You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#1791 Re: Guns N' Roses » Epiphany » 844 weeks ago
If they'd slammed into the VMAs with a one-two punch of Better and There Was A Time, instead of fucking around with old songs, and then released them as a double A-side a week later, with videos in rotation on MTV.
Yeah, why didn't they? Though I'm sure there would have been plenty of people bashing them for it. The nerve of coming on VMA with the name GNR and play some songs not one soul had ever heard before. In fact, I doubt MTV even would have said "yes" to it.
They would've conquered the world again.
Seriously don't think so. Been on a better approach all togheter? Sure. Major-super-big-band? Never. Not even if they topped AFD would it have happened.
(did this last negative comment make me be more like bono?)
Just rewatched the 2002 VMAs; whatshisface who does the intro is amped up, going on about how MTV had been asking GN'R to appear for the last four years. Axl could've come out and played whatever the hell he liked; people were excited for the potential of the new band then. Yeah, there were people who were saying, "Blah, isn't Slash," but if Axl had delivered a killer performance, with Buckethead doing the TWAT solo, the haters would've been well and truly silenced. I still think that the 2002 VMAs did untold damage to New GN'R.
At least opening with Better would've meant that Axl wouldn't have been out of breath; I'm pretty sure it was the Jungle scream that left him winded...
#1792 Re: Guns N' Roses » Epiphany » 844 weeks ago
Oh, just imagine if they'd come out of their corner swinging in 2002. If Axl had got himself into condition, hired a vocal coach and gone out there looking like he did in 2006. If they'd slammed into the VMAs with a one-two punch of Better and There Was A Time, instead of fucking around with old songs, and then released them as a double A-side a week later, with videos in rotation on MTV.
They would've conquered the world again. 
#1793 Re: Guns N' Roses » Dublin, Ireland - September 1, 2010 (The O2) » 844 weeks ago
Just got my ticket through from Seatwave, after a (terrifying) flutter where the .pdf just downloaded as a blank page. 
So, are the GNRevo crowd meeting up anywhere, then?
#1794 Re: Guns N' Roses » World Tour Cancelled? » 844 weeks ago
Ron isn't going to be around much longer.
I hope he stays, he's my favourite member of the band.
#1795 Re: Guns N' Roses » World Tour Cancelled? » 844 weeks ago
Billboard.com:
A story with the headline "Regardless of Hacked Twitter, Guns N' Roses Assures Fans Tour Is Still On"
Something like this, then?
#1796 Re: Guns N' Roses » World Tour Cancelled? » 844 weeks ago
Naltav wrote:russtcb wrote:So here we are. A day has passed and still no one in the entire bands organization can clarify.
Ridiculous.
"Festival Republic are informed by GN'R management that Guns N' Roses have NOT canceled their performances at Reading & Leeds and that Axl Rose's Twitter account was hacked into and all claims of dates being cancelled are unfounded," said a Festival Republic statement today
From Billboard.com
This whole situation has been handled horribly, par for the course. Even though it does appear that it was a hoax (though I'm still not sold on that), I still wouldn't feel too great if I had tickets to an upcoming show. And if I didn't have a ticket yet but was on the fence about buying one, my mind would certainly be made up now. NO THANKS! Too much risk involved. I'd love to know how many tickets they sell from this day forth.
Given that a lot of news outlets are running headlines like "GN'R CANCEL TOUR?" and then it's only after reading the story that you find out it's untrue... Assuming some fucker did crack Axl's Twitter account, he really should go after the fucker in question and sue them for a hell of a lot of lost earnings. Whoever's done this has genuinely caused damage to Brand GN'R and Axl's reputation, and probably cost them a ton of money.
#1797 Re: Guns N' Roses » what does Axl/GNR have to, to regain your interest 100% » 845 weeks ago
buzzsaw wrote:Smoking Guns wrote:Bigbri nailed it.. Nice attempt D, but we all know where this will go... Of course Russ will disagree, but other than Russ, its Reunite or bust.
If Slash's solo band wasn't so kick ass, the reunion thing wouldn't be as big right now, but they do kick ass, and that mashup of Slither and If the World only make us want to hear Slash and Axl even more...
I think almost everybody wants a reunion, but there have been so many versions of this band at this point, could we even come to a majority agreement on which lineup? If we put up a poll for every lineup of the band and you could only vote for one, would any lineup get 50%? AFD, UYI I (Izzy and Matt), UYI II (Gilby and Matt), and how many different CD versions. And there's always the one or two crazy people voting for poor Ole.
Im not so sure about that. The appetite line up is all that matters
Nah, like I've said before, the only two people who matter, as far as selling tickets and connecting with the general public and the media are concerned, are Axl and Slash; they're the iconic members of the band. People believe the original line-up of GN'R broke up in 1996, because that's when Slash left, even though Duff was still in the band and even though Izzy, Gilby and Matt had left long before.
Ironic, really, that they're the only two people in the band who hate each other's guts. Axl gets on perfectly well with Duff, Steven, Matt and Izzy. But he could team up with all of them and the idiot public would still go, "Eh, it isn't GN'R without Slash." Even though Izzy wrote the fucking songs, his departure wasn't viewed as being as important as Slash's.
Conversely, Axl could go on tour with his current band and sub in Slash for any one of the guitarists, and the idiot public and press would be going, "Wahey, Guns N' Roses reunion!"
In conclusion, people are idiots.
#1798 Re: Guns N' Roses » what does Axl/GNR have to, to regain your interest 100% » 845 weeks ago
Smoking Guns wrote:James Lofton wrote:I am no Floyd expert by any means but that always puzzled me as well. It's pretty much the equivalent of Gilby walking into GNR and taking over the band.
I don't know the history, but Gilmore was a badass guitar player and great singer..
That pretty much says it. Gilby didn't bring anything to the table in GN'R to warrant such a move, so comparing him to Gilmour is a bit questionable.
Despite not being an original member of Floyd, Gilmour found a way, shockingly, to basically become THE voice of the band. I don't even think of Roger Waters in terms of vocals, when I think of Pink Floyd. It's always Gilmour.
I do think Waters is just as much apart of the band as Gilmour, i'm not even gonna dare to go there, Gilmour is one of those rare cases where a replacement player comes in and redefines the band's legacy.
Probably a more proper example would be Sammy Hagar walking in and taking over Van Halen.
Or Buckethead walking in and taking over GN'R. 
#1799 Re: Guns N' Roses » what does Axl/GNR have to, to regain your interest 100% » 846 weeks ago
mickronson wrote:I just got coma come along in my random playlst.. fuckin amazing song and fantastic outro.. best ever? well no..
from a lyrical standpoint, that outro is Axl's finest moment imo.
I'd put Catcher up there, too. The outro to that is lyrically brilliant.
#1800 Re: Dust N' Bones & Cyborg Slunks » Slash to have songs in Guitar Hero 6 » 846 weeks ago
What, no By The Sword? Weird.
