The band

[Vincent Vega]

But what a minute--I thought Axl was being pulled along and propped up by Slash, that the rest of the band only worked "in spite" of him?

Either he was this untalented guy who was riding the coattails of others', or he was this ambitious guy who wanted to take GN'R into the 21st century. Can't really have it both ways.

I never said Axl was untalented Miser those are your words...also never said he did not contribute but he did make things difficult to get done during the UYI years as all the other band members have said in numerous interviews..........your reading things that are not there trying to change he subject since I caught you making up a false alternate GnR history to fit your agenda.....try harder Miser as some of us are actually reading your propaganda and calling your bullshit............

Did he set them back anymore than Izzy not showing up to the studio for most of the sessions or Izzy, Duff and Steven arguing over whose contributions should take precedence did? Did he set them back anymore than Slash being fucked up or Steven being too fucked up to even play did?

Personally, I'm happy for the delays. If the UYIs had been released in 1989, they would've lacked many great songs written after 1989 like Estranged, Coma, etc, and also would've cemented them in history as being purely an '80s band and all of the negative feelings that go along with that. The delays allowed them to take what might've been a subpar 'sequel' to AFD and turn it into what are (IMO) their best albums.

I will give you one thing Miser you are very resiliant and fast on your feet by continually changing the subject after being caught bullshiting.............In any case I was simply responding to a poster who made Axl out to be some driving force which kept things moving which based on written history is just not the case.

Whether the delays Axl caused resulted in making UYI better is impossiible to prove but there is no denying there is some brilliant music on those albums and Axl had a big hand in creating it...Personally I would still love to hear the rough UYI demos without all of Axl's overdubbing Slash mentioned as being kick ass to compare to the finished products..... Then we would all have something interesting to debate!

He says in his book he doesn't have them anymore, or that they don't exist anymore. Something to that effect. Besides, the "rough UYI" was played on the Skin N' Bones tour, or at least that's how Slash makes it seem in his autobiography--that the Skin N' Bones tour version of the songs is the way HE wanted them.

I do think the delay made things better. A lot of the better songs were written in 1990. The big delay it seems was 1989. Slash writes in his book that he was worried they might break up due to a lack of activity and boredom that year. But I can understand Axl being hesitant. I mean, the aftershocks of going from being a nobody, a hick from Indiana, to one of the most popular singers in the world virtually overnight probably caught up with him that year. You have to remember--Slash was raised around rockstars, I mean David Bowie used to hang at his house as a kid. He was used to this sort of thing. Axl was a nobody who came from a tiny bumfuck town. It was probably incredibly overwhelming.

Mick Wall writes in his book that Axl tried to go incognito that year, growing a big red beard and wearing thick horn rimmed glasses to hide his identity--and I have seen pictures of him exactly like that, probably from that year. I think 1989 was basically a transitional year for all of them due to AFD becoming huge in '88.

Slash also writes that once Axl came out of his shell, things moved rather quickly--He actually felt like their recordings in 1990 were probably like what the Stones' recordings in the '70s were like--very "Family like" atmosphere. And 1990 had it's own problems too--They had to deal with Steven and the search for a drummer, which set them back, as well, plus Doug Goldstein set them up for the Rio gigs which Slash seems to imply none of them really felt ready to do, even though in retrospect it was a good thing.

Slash may not have them anymore but I am willing to bet they exist in the vaults somewhere as Axl had to have a copy to work on adding all his overdubs and I have to believe there is a safety copy somewhere...Personally I thought the Skin N Bones tour was one of the best of the UYI tours and I preferred the stripped down sound but they did not play all of the songs from UYI which is why I would love to hear all of the UYI songs stripped down to the 5 man group......If nothing else it would make for some fresh debates on the forum.............

It's possible that Axl has them, but we'll never know I guess.

He did imply he kept the '94-'96 rehersal tapes in his chats here, so I would imagine he probably keeps most Guns stuff.

I hope ALL of it--Everything the band recorded from '90-'97--finds it's way to the public someday.

BTW--We do have some of the rough UYI recordings. There's a rough version of Civil War, there's a rough version of Coma, there's a rough version of Don't Damned Me and several other songs. There's an early acoustic version of "Yesterdays" out there, and some others. Plus we have the Q Sound demos as well.

If Axl was a big enough dick to fuck with Live Era by shamelessly re-recording bits of it, then there's NO WAY he's letting demo and rehearsal tapes out - that is unless - he re-records those too.

That said, I would absolutely love to get demo's from post UYI up until '96. I think it's pretty clear that there is simply not enough GNR material accessible to the public. Not even a good live cd.

Axl really can do no right in your eyes. Every post of yours is either bashing Axl or his appearance.

Have you heard the actual shows which some of those instrumentals came from? For example, YCBM, Tokyo 1992 (which is where the Live Era version comes from), Axl's original vox sounds like shit; weak and strained. The re-recording on Live Era is better.

[GeorgeGlass]

But what a minute--I thought Axl was being pulled along and propped up by Slash, that the rest of the band only worked "in spite" of him?

Either he was this untalented guy who was riding the coattails of others', or he was this ambitious guy who wanted to take GN'R into the 21st century. Can't really have it both ways.

I never said Axl was untalented Miser those are your words...also never said he did not contribute but he did make things difficult to get done during the UYI years as all the other band members have said in numerous interviews..........your reading things that are not there trying to change he subject since I caught you making up a false alternate GnR history to fit your agenda.....try harder Miser as some of us are actually reading your propaganda and calling your bullshit............

Did he set them back anymore than Izzy not showing up to the studio for most of the sessions or Izzy, Duff and Steven arguing over whose contributions should take precedence did? Did he set them back anymore than Slash being fucked up or Steven being too fucked up to even play did?

Personally, I'm happy for the delays. If the UYIs had been released in 1989, they would've lacked many great songs written after 1989 like Estranged, Coma, etc, and also would've cemented them in history as being purely an '80s band and all of the negative feelings that go along with that. The delays allowed them to take what might've been a subpar 'sequel' to AFD and turn it into what are (IMO) their best albums.

I will give you one thing Miser you are very resiliant and fast on your feet by continually changing the subject after being caught bullshiting.............In any case I was simply responding to a poster who made Axl out to be some driving force which kept things moving which based on written history is just not the case.

Whether the delays Axl caused resulted in making UYI better is impossiible to prove but there is no denying there is some brilliant music on those albums and Axl had a big hand in creating it...Personally I would still love to hear the rough UYI demos without all of Axl's overdubbing Slash mentioned as being kick ass to compare to the finished products..... Then we would all have something interesting to debate!

He says in his book he doesn't have them anymore, or that they don't exist anymore. Something to that effect. Besides, the "rough UYI" was played on the Skin N' Bones tour, or at least that's how Slash makes it seem in his autobiography--that the Skin N' Bones tour version of the songs is the way HE wanted them.

I do think the delay made things better. A lot of the better songs were written in 1990. The big delay it seems was 1989. Slash writes in his book that he was worried they might break up due to a lack of activity and boredom that year. But I can understand Axl being hesitant. I mean, the aftershocks of going from being a nobody, a hick from Indiana, to one of the most popular singers in the world virtually overnight probably caught up with him that year. You have to remember--Slash was raised around rockstars, I mean David Bowie used to hang at his house as a kid. He was used to this sort of thing. Axl was a nobody who came from a tiny bumfuck town. It was probably incredibly overwhelming.

Mick Wall writes in his book that Axl tried to go incognito that year, growing a big red beard and wearing thick horn rimmed glasses to hide his identity--and I have seen pictures of him exactly like that, probably from that year. I think 1989 was basically a transitional year for all of them due to AFD becoming huge in '88.

Slash also writes that once Axl came out of his shell, things moved rather quickly--He actually felt like their recordings in 1990 were probably like what the Stones' recordings in the '70s were like--very "Family like" atmosphere. And 1990 had it's own problems too--They had to deal with Steven and the search for a drummer, which set them back, as well, plus Doug Goldstein set them up for the Rio gigs which Slash seems to imply none of them really felt ready to do, even though in retrospect it was a good thing.

Slash may not have them anymore but I am willing to bet they exist in the vaults somewhere as Axl had to have a copy to work on adding all his overdubs and I have to believe there is a safety copy somewhere...Personally I thought the Skin N Bones tour was one of the best of the UYI tours and I preferred the stripped down sound but they did not play all of the songs from UYI which is why I would love to hear all of the UYI songs stripped down to the 5 man group......If nothing else it would make for some fresh debates on the forum.............

It's possible that Axl has them, but we'll never know I guess.

He did imply he kept the '94-'96 rehersal tapes in his chats here, so I would imagine he probably keeps most Guns stuff.

I hope ALL of it--Everything the band recorded from '90-'97--finds it's way to the public someday.

BTW--We do have some of the rough UYI recordings. There's a rough version of Civil War, there's a rough version of Coma, there's a rough version of Don't Damned Me and several other songs. There's an early acoustic version of "Yesterdays" out there, and some others. Plus we have the Q Sound demos as well.

If Axl was a big enough dick to fuck with Live Era by shamelessly re-recording bits of it, then there's NO WAY he's letting demo and rehearsal tapes out - that is unless - he re-records those too.

That said, I would absolutely love to get demo's from post UYI up until '96. I think it's pretty clear that there is simply not enough GNR material accessible to the public. Not even a good live cd.

Axl really can do no right in your eyes. Every post of yours is either bashing Axl or his appearance.

Have you heard the actual shows which some of those instrumentals came from? For example, YCBM, Tokyo 1992 (which is where the Live Era version comes from), Axl's original vox sounds like shit; weak and strained. The re-recording on Live Era is better.

If it sounds like shit on the Live Era CD, then take it from another fucking concert. Don't re-record it 8 years later from your bunker in Malibu. Its a fucking joke and you know it.

Go to iTunes and check out the Pearl Jam section - there must be >50 live CD's from the soundboard which you can purchase.

[axl8302]

But what a minute--I thought Axl was being pulled along and propped up by Slash, that the rest of the band only worked "in spite" of him?

Either he was this untalented guy who was riding the coattails of others', or he was this ambitious guy who wanted to take GN'R into the 21st century. Can't really have it both ways.

I never said Axl was untalented Miser those are your words...also never said he did not contribute but he did make things difficult to get done during the UYI years as all the other band members have said in numerous interviews..........your reading things that are not there trying to change he subject since I caught you making up a false alternate GnR history to fit your agenda.....try harder Miser as some of us are actually reading your propaganda and calling your bullshit............

Did he set them back anymore than Izzy not showing up to the studio for most of the sessions or Izzy, Duff and Steven arguing over whose contributions should take precedence did? Did he set them back anymore than Slash being fucked up or Steven being too fucked up to even play did?

Personally, I'm happy for the delays. If the UYIs had been released in 1989, they would've lacked many great songs written after 1989 like Estranged, Coma, etc, and also would've cemented them in history as being purely an '80s band and all of the negative feelings that go along with that. The delays allowed them to take what might've been a subpar 'sequel' to AFD and turn it into what are (IMO) their best albums.

I will give you one thing Miser you are very resiliant and fast on your feet by continually changing the subject after being caught bullshiting.............In any case I was simply responding to a poster who made Axl out to be some driving force which kept things moving which based on written history is just not the case.

Whether the delays Axl caused resulted in making UYI better is impossiible to prove but there is no denying there is some brilliant music on those albums and Axl had a big hand in creating it...Personally I would still love to hear the rough UYI demos without all of Axl's overdubbing Slash mentioned as being kick ass to compare to the finished products..... Then we would all have something interesting to debate!

He says in his book he doesn't have them anymore, or that they don't exist anymore. Something to that effect. Besides, the "rough UYI" was played on the Skin N' Bones tour, or at least that's how Slash makes it seem in his autobiography--that the Skin N' Bones tour version of the songs is the way HE wanted them.

I do think the delay made things better. A lot of the better songs were written in 1990. The big delay it seems was 1989. Slash writes in his book that he was worried they might break up due to a lack of activity and boredom that year. But I can understand Axl being hesitant. I mean, the aftershocks of going from being a nobody, a hick from Indiana, to one of the most popular singers in the world virtually overnight probably caught up with him that year. You have to remember--Slash was raised around rockstars, I mean David Bowie used to hang at his house as a kid. He was used to this sort of thing. Axl was a nobody who came from a tiny bumfuck town. It was probably incredibly overwhelming.

Mick Wall writes in his book that Axl tried to go incognito that year, growing a big red beard and wearing thick horn rimmed glasses to hide his identity--and I have seen pictures of him exactly like that, probably from that year. I think 1989 was basically a transitional year for all of them due to AFD becoming huge in '88.

Slash also writes that once Axl came out of his shell, things moved rather quickly--He actually felt like their recordings in 1990 were probably like what the Stones' recordings in the '70s were like--very "Family like" atmosphere. And 1990 had it's own problems too--They had to deal with Steven and the search for a drummer, which set them back, as well, plus Doug Goldstein set them up for the Rio gigs which Slash seems to imply none of them really felt ready to do, even though in retrospect it was a good thing.

Slash may not have them anymore but I am willing to bet they exist in the vaults somewhere as Axl had to have a copy to work on adding all his overdubs and I have to believe there is a safety copy somewhere...Personally I thought the Skin N Bones tour was one of the best of the UYI tours and I preferred the stripped down sound but they did not play all of the songs from UYI which is why I would love to hear all of the UYI songs stripped down to the 5 man group......If nothing else it would make for some fresh debates on the forum.............

It's possible that Axl has them, but we'll never know I guess.

He did imply he kept the '94-'96 rehersal tapes in his chats here, so I would imagine he probably keeps most Guns stuff.

I hope ALL of it--Everything the band recorded from '90-'97--finds it's way to the public someday.

BTW--We do have some of the rough UYI recordings. There's a rough version of Civil War, there's a rough version of Coma, there's a rough version of Don't Damned Me and several other songs. There's an early acoustic version of "Yesterdays" out there, and some others. Plus we have the Q Sound demos as well.

If Axl was a big enough dick to fuck with Live Era by shamelessly re-recording bits of it, then there's NO WAY he's letting demo and rehearsal tapes out - that is unless - he re-records those too.

That said, I would absolutely love to get demo's from post UYI up until '96. I think it's pretty clear that there is simply not enough GNR material accessible to the public. Not even a good live cd.

Axl really can do no right in your eyes. Every post of yours is either bashing Axl or his appearance.

Have you heard the actual shows which some of those instrumentals came from? For example, YCBM, Tokyo 1992 (which is where the Live Era version comes from), Axl's original vox sounds like shit; weak and strained. The re-recording on Live Era is better.

If it sounds like shit on the Live Era CD, then take it from another fucking concert. Don't re-record it 8 years later from your bunker in Malibu. Its a fucking joke and you know it.

Go to iTunes and check out the Pearl Jam section - there must be >50 live CD's from the soundboard which you can purchase.

Pretty much all bands 'fix up' their live albums. Was 'live like a suicide' a "fucking joke" also?

[Vincent Vega]

Pretty much all bands 'fix up' their live albums. Was 'live like a suicide' a "fucking joke" also?

No. Slash approved of those edits on Live Like a Suicide and the deliberation misleading of the public caused by it, so therefore it's cool. Whatever Slash approves is always 100% A-OK!

[axl8302]

Pretty much all bands 'fix up' their live albums. Was 'live like a suicide' a "fucking joke" also?

No. Slash approved of those edits on Live Like a Suicide and the deliberation misleading of the public caused by it, so therefore it's cool. Whatever Slash approves is always 100% A-OK!

Oh OK, I get it now!

[GeorgeGlass]

Pretty much all bands 'fix up' their live albums. Was 'live like a suicide' a "fucking joke" also?

No. Slash approved of those edits on Live Like a Suicide and the deliberation misleading of the public caused by it, so therefore it's cool. Whatever Slash approves is always 100% A-OK!

Live Like a Suicide was different - up and coming band adds fan cheering for a gag but the vocals were the vocals. Live Era was released with music from a band that was off the radar for quite some time, and controlled by the 'owner' of the name who felt it ok to completely cheapen the recordings for the 'numb and naive' fans. When Live Era was released, the 'nobody gives a shit about GNR' phase had already started (and continues to this day). If any sort of relevancy is desired, then Slash must be brought into the picture. The Axlites hate that this is true.

Has anyone ever answered the question of why LE was even released? Cash grab for Axl? Hypocrite?

[moreblack]

Marquee 87 should've been released as a live album. As is, no fiddling...

[Vincent Vega]

Pretty much all bands 'fix up' their live albums. Was 'live like a suicide' a "fucking joke" also?

No. Slash approved of those edits on Live Like a Suicide and the deliberation misleading of the public caused by it, so therefore it's cool. Whatever Slash approves is always 100% A-OK!

Live Like a Suicide was different - up and coming band adds fan cheering for a gag but the vocals were the vocals. Live Era was released with music from a band that was off the radar for quite some time, and controlled by the 'owner' of the name who felt it ok to completely cheapen the recordings for the 'numb and naive' fans. When Live Era was released, the 'nobody gives a shit about GNR' phase had already started (and continues to this day). If any sort of relevancy is desired, then Slash must be brought into the picture. The Axlites hate that this is true.

Has anyone ever answered the question of why LE was even released? Cash grab for Axl? Hypocrite?

The band had been planning to release a live album since around the outset of the UYI tour. So, they all wanted a live album out.

The record company also viewed it as a way of keeping the Guns' name current. None of the other guys (Slash, Duff, Izzy) protested about it's release and the original 4 worked together (through lawyers) to compile it together. I don't think I've seen any of them complain about it, unlike the Greatest Hits album which neither Axl OR Slash wanted released (but evil Axl must've brainwashed innocent Slash into joining with him for the lawsuit on the Greatest Hits record).

The various members of the band on Live Era:

"Slash has also confirmed that the GN'R live album is coming out! But the release date is not known at this moment." (Dust N' Bones mailinglist, 05/26/99)

"'The guys starting fooling around with this a few years ago, seeing if there was anything worth releasing,' said Tom Maher, manager for ex-Guns N' Roses guitarist Slash (born Saul Hudson) and a onetime member of the GNR management team." (Music News of the World, 10/16/99)

"Del James worked for a couple of years off and on going though every single show we did on DAT tape from the 'Use Your Illusion' tour and then every available tape, and finding tapes, and finding people that have recorded things, so he could have in his mind what was recorded best from the entire time Guns N' Roses was together." (Axl, MTV, 11/08/99)

"At first Geffen Records was bought up. Axl, Slash, and I were still partners of GN'R. Seagram was buying up everything and put them together. Contract, master tapes, everything. I still had one live album to release in that contract. I had the tape in my hand, but I was expected that somebody will use the right." (Duff, Burrn Magazine, 12/99)

"[slash's manager Tom] Maher said the project was derailed for a while by the merger last year of Geffen Records parent company Universal with PolyGram. 'Once the merger was over they starting working on it again, and the guys sent tapes back and forth between the different camps,' Maher said." (Music News of the World, 10/16/99)

"The original idea came of course from the record-company, who slowly starting panicking, since Axl hadn't give them any new material since the band fell apart." (Slash, 'Rock Hard' Magazine, 03/00)

"Estranged guitarist Slash is telling his official fan Web site that sessions relating to Guns N' Roses' long-rumored live album will be getting underway with mixer Andy Wallace sometime in July. Wallace's management company confirms that the studio veteran is booked for the sessions from July 12 through to the 29th." (MTV, 07/09/99)

"Slash was responsible for most of the work on the album. He and Axl worked the hardest. Stevie, Izzy and the others were all involved in one way or another." (Duff's official website, 11/29/99)

"Me and Andy Wallace were in the studio and mixed the album every day in last August. He is great. Slash called me up and asked me how the sound was like, because he was busy working on his record." (Duff, Burrn Magazine, 12/99)

"Slash says the album will have to meet the approval of the GN'R members before it's ready for production. He is working on mixing it, and sometimes Duff will come in and help out." (Dust N' Bones mailing list, 08/08/99)

"This album is supposed to be sent to Axl. [...] [Last contact I had with Axl was] a year ago. That means we haven't talked since he was putting live album together. Our managers talk each other or FedEX it back and forth." (Duff, Burrn Magazine, 12/99)

Edited December 29, 2010 by Indigo Child

[axl8302]

Pretty much all bands 'fix up' their live albums. Was 'live like a suicide' a "fucking joke" also?

No. Slash approved of those edits on Live Like a Suicide and the deliberation misleading of the public caused by it, so therefore it's cool. Whatever Slash approves is always 100% A-OK!

Live Like a Suicide was different - up and coming band adds fan cheering for a gag but the vocals were the vocals. Live Era was released with music from a band that was off the radar for quite some time, and controlled by the 'owner' of the name who felt it ok to completely cheapen the recordings for the 'numb and naive' fans. When Live Era was released, the 'nobody gives a shit about GNR' phase had already started (and continues to this day). If any sort of relevancy is desired, then Slash must be brought into the picture. The Axlites hate that this is true.

Has anyone ever answered the question of why LE was even released? Cash grab for Axl? Hypocrite?

"Slash was responsible for most of the work on the album. He and Axl worked the hardest. Stevie, Izzy and the others were all involved in one way or another." (Duff's official website, 11/29/99)

How do you like those apples? Your knowledge on GN'R is really lacking.

Edited December 29, 2010 by axl8302

[Vincent Vega]

I imagine Live Era may have been a contractural thing with the record company, I don't have time to research this right now, so claiming it was an Axl money grab is unfair. Slash stated he and Axl collaborated through intermediaries on the album and never communicated directly with each other and I believe Slash did a lot of the production work on it.

Criticizing Axl for rerecording his vocals is just stirring the shit as just about every commercial live album ever released has had studio work done on it to fix "mistakes". I think it is misleading to not tell the fans this unfront but that is not Axl's fault it is how the music busness works.

I read somewhere that Led Zeppelin's live album was re-recorded in many spots. I forget where I heard that...The vocals weren't touched but a lot of the spottier instrumentals were if I remember.

The Doors' live album, too, Absolutely Live, was I heard pieced together from various performances--I mean individual songs--Because most of the songs were from their 1970 tour, in which Jim was bombed most of the time:

"Absolutely Live is the first live album released by American rock band The Doors in July 1970. Many shows were recorded during the 1970 tour to create the "Absolutely Live" album. The Doors producer, and long time collaborator Paul Rothchild painstakingly edited the album from many different shows to create one cohesive concert. For example, the best part of a song from the Detroit show may have been spliced together with another part of the same song from the Boston show, again trying to create "the ultimate concert". It can become very difficult to identify what parts are from what shows. Rothchild has said "I couldn't get complete takes of a lot of songs, so sometimes I'd cut from Detroit to Philadelphia in midsong. There must be 2,000 edits on that album"

Edited December 29, 2010 by Indigo Child

[GeorgeGlass]

I imagine Live Era may have been a contractural thing with the record company, I don't have time to research this right now, so claiming it was an Axl money grab is unfair. Slash stated he and Axl collaborated through intermediaries on the album and never communicated directly with each other and I believe Slash did a lot of the production work on it.

Criticizing Axl for rerecording his vocals is just stirring the shit as just about every commercial live album ever released has had studio work done on it to fix "mistakes". I think it is misleading to not tell the fans this unfront but that is not Axl's fault it is how the music busness works.

I read somewhere that Led Zeppelin's live album was re-recorded in many spots. I forget where I heard that...The vocals weren't touched but a lot of the spottier instrumentals were if I remember.

The Doors' live album, too, Absolutely Live, was I heard pieced together from various performances--I mean individual songs--Because most of the songs were from their 1970 tour, in which Jim was bombed most of the time:

"Absolutely Live is the first live album released by American rock band The Doors in July 1970. Many shows were recorded during the 1970 tour to create the "Absolutely Live" album. The Doors producer, and long time collaborator Paul Rothchild painstakingly edited the album from many different shows to create one cohesive concert. For example, the best part of a song from the Detroit show may have been spliced together with another part of the same song from the Boston show, again trying to create "the ultimate concert". It can become very difficult to identify what parts are from what shows. Rothchild has said "I couldn't get complete takes of a lot of songs, so sometimes I'd cut from Detroit to Philadelphia in midsong. There must be 2,000 edits on that album"

It still doesn't make it right. Its like a girl with natural cans - sure they aren't perfect but isn't it much better to have the uncut, natural thing - flaws and all?

[Vincent Vega]

I imagine Live Era may have been a contractural thing with the record company, I don't have time to research this right now, so claiming it was an Axl money grab is unfair. Slash stated he and Axl collaborated through intermediaries on the album and never communicated directly with each other and I believe Slash did a lot of the production work on it.

Criticizing Axl for rerecording his vocals is just stirring the shit as just about every commercial live album ever released has had studio work done on it to fix "mistakes". I think it is misleading to not tell the fans this unfront but that is not Axl's fault it is how the music busness works.

I read somewhere that Led Zeppelin's live album was re-recorded in many spots. I forget where I heard that...The vocals weren't touched but a lot of the spottier instrumentals were if I remember.

The Doors' live album, too, Absolutely Live, was I heard pieced together from various performances--I mean individual songs--Because most of the songs were from their 1970 tour, in which Jim was bombed most of the time:

"Absolutely Live is the first live album released by American rock band The Doors in July 1970. Many shows were recorded during the 1970 tour to create the "Absolutely Live" album. The Doors producer, and long time collaborator Paul Rothchild painstakingly edited the album from many different shows to create one cohesive concert. For example, the best part of a song from the Detroit show may have been spliced together with another part of the same song from the Boston show, again trying to create "the ultimate concert". It can become very difficult to identify what parts are from what shows. Rothchild has said "I couldn't get complete takes of a lot of songs, so sometimes I'd cut from Detroit to Philadelphia in midsong. There must be 2,000 edits on that album"

It still doesn't make it right. Its like a girl with natural cans - sure they aren't perfect but isn't it much better to have the uncut, natural thing - flaws and all?

The thing is, A lot of the 1991-mid 1992 shows, Axl sounds vocally crappy. On some of those shows, Slash is a sloppy or Duff is drunk. And you get some of these problems with the earlier shows. They seemed to want to capture the band's entire live career--Not simply 1987 or 1988 so I guess they took the best cuts, and Axl probably wasn't very happy with his vocals at the time. I think it's cool actually because we get to hear what Axl sounded like during those "hermit" years, and in many instances I have to be honest, I prefer his Live Era vocals. I mean if you really want to hear the natural 1991, 1992 shows the boots are out there.

Should they release some of their shows? Absolutely! I'd love more live albums and concert DVDs. But until Axl and Slash clear the air, it's not going to happen. I'm someone who personally doesn't want a reunion, but I do want them to patch things up so as to open up the vaults. They are sitting on a goldmine of stuff.

I imagine Live Era may have been a contractural thing with the record company, I don't have time to research this right now, so claiming it was an Axl money grab is unfair. Slash stated he and Axl collaborated through intermediaries on the album and never communicated directly with each other and I believe Slash did a lot of the production work on it.

Criticizing Axl for rerecording his vocals is just stirring the shit as just about every commercial live album ever released has had studio work done on it to fix "mistakes". I think it is misleading to not tell the fans this unfront but that is not Axl's fault it is how the music busness works.

I read somewhere that Led Zeppelin's live album was re-recorded in many spots. I forget where I heard that...The vocals weren't touched but a lot of the spottier instrumentals were if I remember.

The Doors' live album, too, Absolutely Live, was I heard pieced together from various performances--I mean individual songs--Because most of the songs were from their 1970 tour, in which Jim was bombed most of the time:

"Absolutely Live is the first live album released by American rock band The Doors in July 1970. Many shows were recorded during the 1970 tour to create the "Absolutely Live" album. The Doors producer, and long time collaborator Paul Rothchild painstakingly edited the album from many different shows to create one cohesive concert. For example, the best part of a song from the Detroit show may have been spliced together with another part of the same song from the Boston show, again trying to create "the ultimate concert". It can become very difficult to identify what parts are from what shows. Rothchild has said "I couldn't get complete takes of a lot of songs, so sometimes I'd cut from Detroit to Philadelphia in midsong. There must be 2,000 edits on that album"

Led Zep's "The Song Remains The Same" was touched up by Jimmy Page in the studio and he did the same Frankenstein splicing of songs from different nights to make them sound "better"

Even one of my favorite albums of all time Allman Bros "Live at the Fillmore East" was "fixed" in the studio with some tracks spliced together from different nights.

One of the greatest live albums of all time Thin Lizzy's "Live and Dangerous" was heavliy doctored in the studio with all of Phil Lynotts vocals rerecorded and extra guitars overdubbed onto the live tapes.

I don't buy live albums anymore because of this very reason and personally prefer untouched bootlegs. I want to hear the complete shows warts and all..........

I didn't know that about Song Remains the Same. I always fired it was How the West Was Won.

I've always loved The Song Remains the Same, personally.

I don't think the Stones really touched up any of their live albums, at least not the early ones.

Slash had this to say about Live Era: "(It's) not pretty and there are a lot of mistakes, but this is Guns N' Roses, not the fucking Mahavishnu Orchestra. It's as honest as it gets."

Edited December 29, 2010 by Indigo Child

[moreblack]

Led Zep's "The Song Remains The Same" was touched up by Jimmy Page in the studio and he did the same Frankenstein splicing of songs from different nights to make them sound "better"

mind, there's an ocean's difference between splicing in bits from other nights (still live) stuff, and going into the studio to re do entire parts of the songs a la KISS Alive.

[axl8302]

I imagine Live Era may have been a contractural thing with the record company, I don't have time to research this right now, so claiming it was an Axl money grab is unfair. Slash stated he and Axl collaborated through intermediaries on the album and never communicated directly with each other and I believe Slash did a lot of the production work on it.

Criticizing Axl for rerecording his vocals is just stirring the shit as just about every commercial live album ever released has had studio work done on it to fix "mistakes". I think it is misleading to not tell the fans this unfront but that is not Axl's fault it is how the music busness works.

I read somewhere that Led Zeppelin's live album was re-recorded in many spots. I forget where I heard that...The vocals weren't touched but a lot of the spottier instrumentals were if I remember.

The Doors' live album, too, Absolutely Live, was I heard pieced together from various performances--I mean individual songs--Because most of the songs were from their 1970 tour, in which Jim was bombed most of the time:

"Absolutely Live is the first live album released by American rock band The Doors in July 1970. Many shows were recorded during the 1970 tour to create the "Absolutely Live" album. The Doors producer, and long time collaborator Paul Rothchild painstakingly edited the album from many different shows to create one cohesive concert. For example, the best part of a song from the Detroit show may have been spliced together with another part of the same song from the Boston show, again trying to create "the ultimate concert". It can become very difficult to identify what parts are from what shows. Rothchild has said "I couldn't get complete takes of a lot of songs, so sometimes I'd cut from Detroit to Philadelphia in midsong. There must be 2,000 edits on that album"

It still doesn't make it right. Its like a girl with natural cans - sure they aren't perfect but isn't it much better to have the uncut, natural thing - flaws and all?

Well that's not your argument is it. Your argument is specifically against Axl, claiming that he's some kind of fraud (for doing what everyone else is doing). It's how things are, If you don't like it your argument is with more than just one man, it's against many classic bands, albums and a whole industry... it's most notably also with Slash (considering he was responsible for a lot of the production on Live Era).

Edited December 29, 2010 by axl8302

[moreblack]

it's most notably also with Slash (considering he was responsible for a lot of the production on Live Era).

that the same dude that released more unedited live albums this year than most of those artists put together?

[moreblack]

Led Zep's "The Song Remains The Same" was touched up by Jimmy Page in the studio and he did the same Frankenstein splicing of songs from different nights to make them sound "better"

mind, there's an ocean's difference between splicing in bits from other nights (still live) stuff, and going into the studio to re do entire parts of the songs a la KISS Alive.

Depends on your perspective I suppose. In both cases you are not getting the real music played on a specific night. Personally I want my live music to be untouched and offered just as it was played the night of the show warts and all. That is just my preference as I have friends who want their live music to sound just like the studio recordings and do not like my bootlegs....Too each his own...........

bootlegs is where it's at definitely, there's probably hundreds of Guns boots I'd listen to before Live Era...

[LesPaul_Player_91]

Also Thin Lizzy's Live And Dangerous, often hailed as one of the best live albums of all time was heavily touched up in the studio. I'd say a heck of a lot of live albums are. Axl's hardly the first guy to have rerecorded vocals in the studio.

[axl8302]

it's most notably also with Slash (considering he was responsible for a lot of the production on Live Era).

that the same dude that released more unedited live albums this year than most of those artists put together?

Yeah that guy, the guy who produced the heavily edited Live Era.

[GeorgeGlass]

I imagine Live Era may have been a contractural thing with the record company, I don't have time to research this right now, so claiming it was an Axl money grab is unfair. Slash stated he and Axl collaborated through intermediaries on the album and never communicated directly with each other and I believe Slash did a lot of the production work on it.

Criticizing Axl for rerecording his vocals is just stirring the shit as just about every commercial live album ever released has had studio work done on it to fix "mistakes". I think it is misleading to not tell the fans this unfront but that is not Axl's fault it is how the music busness works.

I read somewhere that Led Zeppelin's live album was re-recorded in many spots. I forget where I heard that...The vocals weren't touched but a lot of the spottier instrumentals were if I remember.

The Doors' live album, too, Absolutely Live, was I heard pieced together from various performances--I mean individual songs--Because most of the songs were from their 1970 tour, in which Jim was bombed most of the time:

"Absolutely Live is the first live album released by American rock band The Doors in July 1970. Many shows were recorded during the 1970 tour to create the "Absolutely Live" album. The Doors producer, and long time collaborator Paul Rothchild painstakingly edited the album from many different shows to create one cohesive concert. For example, the best part of a song from the Detroit show may have been spliced together with another part of the same song from the Boston show, again trying to create "the ultimate concert". It can become very difficult to identify what parts are from what shows. Rothchild has said "I couldn't get complete takes of a lot of songs, so sometimes I'd cut from Detroit to Philadelphia in midsong. There must be 2,000 edits on that album"

It still doesn't make it right. Its like a girl with natural cans - sure they aren't perfect but isn't it much better to have the uncut, natural thing - flaws and all?

Well that's not your argument is it. Your argument is specifically against Axl, claiming that he's some kind of fraud (for doing what everyone else is doing). It's how things are, If you don't like it your argument is with more than just one man, it's against many classic bands, albums and a whole industry... it's most notably also with Slash (considering he was responsible for a lot of the production on Live Era).

So I guess if all the other frontmen stepped in dog shit, Axl would too, and it'd be ok? Isn't he the 'anti-establishment, buck the trend, don't sell out kind of guy'? Well he clearly voided the last of those by using the GNR name and re-recording live era tracks. HE'S the guy that's supposed to NOT do it like everyone else.

[axl8302]

I imagine Live Era may have been a contractural thing with the record company, I don't have time to research this right now, so claiming it was an Axl money grab is unfair. Slash stated he and Axl collaborated through intermediaries on the album and never communicated directly with each other and I believe Slash did a lot of the production work on it.

Criticizing Axl for rerecording his vocals is just stirring the shit as just about every commercial live album ever released has had studio work done on it to fix "mistakes". I think it is misleading to not tell the fans this unfront but that is not Axl's fault it is how the music busness works.

I read somewhere that Led Zeppelin's live album was re-recorded in many spots. I forget where I heard that...The vocals weren't touched but a lot of the spottier instrumentals were if I remember.

The Doors' live album, too, Absolutely Live, was I heard pieced together from various performances--I mean individual songs--Because most of the songs were from their 1970 tour, in which Jim was bombed most of the time:

"Absolutely Live is the first live album released by American rock band The Doors in July 1970. Many shows were recorded during the 1970 tour to create the "Absolutely Live" album. The Doors producer, and long time collaborator Paul Rothchild painstakingly edited the album from many different shows to create one cohesive concert. For example, the best part of a song from the Detroit show may have been spliced together with another part of the same song from the Boston show, again trying to create "the ultimate concert". It can become very difficult to identify what parts are from what shows. Rothchild has said "I couldn't get complete takes of a lot of songs, so sometimes I'd cut from Detroit to Philadelphia in midsong. There must be 2,000 edits on that album"

It still doesn't make it right. Its like a girl with natural cans - sure they aren't perfect but isn't it much better to have the uncut, natural thing - flaws and all?

Well that's not your argument is it. Your argument is specifically against Axl, claiming that he's some kind of fraud (for doing what everyone else is doing). It's how things are, If you don't like it your argument is with more than just one man, it's against many classic bands, albums and a whole industry... it's most notably also with Slash (considering he was responsible for a lot of the production on Live Era).

So I guess if all the other frontmen stepped in dog shit, Axl would too, and it'd be ok? Isn't he the 'anti-establishment, buck the trend, don't sell out kind of guy'? Well he clearly voided the last of those by using the GNR name and re-recording live era tracks. HE'S the guy that's supposed to NOT do it like everyone else.

He's supposed to not do it like the rolling stones? One of Guns biggest influences. Your get your ass kicked in every thread and just move the goal posts.

Does this statement: 'anti-establishment, buck the trend, don't sell out kind of guy'? not apply to Slash then? Since he was one of the main producers of Live Era.

Isn't carrying on with the GN'R name as the last man standing NOT doing it like everyone else? Your all over the place, you don't have any valid argument... all you want to do is shit on Axl. Why don't you just come out and say that you think he sucks, it'd be a lot more entertaining than this rouse.

Edited December 29, 2010 by axl8302

[GeorgeGlass]

I imagine Live Era may have been a contractural thing with the record company, I don't have time to research this right now, so claiming it was an Axl money grab is unfair. Slash stated he and Axl collaborated through intermediaries on the album and never communicated directly with each other and I believe Slash did a lot of the production work on it.

Criticizing Axl for rerecording his vocals is just stirring the shit as just about every commercial live album ever released has had studio work done on it to fix "mistakes". I think it is misleading to not tell the fans this unfront but that is not Axl's fault it is how the music busness works.

I read somewhere that Led Zeppelin's live album was re-recorded in many spots. I forget where I heard that...The vocals weren't touched but a lot of the spottier instrumentals were if I remember.

The Doors' live album, too, Absolutely Live, was I heard pieced together from various performances--I mean individual songs--Because most of the songs were from their 1970 tour, in which Jim was bombed most of the time:

"Absolutely Live is the first live album released by American rock band The Doors in July 1970. Many shows were recorded during the 1970 tour to create the "Absolutely Live" album. The Doors producer, and long time collaborator Paul Rothchild painstakingly edited the album from many different shows to create one cohesive concert. For example, the best part of a song from the Detroit show may have been spliced together with another part of the same song from the Boston show, again trying to create "the ultimate concert". It can become very difficult to identify what parts are from what shows. Rothchild has said "I couldn't get complete takes of a lot of songs, so sometimes I'd cut from Detroit to Philadelphia in midsong. There must be 2,000 edits on that album"

It still doesn't make it right. Its like a girl with natural cans - sure they aren't perfect but isn't it much better to have the uncut, natural thing - flaws and all?

Well that's not your argument is it. Your argument is specifically against Axl, claiming that he's some kind of fraud (for doing what everyone else is doing). It's how things are, If you don't like it your argument is with more than just one man, it's against many classic bands, albums and a whole industry... it's most notably also with Slash (considering he was responsible for a lot of the production on Live Era).

So I guess if all the other frontmen stepped in dog shit, Axl would too, and it'd be ok? Isn't he the 'anti-establishment, buck the trend, don't sell out kind of guy'? Well he clearly voided the last of those by using the GNR name and re-recording live era tracks. HE'S the guy that's supposed to NOT do it like everyone else.

He's supposed to not do it like the rolling stones? One of Guns biggest influences. Your get your ass kicked in every thread and just move the goal posts.

Does this statement: 'anti-establishment, buck the trend, don't sell out kind of guy'? not apply to Slash then? Since he was one of the main producers of Live Era.

Isn't carrying on with the GN'R name as the last man standing NOT doing it like everyone else? Your all over the place, you don't have any valid argument... all you want to do is shit on Axl. Why don't you just come out and say that you think he sucks, it'd be a lot more entertaining than this rouse.

Slash didn't re-record vocals or guitar tracks. Axl doesn't suck - he's just going about things incorrectly. Seeing him live is better than nothing yes, but NOT the same. Funny how people in here blame Slash not Axl for the breakup, yet everyone else in the world is the other way around (if they still even care).

Ohh warn status up to 30% - go me!!

Edited December 29, 2010 by GeorgeGlass

[axl8302]

I imagine Live Era may have been a contractural thing with the record company, I don't have time to research this right now, so claiming it was an Axl money grab is unfair. Slash stated he and Axl collaborated through intermediaries on the album and never communicated directly with each other and I believe Slash did a lot of the production work on it.

Criticizing Axl for rerecording his vocals is just stirring the shit as just about every commercial live album ever released has had studio work done on it to fix "mistakes". I think it is misleading to not tell the fans this unfront but that is not Axl's fault it is how the music busness works.

I read somewhere that Led Zeppelin's live album was re-recorded in many spots. I forget where I heard that...The vocals weren't touched but a lot of the spottier instrumentals were if I remember.

The Doors' live album, too, Absolutely Live, was I heard pieced together from various performances--I mean individual songs--Because most of the songs were from their 1970 tour, in which Jim was bombed most of the time:

"Absolutely Live is the first live album released by American rock band The Doors in July 1970. Many shows were recorded during the 1970 tour to create the "Absolutely Live" album. The Doors producer, and long time collaborator Paul Rothchild painstakingly edited the album from many different shows to create one cohesive concert. For example, the best part of a song from the Detroit show may have been spliced together with another part of the same song from the Boston show, again trying to create "the ultimate concert". It can become very difficult to identify what parts are from what shows. Rothchild has said "I couldn't get complete takes of a lot of songs, so sometimes I'd cut from Detroit to Philadelphia in midsong. There must be 2,000 edits on that album"

It still doesn't make it right. Its like a girl with natural cans - sure they aren't perfect but isn't it much better to have the uncut, natural thing - flaws and all?

Well that's not your argument is it. Your argument is specifically against Axl, claiming that he's some kind of fraud (for doing what everyone else is doing). It's how things are, If you don't like it your argument is with more than just one man, it's against many classic bands, albums and a whole industry... it's most notably also with Slash (considering he was responsible for a lot of the production on Live Era).

So I guess if all the other frontmen stepped in dog shit, Axl would too, and it'd be ok? Isn't he the 'anti-establishment, buck the trend, don't sell out kind of guy'? Well he clearly voided the last of those by using the GNR name and re-recording live era tracks. HE'S the guy that's supposed to NOT do it like everyone else.

He's supposed to not do it like the rolling stones? One of Guns biggest influences. Your get your ass kicked in every thread and just move the goal posts.

Does this statement: 'anti-establishment, buck the trend, don't sell out kind of guy'? not apply to Slash then? Since he was one of the main producers of Live Era.

Isn't carrying on with the GN'R name as the last man standing NOT doing it like everyone else? Your all over the place, you don't have any valid argument... all you want to do is shit on Axl. Why don't you just come out and say that you think he sucks, it'd be a lot more entertaining than this rouse.

Slash didn't re-record vocals or guitar tracks. Axl doesn't suck - he's just going about things incorrectly. Seeing him live is better than nothing yes, but NOT the same. Funny how people in here blame Slash not Axl for the breakup, yet everyone else in the world is the other way around (if they still even care).

Ohh warn status up to 30% - go me!!

It's Slash fans like you that cause all of the problems with the fan-base. Fans of Axl and the new band couldn't give two fucks about what Slash is up to, as it's not relevant. He's not in the band. We don't sit around coming up with threads to hate on him, we just want to enjoy the band that we have now, but you guys wont let it be.

I don't have anything against Slash, but his fans (ones like you) are some of the biggest cunts in the world. Do you think Slash is going to think that you're cool for constantly hating on Axl and Nu-GN'R? My bet is he'd think you were a cunt.

I don't like Janes Addiction, but I don't go to their forum to hate on them. Why do you come here and do exactly that? I bet it's not something you let people in the real world know about (because it's fucking sad and pathetic, and you know it!).

And who are you tell one of the biggest rock stars this planet has ever seen, that he's 'going about things incorrectly', you must also be one 'biggest rock stars this planet', is that you Mick? If not who the fuck are you to give advice... you must be one successful motherfucker!

Edited December 29, 2010 by axl8302

[evergreen_layne]

"I don't like Janes Addiction, but I don't go to their forum to hate on them. Why do you come here and do exactly that? I bet it's not something you let people in the real world know about (because it's fucking sad and pathetic, and you know it!)."

Because this "band" currently touring is not Guns N' Roses. Axl is not Guns N' Roses he's not fucking Trent Reznor. Get it through your head man and get a grip.

[Vincent Vega]

"I don't like Janes Addiction, but I don't go to their forum to hate on them. Why do you come here and do exactly that? I bet it's not something you let people in the real world know about (because it's fucking sad and pathetic, and you know it!)."

Because this "band" currently touring is not Guns N' Roses. Axl is not Guns N' Roses he's not fucking Trent Reznor. Get it through your head man and get a grip.

So basically you just admitted you come here to hate on GN'R/Axl.

[axl8302]

"I don't like Janes Addiction, but I don't go to their forum to hate on them. Why do you come here and do exactly that? I bet it's not something you let people in the real world know about (because it's fucking sad and pathetic, and you know it!)."

Because this "band" currently touring is not Guns N' Roses. Axl is not Guns N' Roses he's not fucking Trent Reznor. Get it through your head man and get a grip.

No matter how much you protest, whinge and bitch, it doesn't change the fact that this band IS Guns N Roses. And really, who the fuck are you to decide what is and isn't Guns? Get a life, you fucking loser.

Edited December 29, 2010 by axl8302