Here Today... Gone To Hell!

All I have to say after seeing Monday night's show is that Axl is in the same league  as my favorite Beatle Paul McCartney. After Paul left the Beatles he was a little lost until he created WINGS! Not only has Axl been able to reinvent himself  but he has been able to create a new magical band while keeping the GUNSNROSES name intact! Rock on AXL!I LOVE YOU! :love:

Axl Rose is more talented than Pauk,and more himself!!1
Ok paul is bigger name in the world of music than axl,but axl is more talented,and
AXL Rose isn't ser

My 2 favorite bands of all time.  : ok:

No other musician is or will ever be in the same league as any "Beatle" just for the fact of what they created. I'm not even a Beatles fan.

Axl is great... Paul is Paul... he was never the same without the Beatles though.

I love Axl too.....but we might not want to get too ahead of ourselves here. :)

Axl is incredibly talented but he cant play guitar bass drums and various other instruments as well as paul. he's better at singing, new generation songwriting, and piano. Im not really into the beatles either

I love Axl and all but I can admit when people are better than him, and not too many are, but Paul??? Come on now.  This is my view on the Beatles, It's like Michael Jordan in basketball, you can hate the guy or whatever, but how can you not admit he is the greatest of all time???

I wouldn't compare Axl to a Beatle.  I am a GNR and Beatles fan, but I know that The Beatles were a lot bigger than GNR.  Meanwhile, I wouldn't quite say Wings compares with The Beatles.  To me, the Paul's magic stopped when the Beatles split.

i don`t like these comparisons in general. it`s a matter of taste imo : ok:

What we've heard so far off CD is a million times better than anything wings put out. The only beatle to put out any good solo work was john lennon.

Pauls newest album "Chaos and Creation in the Backyard" wasn't all that great. the lyrics are not the good. though there is a handful of good songs on it. though i'm being a little biast because lennon was my favourite beatle.

i will agree that axl is much more talented.

These two shouldn't be compared. They are just different and that's it!

MY BAD! :peace:

 ::)
talk about ball washing.....

Axl more talented that Paul?

Take look at who wrote the most #1 songs, who has the most #1 albums, and who's band is ALWAYS ranked #1.
I love Axl, but Jesus let's not get carried away here 

Ok everyone...this guy is obviously a "hater" of the new Guns.

Wrong! I LOVE THE NEW BAND!I meant this as a very high compliment!

Paul is dead

Turn me on, dead man...Turn me on, dead man... :hihi:

I?m sorry, but I have to disagree. The fact that the Beatles are my favourite band ever probably has something to do with that... :peace: But, even if this is a Guns board, fuck it, I cannot see how Axl is "way more talented than Paul". Paul is, in my opinion, a much more versatile singer, and that?s the only area where you can compare Axl to Paul: I don?t see how anybody could pretend Axl is better at songwriting, or at playing any instrument than fucking Paul McCartney.

The redhead has more showmanship, I?ll grant him that.

Oh, and Paul has done great things after the Beatles. He has released a lot of crap too, of course, but oh well...  Check out "Maybe I?m Amazed", for example.

Three words: apples and pears..... :-X

Gotta agree about the MJ thing.  Thats partly what my sn is about..but i dont have the beatles as the other part of my sn i got guns so im gonna have to take Axl over paul.  However i will never deny how big the Beatles were or what they did for music.  I dont know enough about them to say antyhing about their talent. 

Not to disagree with you but the amount of #1 songs has little to do with talent.  The backstreet boys, britney spears, and a whole slew of other undertalented performers have more #1s than Guns but that hardly means there more talented. 

Paul was great with the Beatles but in my opinion his work post-Beatles kind of blew. Lennon was the only one who put out a solo catalogue worth a damn. Axl was great with the early GnR stuff and by all early indications he appears to be on the same track 20 years later. I have no problem that saying for me Axl is better than Paul, but I cant put GnR infront of The Beatles as a band.

Besides why to compare Axl with Paul?  its easy, but if you compare him with Lennon, its a big trouble...

Because Paul was the cutest Beatle! ;)

I love Axl but he isn't in Paul's league yet.  This is not an insult.  I think there are probably only a hand full of musicians that are in that league.  Doesn't mean he can't get there one day but he's not there now.

Axl is better than Paul? That's about one of the stupidest things I've ever heard on this board.

Paul's contribution to music (as well as the rest of the Beatles) is not only in songwriting but also in innovation. The Beatles did things in the context of 'rock and roll' that were new, exciting and innovative the forwarded the genre light years. Everything from strings to indian influences, new technology (ie: the moog that is all over Abbey Road), 20th century composition (Revolution 9, the circus section of Mr. Kite), innovative recording techniques....I could go on forever. Rock music wouldn't be anywhere near where it is now had it not been for theses things.

Once Axl does something to truly innovate rock then no dice.

i hate wings...at least compare axl to lennon or harrisons solo stuff

What an embarassing thread.

Always happy to see Beatles fans. I think its obviously right on the dude who said Axl has better showmanship then Paul. Paul is still a great singer at his mid 60s. We will see if Axl's voice holds up as well as Pauls has. Pauls concerts o this day kick a lot of ass too. I saw his final show from this past tour and when he did Helter Skelter...my god that was ownage embodied. He handed everyone there ass.

I love Paul and I love Axl. But to those who talk shit about Paul can suck it. Really...suck a dick.