You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Dj Ashba and Dizzy Reed: "We're working on a new album"
I suppose it depends on the style and quality of material they've got leftover from the CD sessions. If its sub par, then maybe just bury it and move on?
Anything with Bucket in it is unlikely to be sub-par imo.
- dave-gnfnr
- Rep: 16
Re: Dj Ashba and Dizzy Reed: "We're working on a new album"
I think the point is, ANYTHING sitting in that vault is gonna be dated by at least 5 years, and more than likely 10.
There's only so much polishing one can do with a 10-year old finished song. Sub-par songs, great epics, doesn't matter.
Exactly, you cant make anything that old feel new.
Plus the guys have been touring together for a while now, so they should have a good vibe to write with each other.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Dj Ashba and Dizzy Reed: "We're working on a new album"
I'm a bit different to you guys in that I don't really understand the importance you guys put on time.
Other than that it sucks for us to wait for new albums cos of course we all want new music as soon as possible.
But I mean from a song writing perspective.
This morning i listened to the AFD cut of Nightrain up real loud after bumping into the boot of slash playing it in that other thread. Got me in the mood to hear it.
Now that's a song that's as kickass to me today as it was when it was written 25 years ago or whatever it is now.
Likewise November Rain was just as beautiful on UYI as it would have been on AFD. Or imagine if it had been recorded then but held back and Axl released it now unaltered? Would it not still be an amazing epic of a song?
Time means nothing to music. Only to pop culture. To sales. To recording techniques. Yes time fucks with those things. But to meldody. To intent. To the real art of a song it means nothing. Hell even outside of rock - look at Mozart - those tunes are still kickass hundreds of years on.
My point is...IF Axl has written some other beautiful melodies and songs that for whatver reason he wasn't ready to release....that a song is 10 years old means nothing to me....
Not that i wouldn't also love to hear what the new band does, cos they seem pretty kickass together, but I'm just saying, don't tell Axl to throw out songs he's never shared just because of something like the passing of a few years...as what he wrote in the 1980s is still magical today...so i have do doubt that something he wrote in 1999 and sits unheard could also be great.
Re: Dj Ashba and Dizzy Reed: "We're working on a new album"
True, but ALL of AFD's songs were recorded with a timeless quality. Guns N' Roses didn't create ANYTHING new. Guns N' Roses simply borrowed elements, inspiration, from various sources (i.e. the Stones, AC/DC, Aerosmith, etc.), created their own sound, yet incorporated that classic, timeless rock sound, which made those songs stand the test of time. They were new and hot in 1987, and their old and hot in 2010.
I would say the same for most of the Use Your Illusion albums too.
CD however is an entirely different bag of tricks. Axl abandoned the old band's sound for the most part, and incorporated influences of that time era. A time era without a classic, timeless quality. Even popular grunge songs of the early 90's are frozen in that time period, unlike the most popular cuts from the Stones or Zeppelin. Industrial and nu-metal is frozen in the late 90's. Axl incorporated those influences into a GN'R album with an industrial flair and technical song structure. Like technical guitar shreds, 6 layers of guitars, 2 bass, orchestras, 4 layers of vocals, etc. Well, because of that, Axl recorded CD with a basis of sound firmly placed in the era it was recorded in. So it sounds dated.
Queen is a great example. Great band, legendary band. They experimented with the sounds of each of their album's time, yet did throwback stuff. The throwback stuff (i'm thinking '39 & Crazy Little Thing Called Love material), sound fresh today. Yet, a ton of tracks are very dated.
Doesn't mean they're not great songs. Beatles - THE band of all time. Yet, tons of their tracks are trapped in the 60's, unlike the Stones.
Monk - AFD & UYI - yes. Because they borrowed from always popular elements in rock, since the 1950's. CD no. Because it borrowed from elements of the 90's, and early 2000's, and not only is it already dated, it's dead, and never coming back.
So it'll be interesting to see the direction of the unreleased material. If it's just CD II & III, and so on... it's gonna sound like listening to a 2001 record in 2011.
Unlike Nightrain, which can still be played today, be vintage, yet remain fresh. Radio Ga Ga... total 1980's. Can't Buy Me Love. Total 1960's. Better. Total early 2000's.
Re: Dj Ashba and Dizzy Reed: "We're working on a new album"
I've got to agree with Monkey here. I've never understood the time argument either as far as songs sounding dated. It's a convenient excuse, but I don't think CD would've "sounded better" in 2002 then it does today.
Re: Dj Ashba and Dizzy Reed: "We're working on a new album"
Isn't that the same thing? Aren't people complaining that the songs sound dated and they would've fit better with the music scene 10 years ago? What difference does it make? A good song is a good song, regardless of when it's released. There's a reason bands are influenced and try to sound like Zeppelin, The Stones, Aerosmith. Do they sound dated? Is that a bad thing?
Re: Dj Ashba and Dizzy Reed: "We're working on a new album"
if it sounds dated it is not marketable to the mainstream.
but if the goal was to create music that sounds good and not to target the market at the time they may have materiali in the vault that isn't dated and is completely new and fresh.
they don't though - it would've been on album 1.
if they want to sell album 2 to the masses it needs to be a brand new album with the current band and release the vault material as a bonus disc.
