|
|
Post by Pete on May 3, 2011 11:39:36 GMT -5
But still yearns for a reunion….
Ex-Guns N’ Roses drummer Steven Adler reckons Axl Rose made an error in releasing ‘Chinese Democracy’ under the band’s name while being the sole surviving member of the classic line-up.
Adler, currently playing drums for his own band Adler’s Appetite, says the album would have performed better and been more warmly received had Rose released it under a different banner.
In a lively interview on Matty P’s Radio Happy Hour Adler said:
“He should have called it W.A.R for W. Axl Rose. He shouldn’t have called it Guns N’ Roses. Had he called it W.A.R then I think it would have done a lot better.”
Adler also denied his former band mate was a diva, instead labelling him an asshole but he says it is a tag he gives him with warm intentions.
“He’s not a diva, he’s an asshole. One of the greatest assholes of all time — and I say that with love.”
The Appetite For Destruction-era drummer has been the most vocal of the five band members campaigning for a reunion and he remains adamant it will happen – when Rose is ready. He continued:
“As long as the five of us are alive there’s always that chance. I’m ready. I live for it (a reunion). I love playing rock n roll music and my own band play a lot of GNR that I wrote and recorded with those guys. And a lot of times during the shows when I’m playing those songs I think to myself ‘Why can’t I play these songs with the guys I wrote them with?’
“I don’t know what the big deal is. We are only a rock n roll band and not the government or going to change anything but it would make a lot of people happy. I live for it.
“I still talk to Slash. I saw Duff recently and we played London a month and a half ago and he came up and did two songs. He did ‘My Michelle’ and ‘It’s So Easy’ with us which was great. Izzy is a gypsy. He is a wandering gypsy and he is wandering around the world.
“Axl will do it when he’s ready. Either God or Satan will make it happen. I love the guy (Axl) and I wish I could talk to the guy and find out more about what’s going on but I still love him and he’ll do the right thing.
“Axl’s no dumb-dumb. He might be a goof-ball but he’s no dumb-dumb.”
|
|
|
|
Post by kim on May 6, 2011 14:01:53 GMT -5
What I really don't understand is why anyone is still mentioning this persons name? Axl..........  ? Really? who is he?......really.....who is he? It's been 20 years....the guy's a HAS BEEN! The group he was in is a "HAS BEEN"............ Anyone wanting to go down memory lane, by all means, knock themselves out...but let's be honest here...this so called called "grunge gift to gawd" is a complete joke. Anything worth building a shrine for after 1995?...and that's after all the hoopla!!!!!!!......running on fumes from the late 80's. Guns and Roses was, and is a simple blip on the musical radar...and the sad part is that a vast majority of fans are still holding onto the drivel produced in the couple of years that they were considered a "band". Ooooooooooo... "Welcome to the Jungle"......oooooo whata profound song....oooooooo....gives me shivers.... Ooooooooooo... "Sweet Child O' Mine"............oooooooo...getting hard now!!!.....oooooo what a great song!!! The Beatles have kicked their ass. The Rolling Stones have kicked their ass, Led Zepplin have kicked their ass, Nazareth have kicked their ass, A FUCKING MONKEY WITH A TAMBOURINE CAN KICK THEIR ARSE!!!!!!......had they been given a recording contract. In retrospect, I have to surmise, this is somewhat like what happened when the Fab Four disbanded...for a number of years there was turmoil and publicity regarding the trials and tribulations betwixt Lennon and McCartney...so I guess history is deemed to repeat itself. The thing that I have to argue......at least The Beatles, as an example, put out some pretty damned good music over 8 years, and the world was at a loss because of their inevitable breakup....but I have to argue against the same holding true for Gun's and Roses.......or are we still shedding tears over that one because of the 2 or 3 hits that they left us with? Sorry, forgot to mention...Slash is the best musician these days and is just waiting to be called upon to help front the next worlds greatest band. Thanks Kim |
|
|
|
Post by DrJJones on May 6, 2011 18:45:59 GMT -5
Kim, I think you have got hold of the wrong end of the stick or are at least not aware of the global appeal that Guns N' Roses eventually possessed at their height. They were like a breath of fresh air when they emerged because every other American band was either trying to look like a girl &/or wimping out. Guns N' Roses seemed real at that point. They sang about what they knew, sex, drugs & rock n' roll. They were the anti-establishment, just like The Stones were. They used street level language & did songs about real life. While The Beatles sang "I wanna hold your hand" Guns N' Roses sang "Turn around bitch I got a use for you". Crude yes but that was them. Every decade has the bands it's youth identifies with. The 60's were The Beatles & The Stones, the 70's were Led Zeppelin & (in England at least) The Sex Pistols & the 80's were Guns N' Roses. They were not grunge either. They were simply a rick n' roll band who put out a damn good rock n' roll album. One that has been bought by literally millions. It was dirty, they way rock n' roll should be. True Axl is a meglomaniac but that first album is a classic.  |
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on May 9, 2011 18:30:30 GMT -5
I don't want to say too much here, but when Kim goes out on a limb, he goes WAAAAAAAY out. I think he's dead wrong as I'll take the worst song off of GNR's debut over the best Beatles song of their career, but that's me. And far be for me to go sawing off the limb that Kim's out jumping up and down on, cuz rants like the above are what makes this forum go. That said, as much as I like GNR's debut and several songs on the "Use You Illusion" albums, they haven't done shit in 20 years now. Velvet Revolver and Slash's Snakepit were the best we got in that time and even they weren't that good. So I'll agree with Kim on that front.
|
|
|
|
Post by Trexx on May 12, 2011 14:06:50 GMT -5
Well, I think Slash is the best spin off since Stevie Ray Vaughan.
(from David Bowie)
Slash "gets it" when it comes to Rock'n Roll, and his songs truly K.A.
|
|
|
|
Post by kim on May 13, 2011 13:53:49 GMT -5
Don't make me post a Beatles vs. Guns & Roses thread!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha............ Any takers?!!! Let's go toe to toe............. Song for song. I challenge anyone!!! Granted, the Fab Four will lose some votes to the younger crowd here, simply because they don't know the early stuff, but I'll try and put it up as a contender...and in fact, some of you have never even heard some of the great tracks on the albums that this group has put forth. You all bitch about "She Loves You", "Lucy in The Sky" and "Get Back"... Fuck off!................LISTEN to the rest of the music! Can anyone here admit to listening to their early version of "Please Mr. Postman"?...........Listen to the damn thing...it's great!!!!! Anyway....... .......you put yer "Guns & Roses" song up...and I'll counter with a Beatles tune.... Let's have some fun! (Oh yeah...let's keep in mind...I'm one against many). Thanks Kim |
|
|
|
Post by kim on May 13, 2011 14:24:26 GMT -5
Kim, I think you have got hold of the wrong end of the stick or are at least not aware of the global appeal that Guns N' Roses eventually possessed at their height. They were like a breath of fresh air when they emerged because every other American band was either trying to look like a girl &/or wimping out. Guns N' Roses seemed real at that point. They sang about what they knew, sex, drugs & rock n' roll. They were the anti-establishment, just like The Stones were. They used street level language & did songs about real life. While The Beatles sang "I wanna hold your hand" Guns N' Roses sang "Turn around bitch I got a use for you". Crude yes but that was them. Every decade has the bands it's youth identifies with. The 60's were The Beatles & The Stones, the 70's were Led Zeppelin & (in England at least) The Sex Pistols & the 80's were Guns N' Roses. They were not grunge either. They were simply a rick n' roll band who put out a damn good rock n' roll album. One that has been bought by literally millions. It was dirty, they way rock n' roll should be. True Axl is a meglomaniac but that first album is a classic. Actually, Doc, yer right. It was a breath of freash air...for those that needed to breathe. I can honestly tell you that I clung to the older days and ways. I recall being in a bar when the owner, a friend of mine, watched the premier of "Sweet Child O' Mine" on the MTV channel...and we both agreed, it was "okay", but nothing earth shattering. Little did we know huh? In fact, I recall telling my buddy..."the guy sounds like Ron Tabak of Prism" We were partial to the older stuff at the time...and sadly, there wasn't much of it coming out. I can honestly say, it was at this time that Steve Earle started sounding pretty damned good...simply because the older crowd got lost and the younger crowd simply wasn't there to help us through the night???......and then along came the 90's!!! YIKES! Actually, it just goes to show...that's how sad the music landscape was at the time and kids were willing to accept whatever was coming down the pipes back in the day during the late 80's. That's the best that came across the waves and the stages back then. I for one as a 20 something music fan back then wasn't impressed. Since then, this GNR group really didn't carry on very far now did they?...............that's how great they were I guess? As great as that debut album was to some, it was also a let down for some of us that were waiting for something a tad better in terms of decent music back in the day. As far as rock & roll being "dirty like it should be", I don't agree. Rock and roll doesn't have to be dirty......it just has to be good. Thanks Kim |
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on May 14, 2011 14:24:55 GMT -5
Don't make me post a Beatles vs. Guns & Roses thread!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha............ Any takers?!!! Let's go toe to toe............. Song for song. I challenge anyone!!! Granted, the Fab Four will lose some votes to the younger crowd here, simply because they don't know the early stuff, but I'll try and put it up as a contender...and in fact, some of you have never even heard some of the great tracks on the albums that this group has put forth. You all bitch about "She Loves You", "Lucy in The Sky" and "Get Back"... Fuck off!................LISTEN to the rest of the music! Can anyone here admit to listening to their early version of "Please Mr. Postman"?...........Listen to the damn thing...it's great!!!!! Anyway....... .......you put yer "Guns & Roses" song up...and I'll counter with a Beatles tune.... Let's have some fun! (Oh yeah...let's keep in mind...I'm one against many). Thanks Kim Say what you will, but this forum would be pretty fucking boring if we all agreed that the Beatles were/are the best Rock'n Roll band the world has ever seen and will ever see and that Guns'n Roses sucks donkey balls. Every Rock'n Roll forum needs an asshole like me who prefers "Rocket Queen" over the best Beatles song you can throw my way. It makes things more interesting.  |
|
|
|
Post by bluecheer on May 14, 2011 14:51:36 GMT -5
Don't make me post a Beatles vs. Guns & Roses thread!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha............ Any takers?!!! Let's go toe to toe............. Song for song. I challenge anyone!!! Granted, the Fab Four will lose some votes to the younger crowd here, simply because they don't know the early stuff, but I'll try and put it up as a contender...and in fact, some of you have never even heard some of the great tracks on the albums that this group has put forth. You all bitch about "She Loves You", "Lucy in The Sky" and "Get Back"... Fuck off!................LISTEN to the rest of the music! Can anyone here admit to listening to their early version of "Please Mr. Postman"?...........Listen to the damn thing...it's great!!!!! Anyway....... .......you put yer "Guns & Roses" song up...and I'll counter with a Beatles tune.... Let's have some fun! (Oh yeah...let's keep in mind...I'm one against many). Thanks Kim Say what you will, but this forum would be pretty fucking boring if we all agreed that the Beatles were/are the best Rock'n Roll band the world has ever seen and will ever see and that Guns'n Roses sucks donkey balls. Every Rock'n Roll forum needs an asshole like me who prefers "Rocket Queen" over the best Beatles song you can throw my way. It makes things more interesting. I'm with Jesse on this one. Sorry, but Guns is better than the Beatles in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by DrJJones on May 14, 2011 15:02:03 GMT -5
Actually, Doc, yer right. It was a breath of freash air...for those that needed to breathe. I can honestly tell you that I clung to the older days and ways. I recall being in a bar when the owner, a friend of mine, watched the premier of "Sweet Child O' Mine" on the MTV channel...and we both agreed, it was "okay", but nothing earth shattering. Little did we know huh? In fact, I recall telling my buddy..."the guy sounds like Ron Tabak of Prism" We were partial to the older stuff at the time...and sadly, there wasn't much of it coming out. I can honestly say, it was at this time that Steve Earle started sounding pretty damned good...simply because the older crowd got lost and the younger crowd simply wasn't there to help us through the night???......and then along came the 90's!!! YIKES! Actually, it just goes to show...that's how sad the music landscape was at the time and kids were willing to accept whatever was coming down the pipes back in the day during the late 80's. That's the best that came across the waves and the stages back then. I for one as a 20 something music fan back then wasn't impressed. Since then, this GNR group really didn't carry on very far now did they?...............that's how great they were I guess? As great as that debut album was to some, it was also a let down for some of us that were waiting for something a tad better in terms of decent music back in the day. As far as rock & roll being "dirty like it should be", I don't agree. Rock and roll doesn't have to be dirty......it just has to be good. Thanks Kim The thing is, I still cling on to the old days & ways, but that's the reason WHY Guns N' Roses were so popular, they sounded like they were right out of the 70's. Can you name one band in the 80's who were better? Not more successful, just better? To me their debut sounded like a cross between Aerosmith, Rose Tattoo, Nazareth & was not wimpy in a Motley Crue, Poison or Ratt sort of way. It has attitude which is 50% of rock n' roll. I also think rock n' roll needs to be dirty. I don't mean in a sexual way, I mean in a gritty way. I want my rock bands to ROCK! Aerosmith, The Stones, hell even Quo are at their best when they (to quote the MC5) 'Kick Out The Jams Motherfuckers'. That's one reason why I never saw The Beatles as a rock band the way they are seen in America. Their music was just too ..... nice & fluffy. They are seen as a pop band in the UK not a rock band. |
|
|
|
Post by kim on May 14, 2011 15:07:05 GMT -5
Good enough.
Guns and Roses appears to be just as good as the beatles.
Maybe even better by the sounds of it?
Thanks
Kim
|
|
|
|
Post by bluecheer on May 14, 2011 16:04:48 GMT -5
Actually, Doc, yer right. It was a breath of freash air...for those that needed to breathe. I can honestly tell you that I clung to the older days and ways. I recall being in a bar when the owner, a friend of mine, watched the premier of "Sweet Child O' Mine" on the MTV channel...and we both agreed, it was "okay", but nothing earth shattering. Little did we know huh? In fact, I recall telling my buddy..."the guy sounds like Ron Tabak of Prism" We were partial to the older stuff at the time...and sadly, there wasn't much of it coming out. I can honestly say, it was at this time that Steve Earle started sounding pretty damned good...simply because the older crowd got lost and the younger crowd simply wasn't there to help us through the night???......and then along came the 90's!!! YIKES! Actually, it just goes to show...that's how sad the music landscape was at the time and kids were willing to accept whatever was coming down the pipes back in the day during the late 80's. That's the best that came across the waves and the stages back then. I for one as a 20 something music fan back then wasn't impressed. Since then, this GNR group really didn't carry on very far now did they?...............that's how great they were I guess? As great as that debut album was to some, it was also a let down for some of us that were waiting for something a tad better in terms of decent music back in the day. As far as rock & roll being "dirty like it should be", I don't agree. Rock and roll doesn't have to be dirty......it just has to be good. Thanks Kim The thing is, I still cling on to the old days & ways, but that's the reason WHY Guns N' Roses were so popular, they sounded like they were right out of the 70's. Can you name one band in the 80's who were better? Not more successful, just better? To me their debut sounded like a cross between Aerosmith, Rose Tattoo, Nazareth & was not wimpy in a Motley Crue, Poison or Ratt sort of way. It has attitude which is 50% of rock n' roll. I also think rock n' roll needs to be dirty. I don't mean in a sexual way, I mean in a gritty way. I want my rock bands to ROCK! Aerosmith, The Stones, hell even Quo are at their best when they (to quote the MC5) 'Kick Out The Jams Motherfuckers'. That's one reason why I never saw The Beatles as a rock band the way they are seen in America. Their music was just too ..... nice & fluffy. They are seen as a pop band in the UK not a rock band. When Motley Crue first came out they were a dirty Rock n Roll band. Too Fast for Love is one of the best rock n roll albums ever. |
|
|
|
Post by DrJJones on May 14, 2011 17:19:55 GMT -5
When Motley Crue first came out they were a dirty Rock n Roll band. Too Fast for Love is one of the best rock n roll albums ever. Quite true, especially the demo version of that album. However as much as people rave about Motley Crue they never surpassed that first album. I mean 'Shout At The Devil' sounds like it was recorded in an aircraft hanger, 'Theatre Of Pain' was as wimpy as they came & the less said about the rest the better. Great live act, shit on record. |
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on May 15, 2011 10:45:07 GMT -5
Good enough. Guns and Roses appears to be just as good as the beatles. Maybe even better by the sounds of it? Thanks Kim No one is denying what the Beatles did for the world of Rock'n Roll.....I just prefer not to listen to them. ;D What is considered good and what is considered bad is (mostly) a subjective call. I think U2 sucks, but some people think they are the greatest band since......well, the Beatles  . It's what makes the world go 'round my friend. |
|
?
. It's what makes the world go 'round my friend.