Guns & Roses

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from shumirules. Show shumirules's posts

    Guns & Roses

    Ok now they are in the RnR hall of fame, for whatever that is worth, but it got me thinking.

    They were a group that had it all and screwed it all up.  They could have been huge for 25 years not just 5 or 6, what other groups had it all and messed it up due to in fighting.  What other bands do you wish had done more albums together?

    The Police, they were on top of the world and ended it in 1984
    Van Halen comes to mind, although they were ok with Sammy it was not the same.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: Guns & Roses

    Oasis
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: Guns & Roses

    Sometimes less is more.

    I love Cream and the Yardbirds because they didn't hang around long enough to get stale. Only the most talented of groups can keep sending out the same product for 20-25 years and be successful and retain dignity and creativity. Many of the really great bands were able to keep it going for a long time. I believe The Kinks, The Stones,The Scorpions, Jethro Tull, Rush were able to stay creative without changing style ( and alienating their fan base).

    Gun's and Roses was good while it lasted, not great enough to be ahead of some others in this bogus Hall, but they were pretty good. 'Welcome to the Jungle' has always been a favorite. I first heard it in the Dirty Harry movie. Honestly, I do not pull out my G'N'R CDs as often as say ...Elvis Costello, Grahan Parker or Ozzie. I do not even listen to them as often as Tracy Chapman, Robert Plant or Public Image Limited. But I would not be without the music. It's very good....just not very great.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Guns & Roses

    Slash is a first-rate hard rock guitarist.  I have no interest in the Slash-less version.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from RogerTaylor. Show RogerTaylor's posts

    Re: Guns & Roses

    Just watch any episode of VH1 Behind The Music...the only thing they changed from one story to the next was the name of the band. Drugs and alcohol, alcohol and drugs....some, like Aerosmith made it to the other side and soldiered on, in spite of a brief line up change and continue to succeed [album sales, touring etc.,] others like GnR crashed and burned. Sorry GnR stopped being GnR when Slash and the others parted company with Axl Rose.  The Darkness is the most recent GnR type band that changed its line up because the two brothers a la Oasis couldn't work together..............
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: Guns & Roses

    Woulda, coulda, shoulda, sh*t.

    The Beatles
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Guns & Roses

    Some groups just aren't built to last...a few flashes of brilliance, and that's it.

    Credit to those who stick with it if not the price they sometimes pay to do so.

    Ditto to those who know when it's time to quit.

    And I hate to say it, but the fans' wishes should be largely irrelevant to the creative process.  Art by popular diktat is seldom a good idea.

    I was too young and unaware to see Talking Heads perform in their prime - one of my consistently favorite, most interesting bands of all-time.  But my own desire to see them play live has nothing to do with whether what they do would even be worth seeing for me or worth performing for them.
     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Guns & Roses

    In Response to Re: Guns & Roses:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Guns & Roses : Well VH, has made their mark.  My good friend Gary's venture with them didn't work out, but they ain't struggling for breakfast cash, and neither is Gary.
    Posted by GreginMeffa[/QUOTE]

    I liked extreme's second and third lps. 

    Nuno is another sick axe-slingin mofo...
     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from polar123. Show polar123's posts

    Re: Guns & Roses

    In Response to Re: Guns & Roses:
    [QUOTE]Allright...  a partial review, before I got too disgusted. Cannot even hit notes, and then hold whatever he did hit:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YHMAzUaFE4 Vs. 1992:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1ZRBPA8SK0&feature=related (Love how Slash has someone bring him a lit cigarette.) And UGH. Hate to be crude (well not really), but just crap on the damn mic instead will ya?  My Michelle 2012:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVNIAymEyrI vs 1988:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiHjv_UJ6hQ On the other hand, somewhat better voice here for a COUPLE songs....:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVNIAymEyrI But seriously....  "it's so easy" @ 9:34 (again way off)....       compare to '88: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5aaMo62Ge0 His high notes largely got very toned down. Almost....Mickey Mouse like..  Worse than Jagger '70 vs. Jagger '10....  At least he did away with f'ing latex boxer briefs. W.T.F.  No one wants to see that sh*t! No one! But as I've said before, Axl was the weak link. Screw him. The rest of the band got better (except Adler...who simply managed to not die)
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow[/QUOTE]

    He's just awful.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rushfan2112. Show Rushfan2112's posts

    Re: Guns & Roses

    In Response to Guns & Roses:
    [QUOTE]Ok now they are in the RnR hall of fame, for whatever that is worth.
    Posted by shumirules[/QUOTE]

    I'm glad they made the rock 'n roll Hall of Fame, but it has to be emphasized that not all the best bands get in. Two excellent points are Rush & Kiss.  
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: Guns & Roses

    In Response to Re: Guns & Roses:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Guns & Roses : [ QUOTE]Allright...  a partial review, before I got too disgusted. Cannot even hit notes, and then hold whatever he did hit :   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YHMAzUaFE4 Vs. 1992:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1ZRBPA8SK0&feature=related (Love how Slash has someone bring him a lit cigarette.) And UGH. Hate to be crude (well not really), but just crap on the damn mic instead will ya?  My Michelle 2012:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVNIAymEyrI vs 1988:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiHjv_UJ6hQ On the other hand, somewhat better voice here for a COUPLE songs....:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVNIAymEyrI But seriously....  "it's so easy" @ 9:34 (again way off)....       compare to '88: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5aaMo62Ge0 His high notes largely got very toned down. Almost....Mickey Mouse like..  Worse than Jagger '70 vs. Jagger '10....  At least he did away with f'ing latex boxer briefs. W.T.F.  No one wants to see that sh*t! No one! But as I've said before, Axl was the weak link. Screw him. The rest of the band got better (except Adler...who simply managed to not die) Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow[/QUOTE] He's just awful.
    Posted by polar123[/QUOTE]

    Ok, that's just beyond awkard. I though the VH reunion sounded awkward, that was WORSE by a mile.  He's totally blown his vocal chords mostly from how he sang back in day, but also due to drugs and then now with age.

    I can't think of one singer who has completely kept his range and power as they aged, but that was horrendous. I wouldn't pay $10 to see that awkward crap.

    Just embarrassing.
     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: Guns & Roses

    Might as well be the Bay City Rollers for crying out loud.  Just horrendous.  Awkard reports coming back from the VH Reunion thing, too.    I can't do it. I just can't. lol
     

Share