Jump to content

Is Sympathy for the Devil hard to sing live for Axl?


Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, tsinindy said:

NO....my god just NO.  No more fucking covers for Christ sake.

Agree- just gimme Guns n Roses songs at a Guns n Roses concert.  If I wanna hear The Stones or ACDC or The Who then I'll go to their show.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ChristmasFnatic said:

That could work too. All Im sayin is, replace a cover with another that they actually released in an album.

Yah, I get that.   For me if they are going to do any covers they didn't record, why not have a set of 5 or so they alternate through.

i dunno, get rid of the covers altogether I say though :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, tsinindy said:

Yah, I get that.   For me if they are going to do any covers they didn't record, why not have a set of 5 or so they alternate through.

i dunno, get rid of the covers altogether I say though :)

Agree, LALD and KOHD have more than outworn their welcome in the Guns set list. If they're going to do covers, why don't they do Down On The Farm?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Axl can sing this song easyly.  Piece of cake for Mr rose... 

 

After seeing axldc, last tokyo show, among others..  The answer is YES HE CAN, THE BAND CAN AND IT WOULD BE DREAMED TO FINALLY HEAR THAT ONE LIVE.

 

So.. If theres any chance of axl, slash, beta, del or whoever related with the band :  PLEASE DO IT.

 

We must get sftd and sidhy. PLEASE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BangoSkank said:

Always loved their cover of it. Every time I hear it I go "Man, this should've been a Guns song from the start."

I love GNR's version of this song, but the Stones did it amazing too.

I wonder why GNR never performs it? I think Axl should try it again. Their version rocks! Maybe Axl feels the same way Mick felt. It seemed way back when whenever the Stones performed Sympathy for the Devil something bad would happen, so for a long time, they never sang it live.

Maybe Axl thinks it might not be good to perform it live either? Who knows?

Edited by dontdamnmeuyi2015
more to say
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They absolutely slaughtered it!  The whole thing that was cool about that song was how minimalist it was, that weird latin beat and little moody bassline, it fit the subject matter, it sounded eerie, it's all just building and building and building...and then Keiths little solo, simple as you like and it came on in little bursts, like he playing it in hell and the fretboards too hot to touch, thats probably one of my favourite solos in rock n roll history, that song is a straight 10 out of 10 creepy sort of song...and GnR just made it SOOOO hammy, took away all the spaciness of it by saturating it with guitar, and Axl doing that awful over-blown cartoon evil voice, that song is absolutely dreadful, possibly the worst song they've ever done.  It is so fucking poor it's unbelievable when the original was just a masterpiece.  See The Stones were expanding as a band at that point, putting all weird stuff in their songs and trying different shit and thats the beauty of that song, it ain't your typical guitar drums n bass rocker...GnR just destroyed it, I can see why they broke up after it, i fuckin' would too.

Edited by Len Cnut
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought it was fairly middle-of-the-road as far as GNR covers go, not the best but they've done worse. It's pretty different from the original version though so I get why people hate on it (I prefer the original too). If they ever play it live, let it be in one of their marathon sets that go 3 and half hours or something so it's not replacing anything. I don't really care about this song though, I'd way rather hear CD songs or UYI deep cuts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...