Sympathy for the Devil / Escape to Paris?

[Shallowdeep]

I understand that there was a sympathy for the devil single, I was just wondering what was the b-side? Was it a cover? Who played and sang on it? and when was it recorded?

Oh and where did the single get in the US single chart or was it just released in Sweden

[jarmo]

GED 21967 CD
Tracks:
Sympathy For The Devil / Escape From Paris (not performed by GN'R)



/jarmo

[Rebecca Duff Rose]

GNR have done a version of 'Sympathy For The Devil'
i downloaded it the other week!
I luv the ending!
Go on WINMX.COM
Register {type of thing!}
the type in GUNS N' ROSES
Then click on SYMPATHY FOR THE DEVIL!
{Try to get a cable 'version'- its better and faster to download!}
I shall try to get more information! Lol!

[SwedeChildO'Mine]

Yes, Sympathy For The Devil is covered by GN'R.
Mick Jagger and Keith Richards of Rollin Stones wrote back in 1968.

This were the GN'R line-up when they recorded it.

Vocals: Axl
Lead and Rhythm Guitars: Slash
Rhythm Guitar: Paul Tobias
Bass: Duff
Drums: Matt
Piano: Dizzy
Backing Vocals: Axl

Credits:
Produced by: Mike Clink & Guns N' Roses
Engineered by: Mike Clink & Jim Mitchell
Mixed by: Bill Price

[Izzy]

One of GNR's best songs without a doubt...and much better than the original *dodges incoming projectiles*

[seniorabreu]

I think it is a kick ass version but not better than the original imho  

[iscariot8]

i don't know much about music. i mean, i don't play and i've never studied it so there's a lot i'm missing. so i wonder if my ignorance has anything to do with why i can't understand why all the critics single GNR's version of Sympathy for the Devil as the worst song Gnr did. I like it fine. but maybe i'm just a sucker for axl's voice. anyhow, if its possible, i'd really like someone to explain, patiently, what is so damned horrible about GNR's version-- i understand that the stones version is an all time classic but that alone can't make the song so lousy....

[Izzy]

i don't know much about music. i mean, i don't play and i've never studied it so there's a lot i'm missing. so i wonder if my ignorance has anything to do with why i can't understand why all the critics single GNR's version of Sympathy for the Devil as the worst song Gnr did. I like it fine. but maybe i'm just a sucker for axl's voice. anyhow, if its possible, i'd really like someone to explain, patiently, what is so damned horrible about GNR's version-- i understand that the stones version is an all time classic but that alone can't make the song so lousy....

Not everyone dislikes the song - i think its one of their very best songs and soooo much better than the Stones version (and i adore the Stones version)

I just love the guitar duel at the end - Paul Huge is fantastic on that song

Everything about that song is wonderful - i own the original single

Axl singing about how he's the devil - it seems...to fit somehow

[dave-gnfnr2k]

I still like the janes addiction version the best.
And yes Huge is great  on this song, too bad slash and duff did not think so.

[darkmonth]

Now where do they say he was not good on it? ... Slash's beef was that Axl never consulted with Slash on the subject.  And I think he was well within his rights considering it was his band too.

Anyway, I like the song a lot.  I don't see the problem with it.  Slash has bad feelings about it because (and I am only assuming) it was a bad time in GnR for him.

[iscariot8]

i think the Spin 'what the world needs now is axl rose' from 1998 called it lackluster and the 'where is axl now' rolling stone article from a few years back said something bad about it and just about every review (why i read those things i don't know) about the greatest hits has said something bad (or very bad) about the version. of course, when it comes to GNR critics sometimes stray from reason. is this then just one of those cases of the fans liking a song the critics pan for the sake of panning? i was wondering if i held the song so dear because its one of those two soundtrack songs released since TSI.

[Izzy]

i think the Spin 'what the world needs now is axl rose' from 1998 called it lackluster and the 'where is axl now' rolling stone article from a few years back said something bad about it and just about every review (why i read those things i don't know) about the greatest hits has said something bad (or very bad) about the version. of course, when it comes to GNR critics sometimes stray from reason. is this then just one of those cases of the fans liking a song the critics pan for the sake of panning? i was wondering if i held the song so dear because its one of those two soundtrack songs released since TSI.

I think you'll find the 'critics' ALWAYS have a hidden agenda

Many are paid to endorse certain songs or endorse them so as to win favours (interviews etc) from the band

Critics also love jumping on a bandwagon - lets have ago at GNR! Lets all worship Nirvana!

At the end of the day - if u like the song its good - if any one else disagrees then they can go to hell - especially if there some journalist

U should read the British rag NME - if its not bland, British or called the White Stripes they won't even mention it.......

[Layko]

Well I think it's pretty cool, I think the reason most people don't like it isn't cause how it's sound, but because Paul Huge plays guitar in it.

The music as well as the vocals sound perfect on GNR's Sympathy For The Devil. I didn't even know who Paul Huge was until like months after I heard the song.

Anyways, most fans of both new and old GNR hate Paul Huge. I don't know much about him but from what I've seen he seems like a cool guy.

[Gunner80]

I think the song is great!  

[Evolution]

U should read the British rag NME - if its not bland, British or called the White Stripes they won't even mention it.......

I am fucking sick and tired of reading about the next saviour of rock and roll every week! for fucks sake a mag can't be that fickle surely?

[ShotgunBlues1978]

I never hated the song, but it seems pretty uninspired if you ask me.  It's decent, but it's not original material and it doesn't sound all that great to me.  I would say it is one of the worst songs they have.  That doesn't mean it's terrible or even bad, but compared to their best material it isn't anything special.  

[Mr Cowbell ?]

Hell its not my favorite GnR song but I like it, Its the reason I bought GH, I had all the other songs. I am sure theres other people on this board who bought the same GH and had every other song already.

GnR's version is better then the stones. Axl throws so much emotion into the song. WHen I hear Axl sing it I serious can picture him as SATAN!

[Acquiesce]

I never really cared for it but I never cared for the original either.

[Mattman]

I prefer GN'R's version to the Stones', mainly because I like Guns N' Roses more than The Stones.  But also because my parents always sing along whenever the Rolling Stones version comes on the radio, and that kind of ruins the song for me, whereas with the GN'R version they're like, "Um...what's this?"  Always go with the version that alienates baby boomers.

Anyway, it's a good cover.  I love the riffout at the end (the last Slash solo ever on a GN'R track and thus, by my reckoning, the end of the real Guns N' Roses), and for some reason I like that part where they go, "Milk Boy!  Save us Milk Boy!.......don't forget to drink your milk."  It's nonsense, and that's why I like it.

[Queen of Everything]

I think it is a kick ass version but not better than the original imho ?

Just to make everyone happy - they are equal