A comparison to Metallica

[OkCalculator]

Metallica?

Musically they're not comparable, so why bother comparing them in any other way?

[droezle]

2. Lulu: Yes it was bad: terrible, but you cannot cry that Metallica was "selling out." It seems they involved themselves in a project based solely on their respect for Lou Reed, his history, and their interest in teh story he was telling. There was no way they expected this to be a hit, and it was not, but Metallica got to say they made a project with one of the rock greats.

Lulu is not a Metallica album. It's Lou Reed feat. Metallica

[Apollo]

Off topic, MSL,

Unlike you, many of us are not perfect. We give our opinion on issues. Sometimes our opinions end up not being 100% accurate. In the high majority of those cases, people are not purposely lying - like you continually accuse people of.

I offer no apology to anybody on here if my statement on napster and metallica is not correct. This is a rock n roll music forum, a place for people to share ideas. People aren't turning in disertations that need to be scrutinized for accuracy.

If I am wrong about something, I would love for another poster to say "hey dude, this is what actually happened" and then I will respond "Thanks bro, that makes sense." Issue over.

But you come across as a complete prick because your response is "You are wrong. You are a liar. You owe us an apology. You are a liar and a slanderer, and I offer you 10,000 to take a lie detector test.

You have an abundance of GnR knowledge and seem like a pretty smart guy. But the way you act and treat people on here......well, that's why the majority of posters don't like you. It isn't because you are always right (in your opinion) it's because you come off as an arrogant prick most of the time.

This is pretty spot on actually.

I knew there was a reason I always liked you!

[Scumcat Esq.]

If GNR were to put out an EP like Metallica did, many GNR fans would still shit on it.

God forbid! As a fan, I don't want GN'R to release a piece of shit like Metallica's EP.

I'm not sure whether Metallica's a fan friendly band, but they sure as hell are quick-witted when it comes to getting a buck out of their fans.

Wait.......so a band putting out music for their fans is a bad thing, because in your mind, it is just the band trying to make money? Wait........so your bands typically put out albums/music for free? They don't charge for their albums? You'd rather one of your favorite bands put out an album every 15 years, because that shows they care about their fans - by not making them have to pay for albums......whereas a band who puts out music on a regular basis, are pricks, because they are just milking fans for money?

OK, I'll wait as you sure as hell got it all wrong.

In my perverted mind, a band putting out a piece of shit for its fans in order to charge them for it is just a band trying to make money.

I'd rather one of my favourite bands put out a solid album every 15 years than put out a second-rate half-baked compilation of leftover riffs. I can wait and I'd rather wait. A band that releases intolerable crap on a regular basis when they obviously can do it better are lazy and greedy pricks. Metallica should've stopped releasing albums 16 years ago until they'd be able to come up with something worthy. It's OK to take your time when you need it (especially when you've already got a solid back catalogue).

And I'm probably a happy person as most bands that I like have seldom or never let me down, some of them realise that they're never gonna get a good buck for their music but they don't give up and continue kicking ass and I'm proud to support them.

There have been a lot of idiotic posts on this forum over the years, but yours might seriously be the most idiotic post I've ever read at mygnr.com.

You're very kind, sir! I'll humbly accept that nomination!

You are combining two different issues here.

YOUR musical preference does not equate to all fans of a band. Don't worry, there are several people on here who do it as well. You are judging the output of a band based on what YOU like and not what their fans like.

I've used the Bon Jovi comparison on here a few times. It doesn't matter if you hate or love that band, that isn't the point. A band releases music for its fans. BJ released 5 albums in the last 12 years. Axl has released ONE. Would you rather your favorite band released five albums in a decade or one album in a decade?????

And please don't use the idiotic "I'd rather get one GnR album than 10 BJ albums. I'd rather get one brilliant album than get 10 crappy albums." You are combing two different topics. The question is simple. Would you rather get 5 albums in decade from YOUR favorite band or would you rather get 1 album a decade from your favorite band??????????

And a few of you have mentioned that 1 brilliant album in 15 years thing. So you really don't have much faith in Axl, do you. You think he is only capable of creating one great song per year????? I think the man is a musical rock legend and could easily produce a high quality album every two years. Weird you worship a singer, but have no faith in his musical ability.

I have no doubt that Axl can put out quality music ever few years. YOU only think he is capable of one quality album every 15 years? Are you a fan or not?

And, using your logic...........there are a lot of "fans" who think that CD sucked. Does that mean Axl should never release another album? 25 million people bought Appetite, 15 million bought Illusions....3 million bought CD. Does that mean Axl should stop releasing music? According to your statements - it does.

BUT BACK TO MEtallica.

Just because YOU think their music sucks, doesn't mean that their fans do.

And, nobody is forcing people to buy their albums. Nobody is holding fans hostage. If they don't want to spend their money, they don't have to.

The difference is that Metallica GIVES THEIR FANS music to choose from. GnR doesn't.

I don't even listen to them that much anymore. I listen to Ride The Lightening more than any of their other albums. Though " Jump In The Fire' is still played a lot on my IPOD.

Here is what Metallica has done in the 16 years you have said they should have hung it up. This is what Metallica fans have gotten to enjoy, from their favorite band.

Oh - as comparison

GnR..............one album

vs

Metallica

1996 - Album

1997 - Album

1998 - Album

1999 - Concert Film, the orchestra

2003 - Album

2004 - Behind the Scenes DVD of the band

2006 - DVD containing all their videos

2007 - Tribute song, nominated for a grammy

2008 - Album

2010 - release THREE EPs of live songs

2011 - Album

2011 - EP of unreleased songs

To celebrate their 30th year in the business, they had four concerts in San Fran. Tickets were - yes, not lying - tickets were SIX DOLLARS APIECE.

Special guests at the show included Mustaine, Ozzy, Newstad, Danzig, Jerry Cantrell, King Dimond amongst other rock stars.

You think those albums are all junk?

Metallica had five straight albums debut at number one on Billboard - first band ever to do that.

One of the albums stayed number one for three weeks.

Several songs/albums were nominated for Grammys, some won

I'd say the majority of their fans were pretty happy, even if you aren't.

HOw's that comparison compare to what GnR has done in the same time frame?????

Again, not comparing which band or albums YOU personally like better. That is irrelevent.

In the next 16 years which would you rather have from GnR:

6 full length albums, 4 EPS featuring live and unreleased songs, concert DVDs, Behind the Scenes DVD of the band

or

1 album

???????

Man, you're a typing god!

I'm quite aware of the fact that my musical preferences equate solely to my musical preferences. I did not even try to speak for anybody else but myself. (And my first post in this thread to which you replied reflected my opinion exclusively.)

But if my opinion is irrelevant when it comes to judging the output of a band, how can I answer you what I would prefer in that regard? What should I base my answer on? Some commonly-accepted performance indicators? But that's not gonna be a statement of my opinion and preferences, is it? If you want me to accept that 'tallica's more productive than Guns N' Roses, it is. I never denied it. But the quality of products is kinda... hmm..., except for merchandise. The merchandise is awesome! But I don't need it as the music and the spirit are not there.

Anyway, I've already answered some of your questions and I'm not gonna change my stance. No doubt, I'd rather get 5 solid albums than 1 solid album from my favourite band within a decade. But if it's impossible, I'd rather get 1 solid album than 5 mediocre albums from it. In this case I don't care about other bands and the amount of material they've produced. If my favourite band releases 10 albums that I find to be utter shit, I know I'm gonna be disappointed to say the least, no matter how many albums other bands produced and how many fans of my favourite band find them to be pure masterpieces.

As for Axl's creative abilities, I have a strong faith in him. And surely you exaggerate when you write that (I think) he is capable of creating one great song per a year. Being presumably an 'all-killer-no-filler' masterpiece, Chinese Democracy was not written within 15 years. Axl was ready to deliver it in the early 2000s. Why the label had to turn it down is beyond me. And why I stop being a fan if I think that it's OK when a band or an artist takes as much time as needed for releasing a solid album is beyond me as well.

And using my logic, you used your logic. I know that my opinions and suggestions are exactly what they are. They ain't gonna make the Earth rotate backwards. If some fans think that Axl tarnishes the legacy, produces worthless records and so on and so forth, it's their unquestionable right, although I don't like it or disagree with them.

Well, back to 'tallica.

Yup, they give their fans the music to choose from but I (I mean myself) don't want to choose between shit and shit.

Yes, generally speaking, I think all the albums released post Load are junk, except for 3 songs: Fuel, I Disappear and No Leaf Clover.

And my opinions and preferences won't change, even if the majority of Metallica fans were happy with what the band has produced since '96. I'm a fan because I support a band and like the music it plays, not because someone else does. It's obvious, isn't it?

As for the goodies you offered to choose from, as a fan I'd be glad to be offered half that much, including 4 studio albums. To hell with EPs containing live and unreleased songs (as often as not the latter suck), zillions of live DVDs (unless they're filmed on different tours and are indeed 'live'), a BTS DVD (Do you really think there can be anything interesting behind the scenes at this point in time? And what?).

[dalsh327]

2. Lulu: Yes it was bad: terrible, but you cannot cry that Metallica was "selling out." It seems they involved themselves in a project based solely on their respect for Lou Reed, his history, and their interest in teh story he was telling. There was no way they expected this to be a hit, and it was not, but Metallica got to say they made a project with one of the rock greats.

Lulu is not a Metallica album. It's Lou Reed feat. Metallica

[bran]

2. Lulu: Yes it was bad: terrible, but you cannot cry that Metallica was "selling out." It seems they involved themselves in a project based solely on their respect for Lou Reed, his history, and their interest in teh story he was telling. There was no way they expected this to be a hit, and it was not, but Metallica got to say they made a project with one of the rock greats.

Lulu is not a Metallica album. It's Lou Reed feat. Metallica

:rofl-lol:

love that video

[Rustycage]

I like this reaction better.

[GnR Chris]

How many albums did Metallica release between Illusions and Chinese Democracy? What a poor example.

[GnR Chris]

metallica charges high prices and plays nothing from their latest LP. GNR plays half of their latest LP. which is the nostalgia act again?

Still Gn'R. And Axl charges high prices too.

Edited June 29, 2012 by GnR Chris

[GnR Chris]

The reason most people use nostalgic cash grab as a negative term towards the nu band is because; they're touring with a set list of 75-85% of songs they had fuck all to do with

the set is essentially 1/3 appetite, 1/3 illusions, 1/3 chinese.

so axl had something to do with 100%. dizzy had something to do with 66%. several others had something to do with 33%.

so where do you come to the conclusion that they only had something to do with 15% of the songs?

Haha, really, you're gonna give Dizzy 66 percent based on piddling contributions? haha.

He makes a good point. People call them Axl and the cover act because they play everybody else's material. They had little to nothing to do with Chinese Democracy and obviously the true Gn'R records. Yet they call themselves Guns N' Roses.

Edited June 29, 2012 by GnR Chris

[RECKLESS]

- Guns: release Chinese Democracy in 2008

Metallica: release Death Magnetic in 2008 earlier in the year BEFORE Chinese

- Guns: tour in support of Chinese Democracy since 2009 with a break in 2011 before US tour

- Metallica: have toured virtually endlessly since 2008

- Guns: fans are pushing for Axl and the band to release the next album now.

Metallica: they are nowhere near ready to release their next album and have only begun to write.

- Guns: fans complain no new songs are being played

Metallica: play all the old hits. This past weekend at the Orion festival ZERO Death Magnetic songs were played

I just don't understand the GNR fans logic with this double standard

Comparing the two bands is not fair to Metaliica because they are 2 different things entirely. Metaliica is very commercial now and Guns is not. Everyone and their Mom is a Metallica fan now. They are not very creative anymore and haven't done anything great since And Justice For All. Guns on the other hand is by no means commercial and does everything on their terms. They have some great material and the fact that its not appealling to the masses only proves how good it is.

I'm actually glad that things turned out the way they did in terms of CDemocracy success and popularity. It's "their" loss.

Metaliica is kinda like the Wal-Mart of Metal. Guns is like a botique where you buy USA made quality......just my opinion.

[bran]

great post

[maynard]

You could say that by 2002 when GNR looked very alternative. Even the old hits were full of effects and synths.

Fast forward to 2012 and GNR has a guitar player wearing a top hat, the songs are all back to basics and Axl is covering AC/DC and Rolling Stones.

I'd love if GNR had became kinda like NIN and it looked like so around RIR and 2002 tour. After some years, Axl came back more traditional than a Slash song and that sucks.

He wants to appeal for the masses, no doubt or he wouldn't be touring so much. He simply can't attract people like Metallica can. GNR became a joke for 90% of music fans. Metallica, even with line-up changes, "nu-metal" albums, always got to redeem themselves in some form, GNR didn't.

[bran]

You could say that by 2002 when GNR looked very alternative. Even the old hits were full of effects and synths.

Fast forward to 2012 and GNR has a guitar player wearing a top hat, the songs are all back to basics and Axl is covering AC/DC and Rolling Stones.

I'd love if GNR had became kinda like NIN and it looked like so around RIR and 2002 tour. After some years, Axl came back more traditional than a Slash song and that sucks.

He wants to appeal for the masses, no doubt or he wouldn't be touring so much. He simply can't attract people like Metallica can. GNR became a joke for 90% of music fans. Metallica, even with line-up changes, "nu-metal" albums, always got to redeem themselves in some form, GNR didn't.

metallica had to sell their creative soul to "attract" that many "fans" gnr has never sold out never sold their soul creatively axl has done what he wants to do he never let the musical landscape dictate what he was going to do, metallica just kept riding the fads that were coming and going they became what they used to hate.

[maynard]

what about the hip hop beats all over CD? it was even worse because it would actually sound cool in 2001, but by 2008 every nu-metal aspect sounded dated as fuck. metallica tried new things, gnr tried new things, you just think that metallica sold their soul and axl did what he wanted. i respect your opinion, but i disagree.

[Apollo]

You could say that by 2002 when GNR looked very alternative. Even the old hits were full of effects and synths.

Fast forward to 2012 and GNR has a guitar player wearing a top hat, the songs are all back to basics and Axl is covering AC/DC and Rolling Stones.

I'd love if GNR had became kinda like NIN and it looked like so around RIR and 2002 tour. After some years, Axl came back more traditional than a Slash song and that sucks.

He wants to appeal for the masses, no doubt or he wouldn't be touring so much. He simply can't attract people like Metallica can. GNR became a joke for 90% of music fans. Metallica, even with line-up changes, "nu-metal" albums, always got to redeem themselves in some form, GNR didn't.

metallica had to sell their creative soul to "attract" that many "fans" gnr has never sold out never sold their soul creatively axl has done what he wants to do he never let the musical landscape dictate what he was going to do, metallica just kept riding the fads that were coming and going they became what they used to hate.

Are you the same person you were 20 years ago? Neither are the guys in metallica. And, is Axl a douche for changing his attitude? Between 1987 and 1993 he released three full length albums, plus an 8 song EP, plus did about 15 music videos.

But seriously, all the stuff you mentioned is pretentious bulls*t that only teenage fans care about.

When I was 15 I loved a debate with somebody about which band was "real" rock n roll, who sell outs were. F*ck metallica, they said they would never do a video and now they are doing one for One. Where is their integrity!!!! Stupid crap like that mattered. I took great offense when an adult said my music was just screaming and had no talent behind it.

But seriously......who cares!!!!! None of that crap means anything in terms of music.

If you hear a song and love it. Best song of the year in your opinion. Then the singer says "I hate to admit it, but I wrote the song as a joke. It isn't about the love of a woman, but about the love of pushing out farts. My yacht needed a new engine, so I wrote this joke song in thirty minutes and sold it to the label for 50 grand. Pretty much just so I could fix my yacht."

Does that change your opinion of the song? Do u stop loving it, because it wasn't written from the heart, it isn't full of integrity, it was written 100$ for money?

I guess from your post, you would stop loving it. I am different from you. I judge a song by what it does to me. My ears, my heart, my brain, my foot. Why that song came about has no relevance to how it sounds to me.

Groghan, you know that song you really love.....you better start hating it, because the band just released an album two years ago so they have no integrity and are sell outs. Plus, the singer said he likes making money. And, 25 years ago the then 18 year old singer said he would never write a love song. So you better judge the song on all those things.

See how stupid that sounds?????

Bottom line. Only talking about Axl Rose.

Between 2012--2027

Choose A or B

A.

Six full length albums.

Four EPs, featuring live and unreleased music

A full length album backing up Alice Cooper

Concert DVD

DVD about the current band featuring behind the scenes footage.

B

Axl wrote 125 songs and picked 16 of them and released ONE album. (With reports being that he didn't actually even pick the best songs). With multiple promises that a new album would be just around the corner.

A or B???

[bran]

what about the hip hop beats all over CD? it was even worse because it would actually sound cool in 2001, but by 2008 every nu-metal aspect sounded dated as fuck. metallica tried new things, gnr tried new things, you just think that metallica sold their soul and axl did what he wanted. i respect your opinion, but i disagree.

i dont see CD as anything remotely numetal, metallica didnt try new things for artistic reasons they tried them for money. metallica ranted and hated the hair metal bands, but with the black album they hire bob rock who did motley crues dr feelgood album due to how they liked their sound on the album. then in the 1990s when metal was at a low in the mainstream in america they cut their hair, dress in suites smoking cigars and being ashamed of their metal roots, once on a tv interview around the 90s they showed a clip of one and lars acted like he was embarrassed by the whole thing.

then in the early 2000s metalcore and numetal at their height metallica decided to do that with st anger and then with death magnetic thrash has been coming back in a big way in the us so they decided to get back to their "roots"

gnr never said they hated rap and then put it into CD. axl put it into CD because he wanted to. axl rose maybe alot of things but i dont think he is the type that does stuff to keep with the times or to make himself more mainstream. CD is all over the map with different sounds and from hearing oh my god, silkworms it goes even further than what was on the album itself. axl writes what he wants to write IMO metallica does everything from a fad perspective would it shock anyone if metallica did some dubstep shit on their next album? would surprise me in the least, i respect your opinion as well i just dont think we will see eye to eye on this one

[bran]

You could say that by 2002 when GNR looked very alternative. Even the old hits were full of effects and synths.

Fast forward to 2012 and GNR has a guitar player wearing a top hat, the songs are all back to basics and Axl is covering AC/DC and Rolling Stones.

I'd love if GNR had became kinda like NIN and it looked like so around RIR and 2002 tour. After some years, Axl came back more traditional than a Slash song and that sucks.

He wants to appeal for the masses, no doubt or he wouldn't be touring so much. He simply can't attract people like Metallica can. GNR became a joke for 90% of music fans. Metallica, even with line-up changes, "nu-metal" albums, always got to redeem themselves in some form, GNR didn't.

metallica had to sell their creative soul to "attract" that many "fans" gnr has never sold out never sold their soul creatively axl has done what he wants to do he never let the musical landscape dictate what he was going to do, metallica just kept riding the fads that were coming and going they became what they used to hate.

Are you the same person you were 20 years ago? Neither are the guys in metallica. And, is Axl a douche for changing his attitude? Between 1987 and 1993 he released three full length albums, plus an 8 song EP, plus did about 15 music videos.

But seriously, all the stuff you mentioned is pretentious bulls*t that only teenage fans care about.

When I was 15 I loved a debate with somebody about which band was "real" rock n roll, who sell outs were. F*ck metallica, they said they would never do a video and now they are doing one for One. Where is their integrity!!!! Stupid crap like that mattered. I took great offense when an adult said my music was just screaming and had no talent behind it.

But seriously......who cares!!!!! None of that crap means anything in terms of music.

If you hear a song and love it. Best song of the year in your opinion. Then the singer says "I hate to admit it, but I wrote the song as a joke. It isn't about the love of a woman, but about the love of pushing out farts. My yacht needed a new engine, so I wrote this joke song in thirty minutes and sold it to the label for 50 grand. Pretty much just so I could fix my yacht."

Does that change your opinion of the song? Do u stop loving it, because it wasn't written from the heart, it isn't full of integrity, it was written 100$ for money?

I guess from your post, you would stop loving it. I am different from you. I judge a song by what it does to me. My ears, my heart, my brain, my foot. Why that song came about has no relevance to how it sounds to me.

Groghan, you know that song you really love.....you better start hating it, because the band just released an album two years ago so they have no integrity and are sell outs. Plus, the singer said he likes making money. And, 25 years ago the then 18 year old singer said he would never write a love song. So you better judge the song on all those things.

See how stupid that sounds?????

Bottom line. Only talking about Axl Rose.

Between 2012--2027

Choose A or B

A.

Six full length albums.

Four EPs, featuring live and unreleased music

A full length album backing up Alice Cooper

Concert DVD

DVD about the current band featuring behind the scenes footage.

B

Axl wrote 125 songs and picked 16 of them and released ONE album. (With reports being that he didn't actually even pick the best songs). With multiple promises that a new album would be just around the corner.

A or B???

i would rather have 1 good album every 5 to 6 years than 6 shit albums every 1 or 2 years. metallica has released garbage since the black album. you honestly think axl rose and gnr are the only ones that take a long time to write albums? if so you really need to explore music some

[maynard]

I just think that Metallica and GNR (Axl) aim for the same thing. Money and fame. I don't see the integrity some people praise Axl for having. Metallica cut their hairs, Axl shoved botox up his face and got dreadlocks. Now that 80's Rock is cool in a "cult" way Axl got his bandana and leather jackets back and instead of playing his experimental music, he plays Rolling Stones and AC/DC covers...

GNR and Metallica difference is that Metallica works as a band and after the napster fiasco started using the internet as an ally, not an enemy. GNR discovered that you can broadcast a live show only last year.

Axl communicating via "open letters" is so ridiculous. It's not 1992 anymore, he's not on top. Just make an account on a (FREE) official forum and post info regularly (He has a twitter account, I know, but he never posts anything useful there).

[Young_Gun]

You could say that by 2002 when GNR looked very alternative. Even the old hits were full of effects and synths.

Fast forward to 2012 and GNR has a guitar player wearing a top hat, the songs are all back to basics and Axl is covering AC/DC and Rolling Stones.

I'd love if GNR had became kinda like NIN and it looked like so around RIR and 2002 tour. After some years, Axl came back more traditional than a Slash song and that sucks.

He wants to appeal for the masses, no doubt or he wouldn't be touring so much. He simply can't attract people like Metallica can. GNR became a joke for 90% of music fans. Metallica, even with line-up changes, "nu-metal" albums, always got to redeem themselves in some form, GNR didn't.

metallica had to sell their creative soul to "attract" that many "fans" gnr has never sold out never sold their soul creatively axl has done what he wants to do he never let the musical landscape dictate what he was going to do, metallica just kept riding the fads that were coming and going they became what they used to hate.

LOLLL Axl allowed SCOM to be cut down in order for it to be played on the radio. That is selling out. Axl also said charging fans to meet bands is ridiculous and then about 6 months later starts doing meet and greats. Again, that is selling out.

[Kill Devil Hill]

Didn't Axl actually say he hated the radio edit?

[TeeJay410]

"In an effort to make "Sweet Child O' Mine" more marketable to MTV and radio stations, the song was cut from 5:56 to 4:12, with much of Slash's guitar solo removed. This move drew the ire of the band members, including Axl Rose, who commented on it in a 1989 interview with Rolling Stone: "I hate the edit of 'Sweet Child o' Mine.' Radio stations said, "Well, your vocals aren't cut." "My favorite part of the song is Slash's slow solo; it's the heaviest part for me. There's no reason for it to be missing except to create more space for commercials, so the radio-station owners can get more advertising dollars. When you get the chopped version of 'Paradise City' or half of 'Sweet Child' and 'Patience' cut, you're getting screwed."

^from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweet_Child_o'_Mine

I suppose google search "axl rose rolling stone 1989" and find the interview.

Edited June 29, 2012 by tuyfuvk17

[Young_Gun]

"In an effort to make "Sweet Child O' Mine" more marketable to MTV and radio stations, the song was cut from 5:56 to 4:12, with much of Slash's guitar solo removed. This move drew the ire of the band members, including Axl Rose, who commented on it in a 1989 interview with Rolling Stone: "I hate the edit of 'Sweet Child o' Mine.' Radio stations said, "Well, your vocals aren't cut." "My favorite part of the song is Slash's slow solo; it's the heaviest part for me. There's no reason for it to be missing except to create more space for commercials, so the radio-station owners can get more advertising dollars. When you get the chopped version of 'Paradise City' or half of 'Sweet Child' and 'Patience' cut, you're getting screwed."

^from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweet_Child_o'_Mine

I suppose google search "axl rose rolling stone 1989" and find the interview.

Thank you. See that MSL?

Do you have proof that Axl didn't have the contractual right to prevent a radio edit from being sent to stations? If not, then STFU with your pompous attitudes.

What rebuttal do you have to Axl's comment on charging fans to meet the band?

Edited June 29, 2012 by Young_Gun

[bran]

Didn't Axl actually say he hated the radio edit?

yes

[droezle]

Guns N' Roses live dvd's in the past 3,5 years: 0

Metallica live dvd's in the past 3,5 years:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dn9Z2PaTow

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_1LeFlFBZY