BUT ANYWAY, back to GNR Lies last year i discovered that the "live" songs on side A (that were originally released as a vinyl ep a year or two before AFD called Live Like A Suicide) were just demos laid over a crowd track. heres a couple:
Clearly you are all 21 years old and do not remember the shit storm that "One In A Million" caused. It was all over MTV News and the press. Axl lamely tried to say that he was telling it from the perspective of a midwest boy just off the bus. I remember Vernon Reid from Living Color saying that he defended GNR's right to say whatever they wanted (when people suggested that the label remove the song) but that they needed to be held accountable for what they said. Sad thing is is that "One in a Million" is a great song musically, as good as a lot of classic stones stuff. With different lyrics that would have been a massive hit.
another part of their lame defense that you left out was Slash talmbout he was half black and since he wasn't offended by the lyrics other black people had no right to be.
that said....
"white people like GnR beacuse they make the GooGoo dolls sound like the LA Dolls...."
For all of the digging and research and wannaba tastemaking that goes on around here...if you are of any age yet still haven't figured out by now why there is no question in the world why Appetite for Destruction is absolutely essential, both in '88 as well as in '07, then you are really missing the boat.
And there's no way that Nirvana made any metal irrelavent as long as there was Alice by Chains right by their side proving your point moot.
oh shit, i find myself co-signing harvey on both these points
I invented an appetite for destruction drinking game. basically you throw the album on and start drinking, and if you arent drunk by "nightrain" you lose.
another part of their lame defense that you left out was Slash talmbout he was half black and since he wasn't offended by the lyrics other black people had no right to be.
I seem to remember (I think it was from later interviews or 'Behind The Music') that Slash was actually pissed about Axl's choice of the 'N'-word, but he decided to publicly just sidestep it at the time, that they had enough issues as it was. Maybe that was hindsight and revisionism on his part, but I honestly don't remember him ever talking about his racial background til waaaaay after that period. But maybe I just wasn't paying attention.
another part of their lame defense that you left out was Slash talmbout he was half black and since he wasn't offended by the lyrics other black people had no right to be.
I seem to remember (I think it was from later interviews or 'Behind The Music') that Slash was actually pissed about Axl's choice of the 'N'-word, but he decided to publicly just sidestep it at the time, that they had enough issues as it was. Maybe that was hindsight and revisionism on his part, but I honestly don't remember him ever talking about his racial background til waaaaay after that period. But maybe I just wasn't paying attention.
That was my recollection too.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,913 Posts
For all of the digging and research and wannaba tastemaking that goes on around here...if you are of any age yet still haven't figured out by now why there is no question in the world why Appetite for Destruction is absolutely essential, both in '88 as well as in '07, then you are really missing the boat.
That's as may be, but I'm of an age where Guns 'n' Roses' shtick was already tired to me when they came out. I appreciate that there are plenty of people who sincerely believe them to be the real deal, and that's fair enough, but as far as my "missing the boat" because I don't consider their oeuvre to be even the remotest bit "essential" is concerned, all I can say to that is "don't piss on my boots and tell me it's raining".
To me, G'n'R have always been a cartoon rock & roll band, a composite of every played-out cliche in the book. They may have been the right band in the right place at the right time for some people, but I'm not one of them. If I want an iconoclastic rock band who shot their bolt with their first record and collapsed in a blizzard of o.d.'s, lawsuits and rancorous fallouts between the members, I'm going to stick with the Sex Pistols. If I want a band that just about made it to a second album before meeting a similar end, then the New York Dolls continue to suit me fine. If I want to listen to blues-derived hard rock with a flamboyant lead singer screeching over the top of it all, Aerosmith does the job. If I want that with a far broader musical range and a bit more sophistication, I can get it from Led Zeppelin. Finally, any day of this or any other week, the work of the real Keith Richards is far more appealing to me than that of five Keith Richards clones. Your mileage may vary.
Weird...I was just thinking about this record. Especially since: Axl Rose smearing immigrants, blacks and gays= massive career+sold out Madison Sq. Garden shows ,but....
Beenie Man, Buju Banton, etc. voicing similar attitudes = having to sign contracts stipulating they wont say the same or can't play in NY.
Wonder if they'll make ol' Bill Bailey do the same before the Chinese Democracy tour.
I doubt it.
Oh, and GNR Lies is
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,913 Posts
Weird...I was just thinking about this record. Especially since: Axl Rose smearing immigrants, blacks and gays= massive career+sold out Madison Sq. Garden shows ,but....
Beenie Man, Buju Banton, etc. voicing similar attitudes = having to sign contracts stipulating they wont say the same or can't play in NY.
Wonder if they'll make ol' Bill Bailey do the same before the Chinese Democracy tour.
I doubt it.
Oh, and GNR Lies is
"Chinese Democracy" is going to be the "Phantom Menace" of rock records.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
For all of the digging and research and wannaba tastemaking that goes on around here...if you are of any age yet still haven't figured out by now why there is no question in the world why Appetite for Destruction is absolutely essential, both in '88 as well as in '07, then you are really missing the boat.
That's as may be, but I'm of an age where Guns 'n' Roses' shtick was already tired to me when they came out. I appreciate that there are plenty of people who sincerely believe them to be the real deal, and that's fair enough, but as far as my "missing the boat" because I don't consider their oeuvre to be even the remotest bit "essential" is concerned, all I can say to that is "don't piss on my boots and tell me it's raining".
To me, G'n'R have always been a cartoon rock & roll band, a composite of every played-out cliche in the book. They may have been the right band in the right place at the right time for some people, but I'm not one of them. If I want an iconoclastic rock band who shot their bolt with their first record and collapsed in a blizzard of o.d.'s, lawsuits and rancorous fallouts between the members, I'm going to stick with the Sex Pistols. If I want a band that just about made it to a second album before meeting a similar end, then the New York Dolls continue to suit me fine. If I want to listen to blues-derived hard rock with a flamboyant lead singer screeching over the top of it all, Aerosmith does the job. If I want that with a far broader musical range and a bit more sophistication, I can get it from Led Zeppelin. Finally, any day of this or any other week, the work of the real Keith Richards is far more appealing to me than that of five Keith Richards clones. Your mileage may vary.
I'm going to spare you the argument that sells G-N-R as a whole for now. But I will say that you really sound like someone who definitely needs to go back and take a close listen to what Slash was playing on guitar...for Slash does several certain things that both Keith Richards and Jimmy Page obviously wished they could pull off but never quite could to the point of nailing it ala Slash on Appetite.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,913 Posts
For all of the digging and research and wannaba tastemaking that goes on around here...if you are of any age yet still haven't figured out by now why there is no question in the world why Appetite for Destruction is absolutely essential, both in '88 as well as in '07, then you are really missing the boat.
That's as may be, but I'm of an age where Guns 'n' Roses' shtick was already tired to me when they came out. I appreciate that there are plenty of people who sincerely believe them to be the real deal, and that's fair enough, but as far as my "missing the boat" because I don't consider their oeuvre to be even the remotest bit "essential" is concerned, all I can say to that is "don't piss on my boots and tell me it's raining".
To me, G'n'R have always been a cartoon rock & roll band, a composite of every played-out cliche in the book. They may have been the right band in the right place at the right time for some people, but I'm not one of them. If I want an iconoclastic rock band who shot their bolt with their first record and collapsed in a blizzard of o.d.'s, lawsuits and rancorous fallouts between the members, I'm going to stick with the Sex Pistols. If I want a band that just about made it to a second album before meeting a similar end, then the New York Dolls continue to suit me fine. If I want to listen to blues-derived hard rock with a flamboyant lead singer screeching over the top of it all, Aerosmith does the job. If I want that with a far broader musical range and a bit more sophistication, I can get it from Led Zeppelin. Finally, any day of this or any other week, the work of the real Keith Richards is far more appealing to me than that of five Keith Richards clones. Your mileage may vary.
I'm going to spare you the argument that sells G-N-R as a whole for now. But I will say that you really sound like someone who definitely needs to go back and take a close listen to what Slash was playing on guitar...for Slash does several certain things that both Keith Richards and Jimmy Page obviously wished they could pull off but never quite could to the point of nailing it ala Slash on Appetite.
I've heard the "...but Slash is a great guitar player" defence, and I was expecting someone to say (or, in your case, infer) "Yeah, but G'n'R do all that stuff at the same time!" as well.
I'm not disputing G 'n' R's appeal - it's easy to see what that was and why, after nearly a decade of hair-metal and MTV pop, it had such an impact. It's just that I was never convinced by it at all. Many of the people who venerate them seem to do so because of what they supposedly represent; a return to the "core" rock'n'roll values of anti-establishment rebellion and the myth of the dangerous outsider. In that respect, I'll concede they were fairly impressive. For me, the music just never measured up, and I get a little tired of hearing the "last true rock 'n' roll band" tag being pinned on them. Musically, I consider AC/DC much more deserving of that accolade. In terms of attitude, well, who cares, really? It isn't your attitude that's going to leave a mark on the world. Your music might, but if you take thirteen years and counting to come up with your fourth studio album proper, it'll need to be something that'll tilt the world off its axis.
For all of the digging and research and wannaba tastemaking that goes on around here...if you are of any age yet still haven't figured out by now why there is no question in the world why Appetite for Destruction is absolutely essential, both in '88 as well as in '07, then you are really missing the boat.
That's as may be, but I'm of an age where Guns 'n' Roses' shtick was already tired to me when they came out. I appreciate that there are plenty of people who sincerely believe them to be the real deal, and that's fair enough, but as far as my "missing the boat" because I don't consider their oeuvre to be even the remotest bit "essential" is concerned, all I can say to that is "don't piss on my boots and tell me it's raining".
To me, G'n'R have always been a cartoon rock & roll band, a composite of every played-out cliche in the book. They may have been the right band in the right place at the right time for some people, but I'm not one of them. If I want an iconoclastic rock band who shot their bolt with their first record and collapsed in a blizzard of o.d.'s, lawsuits and rancorous fallouts between the members, I'm going to stick with the Sex Pistols. If I want a band that just about made it to a second album before meeting a similar end, then the New York Dolls continue to suit me fine. If I want to listen to blues-derived hard rock with a flamboyant lead singer screeching over the top of it all, Aerosmith does the job. If I want that with a far broader musical range and a bit more sophistication, I can get it from Led Zeppelin. Finally, any day of this or any other week, the work of the real Keith Richards is far more appealing to me than that of five Keith Richards clones. Your mileage may vary.
I'm going to spare you the argument that sells G-N-R as a whole for now. But I will say that you really sound like someone who definitely needs to go back and take a close listen to what Slash was playing on guitar...for Slash does several certain things that both Keith Richards and Jimmy Page obviously wished they could pull off but never quite could to the point of nailing it ala Slash on Appetite.
Right now even Slash is laughing in your face. He would be totally embarrassed by your comments. There is no way that you can compare the ability or influence or anything of those two blokes to Slash, who happens to be a damn fine musician.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
For all of the digging and research and wannaba tastemaking that goes on around here...if you are of any age yet still haven't figured out by now why there is no question in the world why Appetite for Destruction is absolutely essential, both in '88 as well as in '07, then you are really missing the boat.
That's as may be, but I'm of an age where Guns 'n' Roses' shtick was already tired to me when they came out. I appreciate that there are plenty of people who sincerely believe them to be the real deal, and that's fair enough, but as far as my "missing the boat" because I don't consider their oeuvre to be even the remotest bit "essential" is concerned, all I can say to that is "don't piss on my boots and tell me it's raining".
To me, G'n'R have always been a cartoon rock & roll band, a composite of every played-out cliche in the book. They may have been the right band in the right place at the right time for some people, but I'm not one of them. If I want an iconoclastic rock band who shot their bolt with their first record and collapsed in a blizzard of o.d.'s, lawsuits and rancorous fallouts between the members, I'm going to stick with the Sex Pistols. If I want a band that just about made it to a second album before meeting a similar end, then the New York Dolls continue to suit me fine. If I want to listen to blues-derived hard rock with a flamboyant lead singer screeching over the top of it all, Aerosmith does the job. If I want that with a far broader musical range and a bit more sophistication, I can get it from Led Zeppelin. Finally, any day of this or any other week, the work of the real Keith Richards is far more appealing to me than that of five Keith Richards clones. Your mileage may vary.
I'm going to spare you the argument that sells G-N-R as a whole for now. But I will say that you really sound like someone who definitely needs to go back and take a close listen to what Slash was playing on guitar...for Slash does several certain things that both Keith Richards and Jimmy Page obviously wished they could pull off but never quite could to the point of nailing it ala Slash on Appetite.
I've heard the "...but Slash is a great guitar player" defence, and I was expecting someone to say (or, in your case, infer) "Yeah, but G'n'R do all that stuff at the same time!" as well.
I'm not disputing G 'n' R's appeal - it's easy to see what that was and why, after nearly a decade of hair-metal and MTV pop, it had such an impact. It's just that I was never convinced by it at all. Many of the people who venerate them seem to do so because of what they supposedly represent; a return to the "core" rock'n'roll values of anti-establishment rebellion and the myth of the dangerous outsider. In that respect, I'll concede they were fairly impressive. For me, the music just never measured up, and I get a little tired of hearing the "last true rock 'n' roll band" tag being pinned on them. Musically, I consider AC/DC much more deserving of that accolade. In terms of attitude, well, who cares, really? It isn't your attitude that's going to leave a mark on the world. Your music might, but if you take thirteen years and counting to come up with your fourth studio album proper, it'll need to be something that'll tilt the world off its axis.
Put me down as a "no".
Just know that you are really shorting yourself from enjoying some great music with all of this extra-curricular, reactionary, hipster-esque analysis.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
For all of the digging and research and wannaba tastemaking that goes on around here...if you are of any age yet still haven't figured out by now why there is no question in the world why Appetite for Destruction is absolutely essential, both in '88 as well as in '07, then you are really missing the boat.
That's as may be, but I'm of an age where Guns 'n' Roses' shtick was already tired to me when they came out. I appreciate that there are plenty of people who sincerely believe them to be the real deal, and that's fair enough, but as far as my "missing the boat" because I don't consider their oeuvre to be even the remotest bit "essential" is concerned, all I can say to that is "don't piss on my boots and tell me it's raining".
To me, G'n'R have always been a cartoon rock & roll band, a composite of every played-out cliche in the book. They may have been the right band in the right place at the right time for some people, but I'm not one of them. If I want an iconoclastic rock band who shot their bolt with their first record and collapsed in a blizzard of o.d.'s, lawsuits and rancorous fallouts between the members, I'm going to stick with the Sex Pistols. If I want a band that just about made it to a second album before meeting a similar end, then the New York Dolls continue to suit me fine. If I want to listen to blues-derived hard rock with a flamboyant lead singer screeching over the top of it all, Aerosmith does the job. If I want that with a far broader musical range and a bit more sophistication, I can get it from Led Zeppelin. Finally, any day of this or any other week, the work of the real Keith Richards is far more appealing to me than that of five Keith Richards clones. Your mileage may vary.
I'm going to spare you the argument that sells G-N-R as a whole for now. But I will say that you really sound like someone who definitely needs to go back and take a close listen to what Slash was playing on guitar...for Slash does several certain things that both Keith Richards and Jimmy Page obviously wished they could pull off but never quite could to the point of nailing it ala Slash on Appetite.
Right now even Slash is laughing in your face. He would be totally embarrassed by your comments. There is no way that you can compare the ability or influence or anything of those two blokes to Slash, who happens to be a damn fine musician.
Again, there are certain things that Keith Richards and Jimmy Page always tried to do, and did them alright, that Slash simply did better. I stand by that.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,913 Posts
For all of the digging and research and wannaba tastemaking that goes on around here...if you are of any age yet still haven't figured out by now why there is no question in the world why Appetite for Destruction is absolutely essential, both in '88 as well as in '07, then you are really missing the boat.
That's as may be, but I'm of an age where Guns 'n' Roses' shtick was already tired to me when they came out. I appreciate that there are plenty of people who sincerely believe them to be the real deal, and that's fair enough, but as far as my "missing the boat" because I don't consider their oeuvre to be even the remotest bit "essential" is concerned, all I can say to that is "don't piss on my boots and tell me it's raining".
To me, G'n'R have always been a cartoon rock & roll band, a composite of every played-out cliche in the book. They may have been the right band in the right place at the right time for some people, but I'm not one of them. If I want an iconoclastic rock band who shot their bolt with their first record and collapsed in a blizzard of o.d.'s, lawsuits and rancorous fallouts between the members, I'm going to stick with the Sex Pistols. If I want a band that just about made it to a second album before meeting a similar end, then the New York Dolls continue to suit me fine. If I want to listen to blues-derived hard rock with a flamboyant lead singer screeching over the top of it all, Aerosmith does the job. If I want that with a far broader musical range and a bit more sophistication, I can get it from Led Zeppelin. Finally, any day of this or any other week, the work of the real Keith Richards is far more appealing to me than that of five Keith Richards clones. Your mileage may vary.
I'm going to spare you the argument that sells G-N-R as a whole for now. But I will say that you really sound like someone who definitely needs to go back and take a close listen to what Slash was playing on guitar...for Slash does several certain things that both Keith Richards and Jimmy Page obviously wished they could pull off but never quite could to the point of nailing it ala Slash on Appetite.
I've heard the "...but Slash is a great guitar player" defence, and I was expecting someone to say (or, in your case, infer) "Yeah, but G'n'R do all that stuff at the same time!" as well.
I'm not disputing G 'n' R's appeal - it's easy to see what that was and why, after nearly a decade of hair-metal and MTV pop, it had such an impact. It's just that I was never convinced by it at all. Many of the people who venerate them seem to do so because of what they supposedly represent; a return to the "core" rock'n'roll values of anti-establishment rebellion and the myth of the dangerous outsider. In that respect, I'll concede they were fairly impressive. For me, the music just never measured up, and I get a little tired of hearing the "last true rock 'n' roll band" tag being pinned on them. Musically, I consider AC/DC much more deserving of that accolade. In terms of attitude, well, who cares, really? It isn't your attitude that's going to leave a mark on the world. Your music might, but if you take thirteen years and counting to come up with your fourth studio album proper, it'll need to be something that'll tilt the world off its axis.
Put me down as a "no".
Just know that you are really shorting yourself from enjoying some great music with all of this extra-curricular, reactionary, hipster-esque analysis.
Harvey, I'm not adopting some kind of position here. I've heard the records more times than I care to remember. I've listened to them on numerous occasions in the hope I might discover whatever it is that people keep telling me I'm missing. No luck. I've worked at it, but it just ain't happening.
If it works for you and others, great - I don't want to spoil anyone else's fun. While I can continue to get the same pure, unalloyed, visceral joy from, say, "Communication Breakdown" as I've got from it since I was a teenager, then I really don't think I'm missing out on anything.
At the time that Appetite For Destruction came out, it was the kick in the ass that rock music sorely needed. They were the genuine "live fast die young" article amid a sea of posers and glam bands with no balls playing strictly for the chicks on the LA strip. GnR took the best elements of the NY Dolls, Hanoi Rocks, Thin Lizzy, Sham 69, Dead Boys, etc. and wrote a solid, timeless hard rock album. They were not metal by any stretch of the imagination. Just because MTV played them on Headbanger's Ball, this doesn't pigeonhole them in that genre.
They became a joke soon after they threw out original drummer Steven Adler and replaced him with studio hack/drummer for hire Matt Sorum, who had just finished touring and recording with the Cult. Then , to make matters worse, Izzy Stradlin jumped ship and was replaced by Kill for Thrills guitarist/vocalist Gilby Clarke. These were huge losses for the band's trademark sound and image. So, what did they do? They added like twenty people to the touring/recording band, made two shitty, awful albums. Released them on the same day, made ridiculous, overambitious music videos that played like mini motion pictures. The list of bad career moves goes on and on. A clear cut case of too much too soon. At least they left their mark with AFD.
Now, the comparisons of Jimmy Page and Keith Richards to Slash are hilarious. For one, Slash would never have existed without them. Second, Slash could never in his wildest dreams (nor in reality, for that matter) come close to composing the brilliant QUALITY of material that Page and Richards have. Dude can shred, no doubt about that... but c'mon... he doesn't even come close to touching Eddie Van Halen. You dare compare Slash to Page and Richards? CRACKSMOKERY!!!
So, what did they do? They added like twenty people to the touring/recording band, made two shitty, awful albums.
ure crazy. The Use your illusion albums have some heaters. Pretty tied up, back off bitch, yesterdays, to name just a few.
Yeah, you're right dude. I'm crazy. Use Your Illusion had some bangers... Dude, use your ears instead of your delusions. Those albums are studio drivel... pure trash.
You prolly think GnR Lies is a great "album" too...
They became a joke soon after they threw out original drummer Steven Adler and replaced him with studio hack/drummer for hire Matt Sorum, who had just finished touring and recording with the Cult. Then , to make matters worse, Izzy Stradlin jumped ship and was replaced by Kill for Thrills guitarist/vocalist Gilby Clarke. These were huge losses for the band's trademark sound and image.
this is pretty much right on - from what I've heard/read Izzy was the guy that came up with the actual riffs - which Slash basically just shredded on top of - Adler's drumming gave the riffs a nice swing that made them rock pretty hard. Sorum sucks, Gilby sucks & Slash without Izzy sucks too.
BTW, Axl is infinitely more entertaining in his fat Elvis/insane/shot voice/braided hair weave stage than he ever was in his hard rock/snake dance/bandanas-and-contrived-badassery stage or his serious artiste/piano man/mini-movie video phase.
They became a joke soon after they threw out original drummer Steven Adler and replaced him with studio hack/drummer for hire Matt Sorum, who had just finished touring and recording with the Cult. Then , to make matters worse, Izzy Stradlin jumped ship and was replaced by Kill for Thrills guitarist/vocalist Gilby Clarke. These were huge losses for the band's trademark sound and image.
this is pretty much right on - from what I've heard/read Izzy was the guy that came up with the actual riffs - which Slash basically just shredded on top of - Adler's drumming gave the riffs a nice swing that made them rock pretty hard. Sorum sucks, Gilby sucks & Slash without Izzy sucks too.
I recently read an article about GNR which talks about how one of the favorite jams of the original rhythm section was "Rigor Mortis"; they would practice that tune a lot of hone their chops.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Now, the comparisons of Jimmy Page and Keith Richards to Slash are hilarious. For one, Slash would never have existed without them. Second, Slash could never in his wildest dreams (nor in reality, for that matter) come close to composing the brilliant QUALITY of material that Page and Richards have. Dude can shred, no doubt about that... but c'mon... he doesn't even come close to touching Eddie Van Halen. You dare compare Slash to Page and Richards? CRACKSMOKERY!!!
It's not even Slash's shredding that I'm talking about. Slash had a knack for being able to play in a subtle, accentuating-the-funk style that in many cases was more adept than decades worth of Richards/Page/and you might as well throw Clapton in there as well ever could.
This would be more overt an example than I'm alluding to here, but simply listen to Slash on Lenny Kravitz's "Always on the Run"...and with that alone, he sonned the entirety of all of England's guitarists ever on how to most accurately portray black American funk.
So I'll say it a third time now, Richards and Page could only ever hope to get that one particular thing down as well as Slash could seemingly could in his sleep.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Now, the comparisons of Jimmy Page and Keith Richards to Slash are hilarious. For one, Slash would never have existed without them. Second, Slash could never in his wildest dreams (nor in reality, for that matter) come close to composing the brilliant QUALITY of material that Page and Richards have. Dude can shred, no doubt about that... but c'mon... he doesn't even come close to touching Eddie Van Halen. You dare compare Slash to Page and Richards? CRACKSMOKERY!!!
It's not even Slash's shredding that I'm talking about. Slash had a knack for being able to play in a subtle, accentuating-the-funk style that in many cases was more adept than decades worth of Richards/Page/and you might as well throw Clapton in there as well ever could.
This would be more overt an example than I'm alluding to here, but simply listen to Slash on Lenny Kravitz's "Always on the Run"...and with that alone, he sonned the entirety of all of England's guitarists ever on how to most accurately portray black American funk.
So I'll say it a third time now, Richards and Page could only ever hope to get that one particular thing down as well as Slash could seemingly could in his sleep.
It's OK, no amount of quoting Lenny Kravitz riffs is gonna change the fact that you are wrong and have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. I feel so sad for you.... please leave.... you're embarrassing yourself.
Comments
back to GNR Lies
last year i discovered that the "live" songs on side A (that were originally released as a vinyl ep a year or two before AFD called Live Like A Suicide) were just demos laid over a crowd track. heres a couple:
http://www.zshare.net/audio/34577975a0de72/
http://www.zshare.net/audio/3457851555ebbc/
http://www.zshare.net/audio/3457891db76dc7/
http://www.zshare.net/audio/34579131f1535a/
i used to love her (live)
http://www.zshare.net/audio/3458091baeb27a/
this was a new they'd been trying out called patience:
http://www.zshare.net/audio/3458167e94e6c4/
youre crazy (electric demo)
http://www.zshare.net/audio/34582137185f62/
one in a million (live)
http://www.zshare.net/audio/34582615a3a929/
another part of their lame defense that you left out was Slash talmbout he was half black and since he wasn't offended by the lyrics other black people had no right to be.
that said....
"white people like GnR beacuse they make the GooGoo dolls sound like the LA Dolls...."
oh shit, i find myself co-signing harvey on both these points
I seem to remember (I think it was from later interviews or 'Behind The Music') that Slash was actually pissed about Axl's choice of the 'N'-word, but he decided to publicly just sidestep it at the time, that they had enough issues as it was. Maybe that was hindsight and revisionism on his part, but I honestly don't remember him ever talking about his racial background til waaaaay after that period. But maybe I just wasn't paying attention.
That was my recollection too.
That's as may be, but I'm of an age where Guns 'n' Roses' shtick was already tired to me when they came out. I appreciate that there are plenty of people who sincerely believe them to be the real deal, and that's fair enough, but as far as my "missing the boat" because I don't consider their oeuvre to be even the remotest bit "essential" is concerned, all I can say to that is "don't piss on my boots and tell me it's raining".
To me, G'n'R have always been a cartoon rock & roll band, a composite of every played-out cliche in the book. They may have been the right band in the right place at the right time for some people, but I'm not one of them. If I want an iconoclastic rock band who shot their bolt with their first record and collapsed in a blizzard of o.d.'s, lawsuits and rancorous fallouts between the members, I'm going to stick with the Sex Pistols. If I want a band that just about made it to a second album before meeting a similar end, then the New York Dolls continue to suit me fine. If I want to listen to blues-derived hard rock with a flamboyant lead singer screeching over the top of it all, Aerosmith does the job. If I want that with a far broader musical range and a bit more sophistication, I can get it from Led Zeppelin. Finally, any day of this or any other week, the work of the real Keith Richards is far more appealing to me than that of five Keith Richards clones. Your mileage may vary.
Axl Rose smearing immigrants, blacks and gays= massive career+sold out Madison Sq. Garden shows ,but....
Beenie Man, Buju Banton, etc. voicing similar attitudes = having to sign contracts stipulating they wont say the same or can't play in NY.
Wonder if they'll make ol' Bill Bailey do the same before the Chinese Democracy tour.
I doubt it.
Oh, and GNR Lies is
"Chinese Democracy" is going to be the "Phantom Menace" of rock records.
I'm going to spare you the argument that sells G-N-R as a whole for now. But I will say that you really sound like someone who definitely needs to go back and take a close listen to what Slash was playing on guitar...for Slash does several certain things that both Keith Richards and Jimmy Page obviously wished they could pull off but never quite could to the point of nailing it ala Slash on Appetite.
I've heard the "...but Slash is a great guitar player" defence, and I was expecting someone to say (or, in your case, infer) "Yeah, but G'n'R do all that stuff at the same time!" as well.
I'm not disputing G 'n' R's appeal - it's easy to see what that was and why, after nearly a decade of hair-metal and MTV pop, it had such an impact. It's just that I was never convinced by it at all. Many of the people who venerate them seem to do so because of what they supposedly represent; a return to the "core" rock'n'roll values of anti-establishment rebellion and the myth of the dangerous outsider. In that respect, I'll concede they were fairly impressive. For me, the music just never measured up, and I get a little tired of hearing the "last true rock 'n' roll band" tag being pinned on them. Musically, I consider AC/DC much more deserving of that accolade. In terms of attitude, well, who cares, really? It isn't your attitude that's going to leave a mark on the world. Your music might, but if you take thirteen years and counting to come up with your fourth studio album proper, it'll need to be something that'll tilt the world off its axis.
Put me down as a "no".
Right now even Slash is laughing in your face. He would be totally embarrassed by your comments. There is no way that you can compare the ability or influence or anything of those two blokes to Slash, who happens to be a damn fine musician.
Just know that you are really shorting yourself from enjoying some great music with all of this extra-curricular, reactionary, hipster-esque analysis.
Again, there are certain things that Keith Richards and Jimmy Page always tried to do, and did them alright, that Slash simply did better. I stand by that.
Harvey, I'm not adopting some kind of position here. I've heard the records more times than I care to remember. I've listened to them on numerous occasions in the hope I might discover whatever it is that people keep telling me I'm missing. No luck. I've worked at it, but it just ain't happening.
If it works for you and others, great - I don't want to spoil anyone else's fun. While I can continue to get the same pure, unalloyed, visceral joy from, say, "Communication Breakdown" as I've got from it since I was a teenager, then I really don't think I'm missing out on anything.
Scary...
Lemme put in my two cents.
At the time that Appetite For Destruction came out, it was the kick in the ass that rock music sorely needed. They were the genuine "live fast die young" article amid a sea of posers and glam bands with no balls playing strictly for the chicks on the LA strip. GnR took the best elements of the NY Dolls, Hanoi Rocks, Thin Lizzy, Sham 69, Dead Boys, etc. and wrote a solid, timeless hard rock album. They were not metal by any stretch of the imagination. Just because MTV played them on Headbanger's Ball, this doesn't pigeonhole them in that genre.
They became a joke soon after they threw out original drummer Steven Adler and replaced him with studio hack/drummer for hire Matt Sorum, who had just finished touring and recording with the Cult. Then , to make matters worse, Izzy Stradlin jumped ship and was replaced by Kill for Thrills guitarist/vocalist Gilby Clarke. These were huge losses for the band's trademark sound and image. So, what did they do? They added like twenty people to the touring/recording band, made two shitty, awful albums. Released them on the same day, made ridiculous, overambitious music videos that played like mini motion pictures. The list of bad career moves goes on and on. A clear cut case of too much too soon. At least they left their mark with AFD.
Now, the comparisons of Jimmy Page and Keith Richards to Slash are hilarious. For one, Slash would never have existed without them. Second, Slash could never in his wildest dreams (nor in reality, for that matter) come close to composing the brilliant QUALITY of material that Page and Richards have. Dude can shred, no doubt about that... but c'mon... he doesn't even come close to touching Eddie Van Halen. You dare compare Slash to Page and Richards? CRACKSMOKERY!!!
Yeah, you're right dude. I'm crazy. Use Your Illusion had some bangers... Dude, use your ears instead of your delusions. Those albums are studio drivel... pure trash.
You prolly think GnR Lies is a great "album" too...
Seriously, huh? The heat must be getting to these folls...
this is pretty much right on - from what I've heard/read Izzy was the guy that came up with the actual riffs - which Slash basically just shredded on top of - Adler's drumming gave the riffs a nice swing that made them rock pretty hard. Sorum sucks, Gilby sucks & Slash without Izzy sucks too.
Great term.
BTW, Axl is infinitely more entertaining in his fat Elvis/insane/shot voice/braided hair weave stage than he ever was in his hard rock/snake dance/bandanas-and-contrived-badassery stage or his serious artiste/piano man/mini-movie video phase.
I recently read an article about GNR which talks about how one of the favorite jams of the original rhythm section was "Rigor Mortis"; they would practice that tune a lot of hone their chops.
the Meters tune?
It's not even Slash's shredding that I'm talking about. Slash had a knack for being able to play in a subtle, accentuating-the-funk style that in many cases was more adept than decades worth of Richards/Page/and you might as well throw Clapton in there as well ever could.
This would be more overt an example than I'm alluding to here, but simply listen to Slash on Lenny Kravitz's "Always on the Run"...and with that alone, he sonned the entirety of all of England's guitarists ever on how to most accurately portray black American funk.
So I'll say it a third time now, Richards and Page could only ever hope to get that one particular thing down as well as Slash could seemingly could in his sleep.
Cameo.
It's OK, no amount of quoting Lenny Kravitz riffs is gonna change the fact that you are wrong and have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. I feel so sad for you.... please leave.... you're embarrassing yourself.