Jump to content

Hard Skool Officially Released at Midnight - Sept 24


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, GnR Chris said:

Yeah, me saying I'm "mad" at the lack of a GNR music catalog is a bit of hyperbole. Disappointed is probably better. Frustrated? Sure. But that doesn't mean it consumes my being. I am expressing frustration here on a GNR message board. 

Complaints, complaints, complaints :lol:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, GnR Chris said:

Yeah, me saying I'm "mad" at the lack of a GNR music catalog is a bit of hyperbole. Disappointed is probably better. Frustrated? Sure. But that doesn't mean it consumes my being. I am expressing frustration here on a GNR message board. 

It took them 4 years (!) to release their second record. It took them 17 years (!) to release their third record, and that was with a different lineup. And you still get disappointed and frustrated? I mean, you should kinda know better by now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, EvanG said:

It took them 4 years (!) to release their second record. It took them 17 years (!) to release their third record, and that was with a different lineup. And you still get disappointed and frustrated? I mean, you should kinda know better by now...

That's one way to see it. You could also say they released 5 records within 6 years.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, EvanG said:

Four years for a follow-up to a debut record, especially in those days, isn't exactly fast.

But if you count Lies as an album, which many fans do, me included, and then consider that UYI were two records then their tempo wasn't that slow. 

I don't wanna start a debate whether Lies is an EP or a CD nor if UYI is one or two releases. But if you only count the amount of songs GNR released in between 85 and 93 than I think they did pretty well. Especially when you take in consideration how many great songs and hits they produced during that time.

Yeah, Axl needed his time back then, too, but it was nothing compared to the time after the real band broke up.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Free Bird said:

But if you count Lies as an album, which many fans do, me included, and then consider that UYI were two records then their tempo wasn't that slow. 

I don't wanna start a debate whether Lies is an EP or a CD nor if UYI is one or two releases. But if you only count the amount of songs GNR released in between 85 and 93 than I think they did pretty well. Especially when you take in consideration how many great songs and hits they produced during that time.

Yeah, Axl needed his time back then, too, but it was nothing compared to the time after the real band broke up.

 

G 'N R Lies is an EP with three new songs on it. I wouldn't count that as an album. And I consider UYI one album. They should have released it as a double album, not separately. But let's not start that debate.

Anyway, I wasn't arguing that they didn't release a lot of songs in those days, but that it took them a long time to release a follow-up to Appetite. A lot of bands back then, especially bands at the beginning of their career, released records every year or at least every other year. Four years between Appetite and UYI felt like an eternity.

Edited by EvanG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, EvanG said:

G 'N R Lies is an EP with three new songs on it. I wouldn't count that as an album. And I consider UYI one album. They should have released it as a double album, not separately. But let's not start that debate.

Anyway, I wasn't arguing that they didn't release a lot of songs in those days, but that it took them a long time to release a follow-up to Appetite. A lot of bands back then, especially bands at the beginning of their career, released records every year or at least every other year. Four years between Appetite and UYI felt like an eternity.

I get your point but I just don't agree. For 98% of the people LIES had 7 unheard songs on it and one that was completely new arranged. A rock n roll record with just 8 songs wasn't uncommon. Regardless of how you wanna call it. To most people these were new songs.

Hell, most people started to hear about GNR in 88. Then Lies was released and a few years later the biggest release in music history. They had their problems but were functional as a band until they don't :lol:

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Free Bird said:

I get your point but I just don't agree. For 98% of the people LIES had 7 unheard songs on it and one that was completely new arranged. A rock n roll record with just 8 songs wasn't uncommon. Regardless of how you wanna call it. To most people these were new songs.

Hell, most people started to hear about GNR in 88. Then Lies was released and a few years later the biggest release in music history. They had their problems but were functional as a band until they don't :lol:

I don't think it's relevant what most people think. It's still an EP that consists out of three new songs combined with a slower version of an album track and a previously released EP with three covers and one original song. But whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EvanG said:

I don't think it's relevant what most people think. It's still an EP that consists out of three new songs combined with a slower version of an album track and a previously released EP with three covers and one original song. But whatever.

Atleast in Europe, the boundary of what's classified an EP is set at 25 minutes, GNR Lies runs longer, and has 8 songs which is the size of many albums. GNR Lies is an album that consists of 2 EPs. How is it at all correlated if the contained songs are covers, new, old, or where they came from - that has no influence for the determination what an EP or album is whatsoever.

Edited by StrangerInThisTown
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, StrangerInThisTown said:

Atleast in Europe, the boundary of what's classified an EP is set at 25 minutes, GNR Lies runs longer, and has 8 songs which is the size of many albums. GNR Lies is an album that consists of 2 EPs. How is it at all correlated if the contained songs are covers, new, old, or where they came from - that has no influence for the determination what an EP or album is whatsoever.

I'm not sure about the technicalities, but to me it's an EP because it consisted of 3 new songs combined with another version of an album track and a previously released EP. But if you consider this a full album, then that's fantastic.

Anyway, again, my point was that I don't believe the fans nor the band saw G N' R Lies as the follow-up to Appetite, but more as an EP, compilation album, or whatever you want to call it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, EvanG said:

I'm not sure about the technicalities, but to me it's an EP because it consisted of 3 new songs combined with another version of an album track and a previously released EP. But if you consider this a full album, then that's fantastic.

Anyway, again, my point was that I don't believe the fans nor the band saw G N' R Lies as the follow-up to Appetite, but more as an EP, compilation album, or whatever you want to call it.

Can't speak for all the fans but the band definitely didn't consider it the follow-up:

uten_165.jpg

(35) 08. 1987-1988: TOURING AND SUCCESS - Page 2 (a-4-d.com)

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me the whole output in that period of time matters and I don't care how you wanna call every single release. They had enough output in those years. No comparison to what came after the break up.

Yes, if you ignore LIES than 4 years is a lot of  time, especially for a follow up of a debut, but in the case of this band I think you have to look at the big picture... at least I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, EvanG said:

Yet no one argued that there weren't enough songs released in between 1987 and 1991. 

 

 Well we started this conversation with you saying they needed 4 years for their second album and 17 years for their 3rd.

And I said its a way to look at it, but many fans don't see it that way, because there was 5 releases between 87 snd 93.

You don't count Lies, you don't count Spaghetti... others do.

4 years for a follow up isn't fast. That's right. But 5 releases in 6 and a half years isn't slow, though.

 

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Free Bird said:

 Well we started this conversation with you saying they needed 4 years for their second album and 17 years for their 3rd.

And I said its a way to look at it, but many fans don't see it that way, because there was 5 releases between 87 snd 93.

You don't count Lies, you don't count Spaghetti... others do.

4 years for a follow up isn't fast. That's right. But 5 releases in 6 and a half years isn't slow, though.

Plot twist: I know this makes no sense, but I do count Lies as an album but I don't count Spaghetti. 

I have no reasoning for this or at least none that would make sense to anyone. 

  • Like 2
  • Wow 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RussTCB said:

Plot twist: I know this makes no sense, but I do count Lies as an album but I don't count Spaghetti. 

I have no reasoning for this or at least none that would make sense to anyone. 

Everybody here knows what GNR has released and everyone can decide for themselves what it's worth. I'd say your point of view doesn't make more nor less sense than mine or Evan's...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Free Bird said:

Everybody here knows what GNR has released and everyone can decide for themselves what it's worth. I'd say your point of view doesn't make more nor less sense than mine or Evan's...

For sure, you're totally right. I was just adding something funny (to me) to the thread. 

  • Like 1
  • ABSUЯD 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Free Bird said:

 Well we started this conversation with you saying they needed 4 years for their second album and 17 years for their 3rd.

And I said its a way to look at it, but many fans don't see it that way, because there was 5 releases between 87 snd 93.

You don't count Lies, you don't count Spaghetti... others do.

4 years for a follow up isn't fast. That's right. But 5 releases in 6 and a half years isn't slow, though.

Yes, thanks for summarizing. The point I made was that it always took this band a long time to follow up with a new record, ever since the start. Evidently the band, and I'm guessing a lot of fans too, don't consider G N' R Lies as a follow-up but more like an EP (or whatever you want to call it) with only three new songs on it , so my point remains. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, EvanG said:

Yes, thanks for summarizing. The point I made was that it always took this band a long time to follow up with a new record, ever since the start. Evidently the band, and I'm guessing a lot of fans too, don't consider G N' R Lies as a follow-up but more like an EP (or whatever you want to call it) with only three new songs on it , so my point remains. 

Ok :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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