Waemoth

7 minutes ago, zigzagbigbag said:

Do you from the top off your head at which shows it was played? 

If so, I don't need to check gnrontour ;-)

And 1991-08-02 at Inglewood.

Just now, MJRemastered said:

Fuck, i didn't know this thread. 

All three of them are available to download in FLAC if you look around a bit on the net

On 7/5/2018 at 8:14 AM, ludurigan said:

And your ass in debris

Awesome work on the lyrics! 

I've always thought he sang "ass in the breeze", though. Now I'm unsure

3 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

I do not understand it,

Sweden were considered ''tough opponent'', ''difficult to break down'' etc etc., up until England beat them. Sweden are now considered a ''bad team''.

Colombia were going to beat England. This was as evident as night and day. It was fact. Yet, nobody mentions them now. Oh yes, they didn't have James so ''would have beaten England if they had James''.

This England could beat Brazil 1970 or Cruyff's Dutch and the Anglophobes would say, ''Pele had an off day so it doesn't count'' haha.

It is as if England cannot do anything right, and the narrative has to be retconned each time England progress haha.

All these four teams are here on merit. All the teams that have departed left because they were not good enough. It is that simple. 

I have no idea about how Sweden was considered a tough opponent. That team really had one good game, being the victory against Mexico, and got the rest of the way by luck. To be honest, it's just baffling that we advanced instead of Germany. Sweden simply put lacks the talent to be a very dangerous team aggressively. And don't even get me started on them passing home as soon as they get the option to do so. Half the population saw Sweden as a bad team from the get-go.

I agree on that England deserve to be where they are, but I'm not so sure about whether they'd have done quite so well against Germany, had they not somehow lost vs South Korea. No disrespect, but Germany is a really good team, as is England.

3 minutes ago, zombux said:

yes, it's a bit strange location because the rest of tracks from the tape comes from Pasha.

What's the album on which Niven leaked BOB called? It's not on Jumpin' Ax Flash, Under My Heal or Cornshucker.

31 minutes ago, Black Sabbath said:

Was the "enhanced" mkv ever finished and/or uploaded for this show?

Yup. Sharing links of Saskatoon in a public thread seems like a rather bad idea, though.

13 minutes ago, B17NNS said:

So the only way to hear this is to pay £850???

Well, the only legal way, it seems.

25 minutes ago, zombux said:

they didn't! the "official release" seems to come directly from GNR masters, not Troccoli's cassette.

Yeah I thought Troccoli's tape sounded hollow and a bit bloated compared to the release. Figured it might've been down to work being done on them, though. 

23 minutes ago, TheHelgo said:

Ok, so I will run the risk of exposing my lack of technological expertise here, but I do have a question.  I got the SDE and when I put CD2, 3 or 4 in a computer or car CD player, it does not bring up the song titles - it just has 'Track 1', etc.  Do I need to do something?  I wanted to create my own digital copies of these eventually without having to re-buy, but am a little lost as to why it does this. Thoughts?

You'll have to tag the tracks, so the player knows what track is what. This program does that: https://www.mp3tag.de/en/

9 minutes ago, Ninjapie24 said:

I was confused as well. Why would you put the intro for a song on another song

Probably in order to have the song actually start directly rather than there being some other stuff going on. For someone who isn't fond of the intro (I know I am) or just want to get the song going ASAP, that's the way to go. Doesn't really make sense given the goofy intro to the Sound City MTTC version though. At least be consistent.

1 minute ago, 31illusions said:

We gotta' get someone to transfer these to MP3 or FLAC. I'd love to have them.

Hopefully they didn't just rip it from Troccoli's cassette and release it.

52 minutes ago, MJRemastered said:

I listened back to it, even slowed down and im pretty sure he says sweet 

I agree it sounds more like it, but it wouldn't really make sense as a sentence, were that to be the case. 

"... Call us sweet ACDC, I ain't no Bon Scott, but that's a Whole Lotta Rosie to me!"

If it happens, I sure do hope that there's at the very least a 1991 and a 1993 pro-shot in there. And, I think they should probably include the Hellhouse demos as well, since a good chunk of them ended up on UYI. 

2 minutes ago, 31illusions said:

MTTC acoustic 1988 is entirely new. It was never heard before this release.

Never mind, my bad. I'm blind. Still though, the one from the 1986 acoustic version claimed to be Sound City is the one on the Rumbo Tapes. 

The 1986 acoustic version is the same as the one on the Rumbo Tapes. If I'm not mistaken, this means one of two things; 1) The Rumbo Tapes consist of multiple sources, 2) The Rumbo Tapes were actually recorded 1986, in Sound City. I'm leaning heavily towards the former since MTTC both sound and feel more like the acoustic Jumpin' Jack of Sound City than the, otherwise electric, Rumbo Tapes. This could obviously also explain why WTTJ, AG, Heartbreak Hotel and BOB from the Rumbo Tapes were omitted, since they would stem from a different source, of which Guns might not have access to the master tapes. 

Lastly, anyone know the story behind the Rumbo Tapes? I think it sounds like it's definitely from 1985 or early 1986.

Surprised to like this, with some development I think it could definitely have made Lies.

Better than I expected, given that it was never released. 

Definitely not a good song though, I think it's on the same level as some as the weaker UYI tracks like Bad Apples.

15 minutes ago, killuridols said:

I never said I was right. I explained myself several times, in the first pages of this thread mostly, what I stand for and always made sure that I am just giving my opinion, speaking from my point of view, from my personal values, experience, etc.

Im sorry if you feel none of it is constructive... but you're not being constructive either attacking me personally. I have already responded to you before. I will not change my mind on the subject, neither will you. If you are frustated about me, just put me on ignore and save yourself some pain.

You definitely have some good points, and I do not entirely disagree with you. The people saying that the poster is anti-rape are wrong, and Axl is a douche for selecting that painting as cover. 

If we had no common ground, I would not try to argue with you, as that would be a waste of time. Sorry if I came across as rude, I can be too blunt sometimes. 

I would never ignore someone based on that I disagree with what they're saying, because that would prevent me from ever understanding them. I am here because I'm interested in what others have to say. 

13 minutes ago, killuridols said:

I ain't no feigning anything. My question is genuine and I want it responded by Wasted, not by his rottweiler.

But if you want a question from me that is.... what is your freaking problem?

Pirmarily that you seem to be so sure about being right that you refuse to try to understand the opinions of other, and instead take to ridiculing their positions. Additionally, I feel that you're not arguing as much as saying "this is the way it is, anyone else is just wrong". That is not constructive. 

8 minutes ago, killuridols said:

Who has an agenda?

 

Anyone arguing for anything ever had an agenda. For an example, my agenda here is to inform you of that. Don't try to deflect criticism by feigning ignorance. 

5 minutes ago, soon said:

If we all seem to agree that abolishing works of art is misguided, then what do we make of works of art that call for cultural abolition?

 

I think any art should be accepted, unless it explicitly argues for physical or mental harm towards groups of people, people in general, or animals. That would fulfill neither of those criteria, and as such I'm all for it being allowed, even though I entirely disagree with it. 

4 minutes ago, soon said:

I dont agree. But not based on the framework you put forward.

No one is calling for anything to be burned. Thats a huge overreaction to what is in fact a very engaging conversation for those interested in it.

The idea that art should be viewed passively reduces what art is.

I'm not trying to say that anyone's trying to destroy existant art, sorry if I came off that way. I was trying to say that I believe that banning art doesn't have to be through legalislation, but that it can also through norms shared by the population. I don't agree, but I get where you're coming from. 

8 minutes ago, soon said:

No to both. And obviously I dont come across as triggered, its just a lazy term people throw around for lack of an original statement. But it remains you compared art criticism to being ISIS! lol

Who is doing that?

Anyone who criticize a piece of art based on the ideas they believe it to convey do so indirectly. By arguing for that paintings such as this should be frowned upon, you are damaging the artistical freedom of tomorrow's artist. I know that you won't agree, but that's liberalism vs authoritarianism for you. 

2 minutes ago, soon said:

What does?

Trying to regulate art based on a political lens. 

9 minutes ago, soon said:

Unpacking the use and context of a provocative piece of art using social and political lens is just like being ISIS. We heard it here first, folks. #literalisis  

Not ISIS, but it sure bears a resemblance to how aithoritarian states tend to want to go about viewing this. Mao, Stalin and Hitler all built their regimes on similar values.