You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#151 Re: Guns N' Roses » Why do people tend to take Tommy's word for everything? » 110 weeks ago
polluxlm wrote:Merck talked about Axl's "muse" back in 2006 and said it wasn't up to Axl if that muse was present or not. Suggesting he wanted to record but lacked inspiration to create anything good. Unfortunately that situation might be more relevant for the big gun instrumentals, like Oklahoma, because with those the pressure was all the greater for Axl to add vocals that could live up to the epicness of the song.
Better, Sorry vocals were added after the locker leaks sessions, and there was also reportedly some work done by Axl in 06/07, but apart from that I think he has felt no need to go into a studio. Creatively he's done for and he knows it.
Could be true however Merk was very experienced even at that stage. By which I mean saying "it isn't up to Axl if that muse is present or not" is a quite slick way to acknowlegde that things may not be where they want them to be and yet also deftly deflects the blame from Axl, even painting him in a way to make people feel sorry for the guy.
I mean merck managed Morrissey that guy knew how to deal with difficult people, at least all the way up until he didn't.
TIL remix vocals sound possibly 2010'ish to me but who knows
Soul monster is only an instrumental in the sense that's how we have heard it from the locker leaks and probably how we think of it due to that.
In reality Axl said himself in the forum chats that it has vocals, that he recorded them around christmas and that there either "dark" or "heavy" (i forget the wording)
Oklahoma was on a setlist at some point in the early 2000's and I doubt it would be without vocals. Also in soundchecks last year they were running through a song that sounded quite like it, I can believe that it has vocals and that it may even be one of the songs Slash and Duff have recorded on.
Axl may have had lyrics written for Oklahoma, but that doesn't mean they were necessarily recorded. For example, it appears Axl may have never have laid down a studio version of Silkworms with the "What can I do, with a bitch like you" chorus in, despite playing it live several times. The fact that Oklahoma was pulled from the setlist, and that Axl later changed the title, means he may have considered it unfinished and not up to recording standards at that point. And if he didn't record vocals for it during the CD era, we're probably screwed since he doesn't appear interested in recording new vocals in general these days.
I think the soundcheck clip sounds vaguely like it, but not that much. Just my opinion though.
#152 Re: Guns N' Roses » Why do people tend to take Tommy's word for everything? » 110 weeks ago
We don’t know the answer to that. But, to say Tommy and Brain are essentially lying is ludicrous. Any and all objective evidence shows them having at least 30 or more songs that were worked on for at least 2 albums.
I'm not saying they are lying so much as that people are misinterpreting their words. We know there were 30+ instrumentals worked on. That doesn't mean 30+ songs that Axl recorded vocals on. I think when Tommy said there are 22 completed unreleased tracks he meant completed instrumentals, the same way Slash, Duff and Matt would talk about all the songs they had done in 1996 and then years later clarified that Axl had recorded nothing on any of them. To be clear, I'm not saying I believe Axl recorded nothing on the 22 CD era instrumentals left, I just think it's probably more somewhere in the vicinity of 4-8 songs that he finished.
As for Brain, when he was on the Appetite For Distortion podcast a few years back and talked about writing the music for Seven and The General, he said "I think Axl sang on The General". This to me implies that when Brain talks about the songs he worked on he also means instrumentals.
#153 Re: Guns N' Roses » If GNR releases nothing in 2023, is this the end for you? » 111 weeks ago
AgesOfTheIce wrote:It's starting to feel like the shutters are going down on 2023.
Which is tough, that Absurd/Hardschool release really whet my appetite for the other few they did at the same time.
In August it will be 2 years I think.
I would be down with waiting out 2024 if we knew it would happen in 2025 but realistically it feels like ever year I write off the year and hope for next year.
I remember in 2016 being convinced the reunion album would happen before 2020
It's bizarre though. Axl seemed to have more fun singing Absurd than anything else in the entire reunion era. He was the most animated on stage since around 2010. And yet he seems to prefer keeping the setlist stale. Maybe his enthusiasm had less to do with Absurd being "new" and more to do with it being very easy for him to sing?
#154 Re: Guns N' Roses » If GNR releases nothing in 2023, is this the end for you? » 111 weeks ago
So, in the last month:
1.We got that Slash NAMM pic with the visible setlist where the only thing new was Breakdown in the alts
2.Richard Fortus gives an interview where he doesn't even tease new music like he usually does, only saying that "Hopefully we'll shake things up a bit and switch around songs"
It's starting to feel like the shutters are going down on 2023.
#155 Re: Guns N' Roses » If GNR releases nothing in 2023, is this the end for you? » 111 weeks ago
Seems the fear we have is that the next singles coming out will be stuff we've already heard. Basically, one or more of Atlas/Perhaps/State Of Grace/OMG 2. Slash said the other stuff they recorded was "more complex" and "really epic" compared to Hard Skool/Absurd. So, I suppose the question is: Would Slash consider the aforementioned songs complex? I don't think they are, but Slash's definition may differ from mine.
#156 Re: Guns N' Roses » Why do people tend to take Tommy's word for everything? » 113 weeks ago
Ron and Brain both said they worked on over 30 songs each . Tommy said 22 not released plus 14 released is 36. How many songs are on the locker cd’s?
Do the math. Tommy was a member through all the sessions from 98 to 08.
And I don’t believe anything Slash says.
Why does this necessarily mean the songs have Axl vocals laid down as opposed to just being completed instrumentals?
#157 Guns N' Roses » Why do people tend to take Tommy's word for everything? » 114 weeks ago
- AgesOfTheIce
- Replies: 20
I swear that I'm not making this to be a confrontational or hostile post, so I apologize if it comes off this way. I'm just observing that people seem to believe certain things solely on Tommy's account. Such as:
1.The idea that the label held up CD rather than Axl. It seems that this is based on a 2011 interview with Tommy (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong and he's expanded upon this after his departure). Any member of the new band was going to say it wasn't Axl's fault when asked why CD took so long to release, hell even Slash and Duff walk around on eggshells when asked anything about Axl these days. Sure, the label may have suggested a different production approach (probably also wanted more commercially accessible songs) a couple of times. It does not make sense to me to believe that the label literally blocked the release from 1998-2008 and that Axl had nothing to do with it. People always bring up Bob Ezrin, but he was brought in by Axl, not the label, and had no authority to block a release.
2.That there are 22 completed unreleased CD era songs. Apparently Tommy said this in an interview a while back. This seems implausible to me. Ron said he worked on a "handful" of songs that didn't make it onto CD. Which to me sounds like around 5-6 tracks, coincidently the same amount Slash implies he's worked on. If Axl has 22 completed songs in the can, why the hell would he be messing around with Silkworms and a new version of OMG? Why the hell only give Slash and Duff six songs to revamp in the seven years since the reunion? In 1996 Slash and Duff said they had completed 8 songs, which were almost certainly instrumentals since they later said Axl never recorded anything. Isn't it possible Tommy was referring to songs of this nature?
#158 Re: Guns N' Roses » If GNR releases nothing in 2023, is this the end for you? » 130 weeks ago
It won't bother me, I'm a fan, have been since I was 12 years old in '87 and that won't change even if they release nothing ever again. Anyway there is a lot of music by amazing bands the music last forever
I wouldn't have a problem with Axl never writing music again. My problem is him refusing to release completed music.
#159 Guns N' Roses » If GNR releases nothing in 2023, is this the end for you? » 130 weeks ago
- AgesOfTheIce
- Replies: 1,176
At least this year they had the excuse of the UYI box. If nothing is released in 2023, I'm at the point where I'm just going to stop checking the forums, or even hoping for anything. If something happens It'll be a pleasant surprise like the leaks.
#160 Re: Guns N' Roses » Slash Says Guns N’ Roses Have a ‘Couple of Epic’ Songs to Release » 133 weeks ago
I'm in the camp that feels that Axl is OK will releasing music that has already leaked/been played live, like Hardschool and Silkworms, but has issues with releasing totally new stuff. If the "epic" songs are tracks like Atlas/State Of Grace/Perhaps, I think we get them...stuff like Oklahoma/Soul Monster/The General, I wouldn't count on Axl being able to pull the trigger. I think there's a psychological block there.
