Jump to content

THE GENERAL - MONSTERS - Official Discussion Thread. NO LINKS OR ASKING FOR LINKS


Recommended Posts

Perhaps these originated as separate pieces back when they were demos, but Axl felt enough of a connection between them to decide they belonged together as one. If that were the case, it must have been before the orchestral backing was recorded, since they’re both drawing on one common piece.

On a side note, when I was a kid I always thought Queen’s We Will Rock You and We Are the Champions were two halves of the same song, since they were invariably played back to back on the radio, and always in the same order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, CaioAKR said:

It wouldn't be unprecedented. Megadeth does this a lot, see Holy Wars... The Punishment Due and the likes. Also Pink Floyd with the Another Brick In The Wall three parts and The Happiest Days Of Our Lives and the Time/Breathe Reprise thingy. There's many cases of two songs that got interwoven as one.

Part 1 of Another Brick In The Wall and Part 2 etc. are seperate songs. They are labeled as seperate songs with Part 1, Part 2, and they are also registered like that, seperately, on the songwriter registration sites.

In the case here, it's officially clearly just registered as ONE single song, not The General 1, The General 2 etc.

I haven't heard the Megadeth song, is it really 2 songs with each their own chorus verses bridge solos? I somehow don't believe that. These here are 2 fully completed, realized songs following each other, and are officially recognized as one song on both the vinyl and on the songwriting registration.

Edited by StrangerInThisTown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I tend to think of The General / Monsters as something like Holiday with Green Day - two distinctly different songs meant to be linked right after each other for a singular whole.  Not necessarily one singular song, but one singular journey

The Elton John one though fitting in terms of two different compositions linked together but this time for one long singular song

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

2 hours ago, slash23579 said:

come on there is no way it’s just one song, i don’t care how it’s registered. both songs have a full verse/chorus/verse/chorus/bridge/chorus structure with an intro and outro and with different tones and tempos and nothing that connects the two. i do not think it is meant to be viewed as one 9 minute song at all. i also think the vinyl will only have The General, not Monsters, and that these leaks came from a different source 

Nothing that connects the two? are you serious? Between you and cosmo i just can't anymore. fucking hell. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, WhazUp said:

 

I tend to think of The General / Monsters as something like these two - two distinctly different songs meant to be linked right after each other for a singular whole.  Not necessarily one singular song, but one singular journey

You might be right in the musical train of thought here, but what makes no sense is that these songs are billed that way. The General is, officially, just that, the one song title. It doesn't even mention Monsters on the vinyl, it's just Perhaps/The General. And on the registration site it's also labeled as just one songtitle, albeit a different one, but still, just 1, The General and Monsters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the Beatles' original White album there is a hidden unlisted song between Cry Baby Cry and Revolution 9 known as Can you take my back... it doesn't have anything to do with the original structure of Cry Baby Cry, its just there as part of the track even tho is a different song, i'm sure some of you are familiar with that. 

So... That's probably how these are gonna be packed together i guess? You play The General and then Monsters starts playing right after it? As a non listed, non independently credited track?

Maybe the actual vinyl lists them as a one song called "The General and Monsters" and we are gonna have a weird silent moment between the two. Ok, but then why are they not calling it like that on their official media??

Im not sure about how these are gonna be coherently glued together. Maybe what we have are just demos?

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, CaioAKR said:

It wouldn't be unprecedented. Megadeth does this a lot, see Holy Wars... The Punishment Due and the likes. Also Pink Floyd with the Another Brick In The Wall three parts and The Happiest Days Of Our Lives and the Time/Breathe Reprise thingy. There's many cases of two songs that got interwoven as one.

But then why has it got the same strings in places, the same chord progression in parts. 

The strings that we were told were from the General were actually from both combined in a 3 or so minute piece. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, StrangerInThisTown said:

You might be right in the musical train of thought here, but what makes no sense is that these songs are billed that way. The General is, officially, just that, the one song title. It doesn't even mention Monsters on the vinyl, it's just Perhaps/The General. And on the registration site it's also labeled as just one songtitle, albeit a different one, but still, just 1, The General and Monsters.

My theory, and again this is just a theory, is that the idea of putting this on vinyl as an exclusive as majorly fucked with the flow of everything :lol:

They already are limiting themselves by the running time of the 7' vinyl - and I think none of us to this day are sure how they are going to exactly go about it.  Are they only putting The General on there, and Monsters will be linked to it on streaming sites? Are they cramming both on the 7' and sacrificing audio quality to do so?  Are they saving Monsters for the B-side of Atlas or something as a way to elongate the saga of The General's story across two releases?

I think once the vinyl is released and we see what was exactly done and how things become clearer.  But I definitely think the musical links are there to confidently say they are meant to be consumed as a singular journey artistically

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, rocknroll41 said:

The fact that evader got his version so close to the real thing makes it even more embarrassing that Fernando referred to his version as “raw sewage.”

I am quite confident Fernando was describing the Reddit thread as sewage since leaks were discussed, not evader's work. This is another of these mygnrforum "truths" that has just become established but is really open for interpretation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, rocknroll41 said:

The fact that evader got his version so close to the real thing makes it even more embarrassing that Fernando referred to his version as “raw sewage.”

when fernando the useless prick say that? Wouldnt surprise me but not heard this before

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jakey Styley said:

Same, can’t get this shit out of my head. I’m still gonna try to not listen again until the real release. So tough though.

Monsters is stuck in my head all day, but The General I find kind of hard to remember at times

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Bucketdude_666 said:

Still feels off the first leak

Drums are out of place in several place, how can nobody feels that?

I felt that, I think you mention Brain's drum fills before the chorus. I even mentioned on Discord, because I felt that should be a fake. But when I really listened to Axl's vocals and Slash's solo, I changed my mind. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AxlRoseCDII said:

When do we think the mean bridge by Axl in Monsters was recorded? It sounds later than 2002 to me. Could it have been 2006?

Sounds like the same tone his voice had on the Angel Down album so maybe 2006. Too raspy for 2002 and not raspy enough for 2010 maybe 

  • GNFNR 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rindmelon said:

Sounds like the same tone his voice had on the Angel Down album so maybe 2006. Too raspy for 2002 and not raspy enough for 2010 maybe 

Giving me IRS verses vibes 

2 minutes ago, Rindmelon said:

Sounds like the same tone his voice had on the Angel Down album so maybe 2006. Too raspy for 2002 and not raspy enough for 2010 maybe 

Giving me IRS verses vibes 

2 minutes ago, Rindmelon said:

Sounds like the same tone his voice had on the Angel Down album so maybe 2006. Too raspy for 2002 and not raspy enough for 2010 maybe 

Giving me IRS verses vibes 

  • Haha 1
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...