Fashionista
-
Posts
586 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Events
Posts posted by Fashionista
-
-
3 hours ago, Len Cnut said:
Bunch of marketing bullshit. There was nothing that The Stones did to justify a bad boy image that The Beatles didn't. Background-wise The Beatles (with the possible exception of John who was lower middle class at best) lived the life and were born into it. Other than that its just imagery. I mean what did The Stones do to place them as non family friendly, what, take a slash in a forecourt in Essex? And anyway, whys this being a 'bad boy' such a priority? Be yourself. I think perhaps you have to be from England to see the realities of what The Beatles and The Stones were. The Stones (and their fans) seemed to hang onto this bad boy image shit like its something they need to compete with The Beatles but they really don't, it lets em down a bit to be honest (not the image, just the way its used in the context of discussions such as this). John Lennon battered a fuckin' reporter and used to slap women about...but whats it all worth? What Stones song was there of that particular era that was as aggressively masculine as 'Run For Your Life'? The Beatles were the band that played in Hamburg strip clubs while The Stones played jazz and blues places in London for middle class students and obscure record collectors, The Beatles played working mens clubs (played fuckin' everywhere actually!). I guess the difference is between being a tough guy and acting like one. In reality Ringo is the one from the roughest manor out of all The Beatles and The Stones and not much is made of it but he was a dodgy little character in his younger days. But so what?
Ain't the marketing thing, it's the family friendly vibe, the granny songs, the family friendly teddy bear bullshit like "When I'm 64" and all that horseshit. John Lennon was a genius songwriter but also a pretentious little asshole with all his cause celebre bullshit like he was so above everything, and took himself way too seriously, too. In fact the only member of the band I like was George.
-
1 hour ago, Pixeb said:
What is the meaning of the title of this song? Is it about a certain person or something else? I tried to find it out but till now: I just don't know. Double talking? Jive?
Basically it means two faced bullshit
-
To be honest I don't really care for The Beattles, Stones were The Beatles without the family friendly bullshit,
-
The one thing I hate bout the AFD nostalgia marketing is all the fucking skills in the imagery. What is this, Iron Maiden? I associate skull in rock music with metal bands which GNR never was
-
I do not like CD, but The Wall is far superior to Dark Side of The Moon.
-
This song sounds like it could easily be on Sticky Fingers or Exile. My appreciation for Between the Buttons grows daily.
-
On 9/3/2018 at 1:57 PM, EvanG said:
From that I gather that Axl also contributed to the music and not just the lyrics, if it's true what he says. I can imagine him writing parts of the outro of Locomotive because it does have his piano style to it. Him being a perfectionist and piano player himself, I think Dizzy probably didn't contribute a lot or any ideas at all to the UYI songs he plays piano on.
Axl said in an interview that part of the reason Dizzy was hired was because he put piano on songs they hadn't even thought of putting it on, Axl termed it 'heavy metal piano.' I imagine the piano parts Axl plays on the UYIs are those he actually wrote, and the parts Dizzy plays on the songs are parts he actually came up with. Why wasn't he credited? Same reason Slash wasn't credited as co-writer of Estranged. The crediting system on the UYIs was bizarre.
-
5 hours ago, Dazey said:
Also good news.
For the first time, more than half the population say they have no religion, and the generation gap on religious affiliation is widening, according to the British Social Attitudes survey.
53% of all adults describe themselves as having no religious affiliation, up from 48% in 2015. The latest figure is the highest since the BSA survey began tracking religious affiliation in 1983, when 31% said they had no religion.
WINNING!!!!!!
"Having no religious affiliation" =/= "I do not believe in anything." It just means people choose not to narrow their beliefs down to ancient labels anymore. An agnostic is not a Richard Dawkins, New Atheist militant but an agnostic would have no religion. Likewise, someone like myself who believes in a higher power yet does not subscribe to the dogmas of man made religions, would also respond as having no religious affiliation.
The world never be militantly atheist. At best you will have non religious theists and agnostics and pantheists.
-
2 minutes ago, -W.A.R- said:
Religion shouldn't be taught in schools at all.
Disagree. Religion has been massively important all throughout human history in almost every single area of life. Whether one believes or not, the impact (good and bad) of the various religions in art, in the preservation of western knowledge after the fall of the Roman Empire, as a foundation of the basic ethics systems of most societies, in art and even in science, and of course in history through warfare, cannot be denied.
By the way, having a lack of religious affiliation doesn't make one an atheist. I believe there is *something* to the universe, I just don't subscribe to any religion. I would think if the respondents were given that option, the poll would reflect a lot of agnostics as well as non religious theists.
-
9 hours ago, Euchre said:
Out of everything I said in the prior post, the thing you choose to comment on is the NR single - and even then try and put words into my mouth. If you can find anywhere that I claim the Illusion about, tour or NR were not big then quote me direct, and I’ll stand corrected. My point the whole time is that they picked up a different fan base, alienated a lot of fans of the original line up and still used the original band to push things along (although far less so than they do today). If you were a pretty casual fan that liked NR but didn’t own Appetite and Lies (remember no internet to stream or download, no greatest hits at the time), so if you wanted the big 3 GNR softer songs you either bought 3 albums that would have been $60 - $90 at the time (in Oz) or you bought that single that was $5 to $7 from memory. A lot bought the single because of this. So I’m not claiming that NR was a success because of this, but I’m certainly claiming it helped sales along.
You seem hell bent on this revisionist line even though you have basically said you weren’t there to experience it first hand, and everyone else that has commented that was, and also your sister more or less are confirming what I’m saying to some degree.
The Adler/Izzy stuff has been going since 91. It’s not going to go away. As I mentioned before I remember the Adler v Sorum debates back in the mid 90s on the Boerio forums.
The 5 was the way the band was defined and the group that made the best albums and delivered the best performances. The things that have happened subsequently were predominantly around control, money and ego - and whilst there has been periods of success the reality is the band hasn’t delivered anywhere near the potential it could have and ironically, hasn’t had as much regular or on going success as it could have.
1) I'm speaking of America. You both overestimate the audience they alienated and the new audience they picked up. I am sure some metal head were unhappy with the ballads but the ballads constitute a minority of songs on the records. Some of GnR's most metal in sound material is on UYI I. There aren't really any GNR songs as metal as Garden of Eden. Likewise, I doubt many pop fans crossed over to a homophobic sexist rock band with baggage because of NR.
If the single alone only had success the impact of SCOM as a b side might be more relevant but the success of the video shows that people were into the song itself.
I mentioned that my sister and her friends liked the Illusions but were mainly turned off by Axl's antics the late starts and GnR becoming increasingly out of touch with reality. Those stand independent of Dizzy Reed, ballads or anything else.
The Adler Sorum debate might have been among hardcore fans in the mid 90s, after the tour was over and the dust settled but if you go back to Usenet in 91/92 the only things you'll see about Adler is what a joke it was that a band of drug addicts fired him for doing drugs. Do you really think your average rock fan cared that much about who the drummer was in 91? Izzy leaving was a different story.
its your opinion that the 5 made the best albums and delivered the best performances. As far as what could've been the songs were written with Izzy and Adler in the band and would not have been all that much different with either in tow. Adler did not have a say in musical direction and Izzy was not interested. The Mates Rehearsal in 89 shows as much. Don't damn Me, Locomotive etc are essentially the same as on the record.
-
The UYI albums were still massive successes despite the metalhead contingent being unhappy. And you're trying to claim NR was only successful because of SCOM. What a joke. I guess people requested the video for the song on MTV in 1992 ironically, too, right? Massive failure all around, right?
The revisionist hatred for anything past 1990 has now pushed the UYIs into Star Wars prequel territory as being massive failures and bad albums who destroyed GN'R. It's amazing. All because they're bitter Adler wasn't there.
-
9 hours ago, Apollo said:
Great debate. You both are making excellent points.
The rock crowd in my area loved the Illusions. But the fans into the harder rock definitely started moving away from the band.
Pretentious is a word that was used a lot. Axl’s late starts, rants, diva behavior, etc really started turning some fans off of the band.
I remember watching Estranged with a group of friends and when Axl is swimming with the Dolphins one of them turned to me and said “dude, really? What happened to Axl Fucking Rose?”
Money and fame really changed the attitude of GnR as a band.
The UYIs came out probably two years too late. I mean, in the college and underground scene before Nirvana broke mainstream, it was all about stripping things down. R.E.M. for example was a harbinger of what was to come, really (a producer once said Nirvana was simply R.E.M. with distorted guitars to him). Simple, melodic, poppy rock that held no real pretenses. The frontmen who led the vanguard of Grunge and Alternative music were interesting, but harmless - politically correct, nice guys who held no questionable views or acted in any diva way. Rockstars who dressed like regular people, who even eschewed long hair. The music scene changed really quickly. If the UYIs as is - let's say Steven is kicked out earlier - came out in 1989 or even in 1990 - it would've sold twice as much as it did and been considered a classic along the lines of Exile on Main Street.
Image is a powerful thing in music, and it was especially in rock music. Let's compare GN'R and how they dressed and the presence they gave off vs. their contemporaries.
GN'R look like cartoon caricatures by comparison, rich guys in really expensive costumes playing roles.
Not only did it come out at the wrong time, but AXL ROSE, his actions, his bizarre statements, his diva attitude as you say, really overshadowed the music. Reviews from the era would talk more about GN'R's punctuality than about the songs played. When you're waiting 3 or 4 hours for a show to start, you're not gonna care to remember the songs you heard there, you're just gonna be happy they showed up and that you got home safe - and you're gonna be turned off by them. Axl said he wanted to bury Appetite, but his actions actually buried the UYIs. By the time they came out, St. Louis had greatly tarnished the band's reputation, late starts were the norm and people were tired of it, and while the band gave 30 songs, essentially 4 LPs, people didn't wait for 4 years between records for Axl to make them wait four hours to play.The UYIs also were in some ways too much at once. 75 minutes of music per CD in 1991 is a lot to digest, and each song is radically different from the next (whereas on AFD and Lies, every song is in exactly the same style). You'll go from one skate park thrash song, to Izzy (who the fuck is this guy singing?) on vocals doing a Stonesy classic rock number, to a James Bond cover, to a folksky acoustic campfire song, to a short, fast punk metal song. It's like musical whiplash. There's no consistency. There's a lot of great songs, but it feels like a compilation set of great songs with no glue holding them together rather than a cohesive album, which, after a four year wait, probably was a turn off. Outside of the ballads, there was no singular direction to grasp onto; GN'R has no musical identity on those records. Compare this to the Black Album, where, as offputting to hard core fans as it was, the album is cohesive as fuck, or to Nevermind, or Ten. UYIs songs are mostly really amazing songs, but they sound like they come off of 4 different albums instead of two. Just when you're like, okay, "wow, that was great, I hope the next song is like that one", you get a number in a completely different genre. It's schizophrenic.
It wasn't the absence of Adler, or the mixing, or Dizzy Reed. It was all I said above. -
By the way, as an outside, I love that Jim tried to purposely deconstruct the idea of the sex symbol rockstar. Intentionally put on weight and grew a big ass beard and traded all those "rockstar" costumes for regular clothes. The transformation in just 3 years is nothing short of phenomenal, he truly was a 'changeling.'
-
On 8/30/2018 at 2:19 AM, Len Cnut said:
Arguable. Extremely arguable.
Not my opinion, essentially what Jim was saying in interviews around the time of the release's recording.
-
7 hours ago, Fashionista said:3 hours ago, Free Bird said:
There might be no definite line between those genres but there is a line between Jazz and Rock, a line between Blues and Hip Hop, a line between Metal and House... and there is definitely a definite line between this kind of electro music posted in this video and rockmusic.
Like I said. I never heard of this band before and all I know from them is that video in this thread. They might have songs with rock elements but that example here is for a fact no rock music.
Also, lemme ask you, is the song "See Emily Play" rock music?
-
And while not strictly rock, St. Vincent is basically Beck of our time. A little pop, a little jazz, a little rock:
-
Another more recent rock band that is pretty popular with younger people:
The fan vid has 300 million views.
-
3 hours ago, Free Bird said:
There might be no definite line between those genres but there is a line between Jazz and Rock, a line between Blues and Hip Hop, a line between Metal and House... and there is definitely a definite line between this kind of electro music posted in this video and rockmusic.
Like I said. I never heard of this band before and all I know from them is that video in this thread. They might have songs with rock elements but that example here is for a fact no rock music.
-
Inspired by the other thread.
Madagascar is my favorite song, I think, by the post-Slash band. I can't even explain why. It's just so simple and straight forward and to the point - no bullshit. The lyrics are uplifting. Axl's vocal delivery reminds me almost of Lies - that deep rasp. I only wish the trumpets were real trumpets rather than keyboards and that the song had real drums rather than a loop; it's perfect IMO. It's also I believe the first song Axl wrote lyrically for CD.
What do you guys think? -
4 hours ago, Free Bird said:
There are some charactaristics you just can't fuck with and regardless what somebody is considering this type of music rockmusic, it just isn't.
There's really no borders with this stuff unless it's classical music. I mean where's the line between funk and disco? Where's the line between grunge and post grunge? This is the next step of rock music. If it's not your thing it's not your thing. But it's what the kids like.
-
4 hours ago, three__days said:
I've got to disagree, UYI I is bloated with songs that feel a bit 'slight', it's the weaker of the 2. It Tastes Good, Don't It is a jam though - what happened to your version of it? - that was class!
Wasn't my version, someone else's great work but it got taken down by the creeps who are taking down GN'R youtube vids
-
7 hours ago, Gordon Comstock said:
UYI I is definitely the stronger of the two albums, IMO. There's only 1 weak track on there, Back Off Bitch, but even that isn't really a 'bad' song it's just nowhere near the rest of the album. I'd say it's at least as good as AFD even, as far as the songs themselves go. The production is what brings the UYI's down though, there's some tracks that I almost never listen to the album versions of; I prefer either live versions or Axl's Advance Copy versions of Nov Rain, DTJ, The Garden, and Coma.
If UYI I had a studio cut of It Tastes Good, Don't It on there and maybe Bring It Back Home in place of one of the other songs, I think it would be perfect.
-
22 hours ago, Euchre said:
Nothing revisionist about it at all - those that lived through the Illusion era would recall how polarising they were at the time amongst fans and also that within a year of that tour GNR were pretty much considered a joke.
I can assure you I didn’t think much of them at the time and if anything like them a little better now, but still don’t think they are anything on Appetite or Lies. Didn’t regard them as real GNR at the time, still don’t now and doubt I ever will.
All the 80s GNR fans I knew had moved onto Metallica and then Pantera during that era. A lot gets talked about Nirvana killing this scene, but Pantera did way more damage IMO. GNR on the local metal show just sounded weak alongside Mouth For War. I remember photos of Slash’s Snakepit playing Donnington and it was just sad the way they looked compared to the other bands.
ill tell you who they did pick up as fans though due to the NR videos and the like - the pop fans - and there were a lot of them. My neighbour went from Kylie Minogue to UYI era GNR !!! Completely different fan base to prior.
I also remember the Adler v Matt debates on the Boerio fan site and that was well before Slash left the band. I had to chuckle when the Adler v Frank debates come up now. Time will do to the Frank fans what it did to the Sorum fans. It is Appetite that has and will stand the test of time, the UYI just don’t cut it.
Lastly it’s pretty clear the band knows this as well. This last tour has pretty much been an repeat of th Illusion tours however all the imagery is Appetite. Now I wonder why that is ?
Oh but it is revisionist to the extent that they're basically borderline considered "fakegnr albums" by some, and considered a horrible misstep by others. They were polarizing because they were more than just, well, rockers. GN'R was considered a joke more for Axl's antics, the late starts, the rants, and his odd clothes than anything else. I was a kid in the 90s, but my sister was a MASSIVE Metal/Guns fan in this era - she saw GN'R as early as their L'Amour show; She even ran a local rock music magazine. According to her, the UYIs were received well (but the ballads - mainly Estranged and NR - were puzzling and a bummer). My sister is a woman who only until recently came to terms with the Black Album as a Metallica record. She only recently saw Metallica live again for the first time since 1996 or 1997 because she felt utterly betrayed by Load and ReLoad. She was 19 when the UYIs were released. According to her and her friends' I've spoken to (all of the same scene), waiting 3 hours for GN'R to show up on stage is what turned them off - not the music. Axl ranting against Metallica and causing riots turned them off. Her and her friends considered TSI - at least, Since I Don't Have You - to be cringey, horribly cringey - and dropped out. She still bought the Snakepit record when it dropped in '95, though. I would say she is a fair representative of your average Metal chick here in NYC in the late 80s/early 90s. Her favorite band in the world is Metallica and she had tapes of stuff like Ugly Kid Joe, Damn Yankees, Skid Row, and everything you could think of as being popular with the metal scene from that era. She GN'R at L'Amour, on tour in '88, at MSG in '91, and at Giant Stadium in '92 before dropping off and moving on.
Why is that as far as this tour? Because AFD is one singular iconic album which the band has fond memories of making. The UYIs are two uneven records which the band have very turbulent memories of making and recording. The AFD era was generally a better received era by the public and has a better public memory because Axl's BS and the riots and such didn't really happen in the 80s, and because there is a massive wave of nostalgia for the 80s in general. The UYI tour has a lot of negative public memory attached to it, and when you think of the 90s, you think of grunge, you don't think of hard rock/metal like GN'R, so going with AFD imagery is a pretty obvious choice if you're doing a nostalgia tour.
People act like the UYIs are packed full of just piano based ballds, but those songs constitute a minority of the songs on there. You have some of the heaviest sludgiest rock songs of their discography like Garden of Eden, Coma, Perfect Crime and such in there.
-
13 hours ago, Free Bird said:
Lol
I don't know this band but based on the posted video they have nothing to do with rock music
They are what younger people consider rock music nowadays. It has moved on from the sound you're accustomed to.
When Are Guns Going To 'Bury' Appetite?
in GUNS N' ROSES - DISCUSSION & NEWS
Posted
Elvis was a good precedent for the massive level of fame the Beatles would later have and he still stayed a pretty grounded guy (even with the drug addiction). He didn't become holier than thou. For that matter, neither did the other 3 Beatles, really, at least publicly. John's personality was just that of a pretentious artiste. None of the other 3 were.
I get that it's a tribute to music hall music but in American culture, that sort of sound is basically, it sounds like Winnie the Pooh music. And it's not just that song, but all of Paul's shit that was like it. The Beatles, like Oasis, are just too British musically for me. And yeah, the Stones were British guys too but they acted the part of Americans in a sense, so they're more relatable in a way. The Beatles' personas and their music was just so much more British.