Guns N Roses Live at the Ritz 87 leaked(complete)!!!

[EvanG]

Everyone who thinks a band is better on drugs or booze is completely full of shit.

[WAR41]

4 hours ago, Tori72 said:

I couldn't agree more. Great summary of what has been said in the WT and here.

Makes me think of their other shows in 86 and 87 that can be found on youtube. Axl must have been in a especially mellow mood that Ritz 87 day. Watch some Roxy etc. gigs in 86 / 87, there he is very different. More aggressive, rawer, sweatier, wilder. Also more assless chaps. lol. In Ritz 87 he is in a sweet mood - compared to his default Axl mode - which gives his performance something extra. It is great to see how indivdually distinct each show of them was. This and their music, their groove, the sync of the guitars, their flaws, rawness, great performance and - lets's bloody face it boys and girls - sexiness, is what makes them so fucking unique. 

I think Axl is more subdued here because the band is in NYC for the first time.  If what gnrontour says is true then he sat out the show the night before in NJ to save his vocals for this show.  It obviously meant a lot to him and perhaps he was soaking it all in.  He was playing in NYC, people paid to come see his band play... its a dream that any musician has growing up.  

[DieselDaisy]

57 minutes ago, EvanG said:

Everyone who thinks a band is better on drugs or booze is completely full of shit.

Then I must be full of shit then because I certainly do believe this.

When have the stones been better than during the Mick Taylor era?

When have Guns been better than during the appetite era?

I rest my case.

[Tori72]

45 minutes ago, WAR41 said:

I think Axl is more subdued here because the band is in NYC for the first time.  If what gnrontour says is true then he sat out the show the night before in NJ to save his vocals for this show.  It obviously meant a lot to him and perhaps he was soaking it all in.  He was playing in NYC, people paid to come see his band play... its a dream that any musician has growing up.  

Yeah, sounds likely. So he skipped a show in NJ? Already in 87? lol 😂 

Edited October 26, 2017 by Tori72

[Len Cnut]

1 hour ago, EvanG said:

Everyone who thinks a band is better on drugs or booze is completely full of shit.

There has been an on-going connection between musicians and drugs that just cannot be denied.  Does it NECESSARILY make them better, of course not...but can it?  Sure it can.  You can deny that all you want but the glaring historical connection between musicians and altered states, not just in recent years but centuries now and across all cultures of the world, simply cannot be denied and to do so is to basically ignore facts. 

In a straightahead practical sense uppers have assisted musicians to stay awake longer, have more energy, play harder, play longer, this is by the admission of a great many bands.  It has even assisted in the learning process...would the Beatles been the band they were if they hadn't had Preludin to stay up longer and actually make those gruelling touring regimes from the Hamburg days and throughout the 60s?  They literally couldn't manage without them and if they hadn't've played the same amount they wouldn't've been as tight etc etc etc, it all follows on.  Its an ugly truth for some people but there it is.  Psychedelia as a genre wouldn't exist if it weren't for LSD for crying out loud.

They even assist in the listening process and the way music is recieved.

Edited October 26, 2017 by Len Cnut

[EvanG]

15 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Then I must be full of shit then because I certainly do believe this.

When have the stones been better than during the Mick Taylor era?

When have Guns been better than during the appetite era?

I rest my case.

I don't know the stones well enough to answer that question. GnR have always been under the influence of something. Maybe not anymore, but they are a different band now, you can't compare. Listen, I'm sure there are exceptions, but in general a band isn't better while being fucked up.

[Len Cnut]

23 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

 

When have the stones been better than during the Mick Taylor era?

 

Brian Jones era of course!  In which they were also off their tits

[EvanG]

6 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Does it NECESSARILY make them better, of course not...but can it?  Sure it can. 

I don't deny that.

[ludurigan]

On 25/10/2017 at 8:16 AM, MyPrettyTiedUpMichelle said:

yet somehow, against the odds, they manage to write some (gloriously flawed) masterpieces that the best songs on AFD could only hint at

i disagree completely!

every song at appetite is a masterpiece

there are very few songs on illusions that are half as good as the ones on appetite.

some of the best ones (like you could be mine) were actually written in appetite era

[ludurigan]

10 hours ago, bigpoop said:

The thing with Ritz '88 is that Slash is brutally out of tune for a lot of it. I'm all for chaotic , on the verge of falling apart, and rock n roll looseness even if it veers into sloppy... but out of tune guitars are a different matter.  It makes it tough to listen to. For me anyway.

i never understood this comment. to me slashs guitar sound brilliant through the entire show. he makes a mistake here and there, he nearly falls quite a few times, some girls get to touch his guitar and other parts of him, and yet it still sounds fantastic. never sounded out of tune to me!

[ludurigan]

6 hours ago, MyPrettyTiedUpMichelle said:

Agree with your first paragraph but couldn't disagree more with your second - but I'd say there's a pretty good reason for that. ^^

I thought I'd seen it all when it comes to Axl performances and stage presence but that Ritz 87 gig was a sight to behold.  We er...sensibly discussed this in the WT (there may have been one or two drool emojis) and there was a general agreement that he was in fact, completely mesmerising in a very different way to the 88 gig.  

Oozing sex appeal is what Axl has always done, but here, it's not so aggressive (as you pointed out, he's less dominant).  He's more sensual than sexual.  Your point about him being 'green' is spot on and explains it - he's unaware, at this stage, of just how alluring he is, or the impact of it anyway.  This comes across in his all his movements; the hip swivels seem more natural, the hand gestures are unconscious, winking at the crowd at the end of Jungle, 'This looks like a nice play to stage dive' = hot girls there - said playfully.  Thank you @janrichmond for catching that.  Actually, he doesn't have to do anything but stand still to hold our gaze.  Well, maybe not yours!

Still, after watching that I don't care what your gender or sexual orientation, if you don't feel a semblance of Axl sexy time vibes after that you ain't human. 

Check out when David Mustaine leaps up on stage and briefly puts his hand on Axl's waist - Axl looks as if he's a bit rattled by that - makes you wonder what Muscatine whispered to him! LOL

Edit: I also think the band are tighter for 87 than 88

i understand what you wrote, you described it very properly, i just dont find it as mesmerizing as you do!

[ludurigan]

5 hours ago, youngswedishvinyl said:

I don't get all the hype for the Ritz 88 show... I think that the only reason that it's such a beloved show is because it's the best quality recording of the AFD Tour and lineup, the show in it self isn't very good in my opinion. The band is not tight, Axl's vocals is all over the place, Slash is out of tune and his playing is not very good either.

But then that's just my opinion as a GN'R bootleg junkie.

I don't get how a GNR bootleg junkie can not love the Ritz 88 show... I think we are very lucky that such a fantastic performance was properly captured on video and audio, making it the best quality recording of GNR. But the show itself is very good notheless in my opinion. The band is sooo tight, Izzy and Steven are briliant, Axl's vocals are magnificent, Slash is mesmerizing and his playing is just as good as it gets.

But then that's just my opinion as a GN'R bootleg junkie.

 

Edited October 26, 2017 by ludurigan

[ludurigan]

2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

I also think the role of drugs in destroying Guns is completely overrated. Egos and money killed Guns, not drugs and booze.

exactly!

 

2 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

its the rhythm section you wanna keep off the skag, more accurately drummers and bass players...though, again, some fantastic jazz drummers were skagheads.  Horn players are great on skag cuz they kinda float on top anyway.  It all depends on your drummer and his judiciousness in taking skag...and it can be done.

the worst thing you can have is a drummer on weed

[default_]

If you were never into any dope you'll probably never understand what it does to you creatively Never undestand why people get more creative while on substance.

And lets face it, quality in music overall has significantly dropped with these new pussy 100% healthy generations  

[classicrawker]

37 minutes ago, ludurigan said:

i never understood this comment. to me slashs guitar sound brilliant through the entire show. he makes a mistake here and there, he nearly falls quite a few times, some girls get to touch his guitar and other parts of him, and yet it still sounds fantastic. never sounded out of tune to me!

Agree 100% I never got all the negative comments about the 88 Ritz show as to me it gave fans a  glimpse of the raw energy  the AFD band brought to the stage....Sure there are better played shows, like the Ritz 87 show,  but Slash was out of tune but  we are not talking the  late era Beatles music here...... Guns music was meant to be slightly out of tune, sloppy, raw and in your face on the verge of going off the rails.....same as the Taylor era Stones IMHO.......... 

Edited October 26, 2017 by classicrawker

[Tom-Ass]

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

Then I must be full of shit then because I certainly do believe this.

When have the stones been better than during the Mick Taylor era?

When have Guns been better than during the appetite era?

I rest my case.

Add Aerosmith to that argument.. 

[classicrawker]

1 minute ago, Tom-Ass said:

Add Aerosmith to that argument.. 

Not sure I agree with this as I am a huge Aerosmith fan and  saw then multiple times between 1974 and 79 and have tons of bootlegs  from that era and they really started to lose it when they got heavily into drugs...All you have to do is listen to the the early 73-75 live shows and 76 to some extent before they really got into the hard stuff compared to the 77-79 music where Joe Perry could barely play and Steven T had trouble remembering the words to songs.

If you read the excellent bio book "Walk This Way" the band even admitted the drug use affected there music negatively.

I have read several musicians say that when they first started using smack they felt it did help their creativity but that this did not last long and once the drug got them in a death grip it was a negative...... 

 

 

[Tom-Ass]

1 minute ago, classicrawker said:

Not sure I agree with this as I am a huge Aerosmith fan and  saw then multiple times between 1974 and 79 and have tons of bootlegs  from that era and they really started to lose it when they got heavily into drugs...All you have to do is listen to the the early 73-75 live shows and 76 to some extent before they really got into the hard stuff compared to the 77-79 music where Joe Perry could barely play and Steven T had trouble remembering the words to songs.

If you read the excellent bio book "Walk This Way" the band even admitted the drug use affected there music negatively.

I have read several musicians say that when they first started using smack they felt it did help their creativity but that this did not last long and once the drug got them in a death grip it was a negative...... 

 

 

 I was actually referring to the quality of their song writing.  I love every song of their 70's early 80's stuff. Anything after that, not so much.. I know a lot of people like PUMP and GAG was successful, but I think they are stale, pop, safe, over polished garbage...

[moreblack]

Yeah Pump is fun, one of a lot of folks' favorites.

[classicrawker]

4 minutes ago, Tom-Ass said:

 I was actually referring to the quality of their song writing.  I love every song of their 70's early 80's stuff. Anything after that, not so much.. I know a lot of people like PUMP and GAG was successful, but I think they are stale, pop, safe, over polished garbage...

I am with you up and including the the Rocks album but after that  I was not a big fan of the later 70's early 80's albums after Rocks......I thought they had some good songs but not as consistent as early albums...

 

[DieselDaisy]

Everything Aerosmith have put out since they packed in the junk has been absolute garbage. 

[EvanG]

Who says that Aerosmith stopped writing good songs because they quit drugs? I can give you so many examples of artists that stopped writing good songs midway throug their career and were never on drugs in the first place. Aerosmith, sorta, evolved in the 80s and became more pop... and I can imagine some people not digging that, just like some people started to like them more during that era.

[ludurigan]

36 minutes ago, classicrawker said:

Not sure I agree with this as I am a huge Aerosmith fan and  saw then multiple times between 1974 and 79 and have tons of bootlegs  from that era and they really started to lose it when they got heavily into drugs...All you have to do is listen to the the early 73-75 live shows and 76 to some extent before they really got into the hard stuff compared to the 77-79 music where Joe Perry could barely play and Steven T had trouble remembering the words to songs.

If you read the excellent bio book "Walk This Way" the band even admitted the drug use affected there music negatively.

I have read several musicians say that when they first started using smack they felt it did help their creativity but that this did not last long and once the drug got them in a death grip it was a negative...... 

 

 

THAT BOOK IS SO GOOD!

[metalms]

I have to disagree on drugs being a positive factor on a band being good I think when you are starting out you pour everything in to it, you spend your whole career working on those initial albums and you are inspired because you are still "hungary" This is probably the biggest writing inspiration.  it would be hard in my opinion for anyone to keep up such a high level for an extended period of time except for maybe a few exceptions  I think the fame you wish to achieve once you get it is the "killer"  in the beginning drugs open you up,  but it progresses to the point that it destroys you.. again just my opinion/ 2 cents worth

Edited October 26, 2017 by metalms

[ludurigan]

7 minutes ago, EvanG said:

Who says that Aerosmith stopped writing good songs because they quit drugs? I can give you so many examples of artists that stopped writing good songs midway throug their career and were never on drugs in the first place. Aerosmith, sorta, evolved in the 80s and became more pop... and I can imagine some people not digging that, just like some people started to like them more during that era.

keep in mind that all the good songs (i like a lot of them!) and all the bad songs aerosmith released after permanent vacation were written with a huge help of some serious hitmakers -- a.k.a. song doctors ...in other words they lost their izzy-like ability to write good songs and decided to buy some help from some of the highest-paid professional songwriters in the business!