DoMw94

3 hours ago, jacdaniel said:

At some point we’ll get the “We’re f*ckin back” tour with another NITL set

Why another NITL set? They haven't played that for a while now. Last year's set was a considerable overhaul

5 hours ago, Rovim said:

the guitar is a piece of history and a fine instrument, but it's not worth 2 mill. not even close to 1, but I can see how maybe in the future the value would be closer to these high numbers.

 

That's the reported value/asking price and has been for some time 🤷‍♂️ Although Hammett claims to have paid a bit under that

On 4/8/2024 at 8:21 PM, Rovim said:

Kirk basically wants to have sex with it. it's adorable and he actually plays it live instead of it gathering dust. It's a beautiful thing even if you're not into Metallica. 

 

or even very good 

I saw Kirk play it at the Jeff Beck tribute shows last year. One he finished with it, he tossed it to his tech like it wasn't a $2 million instrument!

Still, it's awesome it's being used live though! A little less awesome he's engraved his initials into it...

Anyway, Chris Stapleton's the musical guest on SNL this weekend. Shame Slash isn't available

9 hours ago, janrichmond said:

@DoMw94 really good photos you should post them here too

Thank you! Is there a way to do it without uploading them to another site first?

14 hours ago, Gordon Comstock said:

 

No band is too big to open for the Stones. If they asked GNR to open a show or two, do you really think they'd decline? I'm not so sure...

Honestly, I think they would decline. They'd never get asked anyway though so it's a moot point

On 3/17/2024 at 5:54 AM, MaskingApathy said:

Same with the songs from 4, they sounds much better live.

You weren't wrong... damn, last night was fun!

Roll on Tuesday and Friday!

7 hours ago, The Real McCoy said:

They were going to open two shows for The Rolling Stones in 2006, but they were canceled after Keith fell out of the coconut tree.

Yeah but the GN'R of 2006 was a very different beast. You'd never see the current band opening for anyone, including the Stones

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Well, it is a technicality in the way that it is the meaning of the word to survive

It was brain dead and plugged into a life support machine...

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

It seems like people here think that to survive or to die is not a binary thing.

Well sure, it isn't generally speaking, but GN'R changed so much that the band might as well have been considered dead. As I said, many thought it was – people saw Slash's return as the band returning even though it never fully went away. It went from being the biggest band on the planet with multiple recognisable members to a laughing stock* overnight – it was the same in name only.

* not my view, just the general consensus from the wider public. I liked the band that played from 2001-2014, but it was hardly the same as the thing that preceded it

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Did the band survive Slash leaving in 1996? Err, yes? They continued on, released a record with new material, and did 351 shows all over the world. Did they do as well as back in the 90s or tour as successfully as after Slash and Duff rejoined the band? Of course not. But the continued to exist as a band, they survived. 

Nice job cutting out the rest of my post that explained what I meant by that 😂 Instead of cherry picking lines to fit your point, look at the answer as a whole.

I wouldn't call losing all of your members, being ridiculed into hiding, and struggling to get one album out "survival". It was a fresh start, an entirely new, different thing that coincidentally had the same name

Are people forgetting that it was Slash and Duff who asked what Chinese Democracy songs Axl wanted to do, and Axl who suggested they do Slither?

It's pretty obvious that there's a lot more collaboration between the three these days. Axl wouldn't have dictated anything, he would've brought the songs to the table and if/how they proceded would've been a conscious collaborative effort

5 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Guns N' Roses survived Slash quitting in the 90s and would survive Slash leaving now, too.

Did it though? I mean, sure, an entity called 'Guns N' Roses' existed, but it was a laughing stock to most of the world, it fell out of the mainstream overnight, nobody knew who was in the band besides Axl, they played much smaller venues, and struggled to release one album.

Album point aside, the second Slash returned, they were playing stadiums, headlining festivals (including probably the three biggest ones on the planet), and most people (not counting the diehard fans) spoke about how the band was "back" or "back together" even though it never went away or broke up.

To say the band survived Slash's departure is just a technicality. Slash leaving was catastrophic for the band then, and it ceased to be 'Guns N' Roses' at that point. And since it's no longer a mainstream act that's regularly working on/regularly releasing music, it would be catastrophic if it were to happen again.

The band would end.

---

In an entirely unreleated point (to save me double posting), why do some people here seem surprised that the b(r)and is more of a business than an actual band these days? 😂 Name a big band that isn't run that way. They're huge, serious things, they aren't rehearsing in garages and playing bars in return for a few beers anymore 😂

Nightrain

Coma

There Was A Time

Absurd or Perhaps

One from each lineup/era to give a well-rounded picture of the band

2 hours ago, StrangerInThisTown said:

like people actually convinced Slash isn't a dude living in 2024, browsing Youtube on his phone, like everyone else. And how he can never possibly look up his own new exciting project he just launched.

Nobody once ever said that, except you...

I thought crackpot theories among the GN'R fanbase were reserved for the main band 😂 I guess not...

2 hours ago, Rovim said:

why can't you say that, though about a cover? you put something of yourself as a musician in a cover as well.

I'm not. But something that's entirely new absolutely cannot be "uninspired" if a cover is "inspired" 🤷‍♂️

I find it funny when people say SMKC is uninspired and then say his best work is a COVER.

Not slamming the cover, I love it, but you can't say him doing someone else's song is more inspired than something wholly original. Just say you don't like it, that's okay

18 minutes ago, StrangerInThisTown said:

All I'm saying is that, after churning out the same WOF clone (and it being worse, with 4 now being the absolute bottom with now newly added crap production) and this new album looking like it's going to completely overshadow the last SMKC singles in terms of success, that maybe it would now be somewhat time to wake up and smell the coffee.

This undoes your entire argument.

If he cared what people thought or were saying, he wouldn't be "churning out the same WOF clone", as you put it. He obviously does what he wants to do and isn't swayed by the fanbase – if he was Myles would be long gone. SMKC (and his other solo venture) is his artistic vehicle, it's not there for him to make money or gain attention. He has GN'R for that.

He absolutely isn't checking views or streaming numbers. Nobody of Slash's stature will really (they have management and staff for that), but Slash especially won't be.

For the record, I don't agree. I like SMKC, Myles, and each of the albums (4's production aside)

10 minutes ago, Free Bird said:

To me it clearly sounds better, but not only this, it’s even better mixed. There’s a huge difference to the absolute dreadful studio recording.

The drum sound really ruins it for me sadly

11 hours ago, Free Bird said:

That Live At Studios 60 recording sounds better than the actual studio recording speaks volumes 

I don't think they sound better really. Different, sure, but I wouldn't go as far as to say they're a major improvement

Just now, MaskingApathy said:

Same with the songs from 4, they sounds much better live.

Looking forward to experiencing them live in a couple of weeks!

1 minute ago, MaskingApathy said:

California Breed was really good because (apart from being mixed by Vance Powell who is an audio wizard) Glenn Hughes and co had really good songs to begin with and they had everything prepared and ready to go (and Glenn is a great songwriter).

I haven't listened to it in a while so I need to revisit it, but I do remember the drums and bass having that 'punch you in the face' quality that 4 and Starcatcher are severly lacking.

Funnily enough, California Breed were one of the openers when I saw SMKC in 2014, my first-ever concert. Shame they didn't last.

1 minute ago, MaskingApathy said:

Common thread there, Dave Cobb produced the GvF record also. Pretty much every "rock" type of record that he's produced has sounded worse than other albums by the same band (another good example is Boneshaker by Airbourne), unless it was mixed by someone else (like the California Breed album which was mixed by Vance Powell). I guess Dave is good at making country records but he has no idea how to make a rock record that sounds like it was recorded in this century. 

I didn't realise he did Boneshaker and California Breed. They're not as bad as 4 and Starcatcher imo. Well, sound-wise at least, the songs themselves aren't as strong.

My feeling around 4 and Starcatcher is that they just sound a little 'thin', if that makes sense? Hearing the GVF songs live last year just went to show that those songs can and should have much more of a punch.