You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#11 Re: Guns N' Roses » Guns n Roses=a joke » 149 weeks ago
davegnfnr2k wrote:Axl S wrote:I don't get this attitude. Would you rather never hear any of the CD leftover songs?
I agree that I'd prefer to hear songs like Soulmonster, Berlin, The General etc. as they originally sounded, but I'll take a Slash & Duff version over never hearing them.
I want to hear them with the band that wrote the songs. Duff and Slash just ruin the songs. They should be writing their own songs with Axl and Axl should just release the CD era stuff as a solo box set.
So you'd rather not hear them at all? It may be the only way that a CD era box set gets released or demos of the original versions leaking comes from these eventually getting an official release.
Like you, I'd prefer the originals, but if this is what it takes to hear them in any form then I'll be happy with that. I just wish they'd actually keep releasing stuff.
With GN'Rs track record, something is better than nothing.
Again they could just you know do both.
Axl puts out a solo album with all those old songs while Axl Slash and Duff make a new album of songs they all wrote together.
#12 Re: Guns N' Roses » Hard Skool: Does it date from ‘96? » 149 weeks ago
Axl was trying to get BH up until the last week of Hammerstein shows in 2006
#13 Re: Guns N' Roses » Hard Skool: Does it date from ‘96? » 149 weeks ago
This I Love and Oklahoma were songs from the Slash era. But it seems like the majority of those songs weren’t pursued. What we know is that Robin, Tommy, Josh and Paul (I forgot about him) wrote a shitload of music over several years. Bucket and Brain wrote their own GNR music during that period on top of adding their parts on others. I think the songs from 96 Tommy talked about has kind of been overblown.
This I love was piano only. Even when it was up for that Robin Williams movie, it was just a piano piece so Duff and slash had nothing to do with it
This is the info we have about Oklahoma
"[Oklahoma] was inspired by a court date with ex-wife Erin Everly. 'I was sitting in my litigation with my ex-wife, and it was the day after the bombing, [April 20th, 1995]' Rose remembers with a wince. 'We had a break, and I'm sitting with my attorneys with a sort of smile on my face, more like a nervous thing - it was like, 'Forgive me, people, I'm having trouble taking this seriously.' It's just ironic that we're sitting there and this person is spewing all kinds of things and 168 people just got killed. And this person I'm sitting there with, she don't care. Obliterating me is their goal.'" (Axl, Rolling Stone, 2000)
"As the far as the songs go: 'Oklahoma' was pretty much written by the time they got to the studio. Axl wrote that with inspiration from the Oklahoma City bombing (more as a tribute to those who died, if I'm not mistaken). [...] (Dave Dominguez, Sp1at, 02/07/05)
[...] Song after song combines the edgy hard rock force and pop smarts of vintage Guns N Roses with surprisingly modern and ambitious music textures. In addition to the album's almost grungy title track, tentative song titles include 'Catcher in the Rye,' 'I.R.S,' 'The Blues', [...] 'Oklahoma' - heard tonight only as an instrumental, [...] and 'TWAT,' which he says stands for 'there was a time.'" (Rolling Stone, 01/2000)
#14 Re: Guns N' Roses » Hard Skool: Does it date from ‘96? » 149 weeks ago
davegnfnr2k wrote:I think if it was Axl would have mentioned it before playing it live on tour.
And even if it was the song would be vastly different musically because the locker room version has BH and Robin written all over it.
Plus I cant see Axl putting anything on any of the albums from the 99-02 band with writing credits from slash or duff.Someone should ask Duff though if HS was written in 96.
Also remember that the original track list to CD was a little different and a couple of songs got swapped out bc of the leaks.
I do wonder if Hard School was one of the tracks that were going to make CD and were replaced by one of the leaks.
Wasn't CITR supposed to be on the "3rd album"The main structure is very Slash-like, very classic Guns. Only the pre riff intro (which was removed) and verse riffing and the outro tapping/shredding are Paul/Finck staples. The main structure and riff is very much like a Slash riff, especially if you consider his stuff from 95-2000
Also, HS was credited to Axl, Slash, Duff, Paul, Robin, Tommy. No BH credit on HS.
Per Marc Canter, Axl has indicated back in 2001 that there were 3 songs Axl wanted to have Slash be on on CD, if Slash would publicly apologize and repudiate statements Axl felt were lies. So in 2000-2001 his feelings hadn’t really turned to the visceral hatred for Slash that they did by 2008. Slash’s book, the 2005 visit, and I’m sure other things we don’t know about behind the scenes did a lot to harden his feelings more after 2001. If you go back and read his RS interview from 2000, he sounds more regretful/sad than hateful regarding Slash.
Slash and Duff being credited doesn't prove they wrote back in 96, it just means they got credited for the parts they added now.
Also estranged has no slash credits yet slash is all over the song.
Also a lot of what BH did was just added his solos and stuff to the CD songs besides the couple he brought to the table that made the album. That is why there are so many songs with and without him just different takes. Take TWAT for example. BH gets no writing credits for TWAT yet his guitar parts are the best on that song
Also with writing credits, you can give whomever you want credits on the song. so since Duff and slash helped re-do the song Axl just gave them writing credits.
#15 Re: Guns N' Roses » Hard Skool: Does it date from ‘96? » 149 weeks ago
I think if it was Axl would have mentioned it before playing it live on tour.
And even if it was the song would be vastly different musically because the locker room version has BH and Robin written all over it.
Plus I cant see Axl putting anything on any of the albums from the 99-02 band with writing credits from slash or duff.
Someone should ask Duff though if HS was written in 96.
Also remember that the original track list to CD was a little different and a couple of songs got swapped out bc of the leaks.
I do wonder if Hard School was one of the tracks that were going to make CD and were replaced by one of the leaks.
Wasn't CITR supposed to be on the "3rd album"
#16 Re: Guns N' Roses » Will the next single be something we've heard already? » 149 weeks ago
Ultimately it is Axl’s show and has been Axl’s show since the early 90s.
If Axl really didn’t approve of Caram’s work it simply wouldn’t have made the final cut and Caram wouldn’t still be involved.
The fact that Caram is still involved almost 20 years later speaks to that Axl is fine with his mixing.
Axl can like Caram's mixes all he wants, it still doesn't change the fact that Caram is a hack and his mixes are by far the worst out of all the mixes. There is no defending all of the clipping in the CD album versions that is all on Caram. Also Axl loves yes men, that is why people like him and Team Brazi are still around. Now I know no one is going to say team brazil does a great job and that is why Axl keeps them around.
#17 Re: Guns N' Roses » Will the next single be something we've heard already? » 150 weeks ago
His vision of the album did not end in 2000. Jesus Dave, these are your thoughts. He was adding shit to the album right up until he turned it in.
You’re in denial that this was what Axl wanted to release, and you’re blaming it on Caram for your disappointment. He was still actively working on the album well after 2006. The label did not demand him continue working in it. They literally cut off his funding to get him to stop. CD, as it was released, was his vision. He could have released it in 02-03, HE said they weren’t done. Anyone who worked with him would have had issues with his direction and demands to make it so dense.
Axl was not hands off, he did not hand it off to Caram. This was his baby. I honestly don’t know how else to explain it to you.
The only one in denial here is you and you keep ignoring history. Axl turned in an album around 99, that was his vision. End of story. Carams cuts of the songs suck. You can defend him all you want but the songs got worse and worse while he was working on them. The clipping on CD final album is all on him, not Axl. The amount of clipping on CD is insane. But sure keep acting like Axl wanted all that clipping on the final album LMAO
We are done. This is getting sad for you.
#18 Re: Guns N' Roses » Will the next single be something we've heard already? » 150 weeks ago
From what I gather, the label told him that the album didn't have any hits (late 90s-early 2000s) and Axl went and edited/redid (use whatever term you feel like) the songs. Caram just happened to be the guy who was the last guy standing when the album was released. It's all on Axl. The vision on those songs are all what he wanted. Blaming the guy mixing the tunes is a bit misguided.
Yeah Caram was the last guy standing with the worst mixes. You take all the different versions of the songs and his are by far the worst.
And the vision of the songs were what they were in 1999/00 when he first turned in the album in. Also all the members of the band started to quit and Axl wanted them on the album to make them feel part of the band. But his vision of the songs were always what they were with the 99/00 version of the songs since that was the band he picked not the ones he had to settle for bc everyone started quitting. Hell Axl was tryign to get BH back up until a few days before hammerstein but had to settle for BBF.
#19 Re: Guns N' Roses » Will the next single be something we've heard already? » 150 weeks ago
davegnfnr2k wrote:misterID wrote:Dude, I never said they weren’t! This isn’t a gotcha moment, Dave, it’s literally you not understanding what we’ve been telling you.
Do you also admit that Axl submitted an album back around 1999ish that the label rejected?
Lol, when did I deny it? It doesn’t change the fact Caram is Axl’s guy and mixed it how he wanted. He’s still employed with the band. Axl could literally hire anyone else right now. He isn’t. Even Tommy said (paraphrasing) “no offense to Caram, but the album was all Axl.”
So you admit then album turned in an album and it was rejected. Thus Axl was happy with those mixes of the songs in 1999 and it was what he wanted. And you even admit those mixes are better.
also Axl liking what Caram did for his mixes still has nothing to do with if they are good or not. They still suck and he is a hack.
#20 Re: Guns N' Roses » Will the next single be something we've heard already? » 150 weeks ago
Dude, I never said they weren’t! This isn’t a gotcha moment, Dave, it’s literally you not understanding what we’ve been telling you.
Do you also admit that Axl submitted an album back around 1999ish that the label rejected?
