You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- lance
Re: Secret show: April 1, L.A.?
If it was about art with Axl we would not only have 1 album in the last 23 years . We would have got CD 2001 and atleast 1 or 2 more release since then 90 songs were written and recorded just not mastered . Axl is for the money and ego not the art is my opinion.
- A Private Eye
- Rep: 77
Re: Secret show: April 1, L.A.?
If it was about art with Axl we would not only have 1 album in the last 23 years . We would have got CD 2001 and atleast 1 or 2 more release since then 90 songs were written and recorded just not mastered . Axl is for the money and ego not the art is my opinion.
I disagree. I think in the end and it's only my theory but Axl didn't really want to do any of it without Slash.
I don't think he ever really hated him in the way it was portrayed, despite certain quotes. I think he hated him for leaving and perhaps resented him because he knew deep down he needed him.
I think in the end the great wait for material had multiple underlying reasons but I think one is that without Slash it just didn't inspire him enough to release it. I'm not convinced he was ever truly happy with most of it, hence so much of it sits in a vault somewhere unreleased and over produced.
- lance
Re: Secret show: April 1, L.A.?
lance wrote:If it was about art with Axl we would not only have 1 album in the last 23 years . We would have got CD 2001 and atleast 1 or 2 more release since then 90 songs were written and recorded just not mastered . Axl is for the money and ego not the art is my opinion.
I disagree. I think in the end and it's only my theory but Axl didn't really want to do any of it without Slash.
I don't think he ever really hated him in the way it was portrayed, despite certain quotes. I think he hated him for leaving and perhaps resented him because he knew deep down he needed him.
I think in the end the great wait for material had multiple underlying reasons but I think one is that without Slash it just didn't inspire him enough to release it. I'm not convinced he was ever truly happy with most of it, hence so much of it sits in a vault somewhere unreleased and over produced.
You know it is funny i agree when it comes to Axl feelings about Slash. Its the whole lead singer and lead guitar thing Tyler/Perry Jagger/Richards .
I do think Axl liked what he had and was ready to release new music in 01 but the people around him gave him bad advice and removed his confidence in the new band.
On a side note does anyone else think Buckethead looked like a Slash dopplenganer with KFC bucket on his head. I know how different they sound but i think Axl got a weird comfort in how similar they looked.
- A Private Eye
- Rep: 77
Re: Secret show: April 1, L.A.?
I do think Axl liked what he had and was ready to release new music in 01 but the people around him gave him bad advice and removed his confidence in the new band.
On a side note does anyone else think Buckethead looked like a Slash dopplenganer with KFC bucket on his head. I know how different they sound but i think Axl got a weird comfort in how similar they looked.
I think without Slash by his side his confidence was shaky anyway. A few bits of criticism and he was back to the drawing board. Not sure that would have happened had Slash been around to fight his corner.
Funny you mention BH I think in terms of talent he's the only guy Axl could really relate to as a Slash replacement. Possibly representing the best chance the CD era band had of standing on its own two feet. Problem was his appearance and off stage persona meant Axl was still pretty much doing it all on his own, he had no palatable right hand man to present to the wider world and take some of the burden off himself.
FlashFlood- Rep: 55
Re: Secret show: April 1, L.A.?
FlashFlood wrote:I am one of those that is quite literally paying thousands to go the Friday Vegas show.
If they play a secret show beforehand, I'll live. I'm not thrilled about it, but I'm going to have a great time regardless.
Re: Secret show: April 1, L.A.?
I don't think he ever really hated him in the way it was portrayed, despite certain quotes.
Agreed. I thought that even back in 06 when he was a "cancer". All that was accomplished by the harsh statements was dividing the fan base into arguing factions.
Now that we know he had his mind on a reunion in 2010-11 but "wasn't ready yet", it really makes you realize the issues between the two were already thawing or never as big of a deal as fans believed.
Fans were still calling Slash a cancer and saying "not in this lifetime" for years after Axl was already over it. Funny.
- tejastech08
- Rep: 194
Re: Secret show: April 1, L.A.?
If this happens, I hope they are filming it for a Blu-ray. If Steven/Izzy are involved and Axl brings the 2010 rasp, this thing could be a legendary gig considering circumstances and location.
- AndyShores
- Rep: 11
Re: Secret show: April 1, L.A.?
If it was about art with Axl we would not only have 1 album in the last 23 years . We would have got CD 2001 and atleast 1 or 2 more release since then 90 songs were written and recorded just not mastered . Axl is for the money and ego not the art is my opinion.
The fact that we only have 1 album (and would likely have 0 albums if the record company hadn't demanded something to put out) shows that it is about the art. I don't frame every piece I paint, there's a number that I like that I don't sell or display. I just like them, some even unfinished, and I have them in my studio, put away. There are other pieces that people say are great that I don't necessarily have confidence in, so I don't put them out there. If Axl was about the money he'd put out whatever he recorded and make a buck.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: Secret show: April 1, L.A.?
IT IS UNETHICAL BECAUSE VEGAS WAS PROMOTED AS THE FIRST SHOW. I GOT FUCKED AT COACHELLA, but adjusted and also got tix for Vegas and sold Coachella... But for fucks sake, if they play a secret show it is borderline illegal and definitely unethical. I am paying a premium to say "I was at the first show". "I was at the 2nd show" doesn't sound very cool. Put it this way. I am spending $3,000+ for this Vegas trip. The Atlanta or Nashville show for 2 tix and hotel will cost me $300. Now you want to compare $300 to $3,000 and say "why should you care you are having fun" I may punch you in the face for stupidity. You have limited supply and high demand, that created Vegas. To open the flood gates and announce all the shows would have increased supply but demand for Vegas would have dropped drastically because you could wait until they came close. However, Vegas still could get a premium for being the first show. But by playing one prior, it is a HUGE fuck you to people like me. If I new I could get into the gig in LA, I would fucking go to that one. I want to see GNR, but I also wanted to see history. History is night #1. And I may not be there. And by the time show #2 happens all the surprises about Adler or Izzy may have already been ruined and we know the songs and have a good idea of guests already completely killing the mystery, hype, suspense etc.
So the next time one of you tell me I should be cool with it I will calmly tell you "FUCK YOU, I will feel how the fuck I want and they pulled a bait and switch" etc. me still having fun in Vegas is beside the point. Of course it will be fun. Just not historic.
