You are not logged in. Please register or login.

#1 Re: Guns N' Roses » New Info regarding CD » 878 weeks ago

Backslash wrote:

It looks like Jarmo is comparing Classic Rock to Rolling Stone.  I'm not sure exactly what he means, but the band must not want this information out if he's controlling its distribution.

That guy seriously needs to try getting laid once in awhile.  21

#2 Re: Guns N' Roses » Eddie Trunk on Chinese Democracy » 878 weeks ago

Jameslofton wrote:

The only way any of this is true is if we do in fact get the album later this year. If its another silent year, this was just a case of GNR blowing smoke up our ass and passing the buck.

I bet anything, and I mean anything, that the second part of your theory is exactly what it is.

I also bet anything that we don't hear jack squat about this album until Axl and his puppet regime need money again and decide to go back out on the road to play tribute to the classics.

#3 Re: Guns N' Roses » 2006 Tour Retrospective - Resurrected » 879 weeks ago

russtcb wrote:

I don't view anyone else as "the real Guns N' Roses" just for the record. I think a reunion of older members would be completely uninteresting and useless.

I'm still looking forward to this project and more songs and tours, I'm just in fear of the label's confidence in it.

The label probably shares the same interest and general confidence as the majority of the general public. Very little. I personally think that has alot to do with Axl's problem with the majority of his fanbase and entire world for that matter. I think it's safe to say most people are interested in seeing a reunion of the original lineup (or at least Illusions) moreso than they are in what Axl's "vision" of the band is. That probably pisses him off and has alot to do with him still blaming Slash. Since he feels he alone warrants this band being called GN'R, he sees no reason for people wanting ex-members back. Unfortunately, Slash had just as much to do with the GN'R legacy and success as Axl did.

As far as a reunion being uninteresting and useless, I respectfully disagree. The perfect examples of "uninteresting and usesless" would be to read what Axl has said or accomplished since 96'. I'd rather see an older and more mature reuinion of the original members, than I would continue watching this one man dictatorship and his puppet regime continuing to pay tribute to other musicians work. Everyone's different though, so I respect your thoughts, even if I blatantly disagree.

#4 Re: Guns N' Roses » 2006 Tour Retrospective - Resurrected » 879 weeks ago

russtcb wrote:
Boston George wrote:

I'm just really hoping that the songs we've heard so far aren't the ones people are describing as "mind blowing."


hmm

My biggest fear is that there are. I'm really hoping not, but I believe so.

That's why I fear we're in the silent period again. I think the label got a close to finished version of the album around mid to late 06 and said "Um.... no thank you?".

Yeah, I definitely hear you and share your same fear. Honestly, I don't even care anymore. I think the entire situation is waaaaaaay beyond ridiculous. I'm more intrigued and interested in a future reunion of the real gunners than I am in hearing any more from Axl and this dime store charade that he tries passing off as GN'R every few years when he needs some money. This year will end the just the same as the last 10, more disaapointment and let-downs. Axl has become way too predictable in his older age.

#5 Re: Guns N' Roses » 2006 Tour Retrospective - Resurrected » 879 weeks ago

I'm just really hoping that the songs we've heard so far aren't the ones people are describing as "mind blowing."

hmm

#6 Re: Guns N' Roses » 2006 Tour Retrospective - Resurrected » 879 weeks ago

bucketfoot wrote:

Oh and people dissing the new songs, did you notice that they are demos? Demos as in "not finished"? You make me want to punch you in the mouth. I like the songs and I'm still going to like the songs when they are finished. I dig the lyrics and I have a good idea of what they're going to develop into. Fact remains though, they aren't done yet. If you don't like them when the album comes out, that's fine, but atleast you won't be making an erroneous judgment.

Oh wow. yikes Here's the cold hard reality about these "just demos": They really aren't that great. They're ok, but to those who think they're going to re-define rock or people's jaws are going to drop in awe when they hear them, think again. Most of these nu songs have been in circulation for years and from what I can see, the majorityof Joe Public could give 2 shits less. If you're thinking some publicity would change this drastically, again I disagree. Axl can spend another year or 5 adding synth, an orchestra, or 2 or 3 more guitar players, and it's still not going to change the majorities opinions on these songs. They are what they are. Several years old and dated sounding for the most part.

Personally, I'd be willing to give up Axl's "vision" of what GN'R is, along with his 60-70 earth shattering songs, for a one-off reunion gig of the classic five.  21

#7 Re: Guns N' Roses » Eddie Trunk on Chinese Democracy » 879 weeks ago

AtariLegend wrote:

^ I don't think "The Blues" & "There Was A Time" aren't just some pieces of music thrown together...

I think those tracks are a bit better than jam sessions, and I'm pretty sure some people, even here would agree with me.

I'd actually say that "The Blues" and "TWAT" are perfect examples of songs being thrown together. I've always felt that the majority of new songs (if you can even call them new) have very little flow to them. I wouldn't be surprised to find out TWAT was originally 3 or 4 different snippets of songs combined. Most of these songs sound entirely overworked and re-worked, imo.  To me, it's  alomost painfully obvious that we are no longer dealing with the same individuals responsible for bringing us Appetite and the UYI's.

#8 Re: Guns N' Roses » Stolen Motorcyle (myspace bulletin) » 879 weeks ago

Backslash wrote:

This is beyond ridiculous now.  Anyone think it's a hoax or something?  I mean, the guy's name in Dan Druff... You think some Head & Shoulders would help solve the crime?  Either way, this is bullshit.  First update we get from GNR and this is it.  What do they think?  The guy who stole the bike is a GNR fan and will realize what he did and return the bike so that his favourite band will be happy?  This is so stupid.

Agreed.

GN'R post 1996 = Snooze City   neutral

#9 Re: Guns N' Roses » Stolen Motorcyle (myspace bulletin) » 879 weeks ago

Randall Flagg wrote:

I fear that the music we all love is coming to an end.

I fear that the music that we grew to love ended years and years ago.

There will always be coverbands playing those songs. Nu-GN'R just seems to be one of those over-glorified ones.  18

#10 Re: Guns N' Roses » Stolen Motorcyle (myspace bulletin) » 879 weeks ago

Remember the bicycle that was rumored to be on the album cover years back ....

Now, all of a sudden, out of nowhere, we have a missing motorcycle ? Anyone else thinking the album promotion has just begun ??





Me neither.     :wtf:

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB