mat35

iTrader: (1)

just wondering if anyone has their new album and there thoughts,i myself have been into them for the last 20 years or so,and i think they have lost the original sound,with no slash,whats peoples opinions.

Retro Al

iTrader: (1)

I thought the very same m8 some good tracks on there

RobL

its good more you listen to it the better it gets

callums

it does get better the more you play it not the same as old stuff but very good ,i went to see them in 06 thought was not going to any good without slash got to say they was just as good,lets see what they can do now

Alan_D

It's not really Guns and Roses now though, is it? More like Axl Rose just doing whatever he feels like doing.

Oranoco

Got it a while ago. It's certainly not the GNR of old but there are some pretty good tracks on there

gar mae

It could never be as good as the old stuff, but it's still a very good and enjoyable album.

Worth buying in my opinion

mat35

iTrader: (1)

ive only listened to it once just a bit mello from guns of old.ive listened to velvet revolver and they seem more like gnr of old

pete mcrash

iTrader: (1)

maybe it'll grow but i listened to the first 5 tracks and thought...........NEVER AGAIN

sm

as above ive been in to g'n'r since 1990 and the new album is good but i dont class them as g'n'r, velvet revolver are g'n'r, they are g'n'r without axel they have their sound just not axles vocals

RobL

some of them velvet revolver tunes wouldve been great done by the original guns n roses
i quite like velvet revolver but that frontman they just got rid off was a clown

Thrush

iTrader: (1)

Yeah, about 4 months ago.....

And as I keep telling people that go on about it not sounding like Guns N Roses - IT'S NOT GUNS N ROSES!. Think of it as Axl's solo project, or even as a whole new band with Axl on vocals!

When Rage Against The Machine split up and the three musician's from RATM formed Audioslave with Chris Cornell on vocals, that was Audioslave. NOT "Rage Against The Machine with a different vocalist"

And when Slash, Duff and Matt formed Velvet Revolver with Scott Weiland and Dave Kusner, that was Velvet Revolver - NOT "Guns N Roses with a couple of new people"

The only link to GnR's past is the name, simple as that. It's all new material, a new direction and a new sound with new musicians.....

I don't get why people don't get that

Thrush

iTrader: (1)

Just read some of the other replies - specifically the ones referencing VR sound like GnR.... Why do you think that is?

Because Slash has a very unique tone and playing style, and his songwriting is what gave GnR the sound we came to know and love. So naturally that sound carried over into VR. It also carried over in Slash's Snakepit - a lot of the tracks from "It's 5 o'clock Somewhere" sounded very GnR. So did some of the tracks from Duff's solo record "Believe in Me" - mainly cos Duff wrote them all, and Slash co-wrote a few and played on many.....

Axl did used to contribute to GnR's songs back in the day, mainly lyrically, but he's also musically talented so did contribute a lot with arrangements and melodies, but he himself expressed that Chinese Democracy was a change of direction, musically, so it will never sound like Appetite, or the Illusion records.....

Oranoco

Cos Slash, Duff and Matt from GNR are in VR

skeg

Agreed gets better the more you play it like many albums. I've seen the 'new' GnR and Velvet Rolver and I know which was the best to watch by a country mile.

Velvet are shit really, the first album was quite good with some good tracks and Slash on form but that tit on the front just ruins it. His gay arm movements when he performs live as well is just annoying and he'll never be a top frontman IMO whilst the people Axl got in are top musicians in fact better than Slash in some cases. The latest Velvet album is poor and all Slash's solo's sound the same.

The band IS STILL Guns n Roses but Axl has done things (even more) his way and he's older now, times have changed. People need to get over the old stuff and lineup because clearly Axl has proved its 'easier' to replace them than him. Bands replace people all the time and go on, Metallica, AC/DC, Oasis have replaced all of them almost. Let's be honest as good as they were back then doing all those world tours pushing the albums its only really Slash people miss or go on about. Adler the original drummer was replaced in the classic lineup.

Even Matt Sorum the drummer said once he joined them from The Cult that he thought he was joining a rock n roll band but started seeing all this piano stuff and that was way back then. Axl's way.

Thrush

iTrader: (1)

Yes thank you for pointing that out, I hadn't realised

Alan_D

Actually Metallica have only ever replaced 2 bassists since 'Kill 'em All'. The first of which died.

Thrush

iTrader: (1)

ROFL @ "easier to replace them than him (Axl)"

They all fucked off and left him And Axl sat on his arse for 15+yrs wondering wtf the do Whilst the other "members" went out and formed a new band and were very successfull.

And yes, I also think Weiland is a twat, and stand behind my original statement I made YEARS ago they should have got Cornell instead.... Would have been a MUCH better line up, and I think Cornell would have been much better suited to VR than Audioslave....

skeg

So me saying they have replaced band members is not true then?

skeg

Who cares about the time frame, I'm talking about the bands live and when I saw G n R they did their new stuff well and the old stuff too but Velvet are just not as good. The new album is also better than theirs IMO, definitely their second one.

No doubt you'll come back with some other stuff as you could read out an essay or debate in a dark empty room.

Thrush

iTrader: (1)

Not really no - you're entitled to your opinion as much as anyone else, and if you think the new "GnR" album is better than the last VR album then thats your perogative...

I was merely picking at "fact" about replacing former members, and the suggestion that VR are a shit band, even tho they've managed to be be pretty damn successfull...

And I'm not even a VR fan! (can't stand Weiland, same as when he was in STP)

COCHYN

We discussed this album a while back didn't we, shared the same opinions too. I believe it went a little like....

skeg

Sure but I was talking about Axl proving it easier to replace them than him from a performance front whilst you focused on how long it took him years wise. Big fan of Slash but it doesn't matter weather he's there or not really just that those songs will have a slightly different style. The fact that Axl was like you say in the wilderness for years then simply strolls into Leeds Festival headlines with a whole new lineup and a guy with a KFC bucket on his head and STILL people queue up in thousands to see them should back up my point. Velvet did lots of shows but not in the same league/demand and he didn't even have to bother with the Reading half either in the deal like other bands.

Irrelevant IMO, West life, Boy Zone, Take that, Girls aloud, Steps all sold shit loads but how many lads on here let alone the country would say they were good. Everything has a market even if its crap you should know that being a fan of those phones.

Maybe I put shit, was harsh, but I meant that I liked the first album a fair bit and thought they were alright enough to go see them but being into guitar if I was honest it was only Slash that drew me in and no doubt a good few people would say the same. I listen to Snakepit also and for me they are better.

Thrush

iTrader: (1)

Sorry I still dissagree... I don't see it as "Axl has replaced the rest of the band" in the same way that you don't see it as Slash, Matt and Duff "replaced" Axl with Weiland....

No-one has replaced anyone - the band SPLIT. Simple as that. The majority fucked off and left Axl, and it just so happens that several members chose to do another project together....

But Axl hasn't "replaced" them has he? Jason Newstead didn't replace James Lars and Kirk by forming Echobrain, but Metallica DID replace Jason with Rob...

It's splitting hairs really, but just trying to get my point across.....

As to being successfull whilst being shit - just cos you don't like a certain group or certain style doesn't mean they are shit. ONe mand hell is another mans heaven. I don't like rap, but that doesn't mean Jay-Z is shit - Jay-Z is AMAZING at what he does. I don't like tenny bopper girl bands, but I do think Girls Aloud are SUPERB at what they do. They're not shit, I just don't like them.

There are however groups that ARE shit. Which is why the fail, break up or disappear... Countless pop acts have tried to make it and failed - cos they were shit. Countless rock and metal bands tried to make it and failed - cos they were shit.

But the major majority of currently and previously successful groups, be it pop, punk, rock, funk, hip hop, jazz, drum n bass, etc etc etc have made it because they have talent and people like them. So that means they are obviously NOT shit.

As I previously pointed out - I am not a fan of VR. I got the first album, mainly on the strength of the single "Slither", and listened to it maybe only a dozen times? Some good tracks, couple I really like, but on the whole, it won't get getting a lot of playtime.....

But I won't have that they are "shit" based on opinion, when in "fact" they have been successful because they have talent and as such a fan base......

TrevCos

iTrader: (1)

I've got it and I found it too mellow. It's not a patch on Appetite For Destruction, definitely one of my all time favourites.

cabrio zo

I don't like it (having only heard it a couple of times through) I can't be bothered to expand upon that as to why, I just don't

Z

RS-Stian

iTrader: (1)

As the big GN'R fan I am I think the new album is good but nothing more than that. I often listen to those old songs like Estranged, Patience and the masterpiece of an album 'Appetite for Destruction', and it's still even nowadays makes me get goose bumps and let my thoughts fly away. But I doubt that any of the new songs will do that when I listen to them fifteen years later from now.

Songs like Chinese Democracy and Better is the definitely two highlights on this album but I would say that if you listen to it several times there are some other pretty ok songs too.

Btw, has anyone noticed a part in the song 'Madagascar' (after about 3 mins) where it minds you of one of their old songs? I think it's taken from Civil War.

skeg

You see there you go on about other stuff again, I don't care about fine details of how they ended up in two different bands or how long it took that's just you arguing every single word I choose to use. What I was saying is that if you stuck a stage in a field with Guns and another near it with Velvet most would go to see Guns. It was only ever Slash and Axl really who people loved, yes before you find another argument no doubt people or bass players admired Duff or Matt etc but there is only 2 original members in Velvet anyway. Go see Guns live and you get one of the best frontmen ever running about with top musicians who can play songs well new and old. Go so Velvet and you get top musicians with a tit at the front and a weaker catalogue of songs. Its not like they can just do Guns songs is it all night!!!!

I'm looking at my hard copy of the Contraband album now, it has a sticker on the front saying "with Ex guns members Slash and Duff" if they were that good and sure of their songs and future they wouldn't need to do that, IMO.

I'm not on about fucking J Z I'm on about Steps and the like. You telling me Steps are good or talented. Most of the 'groups' I mentioned don't have song writters or even many people who can play an instrument.

I get what you're trying to say and sure its not my taste but I was just proving your point of successful doesn't mean someone is good. Steps had loads of fans and kids buying their shit, high in the charts but they are SHIT SHIT SHIT! Girls aloud were picked out of a room pretty much and Simon Cowell has proved you (he) could make anyone have a song in the charts. I know you're as stubborn as me at times, nothing you can say will prove otherwise. The fact that you're arguing about Steps and Girls aloud now putting up defences shows what you're like.

Thrush

iTrader: (1)

Lol, if Steps were all "shit" then they would never had made it past one record. They had to have SOMETHING in order to continue being top of the charts.... Do you disagree?

As for Going to a "new" Guns gig or a VR gig - personally I'd go to neither. As said I am not a fan of VR, tho I might be sorely tempted to go to see Slash do what he does. As for "new" Guns - Axl WAS one of rocks greatest frontmen - I just don't think he is anymore. Just like Seb Back from Skid Row was an AWESOME vocalist and perfect frontman for a hard rock band, he doesn't have that "magic" anymore. And, IMO, Axl doesn't either....

skeg

OK mate, I'll agree with you about Steps having something if you agree that Simon Cowell could make anyone have a song in the charts if he wanted. Hows that for a catch 22.

P.S stop going overdrive with the speech marks, I visualise you sat there doing it with your fingers every time and just want to shout YANK.

Thrush

iTrader: (1)

I can go with that. Cowell is a very talented man, and has, on hand, a superb team of song writers, lyricists, stylists, etc etc etc.

Now Pete Waterman proved you really could put ANYONE on top of the charts with The Reynolds Girls - even he states they had fuck all talent and it was a bet to see if it could be done. hence why they had one hit song and then no more...

However, on the whole, Cowell generally only picks people that DO have talent, and then makes them a star....

So sure, Girls Aloud were hand picked, but the fact they have been so damn successful is not only attributed to the songs that have been written for them, but they have to have a talent themselves in order to pull it off *












*I wish Girls Aloud would pull me off

Thrush

iTrader: (1)

What?