killuridols

11 minutes ago, valengf said:

Claramente, la cagaron en la traducción para mi. Hay que escuchar el audio claro nada más.

Sip, pero el Twitter del pibe está abandonado, no se lo podemos pedir por ahí

I think Slash could have said "eventually" and not "finally".

3 minutes ago, Lio said:

Exactly. Pretty sure he said nothing new here.

It must be frustrating when you say: 'no GNR questions', and the clickbait title ends up being your manipulated answer to a question about GNR

Maybe he was pissed off about the GN'R question so he went full ASH HUDSON on it, saying the truly truth from the bottom of his heart!

He can always say he was misquoted anyway

45 minutes ago, soon said:

A trained media person like Slash might utilize it intentionally (or not)? It softens the blow of the negative.

Yeah, but he's always been utterly cautious of what he says about GN'R or the album, because he knows what kind of people he's dealing with

For some reason, I find it hard to believe that he would give such a definitive answer, especially when in a previous sentence he says everybody wants to do it .

Even in Spanish that part of his answer sounds a bit forced. So I'm not sure.

Been trying to get a hold of the journalist but he's nowhere to be found

36 minutes ago, Legendador said:

My bet on it:

I do speak Portuguese, but I understand Spanish and to me there's clearly a typo in the original interview.

The part that's turning everyone's heads upside down is:

A este punto, todos queremos hacer un disco nuevo. Eso es verdad. Pero de ahí a que efectivamente lo hagamos... no creo que finalmente suceda. Veremos qué pasa

"no creo" means something like "I don't think so..."

But the world "finalmente" or "finally" doesn't match with the entire sentence, which makes me think that he actually said something like:

A este punto, todos queremos hacer un disco nuevo. Eso es verdad. Pero de ahí a que efectivamente lo hagamos... lo creo que finalmente suceda. Veremos qué pasa

"lo creo" means somenthing like "I do think so..."

So, there you go, change "no creo" for "lo creo" and everything is as Slash is saying for the last past months.

I'm sorry, native Spanish speaker here, more over so Argentinian, and what you just posted is wrong.

There is no typo in the interview. Maybe the translation from English to Spanish is not accurate but we will never know that, until we hear the audio of the interview.

Either way, my bet is that IF Slash DID say that (which is a possibility) we are all acting in denial but if he DID NOT say it, it looks more like a manipulation of the words just to create a juicy headline.

The "I don't think it will eventually happen" kind of makes no sense in the context of the whole answer, because he does say "At this point, we all want to make a new record. That is true." [POSITIVE]
"But to actually make it.... I don't think it will eventually happen" [NEGATIVE] and he finishes with "Let's see what happens" [POSITIVE AGAIN].

A negative between two positives, why would he answer like that?

It feels like some kind of word manipulation to make headline impact.... especially because Slash has not said something like this in any other interview with Argentinian media.

Not that he's been mega positive about writing a new album, he always sounds cautious and more prone to not give false hopes to the fans, but at the same time, he's never been so categorically negative about it.

11 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I should write an article. 

You should!

And I've read some fantastic @RONINposts that would put him in the black list of TB if they were published in a popular music mag 

3 minutes ago, Azifwekare said:

There's nothing wrong with your English, it's just a poorly written article.

I don't understand why it's had so much attention either.

Cool!

I'm not one of the kiss ass sicophants of the band, so I am okay with the harshest criticism that could be out there, because this band deserves it

But I don't get what's so upsetting about this article, aside from the fact that it is a highly strange way to highlight "the worst" of GN'R.

If the journalist says he doesn't like them (and he has all the right to be disgusted by them), I was hoping for something with more substance than what he wrote.

Or maybe it is just the fact that what he mentioned is so "old news" to me, that I can't be surprised anymore

After reading the article TWICE, I still can't grasp what is that upsets people here so much....

This article is so dull, so boring, so strange, that it only leaves me like

I don't understand more than half of it. Not sure if it's supposed to be funny or not.
Not sure if it's supposed to be sarcastic or witty

Either way, it does not provoke in me one bit of any wild emotion, so I'll blame it to my bad English or something

9 hours ago, Chester 524 said:

with Kurt I felt like he was a mentally troubled druggie who basically blamed others for his shitty upbringing or whatever

Who you mean by "others"?

I don't know of any normal person who was able to upbring themselves. Usually upbringing is in charge of "others", isn't it?

I don't think Axl and Kurt would have mended fences today. 

It took Axl decades and a good chunk of money to finally accept Slash back, so why would he seek peace with Kurt?

Axl still has many people on the black list. People with whom he ended in bad terms and have not talked to them again. Scott Weiland died and I don't think he solved his stuff with Axl.

Not exactly an example of a forgiving person.

1 hour ago, MaskingApathy said:

Have any of you gotten Susan's new book yet? I'm interested in reading it but I'll wait until it's at a library somewhere.

Maybe I'm just judging a book by its cover but the title and the cover tells me this book is a major crap

So unless they hand it to me for free, I won't be reading it.
Is this the kind of book that you find in libraries, though?

48 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

With all that said perhaps he was a poser, perhaps he wasn't, I'm not sure how I could really accurately ascertain such a thing regarding anybody.  At any rate I'm not sure that it matters either, it could be argued fairly rationaly that all performers are posers to a point.

What's a poser anyway?

I have no idea

IMO, Kurt was pretty real and he was fucked up and he died under his own terms.

3 hours ago, soon said:

Awesome dance crew! 

I think you're the one whose clearly dancing the best? 

The one close to the mirror 

ahre

11 hours ago, soon said:

Plus, Killuridols brings that swagger and makes us all cooler, she's all like

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Ahahaha.... yes, Im back to my roots 

Which one am I? huh? huh? ah? 

18 hours ago, pumpkinrose said:

Sorry but if you don't like Axl or hate him as it seems....why you keep on this forum? Why you keep listening GNR music? All your comments are negative and against him so....I don't understand.... If you have no sympathy for people like Axl just don´t listen his music, don´t be on a GNR forum, just ignore him and ignore GNR....because Axl is part of this!!! I never would listening to a band which I hate its lead singer!!!!

Dear Miss Prosecutor:

1) I don't hate Axl, I just don't agree with or dislike some stuff that he did in the past.

2) Im still in this forum because i) you cannot remove your account  ii) some very kind soul donated for my membership and  iii) because there are people here who I appreciate dearly. I've developed a friendship with them and it's been going for quite some years. To me, that's enough to return once in a while and check up on them. But don't worry, because I'm coming here much less often, so you can have your sacred Axl and the whole forum for yourself

3) I don't listen to GN'R anymore.

4) I really doubt you've read the thousands of comments I've posted in all these years. Unless you are someone else. As usual. Cupcakes. 

5) Uh.Huh. You are semi-right on all that. I barely come here anymore. Just to check up on my friends and PM's. Unfortunately, you've quoted me, so if you had not, your wishes would have come true.

Bummer. 

1 hour ago, Sydney Fan said:

Yes i remember reading that as well i thought it was between  09 and 2013 when he had after show parties and had alot of what looked to be female european "fans".

Reading where?

There's probably a lot of coke in those kind of parties.... don't know what to think about that.... He doesn't seem to have a problem with drugs, but anything is possible, maybe he did consume during the parties

16 hours ago, janrichmond said:

I thought he was into coke. Not now but during the nuGuns tours. 

Axl?

How, where do you derive that from? Or where did you read it?

6 hours ago, MaskingApathy said:

I think he used a little bit here and there, but he didn't become addicted like the others and he kept it quiet, out of the public knowledge. 

Axl seems to not have been a heavy user in the past but his emotional state was as fragile as that of an addicted person.

There are accounts of Axl holding a gun and wanting to kill himself in the mid 90s, while Beta was desperately calling people to help her with the situation.

Had not been for Beta, we wouldn't have Axl with us today either. So, it's not only drugs that take you to the extreme. 

6 hours ago, Lio said:

So... spreading someone else's nude pics that they have sent you in private is okay too? Because you're the 'owner' of the pic? And everyone looking at it and doing whatever they want to it, is okay too, as they were made publicly accessible and they're not private anymore?

This comparison does not apply. Because first you have to determine who is the owner of a photo and what kind of photo that is. A nude photo of the selfie type belongs to the person who took it, usually this person is the owner of the camera, so that's their picture.

Love letters stop being yours when you send them away. From then on you no longer have control on them. The receiver could wipe their ass with them and what would you do? Tell them it is wrong? 

I'm not sure what's the legislation on love letters being auctioned in the USA, but it doesn't seem to be a criminal offense, unlike the 'revenge porn' photos you are talking about.

6 hours ago, Lio said:

Personal moral choices? WTF? Don't you think there's something like a universal moral compass? Or even if people don't have that, could they maybe stop to think: Would I like it if it happened to me/my child? And if they wouldn't like it, maybe just, I don't know, don't do it?

There are some universal moral messages only meant to dominate other people, make them slaves of stupid moral orders, like that it is wrong to have sex before marriage, or that it is wrong to purchase auction items. Nietzsche has written largely about it 

6 hours ago, Lio said:

What a world are we living in if all you have to ask yourself is: is it allowed by law/not strictly illegal? Yes? Okay, go for it! Is it a commodity and is someone willing to pay? Yes? Go for it! Sad.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble but that's how many things function in this world, i.e. "legal/illegal substances" and the battle on whether it is right or wrong to let people have access to them with all the consequences it brings.

Yet again, being scandalized because a pair of old boots or some stupid letters are auctioned borders on the ultra moralist hysteria.

4 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

I meant more that they had moments of brilliance as opposed to entire songs, certain solos, certain sections, certain times when Axl sings and really comes across as powerful.  I'd say One in a Million was brilliant, brilliant vocal take, contentious subject matter, sounds quite sincere, if I don't necessarily agree with the sentiment.  You're Crazy, the slow version is a great vocal take.  You Could Be Mine is pretty brilliant overall.  Appetite as an album is brilliant I'd say.  The SCOM solo is pretty fuckin' brilliant.  SCOM in general.  Used to Love Her is a funny, cheeky, charming little tune.  14 Years I think is very good, in a really subtle kind of way.  I really like the solo in Patience, Patience the song in general.  Civil War, perhaps Axls best lyrics and a great song overall.  Certain aspects of the songwriting in that song were good and Axl puts them across really well.  The more rocking, aggressive, defiant, arrogant songs on Appetite I love for their overall ability to convey attitude.  Since I Don't Have You is a great vocal take.  Mr Brownstone is a great little riff.  Tastes Good, Don't It? is funny and kinda cool in a sub-early Chili Peppers kinda way. 

Yeah, I guess I struggle to cite entire songs that are out and out brilliant.  One in a Million probably tops the table. 

Great explanation 

I agree 99% with it 

47 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

It don't even feel like song lyrics, it feels like some cunt having a moan.

48 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

To me, its songs like this that keep Guns from being like, exceptional.  They're good.  Very good.  Sometimes even brilliant.

Which GN'R songs do you consider brilliant?

3 hours ago, Blackstar said:

2) Maybe it wasn't clear enough what I meant with it isn't right. I meant that the fact that the public is curious to read private stuff doesn't make its publicising right.

It isn't right by your moral principles. But at the same time, when these private letters go public, they aren't private anymore. Even more so, when it is their owners who make them available.

3 hours ago, Blackstar said:

3) What do interviews and articles with information about the band have to do with this topic? In interviews the people talk about things they choose to share, as far as I know. 

These letters and other stuff are also willingly being shared by their owners, so where's the difference?

Information is a commodity, that's why I bring it up here. Articles, interviews and journalistic research are sold to the audience on a daily basis. Sometimes the people involved choose to share that information, other times they do not. But the tabloids are still sold and people read them. Is it morally wrong to read a tabloid?

3 hours ago, Blackstar said:

I don't dig up for gossip or rumours particularly, btw. I have found articles that fall into the personal/sensitive area involving family members etc. which I haven't shared (with the exception of 2-3 cases where I posted a rough description confirming something already public, but not the details or the full article) because I just don't think it would be appropriate, as, even though it's actually public information, the people involved didn't choose to share it. Someone else could see it differently, of course. 

Also btw, I don't pay money for the purpose of finding stuff about Guns N' Roses. I do have subscriptions to online libraries, collections etc. that I use mainly for purposes related to my work, and I also use them for other things that might interest me.

Your reasons to be subscribed to information outlets are irrelevant, I'm not morally judging you for that because you're not committing a crime.

What I'm saying is that all the information you have access to is made available for all kinds of people, so the personal moral choices should not be a parameter to say that something is generally right or wrong.

1 hour ago, Blackstar said:

It's different when the person is alive. I think all living people, whoever they are, have a right to privacy. Part of famous people's lives is public, but it doesn't mean they want to share everything. And the fact that we, the "public", are deadly curious and tempted to read it, doesn't mean that it's right. This as a general principle, regardless of this particular case and whether Slash is bothered or not (which we don't know).

So buying magazines like People or reading that kind of stuff, even the Rolling Stone mag interviews, is "wrong", if we have to follow your logic? 

You pay money to dig up old newspaper articles in search of rumors, gossip and information about the band and the band members. Is that an illegal activity or morally wrong too?

Lol, I don't think so.

No one here, as far as I know, have committed a crime in reading "private" letters that became public, because those letters were made available to the public by decision of their owners.

It'd be a totally different thing, and indeed a crime and also morally wrong, if one of us had broke into Slash house or Axl house and stolen the letters and the other items that are being auctioned.

But this is not the case. If things are public and are available to either read, see, watch or buy, and they've been made available through a legal system like an auction or a sale, then there's nothing "wrong" in it, except if you personally feel bad about it. And that would be your personal moral issue, not to be applied to everybody else.

3 hours ago, Tori72 said:

Absolutely! Why did they give up on that vibe? How did Slash and Duff not mind? Why did they leave the Rock’n’Roll to others when they started out as they did? I will never understand. Axl wanted something that was more pop than anything and they gave it al up. Meh 

Because they got really big and clubs or small size venues couldn't hold their fans anymore. I guess Izzy was the one who was closer to Kurt's approach of the band but Axl wanted to be grandiose, so... conflict of interests.

Not sure Axl wanted something more pop. He wanted something different, he wanted to evolve musically speaking but I guess the problem was that he had not evolved as a person, so there he was stuck, looking up to Kurt and Trent, but he didn't realize those guys were on a different page.

IMO, part of what kept Axl stuck was getting involved with those crazy shits like Yoda, spiritism, regression therapy, etc. That stuff kept him out of touch with reality.

6 minutes ago, dgnr said:

I'm really happy with the Kurt Cobain celebration going on in here. It's amazing how music stays forever. And that was a great vid @killuridols, they do have great live performances!!

I came across this show a couple years ago on YouTube and I have saved it ever since. Never thought I'd share it in this forum!

7 minutes ago, dgnr said:

When I compare both GNR and Nirvana's performances on the same show, I can't help thinking how Guns performance looks so forced and polished, it makes you think what the hell happened to that band, it's  a totally different aura from GNR at Ritz for example. While Nirvana sounds fresh, dangerous, authentic.

To be honest, even in 1992 I was disappointed to see that they were going to perform 'November Rain' for the VMA's and when I saw Elton John pretending to play the piano, looooool, omg, it was a big WTF for me

As the energetic and vibrant kid I was , I was hoping to see Axl in all his glory, running around the stage and growling like a madman. Why did they pick that song to play just baffles me

You can even think of the previous VMA'S where GN'R killed it with 'Welcome to the Jungle' and now they were doing this whole orchestra stuff that was so boring!

11 minutes ago, dgnr said:

I could speak about the 'Rape Me' tease, the 'HI-AXL' or the Novoselic bass incident but just think about when some people from the crowd starts jumping on stage and do crowd surfing while the band doesn't give a fuck. Can you imagine if this was at a GNR performance? Axl would loose his shit 

I guess Axl was completely paranoid by 1992, because if we keep comparing stuff, just look at the "It's So Easy" unreleased live video that was recently released..... doesn't it have kind of the same vibe as the Nirvana show? Yeah, forget about those lame Axl scenes with the women inside the car and the Erin bondage, but the rest of the video also shares the same raw vibe than these Nirvana performances.