Apollo

His vocals are actually pretty good.

IMO the chorus ruins the song though, it's pretty bad.

It seems like there is a decent song in there, but it needed to be worked on and flushed out a bit more.

But at this point why would Axl and TB care if Adler/Izzy made a few dollars?

If Axl has made between 75-100 million dollars on this tour, world he really prevent a release of something just to keep Adler from making maybe $100,000? 

It's amazing that Axl use to play songs like Perfect Crime and Don't Cry before Appetite even came out.

Imagine going to a show in 2006 and Axl busting out songs that weren't even on CD, but that were slated for CD2.

I'm glad Axl brought two old members back and gave the fans a cool tour to enjoy.

Wish he would record an album featuring those two dudes. But alas......

Now I'm just hoping that my favorite singer of all time will go full scale Prince-Mode for a couple years on us and will release CD2 with 10 b-sides and CD3 for his millions of fans to enjoy.

I don't collect music memorabilia anymore. But I have to say that some of these tour Litho's are pretty amazing and well done.

Hardcore Superstar is the best pure hard rock band out there right now. Would be cool to see GnR take them on a few dates and let them get some American exposure.

Hopefully we would have had 3-4 albums worth of material from GnR.

On 9/8/2017 at 1:23 PM, spunko12345 said:

Is there a tactic in basketball for a team to conserve themselves for the 1st part of the game, say be 39 points to the opponents 41. So that they let rip in the later parts of the match? How common is it for a team to be losing for half the game then win?

Sorry that was two questions

Generally - no.

The major hole in that strategy is what if the other team was doing the same? Your boys are only going 80% speed......what if the other team was just going 75% speed, and you let them have the lead half way through the game. So start the second half, your team is trailing and the other team has more energy/stamina left. IE - your team is screwed.
If my team is in better shape, why would I fuck around and let you keep the game close? The closer the game, the more weird stuff that can happen.  If my team can build a 10 point halftime lead why would I want to go into the half trailing by a bucket instead? What if my star player twists his ankle and then one of the refs makes two horrible calls and puts my other stud on the bench with foul trouble? With a ten point lead, I still have a chance to win. If I'm trailing by two.....my team is screwed.

Typically in basketball you go the opposite route (of your question). You want to be better conditioned than your opponent so that in the second half your guys will still be going strong while your opponents are gassed. To do that, you do the OPPOSITE of what you asked.  You want to take it to the other team and wear them out in the first half, so in the second half they are out of gas, while your boys are still going strong.   It isn't like boxing where you let a guy punch himself out.

There is a strategy of slowing the game down to try and keep the score close. But that's really only done if one team is way less talented and the coach knows he only has a tiny chance of winning. You slow the game down, meaning less possessions, giving you a better chance of pulling off the upset.  Imagine if you fought Floyd Mayweather. And you get a million dollars if he can't knock you out. Which option would you take: you only have to survive one thirty second round ..or.. you have to survive 10 rounds? 

You'll never see the better team play a stall offense in the first half to try and keep the game close.

Basically, you want to take your opponents heart and will to win OUT of the game. The sooner you do that, the better.

tl/dr:

You don't conserve your energy in the first half. You want to make your opponents use up as much of theirs as possible.

*********

Very common. Really depends on how close the half time score was. And what kind of foul trouble each team is in. How good the coaches are. Lots of factors come into play after halftime.

On 9/10/2017 at 9:12 PM, Powerage5 said:

A few more from my UK trip - still catching up on all of my pictures  

 

Looking winded at the top of Arthur's Seat in Edinburgh:

 

Portmeirion in Wales:

 

The Roman Baths in Bath:

 

Stonehenge:

 

Mapledurham Watermill near Reading - the location of the first Black Sabbath album cover:

Amazing pictures. Love seeing the younger generation out there exploring and living life to the fullest.

On 9/19/2017 at 10:23 AM, Len Cnut said:

Some cracking fights coming up, Rigondeaux vs Lomachenko, Anthony Joshua v Pulev, Deontay Wilder vs Luis Ortiz, David Haye vs Tony Bellew II seems like its on, Hughie Furys fighting Joseph Parker for the WBO strap this weekend.  Plus the two Liams fighting in Newcastle...and those are just the Len picks.

Len - would this be something that would help eliminate a lot of the crazy scoring we get at some of these major fights?

Four judges instead of three. The majority/accumulation of their scorecards each round would count as ONE score - not as individual scores. At the end of the fight you wouldn't have three scorecards, you would have one final card. Joe wins the decision 115-113 or what have you.

It's a really easy system that would basically eliminate the crazy scoring that Adelene or whatever her name was gave.

Example:

If all four judges give boxer A the round - fighter A wins the round. So the one/only official round is scored for fighter A 10-9.
Three judges give round to fighter A, one judge gives it to fighter B.  Official scorecard: 10-9 round for fighter A.
If two judges give the round to fighter A and two give it to fighter B - then it's a 10-10 round.

It's that simple. Four judges just gives it more weight than three judges. If 3 judges though fighter A easily won....but this woman judge gave the round to the other guy....her vote is basically eliminated.

Second - why not make the scoring available each round, like they do in all other sports? How much would it change the fight game if after 9 rounds, both fighters knew that fighter A was ahead on the cards 87-83?
 

5 hours ago, Free Bird said:

Music is what every band should do

 

That post should close the topic. 

Free Bird nailed it with one sentence. 

3 hours ago, tsinindy said:

There's nothing to be confused about, they are literally an inferior band.   You like them or enjoy them, no problem.   

No one claimed that they were on the same level.  I just find it amusing that whenever somebody says something that isn't 100% praising GnR, some people feel like they have to go into attack mode and downgrade the other bands being talked about. 

*****

The Coverdale ripping Page off thing is a bit of a myth.  

It's funny that people bash on Page/Plant for ripping off old bands for their music. But then when Plant gets pissed at Coverdale for doing in album with Page....people take Plant's word as gospel? 

Were a couple of Whitesnake songs influenced by Led Zep? Of course. Just like pretty much every other 80s rock band in the world were influenced by them.

Coverdale had a nice run with Deep Purple in the early 70s. And for a 4-5 album run in the 80s and earlier 90s, Whitesnake was pretty huge in the rock world, scoring 10 top 20 songs on the Billboard rock chart. 

To dismiss him - or Whitesnake - is just confusing "personal preference" with what is actually factual information. 

With that said....Personally, I am not a huge fan of his voice. The one thing I can appreciate though is in him releasing 18 studio albums (deep purple, Whitesnake, solo). 

I can only dream of what my music world would be like of Axl Rose had released even half that amount. 

1 hour ago, Sosso said:

The L. A. Guns reunion is much more interesting for me. GN'R is still my favourite band and I love the reunion gigs but L. A. Guns is superior in regards of creativity.

It's always a fun time when bands care enough about their fans to share new music with them. 

Nobody said LA Guns were on the same level as GnR. Not even close. 

But they share their music with their fans. They do lots of interviews. And you can go see them in a small club for $20 and find yourself chatting with the band. 

It's really silly to downgrade what is a great experience for fans of the band because that band isn't as "popular" as GnR, who are one of the biggest bands in rock history. 

1 hour ago, tsinindy said:

And vastly inferior in terms of talent. 

Did anybody claim they were more talented? Should we only like the most popular bands in the world? I'm confused about your comment. 

I like lots of bands that aren't on the same level as GnR, U2 or Metallica. 

3 minutes ago, rocknroll41 said:

Could you not tell that TupacShakur was joking?

Apparently not. I shall go edit. 

They are a band of musicians. Musicians generally enjoy touring. Axl isn't an artist who likes sharing music with his fans, but he seems to enjoy being on the road playing music. 

And, like every person in the world, they boys in the band want to get paid and make money. 

So the probably answer to your question is......both. They enjoy touring and enjoy making millions. 

50 minutes ago, TupacShakur said:

axl gave us the appetite anniversary  show with all 3 original members whats the problem.

👍🏾👍🏿👍🏽

On 7/27/2017 at 1:21 PM, Modano09 said:

I'm making assumptions? After an interview where Axl danced around why Izzy wasn't there, implying he just changed his mind, Izzy tweeted "bullshit, they didn't want to split the loot equally." So, it seems like it's in response to why he wasn't there. It certainly makes more sense than Izzy's mad that Duff and Slash aren't making as much as Axl or whatever you're trying to say there.

Axl/Slash/Duff own the band and managed it the last 25 years. Izzy doesn't and didn't. If you don't believe that's a key factor in what he was or wasn't offered, I don't know what to tell you.

So you can't show the quote or statement from Izzy. 

You admit you are making an assumption based on a comment from Izzy about the salary he was offered for future shows. And nothing about the shares in the band he gave up twenty plus years ago. 

Thank you for admitting this is something that is just your own speculation. And not an actual factual event. ??????

1 minute ago, Modano09 said:

But it did have something to do with shares and 20 years ago if Izzy's thinking was "I'm a founding member, I deserve equal loot" and Axl/Slash/Duff's was "you sold your ownership 20 years ago, so you don't."

Izzy tweeted they didn't want to "split the loot equally". Likely because they don't see Izzy as an equal, business-wise. Why? Because he's not. Why? Because he sold his shares and washed his hands of managing the brand 25 years ago.

Please share the message from Izzy where he said that he wanted his "shares" back. 

Please don't share the post you keep referring to and adding what YOU think it means. You assume Izzy is talking about himself. "Share the loot equally"....he could be talking about what Axl makes compared to what everybody else is making. Maybe Axl gets 1.5 million and Slash and Duff and Izzy were offered 50G. Slash and Duff accepted that amount. Izzy didn't. 

You are making assumptions about what Izzy meant. 

Please show me the specific quote from Izzy that says "I want my GnR shares back that I sold 20 years ago."  The specific quote - not something you are making assumptions and adding your opinion to. 

Show us the quote and I will apologize and admit you are right. If you can share the post. 

On 7/21/2017 at 9:50 PM, Modano09 said:

Do you think Izzy should have to pay back what he was paid for his share of the partnership if he wants it back?

Of course. If he wanted his "shares" in the band back then of course he would have to pay for them  

But why do you ask this question? Izzy hasn't ever said he wanted them back. So your question has no relevance. 

You are the only person obsessed with shares. 

In the real world you don't have do that. My dad worked for the city department for 30 years and retired. Five years into his retirement they needed an electrician to get a site up and running. It was a three month job. They offered my dad a salary for three months that was based on his experience and the fact he knew the facilities codes and operating procedures already. 

He didn't have to pay back his retirement.  Because this new job was for FUTURE work. 

I am absolutely baffled that you don't understand this concept. Absolutely baffled. 

Gnr offered Izzy a job in 2017. It has NOTHING to do with what happened 20 years ago. They offered him a wage to come work for the band in 2017. Izzy through the wage wasn't high enough, so he declined the job offer  

NOBODY in the band....NOT even Izzy....is talking about or using the sold shares as an issue for today's situation. 

Axl doesn't care. The Beta doesn't care. Izzy doesn't care. You are literally the only person in the world who thinks your PRETEND scenario has any relevance at all. Literally the only person. 

I don't get it. It's weird how you don't understand this basic concept. 

3 minutes ago, Billsfan said:

Well, it's 2017. People like arguing that the sky is Green on here, idk

I can debate  just about anything. 

But I can't have a rational conversation with somebody who is literally making up their main point. 

At this point I guess I will just let him have his victory.

Molando - yes. You win, bruh. Izzy shouldn't get paid more for the shares he sold 20 years ago. Of course, Izzy NEVER asked to get paid more for them. Oddly, that fact isn't relevant to you for some reason.  

So you win your pretend scenario. Congrats?

1 minute ago, Modano09 said:

Sure. If it's about the future, Izzy just gives back everything he was paid over the last 25 years in return for his share, he gets his share back, gets his equal loot and we move on from there. Sounds fair to me. 

Wow. @Billsfan this guy clearly has some weird agenda.

He clearly doesn't get it, isn't listening to the "facts" and is just going to keep arguing some weird scenario that HE made up. 

There is literally one person in the world who keeps arguing that the sold shares are relevant today. One person. Not Izzy. Not Axl. Not The Beta. Again - not Izzy. 

Actually, I heard that Axl wouldn't let Izzy come back unless Izzy agreed to shave his head and get Chinese Democracy and The Beta's picture tattooed on his forhead. (See Modona - I can make stuff up too!!!!). 

4 minutes ago, Modano09 said:

And that just about proves you're unrealistic about all of this. 

He wanted out, he wanted his share bought out so he could be on his way and profit from it, and that's what happened. He can't profit from selling his share and then profit as if he still owns it. So if you think he should, he would at least have to give back everything he received for his percentage over the years to be entitled to what he wants now. 

He isn't trying to get more money for the shares he sold. You keep using a false point to try and back to your weird need to downgrade Izzy. 

The money dispute is for what Axl and The Beta are willing to hire Izzy for TODAY to be their employee. 

Izzy never said he wants more money for the shares he sold. Not once. You seem to be the only person saying that. 

3 minutes ago, Modano09 said:

He said "they" didn't want to split "the loot" "equally". So, sounds like he wanted what Axl was getting. Or at the very least what Slash/Duff are getting and he's not entitled to that either. 

 

Let's leave out that assumption. Maybe you are right. Maybe you aren't. None of us know what Izzy asked for. 

Why didn't you respond to the actual point of my reply to your false question?

Your statement/question never happened. So it can't be answered. 

The money dispute isn't over The shares. Izzy isn't want more money for that. So again - your question makes no sense. 

The dispute is in relation to what salary Axl and The Beta wanted to pay Izzy to come work for their band in 2017. 

So for the 13th time. Your question can't be answered. Because your scenario never happened. 

1 hour ago, Modano09 said:

Here's a question nobody seems to be able to answer - why should Izzy be able to sell his share in the band, and be paid a large sum of money for it, and then down the line, be entitled to a large sum of money as if he still owns it? 

 

Nobody can answer that because your scenario didn't - or isn't - happening. So there is no answer. Your scenario is a false one  

Izzy isn't asking to be paid more money now (this tour) for the shares he sold back then. 

The issue is how much should Izzy be paid to show up and WORK for GnR in 2017. 

This has nothing to do with Izzy selling his shares. Zero. Zilch. The issue is how much to pay Izzy to come work for GnR in 2017. 

Did he want the same amount Axl is making? Probably not. 

But if Axl and The Beta offered Izzy the same hourly wage that Melissa gets.....is that fair?