Velvet Revolver Forum

Other Music => Guns N' Roses => Topic started by: Spidervein on January 14, 2008, 03:57:20 PM

Title: ???
Post by: Spidervein on January 14, 2008, 03:57:20 PM
besides Axl doing some vocals on Bach's album
whats up with GNR??? anything???
Title: Re: ???
Post by: AxlReznor on January 14, 2008, 04:19:33 PM
Bach's recorded on the new GN'R record... Bumblefoot's currently recording a new solo album... Tommy was touring with Soul Asylum again a while ago (dunno if the tour's still going)... Frank's started playing in the new version of the band, Pisser (a band he used to be in with Richard Fortus, and includes their bandmate from Honky Toast - Eric J. Toast - as singer)... and the album's apparently been handed in to Geffen, who are now arguing with Axl over the best way to promote it... the first part at least has been confirmed by Mysteron on HTGTH (probably the closest thing to an insider there is, though he's been wrong before).
Title: Re: ???
Post by: Kriss on January 17, 2008, 03:24:03 AM
Im certain it will come out this year because now it defies all logic to hold it longer.

Was i certain last year? yes. The year before? Yup...
Title: Re: ???
Post by: AxlReznor on January 17, 2008, 04:01:50 AM
People have actually made some pretty strong arguments about why Geffen might choose not to release it.  That being that CD's aren't selling as well as they were when they first pumped all of that money into its recording, and in the current musical climate it'd be impossible for the album to be profitable, so they'll instead concentrate their efforts on other things that they're sure will make the money back.
Eddie Trunk has heard that Geffen are trying to sell the rights to release the record, but no one's buying.  Not exactly an inside source, but Eddie usually knows what he's talking about.
Title: Re: ???
Post by: Kriss on January 17, 2008, 05:30:23 AM
Surely poor sales are better than no sales at all?

I recon Geffen are underestimately how popular this record will be. Surely libertad sold a couple of million right? CD is so much bigger than Libertad.
Title: Re: ???
Post by: Just_Me on January 17, 2008, 09:12:05 AM
I don't think Libertad had even gone platinum when people stopped posting sales figures. Which is silly because it's a fantastic album, but there you go.

I do have to agree that it'd make more sense for them to put it out though. At the moment if they don't release it they loose $13 million, end of story. If they put it out then yes they'll have to pay more to have copies printed and sent out but relatively speaking it won't be that much money and they should make at least some of that back. I doubt they'll ever see a profit on it, but it would reduce the loss.

I could understand if they didn't want to do a massive advertising campain for it, because then they would be in danger of loosing more money, but I suspect they'll get a lot of free marketing for it anyway just from magazines running stories and reviews and word of mouth. Esspecially if the band goes out on tour again.
Alternatively it wouldn't suprise me if Axl decided to pay for advertising himself if Geffen refused. He's already paid for the last 4 years of recording.

I'd be very, very suprised if we never get to hear it though. If Geffen do refuse to put it out I suspect Axl will find some way to get out of his contact with them and then release it himself. I'm pretty sure it's actually his company, Black Frog, that holds the rights to it anyway and Axl is not going to have put all this work into it just to give up at the last minute when he's finally decided it's ready.
Title: Re: ???
Post by: _ on January 17, 2008, 04:46:36 PM
the release of the greatest hits would have made millions back for geffen.
Title: Re: ???
Post by: Just_Me on January 18, 2008, 04:07:48 AM
Thats true, but are they going to treat that as compensation for CD or as a seperate thing that has nothing to do with it?

Before the Greatest Hits came out Geffen had made an estimated $80 million from GNR, and obviously it's gone up since then. But they could be insisting on looking at each album individually rather than treating the whole back catalogue as one thing. If only because it'd justify making Axl pay for marketing or something.
Title: Re: ???
Post by: _ on January 18, 2008, 08:01:00 PM
i think they used the threat of a greatest hits to try an make axl finish CD, which didn't work, so they released it to make back money they'd spent on the new album.
Title: Re: ???
Post by: stone_roses on January 21, 2008, 04:47:37 AM
With how lousy cd sales are look at it this way

Samashing Pumpkins new disk-- was a hit and a hit tour didnt even go gold
Lifehouse-Two top 20 hits didnt go gold,
Puddle Of Mudd-a number one hit and a top 5 hit didnt even go gold..

the cd market is a bust right now, with people bootlegging music so much, and the fact is bands and labels are all losing money

i know it is a horrid thing,but they mite shelf the album till the market is doing better...
Title: Re: ???
Post by: duffydack on January 21, 2008, 04:52:54 AM
they should like ask everyone who wants to buy it to put down a deposit and see how many people wanna buy it, then if there is enough revenue to be made they might say to axl get your chinese finger out of your a..
dumb idea i know, im full of em
Title: Re: ???
Post by: _ on January 21, 2008, 12:31:21 PM
very dumb considering the record company have the album now, axl's done his part.
Title: Re: ???
Post by: duffydack on January 21, 2008, 12:40:58 PM
i wasnt actually serious, just throwin stuff "out there"

whose word do you have that the album is done.  tbh ive not been keepin up on C.D events since the last let down.. too many lies and rumours have killed most my interest.
Title: Re: ???
Post by: _ on January 21, 2008, 01:11:38 PM
fortus.
Title: Re: ???
Post by: perfect_spy on January 21, 2008, 06:28:23 PM
If all bands on releasing an album put on something like 15 to 16 songs then most people would buy it. VR, QotSA and Jack Johnson do this. If others followed suit then the Cd market wouldn't be down. Bringing out ten songs would allow people to just illegally download it. With 15-16 songs they would most probably buy it thinking what a great bargain it is. There could be a few live edtion songs from previous albums, in short the Cd has to give an incentive.
Title: Re: ???
Post by: duffydack on January 22, 2008, 03:54:00 AM
price is an issue.  the profit on 1 cd is ludicrous.  but thats a whole other topic (who gets the majority of it and who doesnt/should)
Title: Re: ???
Post by: AxlReznor on January 22, 2008, 03:57:30 AM
I'm hoping Axl will find a way to get out of the contract, and then do a Radiohead and put it online for a couple of months for people to pay what they want for it while he negotiates a deal to get the album released with other people.  Not another recording contract... just a distribution deal.
Title: Re: ???
Post by: scottyh on January 22, 2008, 12:38:36 PM
With how lousy cd sales are look at it this way

Samashing Pumpkins new disk-- was a hit and a hit tour didnt even go gold
Lifehouse-Two top 20 hits didnt go gold,
Puddle Of Mudd-a number one hit and a top 5 hit didnt even go gold..

I'm sorry, but those are three terrible examples. The Smashing Pumpkins record had one hit, and then a bunch of negative reviews to contend with. The tour did will, so they made money off of that. Lifehouse and Puddle of Mudd never broke any sales records in the first place with previous albums, nor were their records expected to do much. I think those two especially were about on par with expectations. There are records out there that are performing well (Radiohead, Foo Fighters, The Killers, etc.)

Like AxlReznor said, throw the album out online a la Radiohead, let it build word of mouth, people will still come back to buy it. 2.4 million people got the Radiohead album when it was available online. They're on pace to pass the Gold mark in the U.S. after just 3 weeks on the charts after In Rainbows was released as an actual physical album. That's with limited radio play, btw.
Title: Re: ???
Post by: Vietnow138 on January 22, 2008, 04:55:50 PM
The new Eagles album already went 7x platnuim and it has only been out for about 3 months, and like scottyh  said thats not the only album selling well right now
Title: Re: ???
Post by: Just_Me on January 23, 2008, 06:01:23 AM
If all bands on releasing an album put on something like 15 to 16 songs then most people would buy it. VR, QotSA and Jack Johnson do this. If others followed suit then the Cd market wouldn't be down. Bringing out ten songs would allow people to just illegally download it. With 15-16 songs they would most probably buy it thinking what a great bargain it is. There could be a few live edtion songs from previous albums, in short the Cd has to give an incentive.
I'm not convinced that it really makes that much difference. Casual fans are rarely interested in that sort of thing and the more hardcore fans who would be are likely to already know where to get all that sort of stuff for free online, and are likely to be buying the CD anyway so it won't make any diffrence.

For example I've got Oasis and Reel Big Fish albums with bonus DVD's I've never watched, even the videos that came with Libertad I've watched maybe once or twice at most.
I think the only album I bought where the bonus content was worthwhile was Thank You by STP and that's largely because they never got very popular over here so it's the only way I'd get to see most their videos.
Title: Re: ???
Post by: jmapelian on January 23, 2008, 06:53:56 AM
It really makes absolutely no sense not to release when they have so much money invested.  They may not make it all back on the first album but aren't there 3 albums worth of material? So you release one each year for the next 3 years and tour the shit out of the album and hope for the best.  Better to get some return on the investment than nothing right?
Title: Re: ???
Post by: Mr Joshua on January 23, 2008, 09:38:41 AM
Hows about this, they dont release the album.........until the original band gets together and tours, i bet it would sell like hot cakes then!! :o
Title: Re: ???
Post by: duffydack on January 23, 2008, 11:09:17 AM
heard on kerrang radio that the album was finished well before xmas but they are thinkin about releasing in a different way..... 
then the guy who is sayin all this says "maybe like radiohead where the fans decide what price to put on it or something."

Just release the damn thing, hasnt it been long enough already
Title: Re: ???
Post by: seely on February 11, 2008, 04:20:01 AM

whats up with GNR??? anything???

Well thats the million pound question!!!!
Title: Re: ???
Post by: HEKSEN on February 11, 2008, 10:11:49 PM
I've heard "Angel Down".

About "BAck in the Saddle"...
put two cats in an bag... and shake it!

That's how it sounds.
Title: Re: ???
Post by: Spidervein on February 13, 2008, 03:34:14 PM
lol
that whole album is just a bunch of bad screaming
Title: Re: ???
Post by: Captain Tophat on February 13, 2008, 03:45:21 PM
lol
that whole album is just a bunch of bad screaming

BRILLIANCE!
Title: Re: ???
Post by: DocLovett on February 18, 2008, 07:30:36 PM
whats up with GNR??? anything???
GNR ceased to exist in about 1996 or so...Axl occasionally goes out with a bunch of hired guns and diminishes the legacy a little further...rumors continue to swirl about a so called GNR record that has taken a ridiculous amount of time and money and has one original GNR member...did I leave anything out?
Title: Re: ???
Post by: vfly79 on February 18, 2008, 07:43:10 PM
whats up with GNR??? anything???
GNR ceased to exist in about 1996 or so...Axl occasionally goes out with a bunch of hired guns and diminishes the legacy a little further...rumors continue to swirl about a so called GNR record that has taken a ridiculous amount of time and money and has one original GNR member...did I leave anything out?
Nice to see that you joined over here,Doc.Brilliant post. :lol:
Title: Re: ???
Post by: DocLovett on February 18, 2008, 07:45:07 PM
whats up with GNR??? anything???
GNR ceased to exist in about 1996 or so...Axl occasionally goes out with a bunch of hired guns and diminishes the legacy a little further...rumors continue to swirl about a so called GNR record that has taken a ridiculous amount of time and money and has one original GNR member...did I leave anything out?
Nice to see that you joined over here,Doc.Brilliant post. :lol:

Good to see ya vfly, how ya been?
Title: Re: ???
Post by: vfly79 on February 18, 2008, 07:47:53 PM
Good and you?

To stay on topic....I agree with everything that you mentioned about Axl's hired Guns. :lol: GN'R died when Izzy left so like '91 or '92(?) My opinion,though. :D
Title: Re: ???
Post by: DocLovett on February 18, 2008, 07:51:35 PM
Good and you?

To stay on topic....I agree with everything that you mentioned about Axl's hired Guns. :lol: GN'R died when Izzy left so like '91 or '92(?) My opinion,though. :D

Yeah, I was tryin' to be nice to the Gilby contingent...I like Gilby quite a bit, mostly his non GNR stuff though...Izzy was the songwriting backbone in GNR IMO.
Title: Re: ???
Post by: vfly79 on February 18, 2008, 07:59:11 PM
^^Most definitely.I like Gilby,too.His Non GN'R stuff is great.Izzy's stuff is always great. :D
Title: Re: ???
Post by: DocLovett on February 18, 2008, 08:31:35 PM
Izzy is the man.
Title: Re: ???
Post by: AxlReznor on February 19, 2008, 01:10:32 PM
 :roll:  Here we go again.
Title: Re: ???
Post by: duffydack on February 19, 2008, 01:14:47 PM
Good and you?

To stay on topic....I agree with everything that you mentioned about Axl's hired Guns. :lol: GN'R died when Izzy left so like '91 or '92(?) My opinion,though. :D

izzy was never a one man Gnr, and neither is Axl, even if he likes to think HE is Gnr..  its a band effort and to say otherwise is a kick in the teeth to Slash, duff and steven.
Title: Re: ???
Post by: _ on February 19, 2008, 01:22:27 PM
whats up with GNR??? anything???
GNR ceased to exist in about 1996 or so...Axl occasionally goes out with a bunch of hired guns and diminishes the legacy a little further...rumors continue to swirl about a so called GNR record that has taken a ridiculous amount of time and money and has one original GNR member...did I leave anything out?

yes you missed out the fact that you are clearly a moron, and have your head shoved so far up your own ass that you've failed to notice guns n roses recently toured the world selling out shows on 4 continents. also getting great reviews for the vast majority of their shows.
Title: Re: ???
Post by: DocLovett on February 19, 2008, 01:28:32 PM
whats up with GNR??? anything???
GNR ceased to exist in about 1996 or so...Axl occasionally goes out with a bunch of hired guns and diminishes the legacy a little further...rumors continue to swirl about a so called GNR record that has taken a ridiculous amount of time and money and has one original GNR member...did I leave anything out?

yes you missed out the fact that you are clearly a moron, and have your head shoved so far up your own ass that you've failed to notice guns n roses recently toured the world selling out shows on 4 continents. also getting great reviews for the vast majority of their shows.

No I was completely aware of a tribute band led by an egomaniac who THINKS he's Guns N Roses touring recently, and I'm also aware that most of us old enough to have seen the real thing were appalled...so he's fooling a bunch of kids who never saw the real thing, good for him. It's still a lie, no matter how many youngsters believe it.
Title: Re: ???
Post by: Just_Me on February 19, 2008, 01:35:47 PM
Actually, I don't know if this is representative of all the shows but one thing that really stood out for me when I saw them in Wembley was that I seemed to be one of the youngest there, and I was 21 at the time.
Title: Re: ???
Post by: Captain Tophat on February 19, 2008, 01:41:35 PM
hey now age has fuck all to do with it.



that's all I have to say.

*steps out*
Title: Re: ???
Post by: AxlReznor on February 19, 2008, 01:48:11 PM
Actually, I don't know if this is representative of all the shows but one thing that really stood out for me when I saw them in Wembley was that I seemed to be one of the youngest there, and I was 21 at the time.

And not only that, all of those older people looked like they were enjoying it as much as anyone else.  Even during the new songs... though they didn't get as good as a reaction as the hits, but no new song does from any band.
Title: Re: ???
Post by: DocLovett on February 19, 2008, 01:51:06 PM
Actually, I don't know if this is representative of all the shows but one thing that really stood out for me when I saw them in Wembley was that I seemed to be one of the youngest there, and I was 21 at the time.

Just check the 'net, the folks defending Axl the most, claiming that this IS GNR because Axl says so are mostly born after AFD was released...which means if they ever saw the real band they were what, 5? I'm not saying the band doesn't rock, I'm sure it does. I'm not saying the shows aren't good, most of what I've read leads me to believe they're very good. They just AREN'T Guns N Roses. Guns N Roses was a great band, a unique bunch of characters that released one of the most perfect Rock and Roll records, at the perfect time, and went on to play a phenomenal bunch of killer, slightly dangerous rock n roll shows across the world before drugs, egos and stupidity tore them apart. Axl is an incredibly talented fellow, who is also obviously very troubled by insecurity...this is a solo act, or a new band if you actually believe he's not calling all the shots, and shouldn't be diminishing the legacy he built WITH Slash, Izzy, Duff, Steven, and to a somewhat lesser degree Matt and Gilby. It's an embarrassment.
Title: Re: ???
Post by: DocLovett on February 19, 2008, 01:52:50 PM
Good and you?

To stay on topic....I agree with everything that you mentioned about Axl's hired Guns. :lol: GN'R died when Izzy left so like '91 or '92(?) My opinion,though. :D

izzy was never a one man Gnr, and neither is Axl, even if he likes to think HE is Gnr..  its a band effort and to say otherwise is a kick in the teeth to Slash, duff and steven.

That is EXACTLY what I've been saying.
Title: Re: ???
Post by: AxlReznor on February 19, 2008, 01:57:22 PM
I'm sure Izzy wouldn't be happy playing with a band he felt was diminishing a legacy he helped build. ;)
Title: Re: ???
Post by: Captain Tophat on February 19, 2008, 02:07:34 PM
egos :roll:


what would Freud say about all this!?!?!?!
Title: Re: ???
Post by: AxlReznor on February 19, 2008, 02:11:15 PM
That the reason for the breakdown of their friendship is somehow deeply connected to their lustful feelings for their mothers?  It's what Freud said about everything. :lol:
Title: Re: ???
Post by: Captain Tophat on February 19, 2008, 02:14:34 PM
EXACTLY!!!


*austrian accent*

So, vat ees de problem?
Title: Re: ???
Post by: JAC on February 19, 2008, 02:19:39 PM
Just check the 'net, the folks defending Axl the most, claiming that this IS GNR because Axl says so are mostly born after AFD was released...

You'll probably find alot of fans who use forums for any band are of that approximate age. Age is irrelevant.

If you want to say younger fans are missing the point, its like saying older fans are stuck in the past. It works both ways, bringing the age of those with respective views as an attempt to justify one over the other is ridiculous.


Title: Re: ???
Post by: Captain Tophat on February 19, 2008, 02:20:47 PM
Pulling the age card never works.
Title: Re: ???
Post by: DocLovett on February 19, 2008, 02:24:55 PM
whats up with GNR??? anything???
GNR ceased to exist in about 1996 or so...Axl occasionally goes out with a bunch of hired guns and diminishes the legacy a little further...rumors continue to swirl about a so called GNR record that has taken a ridiculous amount of time and money and has one original GNR member...did I leave anything out?

yes you missed out the fact that you are clearly a moron, and have your head shoved so far up your own ass that you've failed to notice guns n roses recently toured the world selling out shows on 4 continents. also getting great reviews for the vast majority of their shows.

And there's really no need for name calling just because we disagree here Alan, if you wanna go ahead and support Axl, that's fine, I really don't care...in the big picture none of this really means a damn thing does it?
Title: Re: ???
Post by: duffydack on February 19, 2008, 02:39:24 PM
Gnr`s recent success touring i put down to, basically, being out of the picture for soooooo long, and for having a whole load of fans grow up in between that time to, well. become fans to wanna go see em.. and since they aint gonna see the old band, they`ll happily go see the nu band..  and why not, nothing wrong with it if axl pulls the old songs off stilll tho ive yet to see/hear a boot of any of the new stuff, done to "so called" studio quality.. im quite unimpressed with the "live" new stuff so far.
New stuff i like btw
Title: Re: ???
Post by: _ on February 20, 2008, 03:48:41 AM
whats up with GNR??? anything???
GNR ceased to exist in about 1996 or so...Axl occasionally goes out with a bunch of hired guns and diminishes the legacy a little further...rumors continue to swirl about a so called GNR record that has taken a ridiculous amount of time and money and has one original GNR member...did I leave anything out?

yes you missed out the fact that you are clearly a moron, and have your head shoved so far up your own ass that you've failed to notice guns n roses recently toured the world selling out shows on 4 continents. also getting great reviews for the vast majority of their shows.

And there's really no need for name calling just because we disagree here Alan

the name calling isn't because we disagree, it's about how you presented yourself in this section in a topic which you really had no cause to post in. the post was antagonistic, and moronic and from what you posted since (the age thing) i think i was also right about you having your head up your ass.
Title: Re: ???
Post by: DocLovett on February 20, 2008, 11:36:12 AM
whats up with GNR??? anything???
GNR ceased to exist in about 1996 or so...Axl occasionally goes out with a bunch of hired guns and diminishes the legacy a little further...rumors continue to swirl about a so called GNR record that has taken a ridiculous amount of time and money and has one original GNR member...did I leave anything out?

yes you missed out the fact that you are clearly a moron, and have your head shoved so far up your own ass that you've failed to notice guns n roses recently toured the world selling out shows on 4 continents. also getting great reviews for the vast majority of their shows.

And there's really no need for name calling just because we disagree here Alan

the name calling isn't because we disagree, it's about how you presented yourself in this section in a topic which you really had no cause to post in. the post was antagonistic, and moronic and from what you posted since (the age thing) i think i was also right about you having your head up your ass.

So, when Mick Jagger tours with five new guys and calls it The Rolling Stones I can put you down for tix? My opinion is my opinion, and as a huge fan of Guns N Roses I have a right to post in a topic on them anytime I like. And the age thing may be irrelevent, but I know a shitload of people around my age who loved GNR and think what Axl is doing is slimy. I think I've stated my case quite clearly, and for you to retort with calling me a moron rather than an intelligent debate rather proves my point don't you think?
Title: Re: ???
Post by: duffydack on February 20, 2008, 02:18:53 PM
Hmm
stolen without permission and i loved every second of it.. from Knac.com

Author of New Unauthorized Biography of Axl Rose on New GN'R Material: "Put It All Out Online"

Tim Brouk of Lafayette's daily newspaper Journal & Courier recently had a chat with British rock journalist Mick Wall who just released his new biography of Axl Rose in the U.S.

To many, Axl Rose is Lafayette's most famous native son.

Yet for the past 15 years, the Guns N' Roses frontman's music career has been surrounded by mystery and wonder.

A new book, W.A.R.: The Unauthorized Biography of William Axl Rose, by Mick Wall, attempts to reveal the reclusive singer's life and work that is often surrounded by controversy and drama. Is there still a Guns N' Roses? Will Rose's way-too-long anticipated album, Chinese Democracy, ever come out?

"Axl turned 46 last Wednesday (February 6)," said Wall from his country home outside of London. "The last time he released an album of original material he was 29. Now he is closer to 50. The Beatles' career started and was over in half that time."

Wall said Rose has "50 or 60 tracks recorded, enough for three or four CDs" and those leaked online or on bootlegs have been well-received from GNR fans.

"Officially put it out all online," Wall suggested. "Here it is. Take it or leave it. Then just move on. Put them out. It's a sign of madness that it has taken this long. It was kind of cool crazy in 2002 when he started to tour again. Now it's uncool crazy.

"The tracks I've heard, a lot of it is really good but the whole mystique is wearing away."
Title: Re: ???
Post by: Captain Tophat on February 20, 2008, 03:37:54 PM
Hmm
stolen without permission and i loved every second of it.. from Knac.com


haha :lol:
Title: Re: ???
Post by: AxlReznor on February 20, 2008, 03:57:12 PM
When it comes to Guns N' Roses (and Axl in particular), I don't listen to a word Mick Wall says.
Title: Re: ???
Post by: Just_Me on February 21, 2008, 12:45:51 PM
Actually, I don't know if this is representative of all the shows but one thing that really stood out for me when I saw them in Wembley was that I seemed to be one of the youngest there, and I was 21 at the time.

Just check the 'net, the folks defending Axl the most, claiming that this IS GNR because Axl says so are mostly born after AFD was released...which means if they ever saw the real band they were what, 5? I'm not saying the band doesn't rock, I'm sure it does. I'm not saying the shows aren't good, most of what I've read leads me to believe they're very good. They just AREN'T Guns N Roses. Guns N Roses was a great band, a unique bunch of characters that released one of the most perfect Rock and Roll records, at the perfect time, and went on to play a phenomenal bunch of killer, slightly dangerous rock n roll shows across the world before drugs, egos and stupidity tore them apart. Axl is an incredibly talented fellow, who is also obviously very troubled by insecurity...this is a solo act, or a new band if you actually believe he's not calling all the shots, and shouldn't be diminishing the legacy he built WITH Slash, Izzy, Duff, Steven, and to a somewhat lesser degree Matt and Gilby. It's an embarrassment.
But none of that has anything at all to do with the age of the people at the shows.

I didn't say anything about whether this band is or is not really GNR (have a look through some other topics on this section for my opinion on that), I also didn't say anything about how good they are or are not.

All I said is it's not valid to claim that people only went to see them because they were too young to have seen the original band.

And the age of people defending them on the internet will always be biased because the fact is the majority of people on any internet forum will be in their teens and 20's. (There might be exceptions but that's true for the 20+ forums I'm a member of, regardless of their purpose.) Therefore the chances are the majority of people in any group within a forum will also be within those age brackets. There are however plenty of younger people who don't feel the new band can live up to the old one and plenty of older people who do.

If anything it'd make more sense to argue it the other way - people who have seen the old line-up will be comparing a real perfomance to another real performance, whereas people who haven't seen them will be comparing a real performance to what they imagine it would have been like, and I'd be very suprised if the real one stood a chance in hell of living up to their imagination.
Title: Re: ???
Post by: wangmaster on April 01, 2008, 06:08:47 AM
Im certain it will come out this year because now it defies all logic to hold it longer.


amen.

EDIT: I dig the new band, but its just not Guns N' Roses. Simple as.