duff claims VR is more talented than gnr

[dave-gnfnr2k]

Guns n roses put on over 3 hr shows back in the UYI days, what does VR play for like 45mins to an hour now

Yeah, if it's a festival. Their own headlining shows have been around 80 minutes or so.




/jarmo

Very true, as for dave dude I went to the 2002 tour at msg and the shows werwe 2 hours, this was including all teh tons of new material they had.. I felt tehy could have definetly cut one of those opening acts and did more of their own stuff..

Vr has been doing soime good setlists, some shows are longer then others.. You say 45 minutes to an hour but that more when they aren't the headliners, they played a few festival as mentioned..

Besides to stay on topic I still don't understand how you interpet eevrything new gnr can possibly say but you can't get what duff says? He's just saying the guys play better now because they're clean.. It's real simple dude..

Also if he feels that the band he's in is the best thing since gnr then that's his right to..It's not like he and the others weren't a few reasons the old band was so good..

Topics like this get blown way out of context, ever board I've seen it someone goes wacky over it.. Just take a second to read it and it makes sence..

Dave you also seem to forget the idea they sign autographs and get involved with the fans,take pics (not all shows) when I saw new gnr they were on and off quick..Revolver plays alot of songs, just gnr's songs are longer so it's about equal..Parts of the gnr show was waiting for axl to come around with the piano..

we are not talking about the new guns n roses, we are talking about the old band that duff was in, and those shows were three hours.   why are you talking about the gnr that played in  2002?

 I have never once hear anyone from the new band say this band is more talented to the old gnr, not once, if you heard that then point it out. 

So why do you keep bring up the new gnr when this article is not talking about this?

[nesquick]

One day Guns n' Roses will reform, because of the pressure on them. This is already written...

[ClintroN]

C'mon Duff, thats bullshit n' you know it man!!!!

i have been playing VR alote recently n seriously, the riffs are so plain n' the song structures n' all that shit are so 'oh yeah, not bad' , they sound like a teenage band. VR have nothing over the greatest band in the world, even the new band.

I just cant beleive that Duff, GNR are still the greatest band in the world mate, you've gotta realise that!!!!!!

[Lady Livin]

not only 2hrs+ concerts, but without setlists. i thought most of, if not all, old gn'r concerts were done without setlists. yet they still managed to blow you away like it was all perfectly structured in advance.

[ClintroN]

true, but some of those concerts were sloppy as hell, meaning setlist, playing 3-4 songs then picking Patience early in the set just didnt work for me.

[Dizzy]

That toyko show was just one show not what the whole tour was like.

Actually, I've seen more than one show from the UYI tour, I was just using those DVDs as an example.? And I've spoken to more than one person who saw GNR during the 1992 tour and thought they sucked.? I wouldn't have gone that far, but one dude I spoke with said "Guns N Roses absolutely sucked cock."? Another guy saw them with Metallica and said they put him to sleep.

Look at gnrs last show ever in argentina, that show was simply amazing.

I didn't care for that show at all.? Acoustic sets and drum solos are boring as hell.

I can't believe you actually think VR live is better than GNR?? What are you smoking??

Whatever I'm smoking, I must have stolen it from you, because you seem too stoned to have actually read what I said.

Do yourself a favor and come up with something better next time, because "what are you smoking?" is the most hackneyed, cliched putdown out there.

[madagas]

First of all, the old Gnr definitely had setlists. I went to seven shows from before the UYI albums were released (Indianapolis May 91) until the Skin and Bones tour at the end. They mixed up the opener and a few other songs, but it was a similar set of songs, especially towards the end. The only off the cuff stuff you got was the cover songs or instrumentals they would play prior to the Gnr songs. Secondly, Duff is only saying that because they are better musicians now, ie they can play their instruments better because they are not fucked up. That is obvious-it is also obvious that their creative side has not quite caught up with their technical skills! 

[Lady Livin]

it is also obvious that their creative side has not quite caught up with their technical skills!?

now that i agree with.

[dave-gnfnr2k]

First of all, the old Gnr definitely had setlists. I went to seven shows from before the UYI albums were released (Indianapolis May 91) until the Skin and Bones tour at the end. They mixed up the opener and a few other songs, but it was a similar set of songs, especially towards the end. The only off the cuff stuff you got was the cover songs or instrumentals they would play prior to the Gnr songs. Secondly, Duff is only saying that because they are better musicians now, ie they can play their instruments better because they are not fucked up. That is obvious-it is also obvious that their creative side has not quite caught up with their technical skills!?

The whole they dont use set lists thing just means they didnt play the same set every night in the same order.
Yes they played a lot of the same songs but most times they were in a different order and they played different songs different nights, yes they played the classics every night but they rotated about 5 or so songs each nite to make the show fresh.

[madagas]

Your right-it was definitely not as cookie cutter as the Velvet setlist...or the new Gnr setlist. But, the Velvet setlist's are very disappointing and quite frankly boring for a group so allegedly "on the edge." I still want to see them if they play a good venue in Atlanta. Wink Wink.

[Captain Obvious]

Oh come on people, what's wrong with what he said?  As far as for Slash, Duff and Matt...yeah they are probably more skillful now than when they were on drugs. That's probably what he meant. Replace one certain member with this other guy (We all know who they are), and yeah, we would probably get a group that is much more technically talented than classic GnR ever was.

[jrs2001_99]

The first 2 pages of replies here are ridiculous... "VR suck blah blah"

First of all, Duff was actually in the original GNR, unlike anyone else here. That means that Duff knows what it was like to get through the tough recording process for UYI, the huge tour in support of it, and the struggle to keep the core of the band together afterwards. Did any of you lot actually stop to think that there may have been reasons for Duff being unhappy in the original GNR? Of all the original (ex)members, to his credit, he was the one that stuck it out the most, even after his closest bandmate Slash left acrimoniously. He obviously believed in Guns N' Roses, and was willing to do anything for it, until it got in the way of his health, which is a step too far. There were bound to have been pressures, stresses and strains throughout the whole saga, every one of those guys will tell you that.

This leads me to my second point. VR are a new band, but comprised of solidly established and competent musicians. There is no bullshit pressure from scores of yes-men, there is not the problem of drug addictions among band members seriously affecting the progress of the band in any great way (touch wood Mr. Weiland), and the band members all get along like a house on fire. VR is basically Guns N' Roses without all the negative points I mentioned above.

It is almost as if Duff is saying that his primarily good experience with VR so far is what the old days of GNR should have been like, had it not been for all the crap that ultimately blew the band apart. He is enjoying his role in the much tighter, cohesive unit of VR much more than he did in GNR, because he is able to focus 100% on the thing that matters i.e. THE MUSIC.

I don't see why everyone around here gets their knickers in such a twist.

I cannot believe the amount of disrespect commanded by Slash and Duff by so called Guns N' Roses fans... some people care way too much. It's only rock and roll for Christ's sake.

[dave-gnfnr2k]

well lets remember this backing of duffs opinion if axl or a new member of gnr claim the new gnr is better than the old. OK

I find it very funny that VR fans were all up in arms when I an others claimed the new band is more talented than the old gnr yet when duff says that vr is more talented its ok.

[jrs2001_99]

well lets remember this backing of duffs opinion if axl or a new member of gnr claim the new gnr is better than the old. OK

Well good! I would fucking hope that Axl, after all this time putting together a new band and recording CD etc., is of the opinion that it is better than the old GNR. Otherwise what was the point of all the heartache when the band broke up?What was the point of spending millions of dollars recording one album?

It's only natural for people to want to surpass their previous achievements; Duff has high hopes for VR, (mrealistic or not, it doesn't matter, more power to him), and I should fucking hope that Axl has high hopes for the "new" band after all this time.

However, if anyone else in the "new" band says that they are better than old GNR, they can shove it. Quite simply because they were never in the old band, and thus do not have the same grounds for comparison as old dogs like Axl and Duff.

[dave-gnfnr2k]

^
What about axl or dizzy, what if they say it?

[MsDuffMckagan]

Woo before I even read this topic I knew it was going to be trouble from the title lol..
I think what Duff said was taking out of context.

Im not neccasrily going to agree with him, but it IS his opinion, and Duff was in GnR, we weren't, maybe...well not even maybe but he DOES know alot of stuff we don't/didn't. Maybe that comment came from incidents we didnt see or we didn't know about or hear about....

But Im not trying to make an excuse for him, I think that comment, yes was alittle, out there to say the least. But that doesn't make it a rude/bad comment. Its just him stating his opinion. Which isn't a crime.....I think its alittle soon for him to say VR is better than GnR, I mean only one album, c'mon...but that doesn't mean that in future years VR will become something amazing like GnR...GnR was the perfect band at the perfect time..Velvet Revolver has to make a place for themselves if you ask me. They are a perfect band, but maybe just not at the perfect time...but they are a great enough band to become the perfect band at the perfect time...

So basically, lets not make Duff into a monster...its not THAT big of a deal...
Erin

[SLCPUNK]

"No, 99 per cent of the time. As players we weren't really maximising our potential. So, as far as aggression and talent are concerned, this is a much better band"

This was more the anchor of this statement. It was more from a sobriety point of view. Which, in that case, only he can be the judge of, not us.

[Mikkamakka]

First of all, the old Gnr definitely had setlists. I went to seven shows from before the UYI albums were released (Indianapolis May 91) until the Skin and Bones tour at the end. They mixed up the opener and a few other songs, but it was a similar set of songs, especially towards the end. The only off the cuff stuff you got was the cover songs or instrumentals they would play prior to the Gnr songs. Secondly, Duff is only saying that because they are better musicians now, ie they can play their instruments better because they are not fucked up. That is obvious-it is also obvious that their creative side has not quite caught up with their technical skills!?

The whole they dont use set lists thing just means they didnt play the same set every night in the same order.
Yes they played a lot of the same songs but most times they were in a different order and they played different songs different nights, yes they played the classics every night but they rotated about 5 or so songs each nite to make the show fresh.

Sorry, but the '92-'93 shows were not fresh, not at all. It was really boring to have the same seltist, the only change is that they play Bad Obsession or not and Nightrain is the opener or It's So Easy. With every concert they lost a lot of energy and you can't feel that they had a great time.

PS: I like the Tokyo DVD, they did so much worse concerts after that.

PS2: VR is a better live band that GN'R was in their last 2 years, but the '87-'91 GN'R was better than VR, although they were full of drugs and messed some songs and were worse players than they are now, but they were hungry. That's what won't come back, and VR has the maximum hunger that '40-years old milliomaires' can have but not as much as they had in 1988.

[mikegiuliana]

Guns n roses put on over 3 hr shows back in the UYI days, what does VR play for like 45mins to an hour now

Yeah, if it's a festival. Their own headlining shows have been around 80 minutes or so.




/jarmo

Very true, as for dave dude I went to the 2002 tour at msg and the shows werwe 2 hours, this was including all teh tons of new material they had.. I felt tehy could have definetly cut one of those opening acts and did more of their own stuff..

Vr has been doing soime good setlists, some shows are longer then others.. You say 45 minutes to an hour but that more when they aren't the headliners, they played a few festival as mentioned..

Besides to stay on topic I still don't understand how you interpet eevrything new gnr can possibly say but you can't get what duff says? He's just saying the guys play better now because they're clean.. It's real simple dude..

Also if he feels that the band he's in is the best thing since gnr then that's his right to..It's not like he and the others weren't a few reasons the old band was so good..

Topics like this get blown way out of context, ever board I've seen it someone goes wacky over it.. Just take a second to read it and it makes sence..

Dave you also seem to forget the idea they sign autographs and get involved with the fans,take pics (not all shows) when I saw new gnr they were on and off quick..Revolver plays alot of songs, just gnr's songs are longer so it's about equal..Parts of the gnr show was waiting for axl to come around with the piano..

we are not talking about the new guns n roses, we are talking about the old band that duff was in, and those shows were three hours.? ?why are you talking about the gnr that played in? 2002?

 I have never once hear anyone from the new band say this band is more talented to the old gnr, not once, if you heard that then point it out.?

So why do you keep bring up the new gnr when this article is not talking about this?

I mentioned the new guns because you need to mention the tshow length of vr, you seemed to pick the shortest show time they played because of not being the headliners at festivals.. Plus you're being a little kid trying to make this interview into something it isn't, you seem to take things to teh extreme when the answers people give don't suit you..
I tell you again, he feels they play better now because they're not fucked up, it doesn't matter if tehy are better or not then the gnr days, it's how HE feels/... He lived through both groups so he knows best..

Saying that I don't know what else you want?
On a side note do you take tommy's word that this new gnr is more advanced then the illusion days? Either way the point is it's just people having faith in their new bands and their material..Duff compares his playing to gnr because that's a band he was with the whole time..

He didn't sit there and knock axl, he sat there and basically knocked himself and believes he'll be able to be more productive as aplayer now because he's clean.. No one can deny what he says because only he knows.. Who is anyone to sit here and say he's wrong, regardless if he mentioned gnr.. ?

[speed_stone]

it's so sad to see one of my childhood heroes fuck up like this... he appears to be in denial, cause in reality they are totally lost without axl.