You Could be mine 1 time

 

if it doesn't make sense sorry i just thought of this and havev't really put in a lot of effort

I’m not 100% sure here in what im saying, but I’m guessing those stats are wrong. I don’t know that Coma or You could be mine or Pretty Tied Up opened a show. Maybe Jungle did, but not that I recall. Some of the heads on here can confirm...
 

setlistfm is a handy resource, but it’s not complete or entirely accurate. 

1 minute ago, Rovim said:

@Powderfinger maybe you need to father more kids and comeback to discuss in this thread when you're ready. 

Mmmm 

12 minutes ago, Rovim said:

areas such as? you don't know this person. Do you examine his stage banter and derive your conclusions about how mature he is from that? from interviews? we don't actually know that much about Axl which is important to remember imo, especially in a thread like this one.

Look man. I’m assuming. IF you’re a millionaire rockstar. Who’s had tens of people help you with shit your entire life. You didn’t grow up in some areas. I don’t need to know the guy to know his life is greatly different from a working stiff.  

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Okay, maybe not you then, but I see a lot of reaction to that song line, more reaction than I would have expected and a reaction that suggests people are passionate about it and are provoked by it. And that's why it is better than I thought, I suppose.

To be honest mate, I grew up in the 80s & 90s listening to metal and punk etc etc. I’ve heard wayyyy more offensive stuff than “pussy full of maggots” I don’t have a visceral response or any shock in my mind when I hear it. It doesn’t morally offend me. 
 

To me, what I feel about the song/lyrics are, if this song comes on in the middle of an album it’s not bad. It’s a terrible single though, and from a band I love and want people to go “hear the new GNR song”. Axl’s wrote some just amazing lyrics in his life, he’s said so much stuff about his surroundings and our lives that “pussy full of maggots” is a waste of what he could have said.

13 minutes ago, Rovim said:

but not the only way. Having kids is not necessary to growing up and "evolve". Yes, aged 60. Not everyone gets shit at the same time or in the same ways.

Yeah I’d agree, and getting your shit together looks different for everybody.

From what I’ve read of Axls childhood and knowing his adult issues, success for Axl and growing up is staying alive and beating their demons. 

You can only measure your self against yourself as they say. 
 

Axl’s on time and professional as hell for the past 5 years. He soldiered on this summer. He has grown and matured there for sure, but in other areas not so much. 

6 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I was trying to argue that a lyric that elicits such vehement and passionate reactions as evidenced by you repeatedly acting triggered over them over various threads here, can't be as 'meh' as I first thought

I knew what you meant. But you’re off the mark. My response wasn’t “passionate” at all. In any way. You said it was/is and here we are, and that’s where I’ll be leaving it. 

Thread title: “How much HAS Axl really grown up / matured?”

My Response: he’s writing pussy full of maggots lyrics at 60. 

Like I said, it’s not passionate. As to the rest, whatever you say. I think you’ve gone off track and taken something up wrong.