KyleMac Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 "the concert was the last one that they will do as a band and it was amazing...."HAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAim not doneHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAThats a good one.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankwhite Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 why is it that u feel the need to diss guns to commend the stones? on a guns forum no less Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssiscool Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 I mean past their prime strictly on a performance level in 2006. Obviously by level of full career, they have most bands beat now AND 30 years ago.when i seen the stones in the summer it was awesome they still had it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funeral Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 ya ive heard of vr...they have matt sorum (who aint no gnr drummer) nor izzy.........and no i didn't change my name............checking site for years.......... just felt like posting that stones right now (even thoug their dinosaurs)....are better than gnr..... which says a lot of how shitty axl has milked 4 yrs of old material....then a band that has played more than 20 years with the same old crap is better?? you're a total moron! ....think before you write son! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ions Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 Great, another patch of dickweed figured out how to use a computer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stiff Competition Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 (edited) First off, I just saw the stones in L.A.(which was there last US show on this tour) and yes it was amazing but like you said the stones are in a whole different league than GN'R. I will not say that that particular league is above or below that of gn'r's but it is different all together. It's just a different type of show in general. The stones are probably the biggest band in the world today. I don't see many other people selling out stadiums. Either way though, I can't really compare GN'R and the Stones. It's like comparing The Beatles and Bon Jovi. It just doesn't work. One band is a HUGE rock band that's been around from the sixties and one is a HUGE rock band that's been around since the 80's. Both have their respective fan bases but by no means can GN'R's ever compare to the Stones simply because of their longevity. They are going over 40 years in the business and they damn well better have a good show because they have all the money in the fuckin' world to put into it. P.S. - There was never any official confirmation that this was the stone's lastr tour. I'm sure they will do an actual farewell tour before they call it a career. Edited November 29, 2006 by Stiff Competition Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssiscool Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 Great, another patch of dickweed figured out how to use a computer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepsicoca Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 but like you said the stones are in a whole different league than GN'R. I will not say that that particular league is above or below that of gn'r's but it is different all together. It's just a different type of show in general. The stones are probably the biggest band in the world today.GNR were the biggest band in the world in the '90s. They were in the same league as the Stones. If GNR want to be again in the same league as the Stones there's only one solution : reunion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highvoltage Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 That picture isn't even real.I know. That's precisely why GNR is not in the same league as the Stones.Right, the Stones are in the league of the AARP.Actualy, in fairness, they are probably one of the 3 best live acts I've ever seen and arguably the best band ever.Call them old, but these guys seriously rock like very few others ever have. I just don't see how this is in any way relevant to GnR.we were just comparing, and it is cool to say the stones still rock, but Mick's voice (not his energy) are gone and the rest of the band is uninspired. Its okay to say it........"they are done". Though they may have been the greatest show ever, agreed. For some reason it seems taboo to say the stones are slow and old now, but they really are.Axl still has the pipes though, you gotta admit.No way. I saw The Stones this year, and it fucking rocked. What a spectacular show. The whole band played like it was the last show they were ever going to play - there was nothing mechanical about it, nor was it "uninspired".There's a reason that the "A Bigger Bang" tour is the highest grossing of all time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Axl Kev Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 I've seen Guns N' Roses and the Rolling Stones live and GN'R put on such a greater show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vadin Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 but like you said the stones are in a whole different league than GN'R. I will not say that that particular league is above or below that of gn'r's but it is different all together. It's just a different type of show in general. The stones are probably the biggest band in the world today.GNR were the biggest band in the world in the '90s. They were in the same league as the Stones. If GNR want to be again in the same league as the Stones there's only one solution : reunion.No, I'd say an album..which would be great.but yeah, a reunion would also be great.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeGlass Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 Lets face it...when it come to a band staying together through rough times etc...no one compares to the stones...axl should study what they have done as a band.... the concert was the last one that they will do as a band and it was amazing....axl needs to release his album, play a bit with his loser bandmates, then fire them all and reunite with the old gunners....I couldn't agree more - these last 4 years have been an abortion and a waste of time. The real group and all the money are a phone call away. I don't care about the drummer, get Axl, Slash, Izzy and Duff together. The one armed dude from Def Leppard could be the drummer for all I care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highvoltage Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 Lets face it...when it come to a band staying together through rough times etc...no one compares to the stones...axl should study what they have done as a band.... the concert was the last one that they will do as a band and it was amazing....axl needs to release his album, play a bit with his loser bandmates, then fire them all and reunite with the old gunners....I couldn't agree more - these last 4 years have been an abortion and a waste of time. The real group and all the money are a phone call away. I don't care about the drummer, get Axl, Slash, Izzy and Duff together. The one armed dude from Def Leppard could be the drummer for all I care.What has 9 arms and sucks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filip Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 Stones are great and all but their songs are pretty flat and simple compared to GN'R (both old and new). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepsicoca Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 (edited) Stones are great and all but their songs are pretty flat and simple compared to GN'R (both old and new).Who said rock'n'roll must be complicated ?Supertramp, anyone ? Edited November 29, 2006 by pepsicoca Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filip Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 Stones are great and all but their songs are pretty flat and simple compared to GN'R (both old and new).Who said rock'n'roll must be complicated ?No one. I was just saying that GN'R music is much deeper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highvoltage Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 Stones are great and all but their songs are pretty flat and simple compared to GN'R (both old and new).Who said rock'n'roll must be complicated ?No one. I was just saying that GN'R music is much deeper.And deeper means better? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeGlass Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 What has 9 arms and sucks?Surely not that lineup. Axl and Slash will never be equalled or surpassed. Best duo ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepsicoca Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 (edited) What has 9 arms and sucks?It's a joke about Def Leppard. Edited November 29, 2006 by pepsicoca Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filip Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 Stones are great and all but their songs are pretty flat and simple compared to GN'R (both old and new).Who said rock'n'roll must be complicated ?No one. I was just saying that GN'R music is much deeper.And deeper means better?The music itself is on a higher level. The songs are longer, got more changes, the lyrics are deeper but still easier to relate to, the guitar solos can't even be compared. Rolling Stone never get close to the intensity you get it some of GN'R songs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highvoltage Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 (edited) Stones are great and all but their songs are pretty flat and simple compared to GN'R (both old and new).Who said rock'n'roll must be complicated ?No one. I was just saying that GN'R music is much deeper.And deeper means better?The music itself is on a higher level. The songs are longer, got more changes, the lyrics are deeper but still easier to relate to, the guitar solos can't even be compared. Rolling Stone never get close to the intensity you get it some of GN'R songs.I don't see any of those points as being viable, to be honest - The Rolling Stones and GN'R had two very different sets of musical goals. No offense, but to me it sounds like you haven't listened to many Rolling Stones songs. I think "Gimme Shelter" probably has more intensity than any song GN'R ever recorded - but it's a different brand of "intensity" if that's what you're calling it.Anyway, i'm too tired to structure a proper debate/argument about this, otherwise I could probably drag on for a while.EDIT: I don't think GN'R's musical arrangements really compared to The Stones either. The Rolling Stones are simpy a better band any way you look at it. I'm sure Axl and Slash would agree. Edited November 29, 2006 by highvoltage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filip Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 Stones are great and all but their songs are pretty flat and simple compared to GN'R (both old and new).Who said rock'n'roll must be complicated ?No one. I was just saying that GN'R music is much deeper.And deeper means better?The music itself is on a higher level. The songs are longer, got more changes, the lyrics are deeper but still easier to relate to, the guitar solos can't even be compared. Rolling Stone never get close to the intensity you get it some of GN'R songs.I don't see any of those points as being viable, to be honest - The Rolling Stones and GN'R had two very different sets of musical goals. No offense, but to me it sounds like you haven't listened to many Rolling Stones songs. I think "Gimme Shelter" probably has more intensity than any song GN'R ever recorded - but it's a different brand of it.Anyway, i'm too tired to structure a proper debate/argument about this, otherwise I could probably drag on for a while.I've heard "Gimme shelter" as well and I really like that song but it's not true that it has more intensity that any GN'R song recorded. I'm not bashing Rolling Stones or anything I'm just saying that GN'Rs music is more advanced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highvoltage Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 Stones are great and all but their songs are pretty flat and simple compared to GN'R (both old and new).Who said rock'n'roll must be complicated ?No one. I was just saying that GN'R music is much deeper.And deeper means better?The music itself is on a higher level. The songs are longer, got more changes, the lyrics are deeper but still easier to relate to, the guitar solos can't even be compared. Rolling Stone never get close to the intensity you get it some of GN'R songs.I don't see any of those points as being viable, to be honest - The Rolling Stones and GN'R had two very different sets of musical goals. No offense, but to me it sounds like you haven't listened to many Rolling Stones songs. I think "Gimme Shelter" probably has more intensity than any song GN'R ever recorded - but it's a different brand of it.Anyway, i'm too tired to structure a proper debate/argument about this, otherwise I could probably drag on for a while.I've heard "Gimme shelter" as well and I really like that song but it's not true that it has more intensity that any GN'R song recorded. I'm not bashing Rolling Stones or anything I'm just saying that GN'Rs music is more advanced.Meh. I guess I just don't consider adding pianos, horn sections, orchestras and dolphins "advancing" music. Sounds more like bloating it to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnfnr2006 Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 Great, another patch of dickweed figured out how to use a computerStill Funny !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filip Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 Stones are great and all but their songs are pretty flat and simple compared to GN'R (both old and new).Who said rock'n'roll must be complicated ?No one. I was just saying that GN'R music is much deeper.And deeper means better?The music itself is on a higher level. The songs are longer, got more changes, the lyrics are deeper but still easier to relate to, the guitar solos can't even be compared. Rolling Stone never get close to the intensity you get it some of GN'R songs.I don't see any of those points as being viable, to be honest - The Rolling Stones and GN'R had two very different sets of musical goals. No offense, but to me it sounds like you haven't listened to many Rolling Stones songs. I think "Gimme Shelter" probably has more intensity than any song GN'R ever recorded - but it's a different brand of it.Anyway, i'm too tired to structure a proper debate/argument about this, otherwise I could probably drag on for a while.I've heard "Gimme shelter" as well and I really like that song but it's not true that it has more intensity that any GN'R song recorded. I'm not bashing Rolling Stones or anything I'm just saying that GN'Rs music is more advanced.Meh. I guess I just don't consider adding pianos, horn sections, orchestras and dolphins "advancing" music. Sounds more like bloating it to me.Coma dosen't have anything of that and is 10 times more intense than any Rolling Stone song out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.