feconroses Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 I did. Ron isn't even close of Richard. Take a scale, Richard =10, Ron = 5 at his very best. It's not the same world dude...LOL.No offense dude, but Ron is regarded as a virtuoso for a reason. Richard's technical skill pales in comparison to Ron's chops. If you prefer Fortus' style/musicianship, then fine - but to call him a better or more talented guitarist is moronic.Agreed.But maybe all those factors go into deciding what makes an awesome guitar player. Hendrix couldn't do the shit that Ron does. But I doubt even Ron would suggest he's a greater guitarist.exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuitHiding Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 pics... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turn_It_Up Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 "Burly" just means stocky. As he's aged and filled out, Axl has gone from thin to stocky and there's nothing wrong with that. Just a big change for those that haven't seen him in many years and still remember his old frame.Burly does not necesarily mean overweight. In fact, it usually implies being on the muscular side... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuitHiding Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 No offense , Turn it Up, but I'm aware of what 'Burly' means. I'm just curious how he looked, and there has been some discussion as late of his weight fluctuating...NO worries though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kill_YourIdols Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 simple as this ron owns richard i like richard's playing but he's nowhere close to ron and yes i've seen em both live Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turn_It_Up Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 No offense , Turn it Up, but I'm aware of what 'Burly' means. I'm just curious how he looked, and there has been some discussion as late of his weight fluctuating...NO worries though.QH, there were a couple of folks on the 1st page taking offense to Axl being called burly which is why I explained as I did. Axl(and probably all us) have been called A LOT worse than burly... :xmasssanta: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 it sounds like they had sound trouble so the new band couldnt shine. At least Axl didnt go home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turn_It_Up Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 (edited) Sounds like the venue had awful acoustics. But what's with the terrible mixing everyone keeps complaining about from reviewers to general fans? As much of a perfectionist as Axl typically is with that type of stuff, weird it's still a big ongoing issue... Edited June 12, 2007 by Turn_It_Up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Rambler Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 After seeing axl on monday, i really think he should just get the original band back together or call the new band something else. Basically when people go to a 'guns n roses' concert all they wana hear is jungle, paradise city, etc. And thats never gonna change, no matter how good CD is. So to have another band playin these songs is just wrong i think, i mean i feel sorry for the new band coz therye never gonna have theri own identity, i mean theyre never gonna get a chance to play a concert consisiting of just thier own material. At one time, like 8 years ago, people woulda been interested in hearing new songs at conerts, but now i think its just too late, GNR are nostalga, like the stones or soemthin. If u go see the stones, u wana hear mabye one oe two new songs and then just the classics, its the same with gnr. I think he should just end it or get the band back together. And i know this has been said a thousand times, but iv never felt this strongly about it before. This was the second time iv seen axl, the first was london 02. Then i didnt care i was just amazed to see what axl even looked like, but know i dunno, i think he should just end it and get GNR back together, it aint fair on the fans, the new guys or the old guys. Sorry had to say it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axl-rocks Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 After seeing axl on monday, i really think he should just get the original band back together or call the new band something else. Basically when people go to a 'guns n roses' concert all they wana hear is jungle, paradise city, etc. And thats never gonna change, no matter how good CD is. So to have another band playin these songs is just wrong i think, i mean i feel sorry for the new band coz therye never gonna have theri own identity, i mean theyre never gonna get a chance to play a concert consisiting of just thier own material. At one time, like 8 years ago, people woulda been interested in hearing new songs at conerts, but now i think its just too late, GNR are nostalga, like the stones or soemthin. If u go see the stones, u wana hear mabye one oe two new songs and then just the classics, its the same with gnr. I think he should just end it or get the band back together. And i know this has been said a thousand times, but iv never felt this strongly about it before. This was the second time iv seen axl, the first was london 02. Then i didnt care i was just amazed to see what axl even looked like, but know i dunno, i think he should just end it and get GNR back together, it aint fair on the fans, the new guys or the old guys. Sorry had to say it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vogstar90_G'N'R Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 and what does it mean by Axl looking burly?blury like fattish.Good read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Possum Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 I must admit, live, Rich really blew the ass off BBF and Finck. He's a real rock guitarist, he was very magnetic on stage, and however good the other two are with their shredding skeelz, I'd rather watch Rich any day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longpig Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 and what does it mean by Axl looking burly?blury like fattish.No it doesn't, it means 'well built' or strong i.e. the opposite of slight or thin.The reviewer might have meant it as a nod towards him being bigger than he was, but burly does not mean "fat".LP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axl-rocks Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 and what does it mean by Axl looking burly?blury like fattish.No it doesn't, it means 'well built' or strong i.e. the opposite of slight or thin.The reviewer might have meant it as a nod towards him being bigger than he was, but burly does not mean "fat".LPok, that's alright then, and yes Axl is very well built Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnfnr2006 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Nice, but the writer is only 7 years too late.Thanks, but we all know it's a different band by now. No need to point that out in every freakin review.Actually, there is a need to point it out in every review.1. The advertisments on the radio and tv for the shows, shows the old band playing the old songs. They might show a new(er) pic of Axl. 2. There has been no new GNr music released- which a "new" band would normally do. 3. Geffen has no pics of the "band"4. GNR has no pics of the "band" on the "band website", only pat-on-the-back reviews stating the obvious. Unfortunately, if the reviewers didnt mention it, the casual fans probably wouldnt even know. Hell, we cant even get a straight answer as to WHO IS GUNS N ROSES DRUMMER ???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dobadog Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 (edited) Nice, but the writer is only 7 years too late.Thanks, but we all know it's a different band by now. No need to point that out in every freakin review.Actually, there is a need to point it out in every review.1. The advertisments on the radio and tv for the shows, shows the old band playing the old songs. They might show a new(er) pic of Axl. 2. There has been no new GNr music released- which a "new" band would normally do. 3. Geffen has no pics of the "band"4. GNR has no pics of the "band" on the "band website", only pat-on-the-back reviews stating the obvious. Unfortunately, if the reviewers didnt mention it, the casual fans probably wouldnt even know. Hell, we cant even get a straight answer as to WHO IS GUNS N ROSES DRUMMER ????..but we do get photo's of BBF feeding roo's Edited June 12, 2007 by dobadog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gryfon Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 This review must be fake! there were none of the usual lame Chinese democracy album jokes. Axl is only "burly" by catwalk standards and his 2007 voice is better than i think ever i've heard it..... on bootlegs anyway. Like Blake Sabbath said before it was an outsiders review and i think it was okay at that-Mostly positive but slightly biased, like they wikipedia'd guns n roses 30 mins before getting into a taxi with their complimentary ticket and notebook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Rambler Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 The nxet time i see Jay, im gonna talk to her about the review, i dont remember her ever bein a huge gnr fan or anythin, never saw any gunners in her cd collection. 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.