Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: RATTFINK on October 22, 2008, 02:22:21 PM

Title: Guns & Roses
Post by: RATTFINK on October 22, 2008, 02:22:21 PM
The new G&N sux!!!  I listened to a song they are going to put out and it stinks on ice.


Their new CD Chinese Democracy is out 11.23.2008

http://web.gunsnroses.com/splash.jsp


[Edit:]
This would have been good if it was the mid. to late 80's.
Title: Re: Guns & Roses
Post by: WMLute on October 22, 2008, 03:13:48 PM
After waiting a decade + for this album.....


I'll believe it when I see it.
Title: Re: Guns & Roses
Post by: SIK1 on October 22, 2008, 03:22:16 PM
It's not really G&R it's Axle and whoever he can beg to play with him.

G&R died a long time ago when their lead singer stuck his head firmly up his bum, and there it stays to this day.
Title: Re: Guns & Roses
Post by: Bosco123 on October 22, 2008, 03:38:24 PM
Yup, it sucks. Thought it might have been good, if he didn't try and incorporate rap into it.
Title: Re: Guns & Roses
Post by: sluggish on October 22, 2008, 03:46:29 PM
Let's face it; as long as Axle's been postponing this thing, there's no way it could possibly live up to expectations.  He should have scrapped the whole thing many years ago.
Title: Re: Guns & Roses
Post by: scot12b on October 22, 2008, 03:47:18 PM
Sucks Bro the real G@R kicked A@@ :cry(http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/7871/heavyanimao3la2po.gif)
Title: Re: Guns & Roses
Post by: Reschke on October 22, 2008, 03:52:00 PM
G&R hasn't been the same since about 1994-1995
Title: Re: Guns & Roses
Post by: Masherbrum on October 22, 2008, 09:46:39 PM
Chinese Democracy has cost them over $12 million to RECORD.   They are done like dinner.   They have always sucked.   One of the few bands where I am often saying "Does this song ever end?!" 
Title: Re: Guns & Roses
Post by: Stampf on October 22, 2008, 09:54:42 PM
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,250347.0.html  G & R .  :salute
Title: Re: Guns & Roses
Post by: 1pLUs44 on October 22, 2008, 10:00:01 PM
Owned in the saddest form... :(

Oh well, sweet child o' mine and paradise city was the only 2 good ones I ever liked.
Title: Re: Guns & Roses
Post by: Anodizer on October 22, 2008, 10:41:24 PM
Poseur Metal....Always has been....Always will be.....No matter who is or who was in that band..... :rofl

This album is over a decade old and is Axl Dirtbag's last best hope at making enough for retirement...
Although, this will likely sink and he'll have to go back to Lafayette, Indiana....
Title: Re: Guns & Roses
Post by: DiabloTX on October 23, 2008, 12:50:16 AM
Duke Nukem Forever see's the light of day first.

That's what I'm betting.
Title: Re: Guns & Roses
Post by: B17Skull12 on October 23, 2008, 01:11:35 AM
stupid freakin song on rock band 2 from thise CD kills me.  I can't pass it on expert vocals,  only song in the game i can't beat of expert vocals.  Then not to mention buckethead guitar.  Sounds terrible.
Title: Re: Guns & Roses
Post by: WMLute on October 23, 2008, 01:14:02 AM
Poseur Metal....Always has been....Always will be.....No matter who is or who was in that band..... :rofl

This album is over a decade old and is Axl Dirtbag's last best hope at making enough for retirement...
Although, this will likely sink and he'll have to go back to Lafayette, Indiana....

Axle Roses net worth is somewhere @ 277 million.

'm pretty sure he isn't worried about money.
Title: Re: Guns & Roses
Post by: Anodizer on October 30, 2008, 07:51:47 PM
Axle Roses net worth is somewhere @ 277 million.

'm pretty sure he isn't worried about money.

Oh...You talking about this here??----->>http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_axl_rose_net_worth (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_axl_rose_net_worth)
Yeah.....I'd take that as accurate and completely true too!! :rofl

Get real man...  Axl's a salamander on stage and in real life...  Remember the whole Monsters of Rock incident?
Give me some legitimate proof of what the dude makes/has, and I'll believe ya...  But, I honestly think the
dude is in the same boat as Michael Jackson (financially)...   :lol
Title: Re: Guns & Roses
Post by: WMLute on October 31, 2008, 12:40:32 AM
Oh...You talking about this here??----->>http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_axl_rose_net_worth (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_axl_rose_net_worth)
Yeah.....I'd take that as accurate and completely true too!! :rofl

Get real man...  Axl's a hoot on stage and in real life...  Remember the whole Monsters of Rock incident?
Give me some legitimate proof of what the dude makes/has, and I'll believe ya...  But, I honestly think the
dude is in the same boat as Michael Jackson (financially)...   :lol

The RIAA has Guns with 42.5 million units sold in the U.S. alone  (you can more than double that for worldwide sales) tied with Eric Clapton.

I did find a refrence to Axl's net worth in 1994 as being @ $100,000,000 and that number has only grown in the past 14yrs.  I don't think putting his net worth near the 200 million mark is that much of a leap.

At the very least the guy is not hurting for cash what so ever.
Title: Re: Guns & Roses
Post by: Wyld45 on October 31, 2008, 03:03:59 AM



                Hmmm,...you know, if it was Slash, Duff, Izzy, and YES, even ol Stevie boy
                doing this song, I'd probably like it. Minus "Ax-hole" of course.

                Then again, I'd like it if it was "Velvet Revolver" playing it.
           
Title: Re: Guns & Roses
Post by: Masherbrum on October 31, 2008, 03:21:27 PM
The RIAA has Guns with 42.5 million units sold in the U.S. alone  (you can more than double that for worldwide sales) tied with Eric Clapton.

I did find a refrence to Axl's net worth in 1994 as being @ $100,000,000 and that number has only grown in the past 14yrs.  I don't think putting his net worth near the 200 million mark is that much of a leap.

At the very least the guy is not hurting for cash what so ever.

Heroin isn't cheap and I GUARANTEE you he is still on it at times. 
Title: Re: Guns & Roses
Post by: Dago on October 31, 2008, 07:44:46 PM
I always thought G&R was way overrated, with a moron for a lead singer, juvenile and amateurish lyrics, and so-so music.  That's my opinion anyway.
Title: Re: Guns & Roses
Post by: Fugita on October 31, 2008, 08:28:04 PM
Axle Roses net worth is somewhere @ 277 million.

'm pretty sure he isn't worried about money.

I'm sure if he could find a way to jam that into his arm without killing himself he wouldn't be worth 5 cents. :rock
Title: Re: Guns & Roses
Post by: Masherbrum on October 31, 2008, 08:43:04 PM
I always thought G&R was way overrated, with a moron for a lead singer, juvenile and amateurish lyrics, and so-so music.  That's my opinion anyway.

It's mine as well.   Only two musicians worth mentioning were Matt Sorum (got smart and left) and Slash.   The rest are "just there". 
Title: Re: Guns & Roses
Post by: oakranger on October 31, 2008, 09:04:39 PM
What happen to the band?  i was never up with bands in the 80s and 90s
Title: Re: Guns & Roses
Post by: Dago on October 31, 2008, 09:32:30 PM
Axle Roses net worth is somewhere @ 277 million.

'm pretty sure he isn't worried about money.

I seriously doubt that.  Records don't make musicians much money, it comes mostly from concerts, and he is too stupid to handle money and make it grow.

They weren't around long enough, playing enough concerts to make that much money.  Not near that much.

Can you post a reliable source proving that kind of worth?
Title: Re: Guns & Roses
Post by: WMLute on November 01, 2008, 12:51:02 AM
I seriously doubt that.  Records don't make musicians much money, it comes mostly from concerts, and he is too stupid to handle money and make it grow.

They weren't around long enough, playing enough concerts to make that much money.  Not near that much.

Can you post a reliable source proving that kind of worth?

The artist makes between 8 and 11 cents EVERY time the song is played in royalties, of which Axl get's 25% being the song writer.  The band was one of the biggest band in the world for well nigh a decade.  And they toured heavily.  Their songs are played in every market in the US many, many times each day.  Got to a sports stadium.  You are likely to hear a Guns song as a players intro.  All this adds up.

The artist usually makes @ 5% of the CD/Album sales...  At 10 bucks a pop x 90million / .05 = 45million right there.  Now factor in tour cash for 10 years, and lastly the 8-10cents a pop each time a Guns song was played for the past 20 years.

But alas no, I have no "credible" source for how much money the band or Axl made/has.  And I searched pretty hard.  I was surprised I couldn't find anything definitive on the subject.

Found an article where Axl bought some artwork for 2.7 million, payed half ish, and then tried to back out.  The guy can't be "poor" if he's dropping 3 million on "art".  (granted, he's being sued by the dealer for the 1.1 million he shorted them, but broke people don't give art galleries 1.6million bucks for art)
Title: Re: Guns & Roses
Post by: Dago on November 01, 2008, 07:54:42 AM
The artist makes between 8 and 11 cents EVERY time the song is played in royalties, of which Axl get's 25% being the song writer.  The band was one of the biggest band in the world for well nigh a decade.  And they toured heavily.  Their songs are played in every market in the US many, many times each day.  Got to a sports stadium.  You are likely to hear a Guns song as a players intro.  All this adds up.

The artist usually makes @ 5% of the CD/Album sales...  At 10 bucks a pop x 90million / .05 = 45million right there.  Now factor in tour cash for 10 years, and lastly the 8-10cents a pop each time a Guns song was played for the past 20 years.

But alas no, I have no "credible" source for how much money the band or Axl made/has.  And I searched pretty hard.  I was surprised I couldn't find anything definitive on the subject.

Found an article where Axl bought some artwork for 2.7 million, payed half ish, and then tried to back out.  The guy can't be "poor" if he's dropping 3 million on "art".  (granted, he's being sued by the dealer for the 1.1 million he shorted them, but broke people don't give art galleries 1.6million bucks for art)

Michael Jackson was spending like a drunken sailor right up to the bitter end, when he could no longer pay any of his bills.  Seems he shorted some art sellers too.  Foolish spending doesn't always indicate remaining substantial wealth.
Title: Re: Guns & Roses
Post by: Nilsen on November 01, 2008, 09:11:49 AM
Axl is faaaaar from broke and prolly never will be. The new album will sell tons even if it turns out to suck. I actually think it will be OK. Not a great classic, but ok. He has turned out to be a guy that everyone reall wants to hate and see fail, but he won't.

Title: Re: Guns & Roses
Post by: Slash27 on November 01, 2008, 09:33:08 AM
It's not really G&R it's Axle and whoever he can beg to play with him.

G&R died a long time ago when their lead singer stuck his head firmly up his bum, and there it stays to this day.

So say we all.
Title: Re: Guns & Roses
Post by: Masherbrum on November 01, 2008, 09:40:16 AM
Axl is faaaaar from broke and prolly never will be. The new album will sell tons even if it turns out to suck. I actually think it will be OK. Not a great classic, but ok. He has turned out to be a guy that everyone reall wants to hate and see fail, but he won't.



It will suck because he is the only "Original Member".   
Title: Re: Guns & Roses
Post by: redman555 on November 01, 2008, 09:55:43 AM
its not THAT BAD, but the classic G&R is way better


-BigBOBCH
Title: Re: Guns & Roses
Post by: 442w30 on November 01, 2008, 09:59:17 AM
the official thread of the mullet!  ;)