Jump to content

Time for negativity...

tbaugerud

By tbaugerud
in 2006

 Share

Recommended Posts

tbaugerud Senior

tbaugerud

Posted
Posted

I love GNR. Their music actually MEANS ALOT to me.

I love other things as well.

But every rose has it's torn.

So I wanna share a couple of views with you and check whether you agree or not. Remember, I'm negative on purpose now, and I'm trying to think as if I'm not such a huge fan. Love makes one blind, you know.

1. Too few original members to be called Guns n Roses. Why? I can understand why so many people refuses to accept this current band as "GNR". I mean, it's not actually GNR anymore, is it? Personally I don't mind, and the new boys make me proud, but from a different point of view the new band lacks at least one or two members to be regarded as GNR. Most notably Slash.

2. What on earth is Chris Pittman doing up there? I mean, on this subject I'm not tolerant. He should not be there, and if he HAS to be there, PLEASE make someone thrash that Science-Fiction keyboard he's playing on. What is that? A cobra dancing to the tunes of a flute? Come on!

3. The clothing. Why? I don't mind the guys wearing clothes like they do. The style is fair I guess. But you can't wear the same clothes over and over and over again. I mean, in junior high that was really embarrassing. For rich rock stars it should be even more so. Vary!

I think those are the 3 MAIN issues that I can think of. Personally I love the new band and I was screaming my heart out in Oslo, but if I really, really try hard, I can see where some critics are coming from.

What's your takes on this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chris Axl LEGEND

Chris Axl

Posted
Posted
I love GNR. Their music actually MEANS ALOT to me.

I love other things as well.

But every rose has it's torn.

So I wanna share a couple of views with you and check whether you agree or not. Remember, I'm negative on purpose now, and I'm trying to think as if I'm not such a huge fan. Love makes one blind, you know.

1. Too few original members to be called Guns n Roses. Why? I can understand why so many people refuses to accept this current band as "GNR". I mean, it's not actually GNR anymore, is it? Personally I don't mind, and the new boys make me proud, but from a different point of view the new band lacks at least one or two members to be regarded as GNR. Most notably Slash.

2. What on earth is Chris Pittman doing up there? I mean, on this subject I'm not tolerant. He should not be there, and if he HAS to be there, PLEASE make someone thrash that Science-Fiction keyboard he's playing on. What is that? A cobra dancing to the tunes of a flute? Come on!

3. The clothing. Why? I don't mind the guys wearing clothes like they do. The style is fair I guess. But you can't wear the same clothes over and over and over again. I mean, in junior high that was really embarrassing. For rich rock stars it should be even more so. Vary!

I think those are the 3 MAIN issues that I can think of. Personally I love the new band and I was screaming my heart out in Oslo, but if I really, really try hard, I can see where some critics are coming from.

What's your takes on this?

I disagree on mystly everything you say :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mr.drummin DEMI-GOD

mr.drummin

Posted
Posted

1) how is this not possibly GNR, it may be some different people but Axl Dizzy and Izzy are all there Axl and Izzy invented GNR.

2) Chris adds alot to the new songs it you look at how the old songs sounded compared to the new ones the new ones are better by a mile. In NR you can actually hear the flutes etc.

3) I sort of agree with you, but the only thing I can think of is that Axl didn't take many clothes on tour and for comfort.

4) The new band rock and most of the critics are telling people what they want to hear.

rock4

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JONEZY FRONTMAN

JONEZY

Posted
Posted
2. What on earth is Chris Pittman doing up there? I mean, on this subject I'm not tolerant. He should not be there, and if he HAS to be there, PLEASE make someone thrash that Science-Fiction keyboard he's playing on. What is that? A cobra dancing to the tunes of a flute? Come on!

What's your takes on this?

I'm not a fan of Pittman on the 'Appetite' songs, otherwise he's OK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MJ23 Full

MJ23

Posted
Posted

1) When I listen to music, I recognize a band by the music style and voice. When I close my eyes and listen to TWAT, Better etc. I HEAR Guns N' Roses, I don't hear Axl's roses or New GNR or whatever - I hear Guns N' Roses. Nobody claimed that Judas Priest was not Judas Priest anymore when the singer left, I don't remember it!

2) I think that Axl has thought about something when Chris joined in. I don't think that the guy deserves being the garbage can for all criticism. I agree with Mr. Drummin - the way the songs have been played now is really better then before (better for me!)

3) If he is going to sing naked - let him sing. And I don't think that Axl is going to wash his outfit every night. I rather believe that he has a dozen of outfits.

But it is your point of view.

I admire your courage of asking such stuff on a gnr forum.

Most of us wouldn't do it.

^this wasn't meant as a joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Darth Vader Senior

Darth Vader

Posted
Posted

Look I do miss slash. I mean when I went to see Aerosmith and I saw Jo and Steven just feed off each others energy, it was magic. And no one here can say that they wouldn’t feel the same if Ax and Slash were on stage too. But I have accepted the new band. And the new music rocks!! I m behind it 100%

1) Ya Chris P. is just too odd for me. And I think he shouldn’t be in the band.

2) About Axl Clothes, who cares, it’s a lot better than he’s Rapper wannabe clothing he was wearing in 2002. So give it a rest about his wardrobe. :anger:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Sandman LEGEND

The Sandman

Posted
Posted

Perhaps there should be more clothes changes - but why should that matter in any way whatsoever? So, they dress the same... that's there style... You could say KISS dress the same for every concert - which is true, at least these guys change from time to time you know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Axl-rocks FRONTMAN

Axl-rocks

Posted
Posted
I love GNR. Their music actually MEANS ALOT to me.

I love other things as well.

But every rose has it's torn.

So I wanna share a couple of views with you and check whether you agree or not. Remember, I'm negative on purpose now, and I'm trying to think as if I'm not such a huge fan. Love makes one blind, you know.

1. Too few original members to be called Guns n Roses. Why? I can understand why so many people refuses to accept this current band as "GNR". I mean, it's not actually GNR anymore, is it? Personally I don't mind, and the new boys make me proud, but from a different point of view the new band lacks at least one or two members to be regarded as GNR. Most notably Slash.

2. What on earth is Chris Pittman doing up there? I mean, on this subject I'm not tolerant. He should not be there, and if he HAS to be there, PLEASE make someone thrash that Science-Fiction keyboard he's playing on. What is that? A cobra dancing to the tunes of a flute? Come on!

3. The clothing. Why? I don't mind the guys wearing clothes like they do. The style is fair I guess. But you can't wear the same clothes over and over and over again. I mean, in junior high that was really embarrassing. For rich rock stars it should be even more so. Vary!

I think those are the 3 MAIN issues that I can think of. Personally I love the new band and I was screaming my heart out in Oslo, but if I really, really try hard, I can see where some critics are coming from.

What's your takes on this?

1. It is Guns n Roses

2.Chris is part of the band

3. It's Guns n Roses, not a fashion show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mango GOD

Mango

Posted
Posted (edited)

Mr. tbaugerud, I read your post untill #2 .... Claiming that Pit(t)man is NOT part of GNR when he's the mind n' power of this GNR era .... That's a fuckin' sacrilege and you should NOT consider yourself as true-fan...

M.

Edited by Mango
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tbaugerud Senior

tbaugerud

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Mr. tbaugerud, I read your post untill #2 .... Claiming that Pit(t)man is NOT part of GNR when he's the mind n' power of this GNR era .... That's a fuckin' sacrilege and you should NOT consider yourself as true-fan...

M.

Are you drunk or just stupid? Both? :)

Seriously, I totally disagree with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kobbeltvedt DEMI-GOD

Kobbeltvedt

Posted
Posted
I love GNR. Their music actually MEANS ALOT to me.

I love other things as well.

But every rose has it's torn.

So I wanna share a couple of views with you and check whether you agree or not. Remember, I'm negative on purpose now, and I'm trying to think as if I'm not such a huge fan. Love makes one blind, you know.

1. Too few original members to be called Guns n Roses. Why? I can understand why so many people refuses to accept this current band as "GNR". I mean, it's not actually GNR anymore, is it? Personally I don't mind, and the new boys make me proud, but from a different point of view the new band lacks at least one or two members to be regarded as GNR. Most notably Slash.

2. What on earth is Chris Pittman doing up there? I mean, on this subject I'm not tolerant. He should not be there, and if he HAS to be there, PLEASE make someone thrash that Science-Fiction keyboard he's playing on. What is that? A cobra dancing to the tunes of a flute? Come on!

3. The clothing. Why? I don't mind the guys wearing clothes like they do. The style is fair I guess. But you can't wear the same clothes over and over and over again. I mean, in junior high that was really embarrassing. For rich rock stars it should be even more so. Vary!

I think those are the 3 MAIN issues that I can think of. Personally I love the new band and I was screaming my heart out in Oslo, but if I really, really try hard, I can see where some critics are coming from.

What's your takes on this?

no they dident use the same clothes every show back in the day either :rolleyes:

Slash wore the same every fucking consert..so did axl and duff

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mozzy Junior

Mozzy

Posted
Posted

Mr. tbaugerud, I read your post untill #2 .... Claiming that Pit(t)man is NOT part of GNR when he's the mind n' power of this GNR era .... That's a fuckin' sacrilege and you should NOT consider yourself as true-fan...

M.

Are you drunk or just stupid? Both? :)

Seriously, I totally disagree with you.

Who do you think is behind all the samples and loops ect.... Chris is part of GNR, deal with it, as much as dizzy is. They are the backround crap, would you rather a real horn section up there? Or just one guy. As well chris does a bit of back up singing i believe

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChrisXGNR Full

ChrisXGNR

Posted
Posted
3. The clothing. Why? I don't mind the guys wearing clothes like they do. The style is fair I guess. But you can't wear the same clothes over and over and over again. I mean, in junior high that was really embarrassing. For rich rock stars it should be even more so. Vary!

I think those are the 3 MAIN issues that I can think of. Personally I love the new band and I was screaming my heart out in Oslo, but if I really, really try hard, I can see where some critics are coming from.

What's your takes on this?

Your a fag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Irs Better Catcher in the Twat Full

Irs Better Catcher in the Twat

Posted
Posted

I love GNR. Their music actually MEANS ALOT to me.

I love other things as well.

But every rose has it's torn.

So I wanna share a couple of views with you and check whether you agree or not. Remember, I'm negative on purpose now, and I'm trying to think as if I'm not such a huge fan. Love makes one blind, you know.

1. Too few original members to be called Guns n Roses. Why? I can understand why so many people refuses to accept this current band as "GNR". I mean, it's not actually GNR anymore, is it? Personally I don't mind, and the new boys make me proud, but from a different point of view the new band lacks at least one or two members to be regarded as GNR. Most notably Slash.

2. What on earth is Chris Pittman doing up there? I mean, on this subject I'm not tolerant. He should not be there, and if he HAS to be there, PLEASE make someone thrash that Science-Fiction keyboard he's playing on. What is that? A cobra dancing to the tunes of a flute? Come on!

3. The clothing. Why? I don't mind the guys wearing clothes like they do. The style is fair I guess. But you can't wear the same clothes over and over and over again. I mean, in junior high that was really embarrassing. For rich rock stars it should be even more so. Vary!

I think those are the 3 MAIN issues that I can think of. Personally I love the new band and I was screaming my heart out in Oslo, but if I really, really try hard, I can see where some critics are coming from.

What's your takes on this?

1. It is Guns n Roses

2.Chris is part of the band

3. It's Guns n Roses, not a fashion show.

my thoughts exactly, and to further elaborate on issue # 3(same outfits everynight) it is possible that if they do ever release this tour on dvd that it will make the editing process much smoother to get the best possible performances for each song this way!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Idiot Wind Full

Idiot Wind

Posted
Posted
I love GNR. Their music actually MEANS ALOT to me.

I love other things as well.

But every rose has it's torn.

So I wanna share a couple of views with you and check whether you agree or not. Remember, I'm negative on purpose now, and I'm trying to think as if I'm not such a huge fan. Love makes one blind, you know.

1. Too few original members to be called Guns n Roses. Why? I can understand why so many people refuses to accept this current band as "GNR". I mean, it's not actually GNR anymore, is it? Personally I don't mind, and the new boys make me proud, but from a different point of view the new band lacks at least one or two members to be regarded as GNR. Most notably Slash.

2. What on earth is Chris Pittman doing up there? I mean, on this subject I'm not tolerant. He should not be there, and if he HAS to be there, PLEASE make someone thrash that Science-Fiction keyboard he's playing on. What is that? A cobra dancing to the tunes of a flute? Come on!

3. The clothing. Why? I don't mind the guys wearing clothes like they do. The style is fair I guess. But you can't wear the same clothes over and over and over again. I mean, in junior high that was really embarrassing. For rich rock stars it should be even more so. Vary!

I think those are the 3 MAIN issues that I can think of. Personally I love the new band and I was screaming my heart out in Oslo, but if I really, really try hard, I can see where some critics are coming from.

What's your takes on this?

Agree, agree, agree.

I feel the same way as you. My love for the band blinds me. But within the past few months I've been thinking from a new perspective and I can understand what the critics are getting at. I know Axl and Izzy are responsible for forming the band, but all the stuff we know "Guns N' Roses" as - Appetite, Lies, Illusions - all the stuff that made them famous in the '80s and '90s - was written as a collaboration. Without Slash there would be no SCOM. Likewise, without Axl there would be no SCOM.

So although I support Axl's new lineup and I love their music (The Blues is still amazing!), I can understand why critics are so harsh and I can also understand why so many people refuse to accept the band as Guns N' Roses.

Keep in mind I'm not bashing the band either - just saying it's important sometimes to re-evaluate things from another perspective to remain balanced...otherwise you turn into Fox News or Axl's Disillusion. No offense dude. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tbaugerud Senior

tbaugerud

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Yeah.. I LOVE this current band as well.. I'd pay a months pay to go see them..

What I think many people need to realize is that this IS indeed a totally different band from the band -+1990. They shouldn't complain about who's in and who's out, but concentrate on the tremendous band that Axl has put together. They are amazing and I love them 90% as much as I would have if Duff and never-used-a-condom-Slash was there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
germanrose Junior

germanrose

Posted
Posted

Well i agree on the points but:

1)Look at others bands. For example i love Aerosmith. They put down some tracks that inspire me as much as some guns song (Dream on, Jani`s got a gun). So this band has changed. They changed their style, their music and so on. And the original members are still in there. But if you now listen to their latest fucking comercial stuff like "PInk" or "I don`t wanna miss a thing" can you call this band still Aersomith like they were in the 80`s?? I think not! So no matter who`s playing things and music will and can change.

2) Pittmann. Hmm I think he`s new but important, same important as Dizzy was when he joind and evrybody thought "why does gnr need a keyboarder". Now people complain about the guitar work in the new songs. And i think too it is very easy. But for all the guitar players on the forum, they will second me on that guns guitar has always been not very hard. So back in the days, if you listen to Estranged guitar, it sounds nice, but still it`s cheap to play (i don`t wanna say that you don`t have to be a genious to write it). So if you listen closely, the great thing about Estranged is the influence of all different parts, especially the piano line.

And now this is the same. Chris gives new elements which make songs like Maddy special. Same as back in the days with Dizzy.

3) I don`t give a fuck what they were and how they look :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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