You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Slash album reviews
Naltav wrote:50% true.... The majority don't go to hear the new songs live. But the majority also know who is long gone!
C'mon man! Most people do care who is singing! They just don't know or care who plays the guitar, bass etc etc! 10 years of on and off touring proves you wrong, buzzaw!
Really? Slash has been touring more often and for a longer period of time - often with relatively unknown singers, so tell me exactly how much the singer matters again?
Just because you wish something to be true doesn't mean it is. Go watch the videos with Myles singing the songs. Go see a good cover band play the songs and see what the reaction is...in that case, NONE of the key guys are there and the songs still get reactions. Those are the facts. You can imagine whatever you want, but the facts are the facts.
You crack me up!!
If you're actually suggesting that a Guns N' Roses with Slash and WITHOUT Axl will draw the same kind of attention as the current line-up, you got one hell of a vivid imagination.
This part of the GNR-Axl-Slash-brandname debate is just not worth having. It suits you fine that it can't be proven, huh? It's just common sense! It can't be argued
Re: Slash album reviews
buzzsaw wrote:misterID wrote:Where did I say people were coming to see them because of CD? You can't seem to get over the fact that not as many people as you'd like to think actually give a shit that Slash isn't there.
Where did I say anything about Slash? I believe there was no mention of Slash anywhere in my post. Are you Axl because you're making yourself look pretty Slash obsessed.
My post is addressing the fact that a BAND NAME is doing all of the things that you are seeming to credit to Axl. When was the last time they headlined a real festival in the US? I know they did some stupid small radio station festival that they would have headlined no matter who had the name. Can you say with 100% certainty that a Slash led GnR would not have headlined those same festivals in Europe? Be sure to check your facts before saying yes...
So what you didn't mention Slash? I was making an observation.
Yeah, real obsessed. I'm following around a band I don't like anymore just so I can constantly bitch about its lead singer... But I'm not obsessed.
GNR is Axl's band. It is his credit. He deserves it.
No. I don't think a Slash lead GNR would have headlined those festivals.
LOL. I love Guns N' Roses. Always have, always will. I think I care more about the band than Axl does, so if that makes me obsessed, then I can live with that. Considering I can go weeks at a time without posting anything, I think I'm handling my "obsession" just fine, thank you.
Guns isn't Axl's band. Well, legally it is, but if the past 10 years have taught us anything, it's that Axl alone is incapable of doing anything musically. It's really no different than Slash. They both have had far more failures than successes. If he wants full credit for the post 1996 band, he's more than welcome to it as far as I'm concerned, but without the contributions of BH and (for some reason) Finck, we still wouldn't have an album to discuss and debate.
As I told madagas, your opinion on the festivals is a valid one, however (and I'm not a big enough VR fan to say for sure) I believe I recall VR headlining festivals as well. I would suspect that if VR was headlining, a Slash lead GnR with a capable singer would have been as well. I'd love to hear your logic on why it wouldn't have.
Re: Slash album reviews
buzzsaw wrote:Naltav wrote:50% true.... The majority don't go to hear the new songs live. But the majority also know who is long gone!
C'mon man! Most people do care who is singing! They just don't know or care who plays the guitar, bass etc etc! 10 years of on and off touring proves you wrong, buzzaw!
Really? Slash has been touring more often and for a longer period of time - often with relatively unknown singers, so tell me exactly how much the singer matters again?
Just because you wish something to be true doesn't mean it is. Go watch the videos with Myles singing the songs. Go see a good cover band play the songs and see what the reaction is...in that case, NONE of the key guys are there and the songs still get reactions. Those are the facts. You can imagine whatever you want, but the facts are the facts.
You crack me up!!
If you're actually suggesting that a Guns N' Roses with Slash and WITHOUT Axl will draw the same kind of attention as the current line-up, you got one hell of a vivid imagination.
This part of the GNR-Axl-Slash-brandname debate is just not worth having. It suits you fine that it can't be proven, huh? It's just common sense! It can't be argued
LOL. It suits YOU just fine that it can't be proven. I am quite confident in my stance, but even if I'm wrong, it really doesn't hurt me at all. Now if you're wrong on the other hand, it completely blows everything you believe about Axl out of the water.
Slash has done a hell of a job without the benefit of the band name because he works hard. He would have put in the effort that Axl refuses to do, thus the band would have been at least as successful provided they had a competent singer (like Myles seems to be). The only thing Axl has proven is that nobody is going to hand you anything. CD could have been so much bigger if he had done ANYTHING, or even let somebody do something to promote it for him.
You know why a lot of Slash fans hate Axl fans? It's not because of what Axl did to the band or because of CD, it's because Axl fans refuse to give Slash any credit for giving Axl the opportunity to do what he's doing now. Really, it's the refusal to give Slash credit for anything. Every effort is made to discredit Slash at every opportunity to do so. Slash couldn't do this or that, GnR would have been fine without him, Axl was the mastermind behind everything, blah blah blah. Slash fans (for the most part) have no problem giving Axl credit for what he brought to the table...why is it so hard for Axl fans to do the same? You don't have to like the guy or what he's done since leaving GnR to give him the respect he deserves for what he did when he was there.
Re: Slash album reviews
I was just saying to someone the other night about how I was staying out of most of the Slash threads since I think the album blows. When CD came out, alot of the threads erupted into a new vs old discussion and I was really pissed about it.
I can't believe this happened in here without me! lol
Ha. In the same boat, I really don't like the album, but I still hope its a success. I am liking Ghost the more I hear it, though.
misterID wrote:buzzsaw wrote:Where did I say anything about Slash? I believe there was no mention of Slash anywhere in my post. Are you Axl because you're making yourself look pretty Slash obsessed.
My post is addressing the fact that a BAND NAME is doing all of the things that you are seeming to credit to Axl. When was the last time they headlined a real festival in the US? I know they did some stupid small radio station festival that they would have headlined no matter who had the name. Can you say with 100% certainty that a Slash led GnR would not have headlined those same festivals in Europe? Be sure to check your facts before saying yes...
So what you didn't mention Slash? I was making an observation.
Yeah, real obsessed. I'm following around a band I don't like anymore just so I can constantly bitch about its lead singer... But I'm not obsessed.
GNR is Axl's band. It is his credit. He deserves it.
No. I don't think a Slash lead GNR would have headlined those festivals.
LOL. I love Guns N' Roses. Always have, always will. I think I care more about the band than Axl does, so if that makes me obsessed, then I can live with that. Considering I can go weeks at a time without posting anything, I think I'm handling my "obsession" just fine, thank you.
Guns isn't Axl's band. Well, legally it is, but if the past 10 years have taught us anything, it's that Axl alone is incapable of doing anything musically. It's really no different than Slash. They both have had far more failures than successes. If he wants full credit for the post 1996 band, he's more than welcome to it as far as I'm concerned, but without the contributions of BH and (for some reason) Finck, we still wouldn't have an album to discuss and debate.
As I told madagas, your opinion on the festivals is a valid one, however (and I'm not a big enough VR fan to say for sure) I believe I recall VR headlining festivals as well. I would suspect that if VR was headlining, a Slash lead GnR with a capable singer would have been as well. I'd love to hear your logic on why it wouldn't have.
Well, gee I'm must be so wrapped up in my Slash obsession I must not have realized that you totally go weeks at a time without bitching about Axl. Sorry, dude!
GNR is Axl's band, buzz. He started the thing. He was in it. Not you, or me. I just never got why outsiders think they can tell the man it is or isn't his band.
Buzz, I don't have a crystal ball. Maybe Slash would have got Chris Cornell or even Scott to front the band back in 96 and they would have been 1,000 times more successful than current GNR. Maybe it would have been a complete disaster. Who knows? I am most definitely more interested in an Axl GNR than Slash. And it is MY personal opinion going by his solo stuff and VR that I would not be interested in it and that there's a good chance that it wouldn't turn out very good. I could be wrong. I don't know.
It is totally possible that Slash could have had a successful GNR, just as it would be totally possible that an Axl solo album would be as successful without the GNR name. We just don't know. We can only guess and argue about it over a message board...
Re: Slash album reviews
You know why a lot of Slash fans hate Axl fans? It's not because of what Axl did to the band or because of CD, it's because Axl fans refuse to give Slash any credit for giving Axl the opportunity to do what he's doing now. Really, it's the refusal to give Slash credit for anything. Every effort is made to discredit Slash at every opportunity to do so. Slash couldn't do this or that, GnR would have been fine without him, Axl was the mastermind behind everything, blah blah blah. Slash fans (for the most part) have no problem giving Axl credit for what he brought to the table...why is it so hard for Axl fans to do the same? You don't have to like the guy or what he's done since leaving GnR to give him the respect he deserves for what he did when he was there.
Since you called me an Axl nutswinger and blind defender, let me answer it this way... The comparison you're giving about Axl fans not giving Slash any credit and try to discredit him at evert turn... That's kind of what happens to Axl by Slash fans... Then, of course, you're called a nutswinger when you defend them. Not saying you never give Axl respect, but you can't deny the same doesn't apply to Slash fans who try to discredit any success Axl has.
I've never disrespected Slash's contributions to GNR. I don't think he was the biggest source of their success, but I've never tried to discredit him.
Re: Slash album reviews
They made a great album 23 years ago.
You can shuffle the lineup around any way you like and you're still gonna be coming up short.
Even a reunion of the classic lineup isn't going to make the impact that these guys made together in the late '80s.
At least Slash isn't still using the name of a band that broke up 16 years ago.
Re: Slash album reviews
madagas wrote:in short, people will still pay good money to hear Axl Rose sing Guns N' Roses songs. Obviously, the large majority are there for the classics. My personal opinion is that more people will pay to hear Axl sing the classics than would pay to hear Slash play them.
Completely valid opinion. I disagree (assuming Slash gets the name too), but we will never know who is right.
OK...assume Slash has the name but has 4 other hired hands around him (no Izzy or Duff). That is the only fair comparison to Axl's current situation with his hired hands. In this case, I think Axl would outsell Slash.
Now, if you took Slash, Duff, Izzy,either Popcorn or Sorum (plus say this Myles Kennedy guy) out as Guns N' Roses, then I think you would see it even.
Re: Slash album reviews
buzzsaw wrote:madagas wrote:in short, people will still pay good money to hear Axl Rose sing Guns N' Roses songs. Obviously, the large majority are there for the classics. My personal opinion is that more people will pay to hear Axl sing the classics than would pay to hear Slash play them.
Completely valid opinion. I disagree (assuming Slash gets the name too), but we will never know who is right.
OK...assume Slash has the name but has 4 other hired hands around him (no Izzy or Duff). That is the only fair comparison to Axl's current situation with his hired hands. In this case, I think Axl would outsell Slash.
Now, if you took Slash, Duff, Izzy,either Popcorn or Sorum (plus say this Myles Kennedy guy) out as Guns N' Roses, then I think you would see it even.
I think people are completely disregarding the effort Slash puts in to marketing. He did it in the old band when he was wasted, but he does a much better job of it now.
Lets discuss a more plauseable situation: It's 2010. Axl never keeps the name and goes out and does what he did without the name GnR and Slash does the same thing with his band. Both tour at the same time - Slash promotes his, Axl doesn't. What logical reason would there be for Axl outselling Slash in that case? I can't think of one unless you really think Axl has THAT many more fans than Slash does. Why would both bands being named GnR make that different?
