Dizzy Reed at Cornell Interview

[madagas]

Tommy alluded to that production issue in his recent interview. Basically saying there has been some poor production over the years. In all honesty, that is probably what has caused the delay. Not the songs themselves, but the final production of the songs has obviously not pleased Axl. Dizzy alluded to multiple versions and mixes of songs as well. Axl keeps searching.....and searching.....for the right mix.....right to him at least!

[ppbebe]

Nope, don't think it sounds otherwise at all..

"The sound is much like Queen" wasn't meant as "the album sounds like queen".   It was meant more as "Axl has arranged/mixed/produced some songs in a similar manner to songs Queen has arranged/mixed/produced". 

Sorry but I cannot read such a meaning from the context. You seemed to be referring to it as a big change. 
If not, how does the thought run in this post?

"Not for nothing but....do you REALLY wanna use an interview from 1999?  I mean..really?

'Cause if you read the entire interview, much of what he says in it has changed.  And, most recently, he said (serious or not, we don't know) the sound is much like "Queen". "

In the Music Industry, a bands "sound" is, usually, the way their particular music is arranged, mixed, and produced.  That's what I meant by "sound"....not that it literally meant the two entities would sound (as in, have similar tonality or musical structure) alike. Does that make more sense?

And to be clear, I'm not trying to "talk down" to you in explaining what I meant.  I just know we have a pretty wide range, geographically, of members here at HTGTH and I'm never sure who's primary language is English, and who isn't, or who's terminology is as inclusive of who's.  I just want to ensure that our difference of opinon isn't purely based on a symantic or language  thing....

I guess not IN exlaining what you meant.
Don't worry
we all speak English. As a matter of course some can't write, some can't read...
I know what the word "sound" means and I guess voodoo knows those terms damn well.

Let's go back to Axl's recent comments.

"It's a very complex record,"
"I'm trying to do something different.
Some of the arrangements are kind of like Queen.
Some people are going to say, 'It doesn't sound like Axl Rose, it doesn't sound like Guns n' Roses.'"
"But you'll like at least a few songs on there."

Don't you really think these two sentences very different? 
"SOME OF THE ARRENGEMENTS are KIND OF like queen"
"the sound is much like "Queen"" 

I think the queen reference was Just an example of the variety and the complexity of the album. Not because of the old article. "some of" always imply there are more things different than these particular some. When you hear the word "but" you expect the subsequent sentence to have more weight than the preceding one(s).

Here we go again! I guess you're off the point there. Voodoo clealy states that what he thinks to be mostly unchanged is "the MAIN CONCEPT of the album". Not the details.

Actually, voodoo was the one "off point", but, be that as it may, changing the details does change "the main concept" (whatever that is).  Maybe subtley, but changes them all the same.

And the point was that the changes I cited were to point out that LOTS changes in 7 years...so using a 7 year old interview that contains information that may, or may not, be true at this time isn't the best thing to prop your opinion up with.  Especially considering a good chunk of the info in the interview has already been proven to have changed.

I understand That is YOUR point. Not voodoo's or mine.
What I've been saying from the start is that I gather from the latest interview that the basic ideas of the album Axl had in 1999 remain mostly the same, save that perhaps they are more concrete and developed now.

As I said, (C& paste job again)

In 1999 he described the album as a melting pot. He referred to Queen concerning the diversity.

In 2006 he describes it as very complex and different.

It's SOME OF the arrangements that are said to have resemblance to queen and NOT the whole album. probably we'll see a dramatic/operatic touch of the queen type on some of the songs. I assume the mention was again an example in regard to the variety for which everyone will find "at least a few" their own fav songs there.

Unsure of what voodoo meant there
but I believe Song writing is the most basic and critical point. It is the body, the idea/motif perhaps being the mind.
On the other hand arrangement, mixing and production are like clothing, hairstyling and cosmetics and although crucial to the song's/album's relevant appeal, can go dated fast no matter how nicely done. 
These can be changed into the latest fashion anytime. 

Some people don't like Beatles or any classic song because it sounds pass?. Some might like the dated sounds for nostalgia for the good old days or for their youth. But great many people in the world like Beatles songs despite the outdated style, because of the strong tunes and the great sentiments in the words. That's the main reason they still keep getting new fans every minute.

I understand the analogy, and it's an apt one....but a bit understated.

You mention the Beatles.  Seriously, listen to Let it Be, and Let it Be Naked.  Listsen to how vastly different the songs sound.  If you can then honestly say that production, mix, and arrangement don't have a profound effect on material, to the point of great influence on artistic presentation, after listening to those two albums....we'll all know you have a tin ear.

No need. If you read my post, you'd know I'm not making light of those works.
Or you're a rock magazine reader!
I'd say they have big effects on the lisners ears. Profound or not they do.
Those better be up to date. Hence, the finishing touches continue till the last minute, IMO.

[GnR-NOW]

has anyone every asked dizzy or any of the current members if there are studio recordings of the new songs they played during 2002 other then omg?

[Neemo]

has anyone every asked dizzy or any of the current members if there are studio recordings of the new songs they played during 2002 other then omg?

I think dizzy went on record at one point saying that each song had 4-6 different versions, so i would assume he meant all the songs slated for CD at that given point ('03 or '04)

I think it was Dizzy. You got that quote kickin' around ppbebe?

[jameslofton29]

has anyone every asked dizzy or any of the current members if there are studio recordings of the new songs they played during 2002 other then omg?

Well, they at least recorded tiny snippets of the songs for the Boston radio promo. Another good question to ask one of the band members is if they have done any work on the album since 2002.

[Voodoochild]

Ppbebe, I agree 100% with your post. I don't really have much more to say or I would be repeating stuff.

BTW, just one thing: from Let it Be and Let it Be naked we learn how the band were forced to put out some different work not meant to be that way. I don't think it's the case in Chinese Democracy.

Of course, the song Let it Be (both versions) are still the same song. If you hear Madagascar from Rio, it was pretty much the same arrangement. The mix was poor, the soundstage was bad and all the song seemed untight if you compare to 2002 versions. Still, it's basically the same arrangement, with just a little more guitar (thanks to Richard).

Changin' the song to be guitar driven would pretty much change the focus and the main arrangement, too much for compare. Like I said before, the main recording sessions were done between '99 and '02, as Tommy said, so it wouldn't make much sense if, from '02 to '06, the arrangements became that different. Or maybe Axl called sessions musicians to do the job, but if not, I can't see the point to not believe it's the same concept since '99-00.

Also, calling Brian May to do some work makes A LOT of sense if you want a Queen vibe. But hey, you can't accept some things didn't change, huh? Maybe the album has a new title too, because we can't take 7 years old articles as a point.

[jazjme]

very valid points voodoo

If you wanna disect, and bring out the  sterile gloves(so to speak), ..............

Why is it so hard for some to actually believe that alot of shit has transpired, unfortunate as it may seem for us the fans, not to be privy to all. Why does day turn to night, why does warm turn to cold...I could go on..my point is... as alot of you , Ive beem here many yrs..

[Warren]

This is basically a ghost band. It seems that Axl is still hesitating about getting involved with the new guys.

(No official pics in 8 years)


It doesn't mean CD will be a bad record.

[madagas]

James, my point about Axl not being able to keep up was that maybe Axl has been unable to write enough quality lyrics and put together enough quality melodies to match what he did with the old band. That is not far fetched at all. He had Izzy as a crutch back then. Consider the fact that he is the sole lyric writer-as he states. Tommy is a very good writer (lyric wise) so I hope he has bounced ideas off of him. However, there is no evidence that he has. Axl may be the type that is more quality driven then quantity driven. He may only have a few "bursts" of genius then he dries up for awhile. It is a distinct possibility..NOT SAYING IT IS TRUE...but could play a part in it. Couple that with the mountain of evidence that says vocals were hardly ever layed down (for long periods of time) and you have a compelling argument. :beer:You are simply ASSUMING that the bands material isn't good. They did their job 3-4 years ago-done. Axl is the reason we don't have a cd. If he didn't like the material, don't you think he would have dropped those guys a long time ago? Hmmmmm, makes you think.

[pilferk]

Changin' the song to be guitar driven would pretty much change the focus and the main arrangement, too much for compare. Like I said before, the main recording sessions were done between '99 and '02, as Tommy said, so it wouldn't make much sense if, from '02 to '06, the arrangements became that different. Or maybe Axl called sessions musicians to do the job, but if not, I can't see the point to not believe it's the same concept since '99-00.

Oh, for sure I can accept some things haven't changed.  The issue is that so much HAS changed, and the time period covered is so extensive, that we have no earthly idea what has and what has not changed.  Depending on a 7 year old article, much of which has been show to have changed, as your "source" isn't the most solid position to take.  It just isn't.  If your opinion is "See, he said it, and IMHO, it hasn't changed" but, in the same article, multiple things that HAVE changed can be pointed out...it's just not a compellingly solid opinion.  You are, of course, welcome to it.

And one final point, since I think we've all made our opinions known and are now just chaising our own tails: You don't have to re-record butkiss to change the arrangement of a song.  Bring the guitar forward, strip out the orchestral elements, tone down the keyboards (yes, I'm oversimplifying just a bit), and you've completely changed the arrangement of the song.  You can use the same tracks layed down originally.

And we know that the band members HAVE returned, from time to time, to do more recording. They've said so themselves...mostly the guitar parts (which would make sense).

[pilferk]

Sorry but I cannot read such a meaning from the context. You seemed to be referring to it as a big change.?
If not, how does the thought run in this post?

"Not for nothing but....do you REALLY wanna use an interview from 1999?? I mean..really?

'Cause if you read the entire interview, much of what he says in it has changed.? And, most recently, he said (serious or not, we don't know) the sound is much like "Queen". "

Again, you're reading into, instead of reading.? I didn't say it was a big change.

In addition, if you read my original post again, the initial comment you keep dwelling on was made because I was not clear what you meant by "AFD spirit".? You can read the original post if you'd like to see that.? My comment on the sound being "much like queen" was in reference to your possilble meaning that you were referring to "AFD spirit" in the sense of the sound of the album.? And you must admit anything having "some arrangements that are like Queen" is pretty far from the sound of AFD.

Don't you really think these two sentences very different??
"SOME OF THE ARRENGEMENTS are KIND OF like queen"
"the sound is much like "Queen""?

Not at all.? If you'd like, we can debate the semantics, though I'm not sure how productive that is.

? Some is more than a few, but less than most...semanticaly speaking, that would be between 4 and 6.? Pretty significant on a 13 track album.? Of course, that's playing semantic games and exacting Axl, but that seems to be the route you'd like to take in the discussion, so.....
? ?Notice, I also didn't say "much of the sound is like queen"....I said "the sound is much like Queen".? The much in reference to it's similarity, not in the amount of total material.

See, isn't that fun and productive??

I think the queen reference was Just an example of the variety and the complexity of the album. Not because of the old article. "some of" always imply there are more things different than these particular some. When you hear the word "but" you expect the subsequent sentence to have more weight than the preceding one(s).

Again, semantics.? "But" only implies an exception to the previous statement.? It implies no weight of any kind.? He said what he meant.? No need to read into it to assign meaning.
 

I understand That is YOUR point. Not voodoo's or mine.
What I've been saying from the start is that I gather from the latest interview that the basic ideas of the album Axl had in 1999 remain mostly the same, save that perhaps they are more concrete and developed now.

As I said, (C& paste job again)

In 1999 he described the album as a melting pot. He referred to Queen concerning the diversity.

In 2006 he describes it as very complex and different.

It's SOME OF the arrangements that are said to have resemblance to queen and NOT the whole album. probably we'll see a dramatic/operatic touch of the queen type on some of the songs. I assume the mention was again an example in regard to the variety for which everyone will find "at least a few" their own fav songs there.

Now you're off point.? We were talking about collaboration, remember?

And none of the above has anything to do with the fact the original interview has many details that HAVE changed.

[ppbebe]

has anyone every asked dizzy or any of the current members if there are studio recordings of the new songs they played during 2002 other then omg?

I think dizzy went on record at one point saying that each song had 4-6 different versions, so i would assume he meant all the songs slated for CD at that given point ('03 or '04)

I think it was Dizzy. You got that quote kickin' around ppbebe?

Aye. Not each song tho. "SOME".
GNR-NOW, Tommy n Dizzy heard  "final" mixes in 2004.


Dan: Is the record set up as its going to be released?  Has it been decided what songs are going to be on it?
Dizzy: Pretty much. 

Dan: How long have those songs been around?
Dizzy: Some of them have been around for five or six years.  Others are fairly new.
Dan: The ones that have been around for a few years, have they changed a lot over the years?  Is that one of the things that holds up the release?
Dizzy: They change a little bit, yeah.  And as is the modern way, some of the songs have two or three different versions.  You know, remixes and what not.  There's so many great players in the band now and there are so many great parts that have been laid down now for all the songs, unfortunately its impossible to put them all on there.  The obvious thing would be to have a couple versions of each song.  I don't know if that's going to happen, but its definitely possible.  And I have heard several versions of some of the cooler songs, and they all sound great. All the players that have come in and out of this project are phenominal players.  So there's a lot of great stuff to choose from.  Its an unenviable task for whoever is going to mix it.  BUT THEY BETTER PUT MY SHIT IN THE MIX!

Dan: Its been like eleven years since the last album now, and everybody is still talking about it.  Can it possibly live up to the hype?
Dizzy: Yes.

Dan: Its that good, in your opinion?
Dizzy: In my opinion, absolutely.  I think it will actually exceed expectations.

Dan: It seems like the band was close before.  You went out and did a world tour, there was the MTV Awards, does it seem like you were closer than ever before, or does it seem like there were times when it was closer and now you have kind of taken a step back?
Dizzy: I think it feels closer now than it did then.

Dan: There was a song that leaked out to radio, I.R.S., is that definitely a GNR song?  As far as I know, nobody ever confirmed it.  Is that one of the songs?
Dizzy: Yes.  Its a good song.

Dizzy interview 6/3/2004

This interview serves as a good reference. to check with the recent one of the thread topic or the axl comments.

[ppbebe]

anything having "some arrangements that are like Queen" is pretty far from the sound of AFD.

And far from UYI
"Some people are going to say, 'It doesn't sound like Axl Rose, it doesn't sound like Guns n' Roses.'"
'cause SOME ppl only see how it SOUNDS and how it looks.
None are so blind as those who will not see.

Again, semantics.  "But" only implies an exception to the previous statement.  It implies no weight of any kind.  He said what he meant.  No need to read into it to assign meaning.

I strongly disagree. Especially in this case.
I don't see the sematics. I read just as it is. And in my book "much" is not synonymic for "kind of" .

What I've been saying from the start is that I gather from the latest interview that the basic ideas of the album Axl had in 1999 remain mostly the same, save that perhaps they are more concrete and developed now.

As I said, (C& paste job again)

In 1999 he described the album as a melting pot. He referred to Queen concerning the diversity.

In 2006 he describes it as very complex and different.

It's SOME OF the arrangements that are said to have resemblance to queen and NOT the whole album. probably we'll see a dramatic/operatic touch of the queen type on some of the songs. I assume the mention was again an example in regard to the variety for which everyone will find "at least a few" their own fav songs there.

Now you're off point.  We were talking about collaboration, remember?

And none of the above has anything to do with the fact the original interview has many details that HAVE changed.

It has something to do with the fact the recent interview doesn't contradict what he said in 1999.
I'm not talking about the details of the album. 
The GNR spirit seen in AFD is what Axl talked about in the 1999 article. That implys diversity and the collaboration. I may post the bit later.
somehow I don't see it worth tho. as you're not willing to speak the same language.

[madagas]

lost in translation...literally Two heavyweights going toe to toe......let's call it a draw.

[pilferk]

And far from UYI
"Some people are going to say, 'It doesn't sound like Axl Rose, it doesn't sound like Guns n' Roses.'"
'cause SOME ppl only see how it SOUNDS and how it looks.
None are so blind as those who will not see.

No, probably closer to UYI than AFD, actually.

I hate to break it to you but music is an auditory experience. ?How it sounds defines it. ?

I strongly disagree. Especially in this case.
I don't see the sematics. I read just as it is. And in my book "much" is not synonymic for "kind of" .

Then you disagree with the definition of the word:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=but

If someone says to me "yeah, they're kinda like GnR", in a casual conversation, yes...I think that would translate, in a more formal way, into "they sound much like GnR". ?If you want to argue I'm interpreting his phrasing incorrectly, I can certainly see that opinion. ?I disagree with it, but can see it.

And again, you're leading the discussion to semantics. ?I can only assume you're doing so because you have no other way to bolster your argument.

It has something to do with the fact the recent interview doesn't contradict what he said in 1999.
I'm not talking about the details of the album.?
The GNR spirit seen in AFD is what Axl talked about in the 1999 article. That implys diversity and the collaboration. I may post the bit later.
somehow I don't see it worth tho. as you're not willing to speak the same language.

So you'll pick and choose what's changed and what hasn't? ?What's still true and what isn't? Based on what? Your opinion? ? Sorry, not compelling enough for me. ?You've pointed out ONE thing that hasn't changed (maybe)...and it's not anything that supports your argument that the album creation process is collaborative. ?I'm not saying EVERYTHING in the '99 interview is incorrect. ?I'm saying, in light of the fact we have information that SOME of that stuff has changed, and no way of knowing, for sure, what has and what hasn't, short of other corroborating evidence, bolstering your opinion with that article as evidence is not the firmest position to take. It's true. ?Whether you like it or not.

16 Tracks? Or 13 tracks? Freeze, May and Huge? Or ?Not? ?There's too much evidence, in subsequent articles and interviews, that things have changed to ASSUME which parts have and which parts have not.

And from the interview you posted in '04:

Dizzy: Some of them have been around for five or six years. ?Others are fairly new.

Didn't you say that some has to be less than most?

Again, we're talking about collaboration. ?A subject which other Gunners interviews cover in discussing their lack of knowledge about the current state of the material. ?You "source" is a 1999 article. ?The contrary evidence exists in interviews/articles from '03 to '06. ?It's not a great source to use to bolster your opinion.

[pilferk]

lost in translation...literally Two heavyweights going toe to toe......let's call it a draw.

Yeah, I feel like we're both chasing our tails at this point.

I'm done.  I think I've made my points.

I'll let Ali have the last word.

(Frasier has left the building) 

[ppbebe]

lost in translation...literally Two heavyweights going toe to toe......let's call it a draw.

Yeah it's boring, nay?  But Excuse me,   I weight only about 110 pounds. 

[madagas]

Good reading.......interesting....but I'm not sure you understood everything Pilferk was saying.

[ppbebe]

Well maybe 'course your of the opinion that this is an Axl rose one man show?
I'm quite sure Pilferk doesn't understand half of what I'm saying.

And far from UYI
"Some people are going to say, 'It doesn't sound like Axl Rose, it doesn't sound like Guns n' Roses.'"
'cause SOME ppl only see how it SOUNDS and how it looks.
None are so blind as those who will not see.

No, probably closer to UYI than AFD, actually.

I don't think so. Maybe to you Rolling stones sounds similar to Queen.

I hate to break it to you but music is an auditory experience.  How it sounds defines it. 

Music is.  A Band is not.

[madagas]

Slow down Tank...I am not taking sides. You both don't understand exactly what the other is saying and you are both right in your own way. That is obvious.  I'm not going down the solo act argument. I like the new band and how it is arranged currently. That is all that matters. I don't want anything to do with "Yesterdays".