You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Slash on Piers Morgan
enough.....it has nothing to do with the "quality" of the music. Popular music is just that...popular. Try reading the definitions of the 2 words. Velvet Underground's first album sold less than CD and is one of the top ten most influential albums of all time. A fuckin awesome record. I don't think CD is anywhere near that but it is a solid album with a very coherent lyric theme. Again, I am not a big fan of the guitars but the keyboard work, lyrics, orchestration, bass and drums are pretty killer. The mess of guitars is the weak link. Just my 2.
You're wrong. It ABSOLUTELY has to do with the quality of the music. It's not like it didn't sell, so nobody heard it and it's great. It sold huge numbers in 2 weeks and people weren't impressed. You're comparing apples to oranges.
Re: Slash on Piers Morgan
I'm seriously not trying to start a fight here, bono, but you keep making shit up. I never said it was a "global success or an iconic album based on the music the way you pretend it is." Uh, the post you quoted me said I didn't think it was anything close to that. You should really read things before you attack them.
Making things up to make your point makes you look really bad, dude.
And talk about stating opinions as facts:
Bono wrote:FACT is there are more people who didn't give two shits about CD and then when they did hear it thought "meh" than those who praise it... Nobody gives a shit about CD anymore...Yes 2 million bought the album. Less than 2 million of those love it.
See, this is called conjecture that you're pushing as fact. I have no problem with your opinion, bono, but that's exactly what it is. I stated the album was critically well reviewed, which is a fact. You dismissed that. I stated the album and the single Better were voted one of best of the years in different categories (in more than one publication, btw), and that was a fact. You dismissed it. I stated the album sold 2 million copies, and you dismissed it with a very weak argument about why it really didn't count... Those were not my opinions. You're the one reading minds here, dude. Not me.
It's my opinion the original line up had nothing left in it. I can freely admit that's my opinion not a fact.
Bono wrote:And your joke of a statement that the last time they worked together they broke up is just stupid. they didn't do anything together. They all just quit. The last time they actually wrote and recorded together they created the Illusion albums so checkmate buddy.
And.... you just proved my point again. The last time they worked together to make music was in 1996. Again, during 1994 and 1996 they were working together and writing, even bringing in outside musicians to try and help "inspire" them, including Izzy, and they produced nothing, let alone anything magical. And they broke up. Oh, and fyi, the last time they recorded anything was "Sympathy For The Devil" and they didn't all just quit, they quit one at a time. So yes, they were working, and yes, they were writing, but no, just nothing magical.
Bono wrote:I'm curious to know how old you are man? Serioulsy. This weird love affair you have with the '02 lineup makes me think they were your first introduction to Gn'R and there was probably a time when you thought they were the ones who made AFD. You seriously act as though the '02 lineup is the definitive Guns N' Roses.
I'm 33. Saw the night WTTJ premiered on MTV. Stole my sisters copy of AFD because my parents wouldn't get it for me. Bought UYI and TSI? the days they came out. Hated hair metal and cock rock, but was a big alt rock fan. I know who recorded AFD. I've never said the 02 line up was the definitive, but it was my favorite, outside the original.
I've stated many times I was more an Axl fan than Slash fan and the 02 line up appealed to me. There you have it.
Now, have you ever had counseling over your anger problems and inability to handle differing opinions?
Bono wrote:The World would not have been kind to Gn'R in the 90's? Seriously dude get real. Had Gn'R released kickass rock record in 1996 the world would've ate it up and loved it. Badass rock never dies and I hate to break it to ya but YES it would've gone over well.
I appreciate and understand your love for that line up and period of time. I really do. Along with the other guys here. But, for that to have happened they would have had to release a kick ass album. Again, I don't see any proof that was happening or else they would have released one. That would be nice if they had that album in them, and if they do get back together one day I hope they can. And it's nice to dream about what ifs, like the 02 line ups potential, but at the end of the day, there was no kick ass "original line up" album left in the tank, from what I can tell, the inspiration was gone and they just didn't want to work with each other, just like there was no future for the 02 line up. You just have to move on, like i did. Bucket ain't coming back.
Same old shit from you. Anger issues? Hilarious. Your contineous passive aggressive remarks are so cliche by now. your weak attempts at trying to act diplomatic is such bullshit. You are so hell bent on glorifying new Gn'R/Axl at whatever cost. It's like reading a nutswinger's post on youtube. TERRIBLE. Nobody has ever dismissed the things you said or have pointed to. Did I ever once not acknowldege the critics reviews? No I haven't. I just don't look at them as the be all end all the way you do. Cause really who gives a shit what they say when the public spoke loud and clear. CD singles came and went with barely a whisper. The album sales fucking tanked after the first few weeks. Things you NEVER acknowldege. You NEVER acknowledge curiosity played a big part in all of it. In fact you often times deny it was even a factor. THAT is a dellusional thought process.
Newsflash ID you present your opinions in the same manner everyone else does. Yet most of us don't bitch and whine that you present them as fact because we have the common sense to understand you're expressing an opinion. Unfortunately you lack the capacity to understand, that unless it's prefaced with an "In my opinion", it's simply an opinion. You get offended because it's coming across as a fact to you becaue you didn't get the disclaimer. You are a huge hypocrit because you whine about others doing the very thing you do every day. You present your opinions as "facts". You give examples as proof just like others do yet only your examples are legit. The fact you think more people in this world loved CD than not speaks volumes to the bubble you live in dude. The fact you say the 90's wouldn't have been kind to Gn'R is such a load. 
You think I need anger management classes? Well dude you seriously need some sensitivity classes and need to learn how not to take things so personal. When talking about Axl we're not talking about you or your family dude.
Re: Slash on Piers Morgan
misterID wrote:You know, it's not just my opinion when CD got good reviews, was voted as one of the best albums of the year and Better voted as one of the best singles of the year by Rollingstone. It's not my opinion that the album sold over 2 million albums. You guys either ignore these facts and make up your own reasons for why it had any level of success along with an * to explain it away. I never said it was hugely popular. Not once. And I've stated that I'm talking about my own personal taste when it comes to the 02 line up. The 90s would not have been kind to GN'R, so I am glad they didn't put anything out, instead of just releasing something no one really had their heart into.
The fact is that it sold a lot the first 2 weeks and dropped off the face of the earth. If you don't think that the quality of the music had anything to do with that, it must be nice to live in your little world. It makes the rest of the discussion irrelevant. It doesn't matter what Rolling Stone thinks. It matters what the people that buy music think. They thought meh. It doesn't matter what you think either, because nobody is questioning what you think.
No, it's actually very relevant. You're reading minds again. A lot goes into why something doesn't do well, but CD did. Even though it was released in one store chain that wasn't wal mart, by a band that didn't promote it, a management that wanted it to fail, and an album where most of it leaked years before it was released. And tbh, nobody is questioning what you think.
Of the 2 million sold, 1.5 million was because of the name alone.
And you got these figures from... Making them up 
Come on now, come on.
You're wrong. It ABSOLUTELY has to do with the quality of the music. It's not like it didn't sell, so nobody heard it and it's great. It sold huge numbers in 2 weeks and people weren't impressed. You're comparing apples to oranges.
DRIVE barely made it's budget back. It debuted low and disappeared. Everyone says it was a great movie. It was voted one of the best movies of the year. And it was. And it's getting a sequel. What does it mean? Things happen that cause things to debut the way they do and it has nothing to do with quality. If all sales figures were based on quality modern radio would sound a whole lot better. Assuming people didn't like something after they bought it is just your opinion.
I mean, going by your guys logic, anything that isn't "Thriller," or debuts high, or stays on the chart for months, isn't good. That's stupid. So many great albums you're dismissing because it didn't chart "well enough." And I never took you for a Lady Gaga fan, Buzz. But you must be, because she has great music, and it's only great music because it was successful on the charts. So Lady Gaga is great.
CD didn't have a hit single. CDs creator was someone who dropped the ball releasing it. If we're making up numbers and reasons for things, you could absolutely make the case that people who were cuirous enough about the album ould have listened to it on MYSPACE or picked up a leak. Maybe... You have people yelling for new songs like TWAT at concerts. You have people singing along to Better and This I Love all around the world... Maybe, just maybe, those people who bought it, actually liked it?
Again, it didn't do staggering numbers. It wasn't a huge success. It didn't change the world. It was nothing special (sales-wise). But it was solid. And yet you guys seem obsessed with tearing it apart, tearing those numbers apart. Once ounce of success seems like it grates on you. It's weird.
Re: Slash on Piers Morgan
Newsflash ID you present your opinions in the same manner everyone else does. Yet most of us don't bitch and whine that you present them as fact because we have the common sense to understand you're expressing an opinion. Unfortunately you lack the capacity to understand, that unless it's prefaced with an "In my opinion", it's simply an opinion. You get offended because it's coming across as a fact to you becaue you didn't get the disclaimer. You are a huge hypocrit because you whine about others doing the very thing you do every day. You present your opinions as "facts". You give examples as proof just like others do yet only your examples are legit. The fact you think more people in this world loved CD than not speaks volumes to the bubble you live in dude. The fact you say the 90's wouldn't have been kind to Gn'R is such a load.
You think I need anger management classes? Well dude you seriously need some sensitivity classes and need to learn how not to take things so personal. When talking about Axl we're not talking about you or your family dude.
Awwwww
Re: Slash on Piers Morgan
buzzsaw wrote:misterID wrote:You know, it's not just my opinion when CD got good reviews, was voted as one of the best albums of the year and Better voted as one of the best singles of the year by Rollingstone. It's not my opinion that the album sold over 2 million albums. You guys either ignore these facts and make up your own reasons for why it had any level of success along with an * to explain it away. I never said it was hugely popular. Not once. And I've stated that I'm talking about my own personal taste when it comes to the 02 line up. The 90s would not have been kind to GN'R, so I am glad they didn't put anything out, instead of just releasing something no one really had their heart into.
The fact is that it sold a lot the first 2 weeks and dropped off the face of the earth. If you don't think that the quality of the music had anything to do with that, it must be nice to live in your little world. It makes the rest of the discussion irrelevant. It doesn't matter what Rolling Stone thinks. It matters what the people that buy music think. They thought meh. It doesn't matter what you think either, because nobody is questioning what you think.
No, it's actually very relevant. You're reading minds again. A lot goes into why something doesn't do well, but CD did. Even though it was released in one store chain that wasn't wal mart, by a band that didn't promote it, a management that wanted it to fail, and an album where most of it leaked years before it was released. And tbh, nobody is questioning what you think.
Smoking Guns wrote:Of the 2 million sold, 1.5 million was because of the name alone.
And you got these figures from... Making them up
buzzsaw wrote:You're wrong. It ABSOLUTELY has to do with the quality of the music. It's not like it didn't sell, so nobody heard it and it's great. It sold huge numbers in 2 weeks and people weren't impressed. You're comparing apples to oranges.
DRIVE barely made it's budget back. It debuted low and disappeared. Everyone says it was a great movie. It was voted one of the best movies of the year. And it was. And it's getting a sequel. What does it mean? Things happen that cause things to debut the way they do and it has nothing to do with quality. If all sales figures were based on quality modern radio would sound a whole lot better. Assuming people didn't like something after they bought it is just your opinion.
I mean, going by your guys logic, anything that isn't "Thriller," or debuts high, or stays on the chart for months, isn't good. That's stupid. So many great albums you're dismissing because it didn't chart "well enough." And I never took you for a Lady Gaga fan, Buzz. But you must be, because she has great music, and it's only great music because it was successful on the charts. So Lady Gaga is great.
CD didn't have a hit single. CDs creator was someone who dropped the ball releasing it. If we're making up numbers and reasons for things, you could absolutely make the case that people who were cuirous enough about the album ould have listened to it on MYSPACE or picked up a leak. Maybe... You have people yelling for new songs like TWAT at concerts. You have people singing along to Better and This I Love all around the world... Maybe, just maybe, those people who bought it, actually liked it?
Again, it didn't do staggering numbers. It wasn't a huge success. It didn't change the world. It was nothing special (sales-wise). But it was solid. And yet you guys seem obsessed with tearing it apart, tearing those numbers apart. Once ounce of success seems like it grates on you. It's weird.
it sold enough because of the name the first two weeks to get recognition if it was that good. Reviews would have gotten more people to check it out since they were positive. Nobody said music quality was why it didn't sell, we said it has something to do with it. That's not assuming, that's to be expected given the facts.
Re: Slash on Piers Morgan
Sky Dog wrote:enough.....it has nothing to do with the "quality" of the music. Popular music is just that...popular. Try reading the definitions of the 2 words. Velvet Underground's first album sold less than CD and is one of the top ten most influential albums of all time. A fuckin awesome record. I don't think CD is anywhere near that but it is a solid album with a very coherent lyric theme. Again, I am not a big fan of the guitars but the keyboard work, lyrics, orchestration, bass and drums are pretty killer. The mess of guitars is the weak link. Just my 2.
You're wrong. It ABSOLUTELY has to do with the quality of the music. It's not like it didn't sell, so nobody heard it and it's great. It sold huge numbers in 2 weeks and people weren't impressed. You're comparing apples to oranges.
You don't tell me I'm wrong!....meh. Have a nice weekend. Just played 4 hours of tennis and am headed to a Last Waltz viewing party. Virgil Cane is the name.....:cool:
Re: Slash on Piers Morgan
it sold enough because of the name the first two weeks to get recognition if it was that good. Reviews would have gotten more people to check it out since they were positive. Nobody said music quality was why it didn't sell, we said it has something to do with it. That's not assuming, that's to be expected given the facts.
If anything, the album should have sold more, it's surprising it sold as much as it did, given the facts of its release.
We're just in two different camps as to how strong the GN'R name is since the 90s flame out in the United States. I'm not saying it didn't help it, but I don't think it's as strong here as you guys might think.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Slash on Piers Morgan
You're all insane to me.
I can't believe people listen to songwriting like Madagascar, There was a Time etc and say that it's a weak album.
Slash has shat out so many killer GNR worthy riffs since the band broke up that it's starting to eclipse his GNR performances.
If Axl and Slash had been able to keep writing together and remained friends we would have albums that destroy AFD and UYI by now. At least in the studio both of them are playing better than in the 80s I think. Slash in chops, Axl in songwriting and passion.
Re: Slash on Piers Morgan
You're all insane to me.
I can't believe people listen to songwriting like Madagascar, There was a Time etc and say that it's a weak album.
Slash has shat out so many killer GNR worthy riffs since the band broke up that it's starting to eclipse his GNR performances.
If Axl and Slash had been able to keep writing together and remained friends we would have albums that destroy AFD and UYI by now. At least in the studio both of them are playing better than in the 80s I think. Slash in chops, Axl in songwriting and passion.
CD is a weak album. That was easy, especially when you use Madagascar as a selling point. CD has one GnR quality song on it. That's it. When you have 15 years to work on it and come up with one GnR quality song, that is the absolute definition of weak album.
Slash has certainly had some GnR worthy riffs, but overall his songs aren't all that strong either; expecially his first solo effort. VR was his best work imo (though I haven't listened to the new album yet) and I credit Duff with helping him get the songs to better places.
Slash is playing better than the 80s. That is clear. He's not playing better material than the 80s. Axl isn't singing better or writing better than the 80s. It's cool that you love the album, but I don't see how anyone in their right mind could make that claim. That may be the dumbest thing written here (and I like you monkey, sorry). The only thing that is crystal clear is that they both needed others helping them tinker with songs to get songs to an elite level.
Re: Slash on Piers Morgan
buzzsaw wrote:it sold enough because of the name the first two weeks to get recognition if it was that good. Reviews would have gotten more people to check it out since they were positive. Nobody said music quality was why it didn't sell, we said it has something to do with it. That's not assuming, that's to be expected given the facts.
If anything, the album should have sold more, it's surprising it sold as much as it did, given the facts of its release.
We're just in two different camps as to how strong the GN'R name is since the 90s flame out in the United States. I'm not saying it didn't help it, but I don't think it's as strong here as you guys might think.
There's nothing surprising about what it sold. It did exactly what I said it would do. It sold huge, got a lukewarm reception (yes, based partially on quality) and dropped off the face of the earth. Even the reviews couldn't get people to buy it. Word of mouth clearly wasn't happening, which would have happened if the people that bought it thought it was a great album). People have been going to shows hearing some of the music for 4 years and that hasn't helped any. I'm not sure how you can interpret that as anything other than people not being impressed with the material.
