Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Hello all.

As most of us remember, back in the early 90's GNR basically was THE band....period.  I felt like a lot of people forgot about them after lies was released.   They ruled the rock world when UYI came out, now it seems like a lot of people have forgotten about them again. 

In your opinion, with the release of CD will they again rule the music world?  I sure hope so!

Excellent thread   :peace:

they rule my world that's for sure, the world haven't forgotten the smallest little thing axl does and it at least gets a little notice in the magazines, just ask bon jovi


the haters will be proven wrong even though they won't admit it

I hope so, I was far too young to witness all that illusions stuff (only 2). It would be great though everywhere you go chinese democracy is there, on the radio, internet adds, T.V adds, music tv stations playin new gnr videos as well as old-(just for the sake of it), the cd bein rotated constantly in music shops, billboards posters, interviews etc..

Kinda the way amrican idiot was for green day, only this time it will be for a good product :hihi:

I was thinking about this today. I was thinking to myself that there are millions of teens now, that don't even know who the gunners are, all they know is Hip-Hop.

I think it's actually our job to do a little show n' tell.

I dont agree...
I think GnR is really popular again already. i often hear people talking about them, talkin about all the smal news updates. Some people may not care as much as you and me, but they sure know about GnR, Chinese Democracy, Dr Pepper`s propotion really got out there, and the 2006 tour. Some people care more then others, but everyone knows. I wonder how often, when in a music discussion i have heard "So, is the new GnR coming out this year or what?". "I dont think its ever gonna se the light of day", "Why dont Axl realease it?"  etc etc...

No, but they will rule our world, because we're starvin for something new and Axl is brilliant, so we're all waiting to be mesmerized again.

i don't think Gn'R Will ever be as huge as they were for obvious reasons. but they're still a household name and they'll be one of the most sucessful touring bands always.

and for us fans, they'll always be n?1 and thats all that counts

well with today's music I say its entirely possible. I remember a time when they killed glam metal and they took over with their street attitude.  As far as today goes with the genre being commericalized hip hop, emo, pop, ect I believe they could do it, its just that MTV kinda promotes toward hip hop, laguna beach, the hills type pop rock its not the same say 15 yrs ago.  Its all about marketing their all ready a big name so is the words Chinese Democracy its just how they promote the album Im not worried about the album itself cause I gurantee u there's more than 3 hits on that record.  My gut tells me Axl has a story to tell and alot of people will wanna know.

Guns 'N Roses is still a big name today based on the 'classic' songs. Anyone who is a fan of rock music at the very least appreciates them. And most music fans out there know about "Chinese Democracy", even if they may not be as obsessive over its progress as we are here. People may have "moved on" over the years; people are still bitching and moaning about the past/lineup etc, but when Axl's voice hits the speakers - EVERYONE WILL CARE.

Look at the current state of music industry; posers, imitators, washed up reunion tours etc

Somebody REAL needs to come in and bring some REAL, INSPIRED music to the world. None of this retro / garage-rock bullshit.

Axl has made his place in music history, and there's no reason why history can't be repeated again.

THE MUSIC WILL SPEAK FOR ITSELF

i feel your sarcasm

IF the music is great... as most of us think it will be... then... YES... Guns N' Roses can once again be HUGE and dominate the air waves. It will probably be completely different in "feeling" than the AFD or UYI days though. They're no longer a bunch of 20 something sex symbol rebels raising hell. Axl is the only world-wide known figure in the band (Tommy is well known within his "circle" and amongst music critics, etc.) and he's 46 years old now. There should still be some of the "GN'R aura" around the band though b/c Axl is still a rock icon and an intriguing enigma. Hopefully, most of all, it will be an era of artistic achievement, commercial success and band stability.... with LOTS of shows. :beer: 

Guns N' Roses in the early 90s were absolutely massive.  Take Coldplay today and multiply it by 10, that's how big they were.  They were selling out 40 - 70 thousand person venues; never mind arenas, they were a stadium beast.  I remember being 12 years old in 1992 with November Rain being played every 40 minutes on MTV or Much Music, not being able to go anywhere without seeing guys and girls in GNR paraphernalia.  If you weren't around at the time to experience it, it's hard to know what it was like 'cause not another band has been as big as they were. 

So that said, while I'd love to see a return of old, I have my doubts that we'll see such a phenomenon again.  GNR stood for anarchy, rebellion, danger - an attitude that was authentic and real.  It was something that teenagers and early-20 somethings were able to buy into.  I just don't see the same associations anymore - the band seems more like a business, a brand than an out of control freight train.  Moreover, with Axl only a few years from 50, it's hard for him to be the voice of the young and misunderstood.  Eminem seemed to have picked up that torch a few years ago (though he's recently been withdrawing himself from the limelight as well).   

But who knows, I'm not ready to count the man and his band out yet.  The odds are definitely against him, but how great would it be to GNR and Axl Rose reign supreme at the rock n' roll throne once more.

Cheers,

Andrew

Sorry, I just find it funny you saying those words and saying you don't see it in GN'R anymore.

How many fans aren't upset because GN'R doesn't play by the "rock n' roll rule book"?



I do think GN'R today are still about something real, something genuine in a time where everything is watered down and formatted to fit a certain market or group.




Take U2 for example. They were about those things when they started. They still sell out stadiums but nobody would complain that Bono isn't the same angry man he was in the early 80s.

But just like with Axl, it doesn't have to mean that his principles have changed.






/jarmo

Yes, Axl is bringing GNR back into an industry lacking anyone who is genuine and passionate about what he does.

I will continue to support Axl and GNR as they exist today because the man goes by his own rules with no compromise. No, he's not a young angry wild rocker, and I wouldn't expect him to be at his age - unlike a number of other musicians from his era who still look and act like 20 year olds, 'reliving' the past with their nostalgia tours. Obviously the album hasn't come out yet so he hasn't a chance to fully bring his new musical vision for GNR to life yet, but in time..

GUNS N 'ROSES & CHINESE DEMOCRACY, Break The Rules Of The Current Music... Remember.

 :beer: :smoking: :beer:

HBK *

Guns will always be relevant in music. In the NJ/NYC area, Krock, Q104.3, and 105.5 WDHA are  still playing Guns songs. I'm not sure if GNR will ever be as big as they once were no matter which lineup is  in Guns. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that  the music industry has changed so much.  However, GNR has classics that will ALWAYS get played because the music was/is awesome! I think they still are the next Aerosmith.

you bet your balls they will.


i'm hoping they'll come back kinda like red hot chille peppers did

they were forgotten for a while too in the 90s weren't they then they came back and.....yeah....right?

Times are different today so they'll rule in a different way.  A tremendous amount of press will be bestowed upon them when cd is released.  GN'R has ruled my world since 1988, alebeit between '95 and '00 they were not at the top of my list.  But I'm obsessed now more then ever!  With all of the bickering that goes on here we should put a self imposed moratorium on any fighting and just exhale that the wait is over when CD is finally released...just for one day.  Then we can go back to overanalyzing the songs and everything else!

Here's just my opinion.  If anyone remembers when GNR performed at the MTV Video Awards a few yrs ago, people were pumped and the only orginal member was Axl.  He didn't sound that great (just that night) and no one knew the rest of the band (besides Dizzy) people were pumped for GNR in any line up.  It was the one Jummy Fallon hosted.  People were excited to see Axl. 

Axl has that effortless cool about him, which will always be appealing. Gn'R is a band full of great musicians performing incredible shows with a high level of production.
They definitely still have that rebellious edge, even if it isn't to the point of excess. The fire, the anger is there. I love it.

See, if Axl was like everyone else, whenever he'd go out he'd tip off paparazzi, do loads of interviews, and run his mouth. Not to mention put on shitty shows. But he doesn't.

Axl and Mick Jagger are two people that I will constantly commend for leaving it all on the stage.

from what I've heard of the leaks, probably not :no:

I'm always converting people to GN'R and mighty succesfully, if I do say so myself  :smoking:

Forcing people by beating them up doesn't count.

Ouch!  I guess you're being honest at least.  Although I'm not sure you set the tone for the masses.  To each his own.  I would like to think that GNR could "rule the world of music" again, but I just don't know if that could happen.  It's a different time.  I don't know if ANY band could save the sorry state that the music business is in at this point.  But if they could it might be even more impressive than the first time around.  The music industry is that far gone.

They won't be as big, not by a long shot-and that is not a putdown-I'm 35 and remember in high school and the UYI days-you have no idea how huge they were-it's like asking if Pearl Jam, Motley, or Van halen would beat what they were at their peak-I think they can make a great record that may sell well, but they will never create the furor of 88 til about 91-they were all over MTV-there used to be a Guns n Roses weekend on MTV-they would play Guns videos, interveiws, stuff-it's just a different time

What we learned in the past is that it's basicly all about Axl. He is the last great Rock Star. A dinosaur so to say. He's like a ghost
I don't know if that is a good or a bad sign ...

Anyhow, in case this album will be released  ::) they will be very succesful again.
People will get curious about GNR again as soon as CD hits the street but i think it's doubtful that they would "rule the music world" again .

Now you're choosing to focus on something that bothers some people who aren't at the shows instead of the real issue which is the attitude and being true to yourself.

You were talking about the attitude right?

Well, doesn't it speak volumes that the band is doing what they feel like doing instead of trying to please every miserable fuckhead on the planet who whines on message boards about some setlist played on the other side of the planet?





Exactly what the dangerous band called GN'R were called when you said they were dangerous. Nothing new there!

Did you forget about that?

The names might've changed, the attitude's still the same.



And what exactly do you know about this since you state it as a fact?

When you start making money with your band and you don't have to work to finance your playing, it becomes a business. But does it mean you can't have integrity?


Compare GN'R to a band like KISS if you wanna talk about business....




That's the thing. Nobody is really expecting them to be that way.

As long as Axl is true to himself and the band keeps doing what they do best, it's authentic.

Age has nothing to do with that.






Recapture?

Why would anybody want to go back and act like an angry 25 year old?


Like I said, you don't have to have to be the same you were 20 years ago.









And you think they can't because they're not angry 25 year olds anymore.

Everybody knows that.


I mentioned U2 as an example because they changed, people still buy their records and tickets to their concerts (even though many go to hear the classics).

They don't act like "angry young men from Ireland" anymore, still manage to be popular.


Same thing with Metallica. They're not exactly making Kill 'Em All over and over again are they?



I think that there's nobody like Axl in the business.

He doesn't have to be Axl model 1987 or model 1991. He's just Axl and it's enough.

I believe kids can see what's real and what's not.





/jarmo

The leaks don't sound like they were made in the 80's so that's no surprise

Axl Rose: The Rolling Stone Interview (http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/articles/showarticle.php?articleid=56)
Rolling Stone, April 2nd 1992, RS627



As I said, some things haven't changed....



/jarmo

When I think of GN'R's return and how it will go... I keep thinking of Pink Floyd's successful return with The Division Bell in 1994, which reached #1 on both the US and UK charts and was supported by a very successful tour. As I remember it... the general public finally got over the fact that Roger Waters was no longer around (parallel to Slash and Duff?)... embraced David Gilmour's new vision (parallel to Axl?) for the band... and was basically just psyched to see a legendary band back making great music and putting on a great show. They also released a very successful live album in 1995.

I think that's a baseline minimum for how well things could go for GN'R... and it could be much greater than The Division Bell Pink Floyd era if Chinese Democracy is as great as it appears to be...

I Remember.

This Very, very... Important In Artists Of This Quality

HBK *

Fair enough; it appears things aren't so different after all with Axl.  But he was just one one-fifth (or one-sixth depending on the year) of the band.  Other band members were also madmen possessed by their demons. 

I don't want to suggest that in order for a band to be real or rebellious they require track marks up their arms and found dead time from time in an elevator, but that's who GNR was back then.  Things could go bottoms up at any moment, you never knew whether this was going to be the last GNR show for who knew what reason.  I just never got that seem feeling from the new band.  Perhaps you did, and more power to you, but I  haven't.

Again, that doesn't mean I don't love the band and still don't cheer them on.  I'm not taking down my $3000 in GNR memorabilia off my wall any time soon. 

I'm just arguing that from my point of view, I just don't have that same kind of feeling from this carnation that I did about the last.  What made the original band special is no longer there for me, so because of that, I just don't see them reaching the same level of dominance they once did.  They're special now in a different way, but not in the same way that the original band had.  I love this band for different reasons, so please don't misconstrue me as trying to rehash a debate about whether the old band is better than this one. 

Anyway, that's how I see it.

Cheers,

Andrew

 

Will they big as they were back in the day?  No.  But no one is.  Can they make an impact, yes.  There's not much out there right now that's real rock.  And you have the people that are curious.  And the people out there wtg for something different.  I've said this before.  You get someone or a band with a hit single and than there are 50 bands/singers trying to do the same thing.  I don't think they'll be that much copy cat from new GNR.

To My, All Line UP From 1985 To 2008, Guns N 'Roses have had something special.

 :love:

HBK *

Yeah, that do have something special and no one can say any different.

1 album will not solve decades of incompetence. It would help them get back into the limelight for a year at most and then they would fade back out again just like all of these old 80's bands that make a comeback. The key is to keep pumping out albums, which we all know is not really going to happen.

Enjoy them for what they are. Who cares what everyone else thinks.

Why would you compare GN'R to bands that have never done anything close to what GN'R have?


It's like comparing the Rolling Stones to the Monkees.




/jarmo

 :rofl: :rofl:  Jarmo, good one.   There hasn't been a band as big as GNR since GNR.

I can make that comparison since THIS GNR band has done nothing so far.

Make comparisons until your face turns blue, doesn't mean it's a fair comparison.


When you say nothing, does that include selling out venues and headlining festivals around the world? Maybe in your way of thinking, that's exactly what those other bands you're comparing GN'R to are doing?


These so called comparisons are often just a way for certain people to belittle the band.




/jarmo

Hi G&R folks. Just arrived. I think if the new cd (I heard there's about three cd's worth of music) gets release it will be recognized and take America by surprise. At this point I hope all goes well because this planet needs a very good kick in the ass!!! What would be even better is if the original line up got together and toured for part of the tour (or a separate tour). That first line up had the magic. I know because I've seen the original line up and than the line up during the Use Your Illusion tour. Both were great. But the first line up was it. (Saw them openning the show with Deep Purple and Aerosmith.) If there is a mystical thing called magic, the first line up was it. Now I haven't heard the current line up in concert so I don't want to be judgemental. I did hear that it was a very professional concert but lacked that magic.
Right now the music business really needs a good swift kick in the ass as well. I'm hoping G&R new cd will do it.
Anything at this point is possible so leave a little room for some hope for Axl and the rest of the crew...........and Welcome to the Jungle!!!!!

I'm not saying it's a bad thing to fade back out of the limelight. I am just making a comment on today's instant gratification society and what have you done for me today mentality.

I don't understand why people keep saying this... I saw them four times in '06... I was there!  People were getting pissed that they were showing up late.  Didn't they get shit thrown at them in Spain?  Also, people were definitely a little pissed that they were playing the same setlists... again, these are people that were there.  I, for one, had a blast every single time, but that's not to say my friends weren't pissed when they had to wake up for work the next day with 6 hours of sleep.

Wait, wait. People THERE were bitching about the setlist?

I'm sorry, I just can't believe it. Unless they were board members, I can't see why someone would complain about it because, for the majority of the crowd, it was the first time they saw the band in years.

Also, about the "I work tomorrow" thing.. It's once in a year. I can't believe grown up people couldn't deal with a late party - hell, I bet people go to a bar and sleep less than 6 hours every week!

It's because they should be blamed themselves for being tired and hungover at work if they go out. So they're quiet about it.

It's only fun to whine when you can blame somebody else.



A friend of mine drove 5 hours from a GN'R show, dropped me off at home and went straight to work.

Yet he doesn't whine about it. He knows it happens once in a while so it's no big deal.




/jarmo

The setlist issue is bullshit and I'll say why.  In 2002, "Better", "I.R.S.", "Down On The Farm", "You're Crazy", "Nice Boys", "Don't Cry", "There Was A Time", "You Gotta Move" and "Used To Love Her" were not played.  So, it wasn't the same setlist.

As for the late starts, well, that's how it is with GN'R.  It's how it has always been and how it will always be.  Use that information to help you decide whether or not it's worth it to attend a show.

Ali

I'm not saying I was bitching, but people were bitching that they came on late.  Fact.  Regardless, this is digression.  I think with the right promotion, Chinese Democracy will be huge.  It's gonna sell millions in South America, alone.  I agree with everyone that says the music will speak for itself. 

In 2002, Not Play: Back In The U., Sailing, Robin Finck Instrumental Blues/Jam, Richard Fortus Beatiful, Bumblefoot Godzilla, Angie, Piano Bar, Mr. Grinch, No Guest Sebastian bach, Not IZZY Stradlin, Not Kid Rock In Nightrain, etc.

 :P :P :P

HBK *

Exactly how much sleep do your friends needs?  :confused:

If they can't function on six hours sleep, maybe you should suggest they seek medical help.  ::)


I'd bet a good majority of those who attended the shows left on such a (natural) high that after the show they just hung out with their friends or other fans and then went straight to work/school without any sleep and fuctioned just fine (or in some cases, better than usual).  :headbanger:

Hi BSR and welcome to the board.


Well everyone's entitled to their opinion and whether or not you feel a certain line-up has that all important chemistry is highly subjective, but I can assure you that I felt that the 2006/7 line-up had something pretty special going for it.  I've seen various line-ups of this band and this one ranks up there alongside the best.

Anyway, hopefully you'll get the chance to see and hear for yourself in the not too distant future.   : ok:

ajajajajja

good joke

 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


HBK *

The late shows, I don't mind-I expect it and it dosen't bother me, but this has caused them to lose a lot of fans-here in CLeveland the show did not let out until 2:30 A.M-people were pissed just standing and waiting, and some people were saying "never again"-and I think your under-estimating the amount of people under 21, and under 18 for that matter-there were a lot of young kids who want to see a Guns n Roses show, and try explaining to your parents walking in at 3 AM for a concert-to people who say "who needs a lot of sleep" or whatever are not thinking of the circumstances of what some people who go to a concert go through-I know were a little off topic here, but I know they have lost a lot of fans through the years this way, and younger fans, which is even worse

Prolly because they were too young to stay awake this late anyways. :P

I think in 1988 the majority of Guns fanbase were probably in high school-I should know-I was one ;)

and were they always on time? finished before midnight?

I'm not sure about the 80's-it seemed like it started more around the UYI era, but I could be wrong

I think you are under-estimating the number of parents of todays younger fans who are GNR fans themselves.  ;)

I'M Fans From 1987.... OLD GUNNER

 :peace:

HBK *

Oh, please. ::)


Any news about Axl or GNR gets a lot of media attention. It's not like they are not relevant anymore.. There's way too much curiosity about the album, regardless of people might expect.

Just Google for Dr. Pepper and you see what I mean.

Started with AFD; right around SCOM came out and in heavy rotation on MTV

People are forgetting that this album is gonna sell millions and millions of records outside of the U.S. and Europe.  I was surfing in Mexico a few months ago, when this car full of Mexicans pulled up next to me and they had "Civil War" DIMED on their stereo.  It was at that moment, that I realized this.

I meant when they started going on really late for concerts, if that started around the Use Your Illusion era-I would have to look and see-I remember I was a sophmore in high school when they hit big-the anticipation for the illusion albums was uneral-it was the first "midnight" sale of an album, which will never happen again because of album leaks

Is that really statistically significant ?

I still get frustrated at people's comments and expectations of the current lineup.

Nobody ever intended for the current lineup to replace the legacy and history of the 'classic' lineup. These guys in the band now are all unique individuals with their own history and talent.

They should not be unfairly criticized until the new albums come out and people hear the NEW band play THEIR NEW SONGS.

I'm sure if he could have it his way, Axl would drop all of the old material from the setlist, but he just as easily knows people are still interested in GNR to hear 'the voice' singing the 'classic songs'. So, in that case, the new guys are just doing their job, and they may not have 'the magic' of the old lineup - because they ARE NOT the old lineup.

RE: THE LATE STARTS

What the fuck is wrong with some people? Sure, it might get tiring waiting longer than you expect for them to come onstage, but its once every bloody 3 or 4 years isn't it? Are people really staring at their watch and thinking about work the next day when GNR are blasting onstage? Don't you enjoy the moment?

I'm sure these whingers have no problems getting pissed until sunrise and womanizing every other bloody Friday night..

I was also and I was at many GNR shows ,... Felt Forum, RItz, Sundance.. and yes back then in HS I didnt get home till almost 3am.lol  Its not a new thing.. its been the case , so if you dont like it cant deal with it, its not the band for you.

I wish I was waiting 3-4 hours right now for AXL to take the stage. In the grande scheme of things who the F cares how long you wait. Whatever he needs to do to prepare himself is fine by me.

Remember when the release was pushed back a few months. I thought that I was devastated. Young, dumb, and all ...

At this point, probably not. It's not going to sell the same number of albums that AFD did and that's what the press will compare it to. Some will be fair... Maybe... But if it doesn't recoup the money it cost to make it it will be considered a failure. No matter how many albums CD really is, 3-4,  the first one is going to be the one and only one they count.

There's not even a climate in music for a band to be that big again. Just the fact that GNR was that big once is a huge deal. Not many bands are ever that big, and even fewer stay that way. If he makes a good album that's all that's going to matter.

if dl sales is added in, who knows.
at least  as many music lovers, if not more than those in the 80s, will hear it, have it and love it, I reckon.

The toipc is can they get back to where they were in 88 through 91 basically-like it or not, the record label and management are not worried about people on this board, and marketing Guns N Roses towards people here, who will buy the album, they are going towards general music fans, hard rock fans, and right now Guns has lost a lot of fans in the last decade for a variety of reasons

I bet there are more fans now than in early 1987.

Things will never be as they used to be, the industry has destroyed music as we've known. Bands are born and die in a flash, and almost all new groups are based in formulas. Really, these are sad times for one that remembers how music used to be in the 80's and 90's...

Ok, I barely ever post here....

But here's my two cents. The album could quite possibly be a real big seller, and become real popular.

Even though the music world seems to get more and more diverse and the fan base is spread more thinly than in the beatles days; now a days there is a huge demand for older bands.

The Travelling Willbury's re-issue went to number 1, Bob Dylan's latest album went to number 1.

This is for two reasons I think; the older music is good... but also because these albums appeal to people who arn't into whatever new stuff is pumped out every 6 months, how the hell can older people hope to understand what an Emo is let alone like the music when you know in a year or so the whole fad will be gone and some new baby faced person will be pumping out some random style of music that people who are just going through puberty suddenly think is the style of music.

People who don't normally buy new CDs will buy a Guns n Roses CD, because they know the band. Plus from what I've heard the new songs are good, and studio versions will be better. Bob Dylan to me is one of the few old time artist to really release a recent CD that has had thought put into, and his CD got high critical aclaim and had good sales.

SO many of the nostalga acts like Led Zepplin, Van Hallen etc, got together for a few random shows, just for fun or revenue or whatever. Alot of reunited groups release a hurried CD that is mediocre at best. We know better than anyone the work that Axl has been putting into this, so hopefully it should get a good reception.

Don't forget however that most people who arn't as fanatical as us still know Axl has been working on a CD for 12 years as every 6 months or so it comes out in the news. At the end of the day I think it will most probably sell quite well, unless the reception to singles on the radio is luke warm. But like I say there will still be that generation that doesn't buy CDs that often who will go out and buy it cause there arn't many groups they remember putting out CDs; plus Guns is still cool with the younger generation.....

that's my two cents......

Not if you know where to look.

If I'm at any gnr show I already know the next day I'm going to be a broke dick dog at work....but it's a small price to pay for seeing your favorite band!!!  I say deal with it.  The shows we go to are far and few between.

Oh yeah and as for the whole 'the music industry now a days, la de da de da...'

 Does anyone remeber the monkeys? There have always been crappy groups that were put together on formulars and marketing..... The thing is we only remember the groups which were genuine, there are plenty of groups from the 90's and new milenium which will have a respectable legacy in the future and when the future peoples look back will say that the music then was better........

Many people say that right now there is a new renaissance in music, in that people are veering away from mass produced stuff and live shows are becomign more important again etc. When the beatles and Hendrix were paving the way for modern rock there were tons of shitty little groups that entertained the younger teenagers with cheesy gingles as they adapted their taste in music.... They even had a name for them back then... teenie-boppers.

The thing people have to remember is a seasoned taste in music has to come with time. Younger people will latch on to the simpler more conjestible fad music that is marketed to them and their taste will evolve.

So my point; people have always been saying that today's music has nothing on the older music and the industry has gone down hill etc.....  When in reality most perceived vices in the industry have always existed....
Yent
out

Hell, there is probably more fans now than there was in the spring of 88.


Yeah, but "The Monkees" were a TV show that was marketed for kids, and it was wildly successful in the demographics that was it's target. Their music was secondary.

So b/c you heard someone playing Civil War in their car in Mexico, CD will sell millions?? ???

If you say so :P

that may be true, but not late in late  1988 :o

Thanks......I'm looking forward to them performing as well.

The musics than it is to recede on the Internet , they are execelentes can await um ample I dial. The music Better is fantastic , it doesn't let he swims wishing. The disk he goes being um success , it is enough he casts lo. Is awaiting the one Axl at the Brazil. :beer:

WHAT??????

I I don't know speak ingles , but the one to valley is the aim. :peace:
I use those translators on linear , but it appears no it works very happily.  :hihi:
I spoke what the Chinese goes shift the world from musical.  : ok:

I think it'll sell well, by whatever the current standard is.  The way audiences are splintered now there aren't any runaway record-breaking albums anymore, at least none that aren't being pushed by Fox or Disney or Walmart.  It'll be an event, just not a culture-altering event.  I'm just hoping for a good Guns album at this point. : ok:

I was afraid the post would end like that.  :-[

Agree with you there - Green Day suck. Just goes to show how a massive marketing budget can go far and it doesn't matter how good the product being sold is. When the marketing is carried out to the extent that American Idiot was (and in the UK I've seen similar promotions for the recent Chilli Peppers album, Killers second album etc etc) it just annoys you and in my case actually puts me off wanting to buy the record.

Difference here is I wouldn't have thought GnR will need anywhere near that kind of marketing as the thing will sell itself and Axl and co will get so much free publicity, as opposed to the staged publicity purchased on a marketing contract.

^uh, green day doesn't suck.  they made a grammy-winning rock opera that was as politically charged as it was commercially successful.  just because you don't like them doesn't mean they "suck."   i'd like to see another three piece band sell out Giant's Stadium.  if you want suck, please see limp bizkit.  regardless, your point is well-taken... in order to be commercially successful in the U.S., you have to appeal to the kids, and it will have to seem fresh to them.

Yes it can be done

However, based on the behavior of Axl/this band over the past decade, I would'nt hold out hope

The material , I believe, is good enough / will be good enough to put this particular band back on the mainstream map, but ......

I've always felt that the rock-groups that really leave a mark usually will be listened to after we are all long gone. My taiste of music is very particular. While other folks will listen to anything under the sun. I came across G&R from their first MTV video welcome to the jungle. I would drop by a friends house after work everyday to watch the current Hard- Rock / Heavy Metal groups. At that time every rock group was imitating or trying to look like Bon-Jovi or Van Halen. I remember my sentiment was oh here we go again with another hair-band jumping on the band wagon of following what is selling by the record companies. Than that one afternoon my friend said to me I want you to check out this new group called Guns & Roses. He que'd up the video and I sat there watching Welcome to the Jungle. I had to admit that what I was viewing was no ordinary follow the leader group. By the end of the video I turned to my friend and said these guys are going to be big. Very big. (They just released the MTV Video so they were nobody). Sure enough my instincts were correct. The truth of the matter is the real great groups who are remembered forever are the ones who possess magic that is not manufactured, manipulated by the record industry by clever marketing, promotions or rigged Grammy Awards. That's the truth weather you agree or not. It's the group themselves that somehow stumbled upon something that is not of this planet. Guns & Roses had this. And when I saw the original line up open for Aerosmith and Deep Purple it was evident in their performance. I knew than that the album wasn't just doctored by clever studio tricks to make a group sound great. It was the real thing. Plus groups like Guns have something to proove to the world. That's the key. Most groups today don't have anything to proove. Now I'm not putting groups like this down. But most of them will not be remembered a hundred years from now. Think of it this way. Beethoven and Mozart are still highly listened to in the classical music crowd. These two guys come from an era that's 400years ago....(give or take the years). Why is that? I'm sure their were hundreds of classical composers back than. But out of all of them there are only at best 20 composers that people today still listen to their music. Why? Because Beethoven and Mozart had something in their heart, mind and soul that they needed to proove to the world. And they did. (By the way......they didn't have Grammy Awards back than. At best the King would give them a pat on the back for writing or performing a composition. : ok:

^ One can only hope our society is enlightened enough, in the year 2408, to still be rocking out to AFD. : ok:

Depends on what you mean by "rule the world".

Popular music is generally a young person's game, and by that standard GNR is an old band. People have strong emotional ties to the original music (even alot of young people who listen to old records) and the mythology behind CD is gigantic... so when that album drops it will be the biggest story in music and possibly the #1 record on the charts. But I don't think GNR will be THE band, but I could be wrong. There certainly has been a void for quite some time pretty much since GNR fell off the map.

U2 managed to stay huge after getting "old", but the difference is they are not a hard rock band.

I have to say i agree with that assessment

BTW awesome user Name Man! GNAP!   :hihi:

(http://i26.tinypic.com/2qsbhpd.jpg)

Any many (including me!!) would argue that U2 are massively overated.

Yeah rock & roll is a young mans game. But great music is a genius game. Last year I went to see Roger Waters at the Madison Square Garden. Roger is 62 years old. It was a sold out show.
How old is Axl? About 43? .......I think he will do alright.......... :beer:

I don't care if guns n'roses is not the most dangerous band in the world. after all, it was just marketing.

do you really think guns was "dangerous" in 1987 or 1992 ? as Axl said himself, where's the true danger
when gangsta rap exists ? did you see Alice Cooper shooting someone in real life with a gun ? or Slash
killing a guy with a knife ? I mean, there were a lot of artists more dangerous than guns n'roses.

they were wild, impredictable, and most important thing to my eyes, they do music like anyone else.
so yes, there's a place for guns n'roses today. a big one.

Axl is a rock n'roll king, he certainly needs some success for himself and the band, but he surely needs
more musical recognition.

The difference between GNR and U2 is that U2 has stayed active. Plain and simple. They've basically stayed on the mountain top as the widely reguarded, current rock gods. The only thing GNR has going for it is that the respect and rock cred they had gives them about a half mile headstart up that Rock God mountain above the younger and current rock bands. It's still going to be a very hard, steep climb for them. Probably impossible, too.

And not only has U2 stayed active musically, but the albums they've released have been huge sellers and crictically acclaimed, not to mention each album has been nominated for a shitload of grammy's.

Do you remember 1997 and an album named Pop?

They definitely took a few steps back with that album and tour.



But still, the fact remains, you can be very successful even if you're not an angry 20 year old anymore.



/jarmo

That album was still big, considering. And at the time it was released it received the best reviews of any other U2 album. The fact that a lot of people didn't "get it" doesn't make it a mega failure people try to label it as today.

It sure as hell didn't hurt their careers, though, did it?

And he can be successful still, but I think the point f this thread was asking if they could be "as successful" which I highly doubt, no matter how good the music is.

 

Whitesnake have got an album of new material that went straight in at number 7 in the uk album chart. i think that a new GnR record woudl go to number 1 and stay there for a few weeks if not more..

Not in the long run. But considering they weren't happy with that album and probably lost money on the tour, it wasn't as successful as something like Achtung Baby....

The follow up to Pop sold a lot more in the US....


So the whole idea that bands who release albums stay on top is kinda wrong. You have to get to the top of the mountain, but you can't just put out crap or you'll come down fast.






Depends on how you define "as successful" as.

Back then record sales was the easiest way to determine how popular an artist is. Today that has changed.....


Can they headline arenas/stadiums all over the world like they did in the 90s? Definitely.

Will they be on MTV 24/7? No, MTV isn't like that anymore.





/jarmo

The tour was a failure because of how much each show cost to put on. They made a shitload of money on the POP tour, but it just cost more than they made to put on each show. Which is why they stopped doing shows like that.

They weren't happy with the reception the album received, because the album was a shot at mainstream music and the record industry, it was a concept album meant to be a statrical look at the state of music and the industry. It wasn't meant to be huge like their previous records. It just went over most peoples heads and no one caught on to it. Like I said, people want to label it a failure even though in relality it was successful. They just had the balls to make that gamble.

The fact that they had a long catalog, and stayed pretty current, gave them the opportunity to make an album like that. And it's not the fact they kept releasing albums, its the fact they kept releasing good albums. I said nothing about just releasing any old record. They weren't basing all their chips on ONE record.

Jarmo, GNR can't fill arenas in America, let alone try and headline a stadium tour. Around the world, I don't know, outside festivals we really don't have much to go on, unless they decide only to play a very short tour in big markets.

Their success will be measured on the quality of their music and if it was worth the wait.



 

Maybe not without an album to tour behind and a record company that has a reason to promote the band.  But that could all change soon......

How do you explain them re-recording and remixing the singles from that album?

They had a deadline with the tour starting and had to rush to get the album done. In the end it wasn't properly finished.


I like some of those tracks, so I don't mind them taking chances. But to re-write history and claim it was a success is a bit of a stretch. Sure, going platinum in the US is a success to most bands, but I'm sure they were expecting more.






Suddenly you're focusing on now instead of in the future.

They sold out several dates in North America in 2006 without the album out and without a new song on the radio.




Considering they headlined several festivals in Europe in 2006, I'd say you're wrong.


I don't think stadium shows in Europe and South America are that far off.







/jarmo

I don't know... Maybe because a lot of other artists remix and re-record their singles? I never once heard them say they hated, or disliked that album. POP was what it was. It was a concept album that no one understood the concept of :hihi:



That made no sense. How did I rewrite history? I pointed out that album was a success. They sold over a million records, but you're trying to say it was still a failure because they were U2 and their other records sold more?

In that case, the UYI and TSI? were failures because they didn't sell as well as AFD? Even though they each sold over a million copies?




I'm sorry. I forgot to look in my crystal ball :hihi:


They had to play smaller venues from the last tour because of how horrible attendance was. And they sold out in larger markets, which is good, but to carry on an arena tour across the country when you're playing a vast majority of small markets is something else.

If they have a huge record, I hope they can sell out an arena tour.



Okay, those other bands on the bill had nothing to with the level of success they had on those festivals.

You know Europe better than I do, and maybe they could have the same level success on a headlining tour as they did on a festival tour. We just don't know.

Well, in Norway thay sold out Spektrum in about 10 minutes, so they had to set up an extra show. The same happend in Finland, if im not wrong.
Roskilde Festival in Danmark (One of the biggest festivals in Europe) GnR were the band with most audience. Even though they lost some potential audience because they were 1 hour too late.

In Europe there def. is alot of potential for this band. And GnR are still concidered as one of the top rockbands of all time here. One reason is, because Rock n roll and Heavy has been "retro" the last couple of years.

I didn't say they hated it. It was just rushed out!

So they "fixed" the singles later....




I'm saying, it wasn't the big selling album that kept them at the top of the mountain and Grammy nominated like you seem to imply.

You're the one saying all their albums were successful. Not me.

I'm saying, even a band like U2 who have been a huge band for over 20 years now, had a small dip in popularity.

But they got back on track and have proved that you don't have to be an angry 20 year old in order to be popular. Which some people seem to think.





Nice analogy. Unfortunately totally wrong.

With Use Your Illusion I and II, GN'R went from being big to huge.

Without those two albums, they weren't a stadium act.





What?

Look at how many shows they played in the New York area alone.




Now you're getting confused again.

I'm not saying GN'R sold all those festival tickets.

But, the festival organizers don't pick any band to headline their festivals.

GN'R headlined without an album out. That says something.





/jarmo

I'm not sure about the states-basically the concerts here outside of NY on the last run were about half full, mostly-can a single and album help out? I would hope so-the first or second single will have to hit big-I think the album will sell big the first and second week, but they have to keep the momentum-Poison, Dave Matthews, and bands like Journey post big numbers sometimes without releasing an album

I think if you look at the number of shows and where they took place you might understand why.





/jarmo

In 2006 GN'R didn't sell out only arenas in places that everyone has trouble selling out - the soft market places. It was just a bad booking strategy which was hinted at in Axl's letter along with the tough routing. And even those places weren't half full, they were 2/3s full.
And don't forget there was little to no promotion for those shows. An album out or a single out would be irrelevant if it is not used for promotion. Promotion can be achieved easily without that- just look at the nostalgy or reunion tours of other bands who do not have a new album out. Why was there no proper promotion, is an interesting question. But given the tension existing at the time between management and the band, and the pressure to put the album out, maybe it makes sense why some things did not work out as they should. I mean, once you realize you might not be able to put that album out as everyone expects, would you feel comfortable promoting a tour by using the album, or even giving interviews?
Still, the tour was pretty successful and most importantly the band played some of its best shows on that tour.

None of the 4 Florida shows were major sellers. It's not like 1 or 2 did poorly because everyone went to one of the other locations.

Bottom line is, it's not like the name draws the kind of numbers that it once did. I'm not sure an album release would guarantee that to happen again either.

I bet that if they had two shows in Florida, they had been 3/4 full or sold out.


Maybe next time you have the chance of seeing GN'R, you'll have to travel a bit.




/jarmo

We also shouldn't fall into the trap of comparing every tour from here out to the UYI tour.  That was just a monstrous thing that could probably never happen again.  However, that doesn't equal a lack of success.

Well, I'd call a trip from Florida to NY a little more than a hop, skip, and a jump.

Obviously. But I meant the show closest to you.




/jarmo

The two shows in Helsinki, Finland in July -06 were sold out and they were amazing. :peace:

Many shows outside the US have been sold out in 2006 and 2007.


I don't know whether it says something about the US concert market and/or US rock fans.

You often see Americans have an attitude like "anybody can sell out shows in (insert country)".

Almost like selling 20000 tickets in a country outside the US means less than selling the same amount in the US.


But the Helsinki area has a population of one million while the Miami area has one that is over five million. The whole population of Finland could almost live in the Miami area!




A lot of people forget that GN'R weren't selling out every show on the Use Your Illusion tour either....




/jarmo

The whole new band thing is really what hurt ticket sales in the US. Despite whether or not you want to admit it, it's true. I don't know the perception most people have about the band outside the US, but the American media doesn't hide the fact that there is still major interest in a reformation of the classic lineup.

I've never been to a concert, or any event for that matter, outside of the US so I don't have much of a reference point.  It seems though that people in other countries are more passionate for music, sports, etc.  Here in the US, people go to events more for status reasons.  They feel entitled that they're able to say they were at a certain event.  Instead of going to the show to actually see the band and enjoy the music. 

That's just my opinion.  I don't know if it holds up.

Oh please.

There's interest in anything Axl does in the media.

Dr Pepper had nothing to do with that and yet the story appeared in all kinds of places.



The whole reunion things is made up by people who haven't done their homework.

It's the easiest story a journalist can write. The band members went their separate ways, so it's really easy to start talking about a reunion. Especially in an age where other bands are reuniting.







/jarmo

I have to agree with Snafu on this one. 

I asked some friends if they'd be interested in going to a show in 2006 and "That's not the real Guns n' Roses" was the response I got.  So it's not just the media.  I think CD needs to be released to really establish this current lineup.

Nobody's denying that those people exist.

The word reunion automatically generates interest from people, even those who weren't even fans in the first place.


I hope your friends enjoyed watching their GN'R DVDs instead.






And now you're back at the original question......  : ok:




/jarmo

with all due your respect, your friends must be closed-minded idiots.     anyone who thinks they can say who is or isn't the real guns n roses, thats not up to them to decide.

i get your point, a lot of people are skeptical.  it just takes an open mind.  my friend said something simliar before i convinced him to see the band with me in 2006 in Vegas.  After the show, he told me it was one of the best concerts he's ever attended and admitted he was wrong.

I guess my point is, anyone who hasn't given the band a fair shot, doesn't deserve to have their opinion taken seriously.

^ Exactly........and even those people that pull the "waah, this isn't the real Guns N Roses" shit....as soon as they go to the concerts, they're instantly like "whoa Axl sounds fucking kickass.....he's still got it and wow these guys are pretty good" etc.  Same as when I played Better for a friend who isn't a real big fan, but liked the old GNR.....he heard it and was like, damn that's pretty good.

Those people are stubborn and will continue to bitch about any little change to every single thing.

I think it has been proven over the last decade that Rock N Roll is an old man's game.

Look at the vets who sell out everything. Young bands dont last, its the old vets still selling records and tours.

So gnr will be more than ok once CD drops. I dont think they can tour successfully without an album, but once the album comes out, all will be fine.

My personal opinion is that GNR could be absolutely enormous again and headlining stadiums (and not arenas), but it does rely on more than their previous activities over the past 8 years. GNR could have an very very high profile by co-operating with current media channels, and by this I mean more than playing live shows. In order to do this, the band will have to do at least a handful of high profile in depth interviews, and inevitably this will involve Axl presenting his side of the original lineup split. Rona nd Richard and Frank (and so forth) would also do interviews - presumably leading with musician magazines such as Guitarist, or "Rock Drummer", or something. The Rolling Stones of this world know that Axl breaking cover after a 15 year interview embargo would shift a LOT of copy. And a LOT of CD's of CD.

The other part of it would be to produce TV / Website programming to catch the more casual music buyer who picks up a CD at the Supermarket alongside the groceries.

And of course the best promotion for the album itself would be the album. And subsequent live shows (though repeated late starts for shows could put off some people), and videos. I think there is plenty of goodwill and interest for when the band return.

Ya know D, I tend to agree. Whenever I play some of the newer stuff to some "old" gunners, they tend to agree that it is ripe.

Now the question remains, will they abandon their wife, and kids, for a night of nostalgia ... I think that tickets sales answers that question ... if they have any balls(that was a dig at 40+ers that don't have any).

It kind of came across in your posts that they didn't like the album. But hey, I understand what you're saying here. :peace:




All of their albums WERE successful. That's what you're not understanding. If you're trying to determine how popular or successful they are/were by comparing them saleswise on which album sold better, you can't really do that, because each album WAS successful. They never released a flop. Which is why I brought up the UYI albums analogy; you cannot measure success by comparing albums to previous albums. Selling over a million albums is a HUGE accomplishment. And U2 went on to have even better sales after that album.

What has kept them on the mountaintop is that they continue to release albums. Like it or not, releasing albums has helped them maintain their fanbase, and given them room to experiment. Not only that, being active and releasing albums has attracted new listeners each time (new record) out. They're not playing catch up and they're not leaping over blocks of new listeners here. They're staying consistent and by releasing albums, remained relevant and it was much easier for them to evolve. GNR does not have that luxury. After all this time, Axl still has the burdon of trying to introduce this band as, and have this line up accepted as, GNR. It's kind of hard when they don't have anything to identify themselves as a band with. Right now they are a band from the past, with the majority of people still identifying them as that band from Welcome To The Jungle, just because the younger demographic really have no idea who this band is. Everyone knows who U2 is and know their place as Rock Gods, the same cannot be said for GNR.

U2 haven't spent the last 10-15 years trying to make one album. They maintained their success by being active, not just for a fanbase, but in music, period.



Weren't we talking about album sells? Didn't the UYI albums sell considerably less than AFD, and they still went on to be a stadium act and their popularity swelled in spite of that fact? That kind of goes with my point that you don't have to keep selling 20 million albums each album to keep your place at the mountain top. You just have to stay active. Thanks for proving my point.


New York is a big market. The majority of those shows were also played in small venues, and that strategy was very smart.

But they cannot do that in every market across the US. They cannot sell out an arena in a small market. They just can't. If they could it would be great. But even if CD is huge Axl has hurt himself by the bad publicity: Being late, cancellations, no shows, riots. Die hards will put up with his shit, new fans (and their parents) will not. And you can carry on about your no rules, traditional rock show, this isn't Burger King bullshit, all you want. He tries that shit again and he'll be playing to half empty theaters the rest of his life.


GNR is a nostalgia act. Plain and simple. They're riding on the old bands cred to get them where they're at. They have nothing to stand alone on, until then, we can't even debate whether present GNR is a big act.

because the HUGE festivals and concerts they have been playing totally indicate their status as a small act.  ::)

If you listen close you can hear the point of my post go right over your head. :hihi:

They are invited to those HUGE festivals because of the old band, not because of the new band. And there are several very popular bands on those HUGE festival bills. And those HUGE crowds are not their just to see GNR. They have not conducted a full scale European tour on their own, like they did in the US, so we can't even guage how successful a European tour would be.

To be fair, I do remember a few shows in England that sold out on that European tour that never happened.

Did you read this part of that post? It contains the point:

gnr are a nostalgic act until cd and a great single are released. then things and the public opinion might change pretty quickly.

This thread turned into an anti GnR gathering of the whiners club.....why there is a Dead Horse section, no one seems to know  :peace:

I guess gnr are dammed if they do, dammed if they dont,

if they tour , then they get called a nastalgia act, all because they are just trying to bond more as a band, and just get comfortable with the whole situation, but instead you have people that want something from the past that doesnt exist...

How a band can be a nastalgia act, where they play a good range of new songs every time they play a concert is beyond me but hey?
I dont have a mullet do I?

because most people don't go to the shows because of those new songs. they go because of the old ones. which is ok. but i hope that will change. i truely believe it will. gnr could succeed like springsteen did with the rising tour. people responded to all songs, new or old, almost equally. but for that, you need the record. it's not so hard to understand. and the masterplan is to bring out the record. so what's the problem? yeah, cd could flop, but i don't think it will.

I would imagine GNR would aim to become, like them or not, Bon Jovi-there are people who will go to hear things from the stuff they put out in the 80's, but they have done a nice job of rolling out hits the last few years which I think draws people to their shows-I think they have won over new fans since "It's My Life" exploded in 2000-GNR could have a huge hit, and actually win over new fans with new material as well as old

3-5 songs out of 18-20 is a good range (17-20%)? anyway like whiny said...most people went to the shows in recent years to see the old material...and to see Axl, it makes it a nostalgia act...actually it'll be hard to get the new songs fitted in there, unless the album sells really well that is  :peace:

Oh wow. Now you're changing the story.

Pop was successful when it sold about one million in the US. Use Your Illusions were the fastest selling albums of all times when they were released but they were failures.

If your "you need to active" theory is correct, every band who ever played arenas and released album would still be doing it.



I think you're partly right, but it's not only about just releasing albums. If U2 had kept going in the Pop direction, their popularity possibly wouldn't have had the upswing it had later.






Still managed to sell out Madison Square Garden even with another show across the river and having played four shows there earlier that year.





There is no old and new. People don't really pay that much attention. People go see them because they wanna hear GN'R songs performed live and sung by the voice of GN'R.


The whole nostalgia thing is true for the Rolling Stones, U2, Pearl Jam and even Poison! So nothing GN'R specific no matter how hard you try. All big bands sell tickets based on their past hits.



Why do you have the need to try to discredit and put down the band? It's funny, it's almost like you want GN'R to prove something to you in order to have your support. I guess that's why you come across as a whiner.

You come to a GN'R board to tell us how much they suck while defending U2! I have nothing against U2, in fact I like them. But it's funny how you're prepared to defend them but with GN'R you are reluctant to give any credit whatsoever.
 

You list all kinds of reasons why people should avoid going to see GN'R, yet they managed to sell out venues and tour arenas without any radio play. People still turned up because they want to hear GN'R songs performed live.

I'm happy that people still go see GN'R and have a great time. I'm not seeing it as the disaster you are.




As I said, it's true for most big bands. Nothing GN'R specific at all.

There's bands who play less new songs from their new album at their shows than what GN'R did!




/jarmo

it's amazing how you start a thread and it goes in a completely opposite direction....oh well, nature of the beast

It only takes one or two people to turn a "could they?" thing into "no they can't".





/jarmo

Talk about De Ja Vu ...

I invited a couple of old high school/college friends to go and catch a couple shows when they were in Florida in 06'. I received very similar responses from the both of them. "Is Slash going to be there?" After telling them no, they were like "it aint Guns N Roses then" and declined. I told them we could at least get drunk and see Axl. Unfortunately, that didn't impress them enough to change their minds.   :hihi:

Same situation when I played them the demos last year. They acknowledged that they were ok, but they told me to throw in Appetite soon thereafter. 


Pretty sad but true nonetheless. They obviously are not a "big stadium act" anymore and the chances of them ever being again - barring a reunion - is slim to none. Unfortunately for Axl, Guns N Roses were not a Megadeath or Smashing Pumpkins. Each one of the original gunners brought something unique to the table which made the band what it was. Removing 80% of that original equation most definitely will result in a different product. Hell, look at the negative impact Izzy's departure alone caused. I'm not saying Axl will not be able to release a decent album without them, but an album that will capture the world's attention like AFD and UYI. Highly unlikely.

yeah, they could. it has been done before: fleetwood mac for example changed their line up radically and after that they made one of the best selling albums of all time ("rumours"). to be honest, i have always wished, that cd would be a sucessfull record that fascinates a whole new generation. wearing a gnr t-shirt now makes you retro. maybe this fall people will realise that i was only ahead of the times.  ;)

I'm surprised everyone classifies U2's "Pop" as a failure. In what world does a record that sells 10,000,000 copies be a failure? There was not one show on the "Pop" toru that sold under 23,000 tickets and most of the undersold venues where when they came back to play stadiums three months after the last time they played stadiums, with $100 tickets in the middle of a recession which was market saturation and I think any band would've struggled to sell tickets at that time.

U2 aren't a nostalgia act. Yes, they play old songs, but their set has at least 9 songs from the then new record in. 9 more than the recent Stones tour...

as for GNR being an nostalgia act? You can guaranatee if they didn't play WTTJ, SCON, NR, YCBM, and PC that peopel would be bitchin' to high heaven. This lineup of GNR aren't nostalgia : they play songs new and old.

Do they know any other GN'R records?  :hihi:


Is it surprising people prefer the familiar songs?

Not at all!




Talking of nostalgia!

The same reasons you slag off the band now for being a nostalgia act, you say the only way to be successful is by going the nostalgic reunion route!

You put down the band time after time for being a nostalgia act while hoping they'd do a reunion.

That's comedy!





GN'R were bigger than any of those bands.



What you don't seem to understand, not surprising, is that Axl's not alone in the band.

He didn't just lose certain personnel, he added others!


Way to discredit a musicians in the band who are accomplished on their own.


No, you're not biased at all.  ::)


I suggest you check out the Dead Horse section. Seems all your favorite topics to dream about are located there.





/jarmo

I think personality wise, though, mainstream media will view this as as "axl" band, whereas in the mid to early 90's, there was almost an equal amount of interest in Axl and Slash somewhat-Slash could make the cover of Rolling Stone whereas  Robin Fink as lead guitarist would not-as far as songwriting, I agree and am interested to see what Tommy and Robin and so on bring, especially Tommy after hearing his solo effort, which I really liked

Yes they could!!

Look at Queen.... 50% of the band is no longer present, Freddie obviously, John is no longer part by his own choice ....

Paul rodgers took his place, personally, i HATE it... they do sell out tho... big crowds night after night, not because of new material , but because of their history..
AND positive media attention!!
New material needs yet to be proven a succes..

Main difference i think,,, GNR get close to none reviews when on tour and if they do, how many are positive?...individual members of GNR get even less media attention
in what they do.. unless it's negative or could be negative...

Back to my point...

If management gets the media of mainstream music , to back this baby up (GNR i mean) people will wonder about it, get curious , get informed and will judge for themselves and see the shows...

When CD comes out, i think it will do very well and they WILL sell out arena's, (personally i would like a small venue but well....for GNR  i hope they need to go bigger)

All it needs is POSITIVE GNR-feedback by media, fans etc etc..
Then the exact right single...(management and AXL WILL get the right one out)

Documentaries will appear on TV...

And before we know it...we'll be in sleeping bags hoping to get freakin tickets.. :peace:

I think they like 'Lies' too.  ;D


C'mon man, you can't deny the number of sold-out shows a reunion tour would result in. Weren't Guns N Roses listed as like the #3 "most wanted to reunite" band on some yahoo/msn poll last year? My biggest beef isn't the new band, it's the new band playing material written largely in part by Izzy and solos that were written by Slash. If that's all we have in store for us, absolutely - I'd rather see the original lineup playing it.



I'm not arguing that, I'm just saying unlike Pumpkins and Megadeth, where Corgan and Mustaine were the masterminds, the feeling of Guns N Roses came from multiple members, it wasn't just something that came from Axl.

I'm well aware that Axl is not alone in the band. I can't recall ever saying that he was. I'm just saying that "adding" personnel does not mean that you are going to ever recapture the feeling or legacy that you once shared with other members. Hell, if I remember right, even Axl said something to that affect at the 02' VMA's. I don't think that's a hard concept to grasp.

I'm not discrediting anybody. All I'm sayin is that "accomplished" musicians don't necessarily equivilate into success. VR should be proof of that.  : ok:

So GN'R has been a nostalgia act since 1988. All right.....



Matt and Gilby were playing parts written by others in 1991. I guess that wasn't a problem.

Izzy himself played with GN'R several times in 2006. He didn't seem to mind from what I saw.

Looked like he was having fun!



It's just amazing how GN'R is labeled a nostalgia act by some of you, yet you're the ones hoping for that reunion to happen. Which is like the ultimate nostalgia move any band can make!

Anything the current band has accomplished is credited to the old band.

Yet no credit is given to Axl himself or the band themselves who were the ones who were touring.







Which I explained below!




Who said he was trying?

The question is, can GN'R become a big band again. Not whether or not he can pretend to be the old band.

There's tribute bands out there for that. Maybe you should look into hanging out at some tribute band gigs to relive that era?



Just because a team loses a couple of players doesn't mean they can't win anything ever again.



Obviously you haven't gotten over the split.

Almost 18 years ago the GN'R that made AFD stopped existing.



Many of the so called fans are always pointing out what's wrong with the band, never giving any credit to the current members.

Yet people wonder why this site isn't welcoming them with open arms.

The simple answer is: I don't really want to be surrounded by people who's only interest is putting everybody else down and whining constantly.

If you don't like GN'R in 2008, why are you here? It's that simple...




/jarmo

What...Are...You...Talking...About?

How the fuck did you get me saying the UYI albums were a failure? I SAID THEY WEREN'T FAILURES!!! I said if we went by your "POP" logic they would be failures, because they did not sell the same amount as AFD.

My "theory" requires a band to release Good Albums on a consistant basis.


We're not talking about New York. I already said they do well in big markets, but we were talking about a tour, where the majority of shows take place in small markets that they've shown the last couple tours they don't do well in.





That really doesn't make any sense, but if I have to try and put together what you're trying to say...

Yes, people go to see their favorite band. But the bands you've mentioned, with the exception of Poison, stayed active and relevant, and garnered new fans in the process by doing so. Axl has totally reinvented himself and the new GNR. The new Axl is kind of a shock to the system to most fans. Where these other bands have progressed, evolved and matured gradually over several albums, GNR is just completely different in every possible way. GNR doesn't have the benefit of growing a fanbase like those bands because it was dorment for so long, and when they first came out with the new line up their reputation took some big hits and left some lingering effects. 

The new fans they've made over the years since the formation of the new band are still basing their admiration on a band that doesn't exist anymore.

GNR is not on the same level as the Stones, fanbase and clout wise. I think we can all agree on that.


Where the fuck do you come up with this shit? :hihi:

You made all of that up in your head, which is exactly what you did last time and why I called you delusional... and it hurt your feelings.

I'm not trying to discredit them. I'm talking in reality, a subject I know you have a tough time with. Axl has made a shitload of mistakes since the debut of this band, whether his fault or not, that's the truth. And these mistakes have contributed to why it will be very hard for him to reclaim his past glory... which is what this thread is about.

If he sells 2-3 million copies I'll consider the album a success. If the album is great, no matter what the sells are, I'll consider it a success. I want them to succeed, but I don't live in a dream world like some of you. I look at the situation and it doesn't strike me as this will be the biggest band in the world again.

I never once said they sucked. You made that shit up, like most of the false insult accusations you sling at people. I defended U2 because you made an issue out of it. I didn't.

I do defend GNR, you just make it hard to do that with your silly, defensive arguments. If you don't think the 2002 tour was a disaster then you need some help. Again, I said they do well in big markets but this band has a very hard time selling out venues in small markets.

It would be best if they co-headlined a tour which would expose the new music to even more people, and how awesome they are live. I just don't think they can have a HUGE successfu stadium/arena tour on their own right now, or when the album is released. To tour with a band like Linkin Park would really help them get over with young rock fans now. And please, spare me the LP bashing... And no, they're not my favorite band, but Right Now they are much more popular than GNR and it would help Axl reach a whole new audiance who I think would appreciate the new GNR if they were exposed to them.

And I bet Axl doesn't even care about taking over the music world again, which is what makes him awesome. Some of you are more obsessed with it than he is.


Yeah, but the majority of those people actually KNOW those new songs those bands play. A lot of fans who go to GNR shows don't.

Umm.. where did I say that? All I said was I think my friends like another album besides AFD. How you construed that as me saying GN'R has been a nostalgia act since then, I have no idea? I caught a couple UYI shows in 92' and had a great fucking time. Actually, 1 of the 2 of my friends did too.
I preferred Steve and Izzy personally, but I wouldn't say Matt and Gilby didn't do a good job.
I can't say Izzy didn't enjoy himself, but what's the point? I didn't say the 2006 shows weren't fun, I just didn't see the same chemistry and energy that I saw with the 92 lineup. At the same time, I didn't see the same energy with the 92 lineup that I saw with the 87-90. Just callin it as I personally see it. That's not to say that I don't think the new band is good.  I saw them  3x in 2006. What are you getting upset about, that my friends didn't have the same interest?
Bro, it's hard to argue at this current time that they don't resemble a nostalgia act. Considering 85% of their setlist is comprised of songs written by an almost entirely different band, I'm sure it's not to hard to understand how some people could feel this way.

I completely disagree. I think the biggest issue most folks may have is that it's been over a decade yet we know very little about this new band. So little, we can't even say for certain that Brain or Robin is still in the band. They've done very, very little to establish themselves or to give them their own indentity. Shows that predominantly contain material written by another band, interviews that always result in "no comment" or "can't say", minimal or cryptic updates, and the biggie - no albums - all contribute greatly to this new bands lack of recognition.

Can I just say for the record, before my words are twisted, or attempted to be twisted into some anti GNR rhetoric, that I make this very clear:

I want GNR to rule the world again. I wish GNR ALL the success in the world. I have complete faith that Axl will pull out a monster of an album that will blow my mind.

I'm just not feeding into an unrealistic idea, or argument, that he can take over the world. The odds are against him, especially in this day in age in music. And if you want to have a real discussion on this subject you have to weigh the pros and cons and that means bringing up reasons why it will be very hard to accomplish this feet. Not to recogonize what he's really up against, you're just setting yourself up for a disappointment.

Sells don't matter. Great music does 8)

Haha.

I only objected to your idea that U2 has constantly been putting out multiple platinum certified successful Grammy nominated albums.

They took a chance, it didn't go as well as they had hoped and went back to more familiar kind of songs.

I think we're talking about different things.

A band can put out an album that barely charts in the Top 10. But still goes out playing arenas. Is it a failure?

Maybe if the next release allows them to go back playing stadiums.


GN'R took a chance and put out two albums on the same day which allowed them to go play stadiums.




Basically the US.

Canada, Mexico and the rest of the world they do pretty damn well in.






As I said, most general concert goers don't pay close attention to who wrote what songs and when. They want to hear the songs.

Give some fucking credit to the band and Axl will you? People still want to see him.  8)






Talk of delusional. You hurt my feelings?

Right....

Just because I refuse to put down the band I'm delusional. That's pretty common from people like you.

Hey, why don't you call me an ass kisser and fanboy while you at it?  :hihi:





I do?

Because GN'R didn't sell out some venues in Florida?


I'm pretty aware of the reality. I don't paint everything as being horrible.

The reality is, people outside of the US are far more open to GN'R than what your country seems to be.

The reality is, Axl is still a huge draw. No matter what you say.

People are still interested in what he's doing. That's reality.

The reality is, people love to hear him sing those songs. The ones who actually go to the shows don't seem to mind who's playing them.

They enjoy the show and many have been actually converted from "it's not GN'R" to actually getting what they're doing. It's not about nostalgia, it's about building a new team.






You're quick to point out all the so called mistakes and yet when they still manage to sell out venues, you're acting like it's only because "it's a big market" and due to nostalgia.


Are you gonna give them any credit for playing a bunch of shows last year even though people like you are always reminding people of the so called mistakes?

It's almost like certain so called fans are trying to make sure others don't go to the shows because "it's not the real GN'R" and "there's gonna be riots". Yet they sold out a bunch of venues!  :hihi:







You mean small markets?

And why are you focusing on the 2002 tour anyway?

They had tours in 2006 and 2007!

Is it more fun to focus on 2002 so you can keep going on about the riots?





I think things will change once the album is out.

One hit and people are suddenly aware.


Then if you go on tour with a somewhat hot new band, things will grow from there.






What makes him awesome is his integrity.


Which is exactly why I think they can be bigger than some of you like to think.

It's as real as it gets. There's not too many people or bands around like Axl and GN'R.

Especially in an age of American Idol and fabricated pop stars.





I've been to shows where people were waiting for "the hit".

Like Depeche Mode in 2001.

People were sitting down until Enjoy The Silence came on.....  :nervous:




It was sarcasm.

They probably sold a shit load of tickets in the 90s based on people wanting to hear the AFD songs. Yet they weren't labeled a nostalgia act.....  :hihi:




And the current band?





Upset? You're nothing new. We've had plenty of "we want a reunion" people here over the years.

Maybe you saw what you wanted to see?

If you're looking for faults, you will find them.






Different line up of the same band.  : ok:






As I said, no credit but some of you are quick to point out the so called mistakes.





I wish you'd show a bit more of that optimism.  : ok:




/jarmo

Oh, and I'll explain to you the difference between us.

The difference is:

You: They only sold half the tickets.
Me: Kinda cool considering the fact that people think there's gonna be riots at every show and with no new album out.

It's all about "is the glass half full or half empty?"....


But apparently I'm delusional because I refuse to have your view on things!

Maybe some of you think the ideal world is one where even the fans are turning their backs on their bands/teams etc.

It's always easy to support a winning team I guess.....




/jarmo

 :hihi:

Jarmo, that post was just ... so you.

I never said that U2 consecutively put out multi million album, grammy nominated albums. In fact I said the opposite. But made the point that all of their albums were successful. Which you still don't get.

I admitted, I can only speak of a tour in the US.  I can't speak of their popularity anywhere else, and I didn't try to. I have no idea how a world tour would go, that weren't festivals.

Dude - I do give them credit. But you don't have to slap me in the face with a skunk to let me know it stinks. They did a smart thing by playing smaller venues the last tour than the 2002 tour. And people had an awesome time seeing them.

I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO PUT DOWN THE BAND. Have I made that clear? ;)

I would never call you an ass kissing fan boy. Never... Delusional? Yes. ;D

And again, I'm not dissing Axl, I'm talking about him ruling the world again.

I don't have to remind people of mistakes. People remember them pretty well. When bad things happen, and not a whole lot of good in return, its hard to look at things in a pretty light. You can ignore the bad all you want, but when the band seems to be in turmoil, like not knowing if my favorite guitarist is still in the band, or not knowing if the label is going to release the album, or <insert issue here>... I'm not going to be tip toing through the tulips.

And when they drop the album I sure it will be a big hit. And I hope they do things to help them reach more people. But ruling the world...


 

i can't stand it when people say shit like this.   They are Guns N' Roses playing Guns N' Roses songs.  As long as they do that well, who gives a shit which member wrote what.  It has nothing to do with a live performance.

The truth is, nobody will know until the albumn is released.  In my personal opinion, Yes.  I believe GnR will revolutionize the music industry for the second time, IF the albumn is released while Axl is alive. 

However, i have noted before that i don't think we will see it in Axls lifetime.  He's too much the perfectionist, constantly updating and making miniscule (<--Spelled right?) changes. 

I only hope he releases it one day.  Preferably sooner than later.

And just to keep up w/ where the thread is now, i like new GnR and new GnR songs.  They are just as good as some of the older songs.  Don't bitch about new GnR songs until the FULL albumn is released. 

Word, nugga.

I guess I must've misunderstood this then:


It just says each album but I guess you didn't mean all of them.... Right?


It'd be nice if in the future you didn't say something like "each album" when you don't mean all of them.  :)







You had an European tour in 2006 and a world tour in 2007.

You could start by looking at how those went?




But they played many of the same venues.

More shows in several markets.

2002, NYC had one show. Not the case in 2006.....


Same thing with London, UK. 2002, one show. 2006, three.





How come it seems like you're stuck in 2002 then? And totally ignoring what has happened since?







As I said, I'm not ignoring anything. I just choose what I focus on.


The band is in turmoil? No, they're on a break where the members are doing their own thing until the album's release is sorted.

Again, you choose to assume the worst.






/jarmo

U2 first received Grammy Awards for the The Joshua Tree in 1988, and have won 22 in total since

If POP didn't recieve a grammy nomination, then its my mistake. But I don't think it matters  :hihi:

Did those European tours mean they toured by themselves? I don't remember that ???

You still don't understand. New York is a big market WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SMALL MARKETS on a tour. You know? Like how the top stories of venues were blocked off because half the venue was empty?

Hello, McFly, anybody home?

Oh, I didn't know there have been no problems with GNR since 2002...


You focus on things and ignore others... Which makes any point you try to make comepletely meaningless, because you do not have a balanced view of the situation. Which mean,s you can't answer the question in this thread with a real, honest answer.


Okay, Jarmo, answer one question: Does the band know for a fact if their guitarist is still in the band? If your kid is missing, and you don't know where they're at, you're not going to assume the best.

New York is a big market. The majority of those shows were also played in small venues, and that strategy was very smart.

But they cannot do that in every market across the US. They cannot sell out an arena in a small market. They just can't. If they could it would be great. But even if CD is huge Axl has hurt himself by the bad publicity: Being late, cancellations, no shows, riots. Die hards will put up with his shit, new fans (and their parents) will not. And you can carry on about your no rules, traditional rock show, this isn't Burger King bullshit, all you want. He tries that shit again and he'll be playing to half empty theaters the rest of his life.

I don't see how that could help him, especially if you're a promoter for one of those venues. Riots, cancellations, late showings aren't going to help them in that regaurd.

And if you are a casual, to new fan, not a die hard, would you run the risk of going to a show that was an hour or 2 hours away and you had work the next morning and you might run into a last second cancellation or a riot? Also, would you let your kid go to one?

I know that if you have responsibilites like a job and family you're bashed around here if you complain about how late the band goes on, but that's not going to help them either.

It's not a mystique anymore. It's a liability.

The only thing that bothers me about this whole argument is that it's moot. The band have made it clear that they will not be touring again until there is an album to tour for.

I personally think that sucks, but honestly I think the fanbase got what it asked for. People sat on  these forums and bitched, bitched, bitched about: setlists, no album, venues being half full, leaks not being allowed on the radio, etc, etc. So all of it stopped.

So here we are, completely GNR-less until something happens on the album. For me personally, I'd have rather seen my favorite band out there playing wherever they want to play, playing whatever songs they want to play until they don't want to anymore.

But now, instead of something we get nothing until the albums out. Either way people are gonna bitch so GNR doesn't really win, but to me seeing your favorite band is more of a win then forcing them to not want to play for you.

I'm not attacking you personally mID, in fact I think you've made alot of very valid points. I'm just trying to point out that not only is an argument like this moot, it is that way because the bands own fanbase wouldn't shut up until it was.

Has the band ever actually said that they won't tour again until the album is out?


I don't think the fanbase is asking too much by wanting to see some new material from a new band. They've already toured in 2002, 2006, and 2007 playing GN'R back catalogue. It's time to step it up a bit and start playing all this "mindblowing" material we keep hearing so much about.

No offense taken, dude :beer:

I have a bit of a different perspective on this. There really wouldn't have been the problem of bitching if it weren't for fans, not the band, who decided to make a flame war out of it, with their school girl crush mentality.

Like this thread, my argument was not intended to critisize the band, just pointing out certain things... And it was my fault that I left myself get baited into a lame argument, and I ended up coming down hard on them, which was not my intention. I'm just not living in a dream world here.

It sucks that the band would read this and seem like I was slagging them, which I'm not, I'm just arguing with silly people on a silly point to a silly question, who choose to ignore the reality of a situation.

I can see your point that they wouldn't want to play for people, but honestly, it wasn't the fans who put them in this position, either.

And if it wasn't for our "bitching" do you honestly think we would have got the number of updates that we did?

Fair enough.




Yes, they headlined their own tour. End of May until end of July 2006.

They headlined major festivals like the Download Festival, Rock In Rio and Roskilde.

They sold out arenas in minutes.


I guess it's easy to forget and remember 2002 instead...... There were no riots and the crowds loved GN'R.

Easy to disregard that kind of things.




So you chose to exclude the ones they did great in in order to  paint your picture. Ok.

You still didn't address the fact that THEY ADDED shows in certain big markets compared to 2002.



Does Portland, ME usually get visits by major arena tours?






Everybody knows where he's at.

If you read the update regarding Robin, you'd understand the situation instead of worrying about it.  :)





/jarmo

Jarmo, just read. I did not disreguard their success in New York. For the umpteenth time, THEY ARE VERY SUCCESSFUL IN BIG MARKETS.

Again, I said I did not know how tours went outside the US. I even asked you about it because I didn't know. How did I disregaurd their success?

I'm not getting into the Robin argument. And yes, there is reason to be worried.

So they could play 40 shows, have several sold out ones and you'd focus on the ones in Iowa or Idaho!

 :hihi:




So you are in the dark about the 2006 and 2007 tours?

It's reality, they happened.  ;)





/jarmo

For the love of God... ::)

Those small markets are the majority of a national tour.

Maybe they should just tour New York from now on?

Everything outside NYC is a small market?  :P




They didn't do as bad as you like to remember in every city outside NYC.

As I asked you, do major arena tours visit Portland, ME? Huntington, WV?

I'm just asking you.



Sorry, just kinda hard to take you seriously after your personal attacks against me.




/jarmo

When have I personally attacked you? I've definitely made come back remarks after you laid quite a few insults at me, and made up shit about me insulting the band, like they suck, more than a few times.  The worst I ever said about you was that you were delusional and you twisted that into an insult. I have never come out and insulted you.

In 2006 they absoloutely went the right route by playing smaller venues in the small markets. But they didn't fill them like they do in big markets. That is a problem. And I think co-headlining a tour in those markets with a popular band and, uh... releasing a kick ass single would help too  ;D

As I asked you, do major arena tours visit Portland, ME? Huntington, WV

It really depends on the act, to be honest.

I take that as an insult.

 :)

It's hard to take you seriously after something like that. And yet I'm apparently the delusional one.....







Maybe that explains the weaker ticket sales then?

Because the markets are small?




/jarmo

Dude, that came after a long time of your insults. And I was pointing out how you've been treating fans. Like my argument here... It was turned into what we have now because of how you were putting words in my mouth when I didn't agree with you, like that I said the band sucked, when I never said that. Your criteria of what a fan is has hurt the band, imo. Look how many fans have dropped this board? Real new line up fans who love the band. Fans who are now bitter because of the treatment they received. I stand by that. And it wasn't an insult.

Well, smaller markets being a weakness to them has been my point all along. They're not a band, right now, that brings out droves of people in those markets.

Please, stop dissing on the 2002 tour especially if you didn't see any shows on it!
Judging by the premature ending, one can easily label the whole tour a disaster. However, some of the shows that were played were pretty damn good. Many places actually sold out better or faster than the 2006 tour - MSG sold out in 15 min in 2002, while it took days in 2006, Allstate was absolutely oversold with seats behind the stage sold in 2002, It wasn't even 100% sold although close in 2006. This is in no way to mean the 2002 tour was better performance or sales-wise. However, not giving any credit to the 2002 shows and label them a disaster is pretty short-sighted.

VMAs 02 was an amazing show, bar axls voice

As I said, apparently I'm the delusional one.

My criteria hasn't changed, it's the so called fans who refuse to change with the times. It's not 2005 anymore!

Or sometimes they turn into bitter people and demand that I welcome them here so they can keep whining.



As usual, I get blamed for saying and doing things so you and your "pals" can have another reason to dislike me.

Whatever....




Really? Why didn't you say so then?

It was all about how it was a disaster. It'd would been nice to see one "BUT....." somewhere.

As I said, we have a very different way of seeing things.

I try to understand the reasons why things happen. Others are just very happy to point fingers and list "mistakes".





They played across the river a few days earlier in 2006.

Plus four nights at the Hammerstein Ballroom.

So the MSG 2006 show wasn't "the return to New York" like it was in 2002.






/jarmo

About not selling out MSG right away in 06.  Jarmo hit it right on the head, the Meadowlands is all but 20 minutes from MSG, so that definitely took some of the crowd out of MSG right away.  Plus with 4 Hammerstein shows, and 1 acoustic appearance.  And still sold MSG out thats awesome.

5-6 new songs a night is pretty good if you take a look at other bands out there.  this isn't a new band.   They are the evolution of GnR.  So of course they are going to play GnR songs from the back catalogue as they should.

I agree that people should stop dissing the 2002 tour. Yes it was cancelled, but the true reasons behind that we may never know, and having seen GnR live in both 2002 and 2006 I can say that the 2002 tour was just as good if not better.

WHen the album will come out, they will come back as the biggest rock band again.  I'm pretty sure..

Unfortunately, that's just wishful thinking on your part, bro. It would be cool to see that kind of comeback take place, but it's very highly unlikely that will ever happen.

Duff gave a real good answer a while back when asked if he thought VR would ever have the same success as GN'R. Can't remember his exact words, but it was something to the affect of, it would never happen. They were just in the right place at the right time and the world was able to relate with them.

I'm sure Axl has the ability to release a good album, but to come back where they once were, I'm not so sure. Too much has changed and too many people are gone for that to be a realistic expectation.

 ::)

Wrong section.



Different band, different people, different songs, different album.





/jarmo

U2 and Guns & Roses are two completely different groups. Yeah U2 have been around more in the charts and release more material but that's because they are controlled by their record company. U2 is not just about the four guys on stage. It's a corporation now. G&R are the complete opposite. They are not an industry group. You can't compare these two groups in any category because they are from the opposite spectrums of music. Guns are like Pink Floyd in the sense that they are outside the music industry. Their not puppets for the Record industry to command. Led Zepp was the same way. Axl and whoever is in company with him don't play the game of lying down and submitting to dictations of the record companies. Bono on the other hand is a hand puppet. When U2's manangement and record company tells them to jump......they jump.  U2's first couple of albums really didn't have much success until they released Joshua Tree. If it wasn't for that album they probably would of been dropped and you and I would have never heard of them again. Guns first album took off like a rocket. That says allot about the difference between U2 and Guns!!!!
Anyway....like the author of this thread said....it was about the up and coming releases of the G&R.......watch out..........it could be the big come-back. And if it is. I can tell you allot of groups that are signed now are probably going to have to start looking for jobs........ :peace:

What??

You're telling me you believe that if and when GNR release an album, it's going to cause such a big comeback that several other groups will actually loose their entire fanbase?

It's possible. That's the power of Guns & Roses. Many people underestimate G&R. For me there's really nothing out there right now that's really stirring up the music business. Groups come and go so fast it's like the price of gasoline going up and down. Hey.....this is a Guns & Roses sight. If you've got doubts supporting G&R......there are plenty of Britney Spear sights and rapp-hip hop sights you can go support. Or you can go support alternative-alternative-rock group sights. We're here to pay homage to Guns & Roses.....period.  :smoking:

You know it's possible to like other bands at the same time, right?

Yes. There are other groups I like too. There's nothing wrong with that. But sometimes I've noticed there are sights created for a paticular group (in this case G&R) and some log in and post negative put downs of a group. Now if it's just jokin around that's alright. But I can never understand if someone (and I'm not pointing fingers here) doesn't like a group for what ever reason than why even join that sight. I joined this sight because I'm pro-Guns & Roses. That's all.

thats why there has been negotiations for going on a year and a half with the record apparently in the Label's hands ... yeah your right guns do seem to be able to force the label to do what they want  :hihi:

No. This is a Guns N' Roses site and we're here to discuss them. Even if we were to only "pay homage" to them, there's a difference between that and what you're suggesting.

I'm a fan of Guns N' Roses and I discuss them quite frequently at length. Do I believe that their return if and when they release an album will put multiple other artists out of a job? No. That also doesn't mean that I should go listen to and support Britney Spears, it just means I live in reality.

Is the label forcing Axl to do what they want then?




/jarmo

Record labels strive on controlling an artist. It's their way of having power over a group. Axl speaks of this in his lyrics in you can be mine. Hey you can either be a leader or a puppet in the music industry. I doubt you will ever see Axl in a commercial like the current one of Justin Tiberland. To me an Artist should have total control of his career. This is the reality. My vote is I hope these new releases does put allot of bands out. It's time to get rid of these 'want to be' groups who are so un-talented it makes me laugh.
If you think it's not possible. Let's go back to circa 1991 before Nirvana arrived. Record companies signed about a dozen of so metal-acts. Yeah you remember them. Poison. Warrant, Cinderella.....and the list goes on. Nirvana hits the scene and what happen to all of these hair-bands...............gone. Now their lucky if they can fill a modern size club. So I don't know what reality you want to live in. But I know what I'm talking about because I've done the research.
Here's another dose of reality. In 1980 Led Zep put out in through the Out door. Nobody in the industry thought that it was going to sell. Surprise. They sold 10 million. And also gave a huge boost in record sales for other artists. Reality?  :rofl:

Yeah, I remember that.

Do you remember what happened after Nirvana got signed? There was a bunch of other bands signed just like them; Candlebox, Pearl Jam, STP, Silverchair... on and on and on. And at the same time guess who was around?? GUNS N' ROSES.

Point is, just because GNR produces an album it doesn't make the rest of the music world disappear.

No it doesn't mean they'll disappear. But I hope they do. The record business is at an all time slump right now. I know this because I've spokend with people who work in the industry. Everyone is playing it safe. Even bands who are not working with the majors are finding it very hard to keep their head above the water. It's disheartening that music has become too much business oriented. Yes the bands somehow need to make a living. But originally it was about making fantastic music that will leave a mark on society now and later into the future.
You have to realise that this is not just my point of view. This is the word I've been hearing from both sides of the fence. Bands, musicians, songwriters and management industry people who are in the music business.
The industry was already on a downward slope pre-2001. Than it started accelerating even more after 2001.
Alot of young teenagers are going back to listening to what their parents were into because the current music is not cutting it. Yes they start off with the newer groups but they soon realise that it's not cutting the mustard. So they are going back to the what modern rockers call "Classic Rock".
This is what is currently going on. I'm actually very happy that the new generation are getting wise to what is great music and what is fabricated silicone. They deserve to be turned on to great music and not computerised mumbo jumbo. And why not? I grew up listening to some of the most greatest music that has value and more bang for the buck. Why shouldn't the new generation receive the same. :beer:

I agree with some of this, but you're forgetting something vitally important. 

You're talking about a radical change in music.  This is what's referred to as a "cultural movement."  Each generation has it's own cultural movements, but cultural movements are inspired by the young and disenfranchised of that generation.  When Appetite came out, Gn'R were the young and disenfranchised.  Same case with Nirvana, the Sex Pistols, Led Zepplin, and even the Beatles.  All those bands started cultural movements that both existed within and transcended music.  The successive generation may appreciate the artists of their successors, but they will not identify with them - and thus these artists, like Gn'R, will not be able to ignite a new cultural movement from the young and disenfranchised. 

I'm not saying that Gn'R can't be huge again, but Chinese Democracy, no matter how sick it is, will not transform music and wipe out all the crappy pop music that exists today (no matter how much we all want it to).

In GUNS N' ROSES & Chinese Democracy, Only Work.... MASTERSMIND:

" Brianiac, The General, Finck, AXL, Pitman, May, Wylde, Izzy & Others "

The Album = Music Revolution.

HBK *

No. The album may sell well, but it's not going to make GN'R anything close to what they were in the 89-93 period. As a mix-mash of music styles from the 80s-90s with a band that will never gain the image of a "true band" it won't revolutionize. Not to mention it'll be a guy in his 40s leading the show... people in their 40s don't start revolutions in the music world, creatively or sales-wise, anyway.

First of all, everyone knows the music industry has been in a downward trend for years and years. None of that has anything to do with GN'R or whether they'll put other bands out of jobs by releasing a new album.

GNR have Fans Classics  & New Genereation...

GNR is Music Experimental, Evolution... NOT Band Predescibly.

hbk *

No offense... but why are your posts always half nonsense?!!

Chinese Democracy = Revolution (I hope!!!)

Only half?


It is possible for people to come out with really important and popular music without it being a "cultural movement".  The Seattle bands got people going out and buying flannel shirts and that scene got associated with fashion and politics and a bunch of shit that really had nothing to do with the music.  Ultimately those things were trends that went away.  Fairly quickly too.

Why can't we just say Guns was a great band with some great tunes and leave all this "cultural significance" out of it?

I No Offense  :)

Yes... REVOLUTION In The Mercade.

HBK *

To be fair:

HBK does not have English as his first language yet he seems to post more common sense than alot of people.

That's what I'd like to know.

Yes, of course you can come out with "really important and popular music," but people are talking "musical revolution" here.  A "musical revolution" is culturally significant whether you like it or not.  And, again, these types of movements are sparked by artists with which the young and disenfranchised identify.  Nirvana and the Seattle bands are no exception.  That being said, I think Gn'R will still be able to sell out stadiums, but I don't think Chinese Democracy can single handedly change music the way Appetite or Nevermind did (though I wish it would).

Axl? or Guns N Roses? ....i thought this was a band  :P

anyway since Axl is under contract to the Label then i think they have the upper hand yes...

are they getting thier way? since we dont have the album yet, i would say no.... more than likely it will end up with some sort of compromise between the 2 parties...

do i care ultimately what the deal is between them? no not really,

Mr. Bitch Slap Rappin seems to imply that Axl is calling the shots in the negotiatons i tend to disagree...do i know for sure? no its just a guess on my part. the label has sunk alot of cash into this project and i think they are gonna try to maximize their return and minimize the amount of further $$$ they put into the project...and if axl had the upper hand and he handed in the masters before xmas 07 and according to axl it takes 8 weeks to release the album after the label has it then why are we still waiting for the album 18 weeks after said album was handed in....somethign doesnt add up for me here :-\

mysteron are you saying that you think CD will cause a musical revolution? do you really beleive that?

Not, He Says:

To be fair:

HBK does not have English as his first language yet he seems to post more common sense than alot of people.

 : ok:

HBK *

Though, probably irrelevent, a lot of fans, and critics, panned "In Through The Out Door". Just as they did "Presence". Of course, I thought "Presence" sucked, but I loved ITTOD.

I don't think he had a problem reading the original post.

Assumptions from you.

Their last update said negotiations are going well, nothing about the masters.



/jarmo

ok so is the album handed into the label or not? ....i thought that "everybody knows that" or am i missing something  :confused: since Beta said that the Album has been handed in before christmas and its been said that "the ball is in the labels court" and the album doesnt havea set release date yet that the average fan knows about, i'm assuming that negotiations are still on going... a couple weeks ago you argued with me till you were blue in the face that the album is handed in cuz beta said so, now you are telling me that i'm making assumptions...make up your mind already

i dunno why your giving me a hard time on this cuz i am not making any outlandish claims here...bitchslaprappin is pretty much saying that axl is calling the shots with the label...i just disagree with him for the reasons i've stated

As far as I remember, she never said that.

You seem confused about two things. The album being done and the album being handed in. Two different things.


It's done.

As far as I know, nobody credible has stated it having been handed in to the label.





/jarmo

Beta Says:

" Disc Is In universal Before X.Mas "

Mr. James Says:

" In Bussiness "

And realese Recient: ONLY 6 Songs...

I Is Confussions !!!

 >:( >:( >:(

HBK *

 :smoking: Get ready for the Night Train to run again...........
Just a short question.....what current rock groups do some of you Gunners and Gunnets like........

No she didn't.





/jarmo

She Says:

" Disc Is Finished " ?

HBK *

And what did you say?


Saying it's finished and saying it's been delivered to the record company are two different things.




/jarmo

yea i understood that the negotiations meant they are working out the details so that the band can hand the record over..

From BETA Interview.

HBK *

Then GNR Updating This Music ...

 :smoking:

HBK *

I thought we'd had confirmation that the record has been "handed in"?

Have I missed something?   :-\

As far as I know, the rumor started with an article claiming so.

But nothing has been said by any reliable sources.




/jarmo

What's the big deal with the album being handled anyways? As far as we know it's finished, isn't it enough?

Yeah, speaking for myself, not really. I won't be satisfied until Axl is satisfied. Until the day it comes out and we can get past all this Chinese Democracy stuff I will be simply waiting and trying to be patient.

The album is finished. It's release is being sorted out.

There is no ceremonial middle ground to this process

thankx mysteron

thats that then! :peace:

The big deal is, if it is handed in and they are NEGOTIATING

what does that mean?

What is being negotiated?

If it has something to do with money, we could be in for a huge wait because after all they've spent, Id say they are gonna stand firm on certain monetary issues.


I hope all gets sorted soon and they figure out some cool innovative way to release it.

Thanks for the info!!!  Ceremonial Middle Ground (GMG)  :rofl:

Axl's words were "contract negotiations, need to be completed".






/jarmo

"Handed in" only applies to homework. It is a dead argument here. The album is either finished or it is not finished.

Why are there negotiations? I, personally, do not know. What is obvious, though, is that times have changed since the last GN'R release. Universal will be looking to make a profit, as will Axl. The internet now is far more promiscous than during the mid-90's. I am sure lots of you here are downloading mf's, and that in itself makes life more difficult for artists and for record companies to make money in this day and age.     

I concur, though, with your last sentence.             

Must Be Problems With The Launch Digital

HBK *

One would have to think Digital Rights has to be the major point considering there were no such thing when Axl signed that contract.

The focus on whether it has been "handed in" or "turned in" is probably based on Axl's comment regarding the timing of the release:

"It takes approximately eight weeks for an album to hit the shelves once it has been turned in to the record company"

Perhaps the "turned in" is synonymous with the completion of negotiations?

Ah, who the fuck cares, the album is coming out this year, and all of this drama will be forgotten.   :beer:

I'm sure a lot of us are downloading MF's yes  ;)

However I myself will be purchasing this fine album, and I'm sure everyother GnR fan on here, whether they have downloaded the leaks or not, will also be rushing to the shops to buy the album.   : ok:

I can see them wanting to find someway of avoiding pirating, but lets be honest that is practically impossible. If the CD companies come up with new copy-protect technology, the piraters come up with ways round it. It's like evolution! What I do know though is that very very good music is pirated less than poorer music as people are willing to buy it.

For example if there is a band you really really like, you are more likely to buy the CD. If there is another band you kind of like but can take them or leave them, then given half the chance you may download their stuff. As GnR is a popular band I don't see downloading being too much of a problem.

Yeah, I am buying the CD as soon as possible.I will DL it off Itunes at Midnight and then go to the store as soon as I wake up and buy the physical copy.

I just hope this album isn't one of those that has multiple different versions - like one CD version for USA/UK, a "tour" version, a Japanese version with a bonus track, an iTunes only version with a different cover and 2 bonus tracks, and a limited edition version with a bonus DVD featuring live footage etc etc etc   :no:

Smashing Pumpkins did that with Zeitgeist.
Velvet Revolver did it a lot too.

NO NEED!

One version please!

 :rofl:

I Agreed.

This Fuckin' Drama: BYE BYE...

 :hihi:

HBK *

Whitesnake - Good To Be Bad (2008)

Whitesnake - Good To Be Bad (Full Bonus CD) - 2008 - XXL (Limited Edition In U.K.)

 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

HBK *

Dude

as long as CD comes out

Axl can release 250 versions for all I care


Id buy 3 or 4 different versions

Could it also be possible that these negotiations concern more than just one album?  Bach has obviously alluded to the idea of multiple releases and they could be getting all these details squared away up front.

Nobody credible...well Classic Rock is a pretty well respected magazine, i dont see any reason for them to lie...but whatever you wanna think



thank you mysteron...so anyway back to my previous statements, Axl is arguing his side, the label is arguing their side....nobody has the upper hand here....except that Guns N Roses owes Geffen an album....and since the album has been done since Late 2007 it doesnt look to me like Axl is calling the shots with the Label...

 We will find Different versions Of CHINESE DEMOCRACY

 : ok:

HBK *

Lets just pray this doesnt somehow spill into court

We would then be fucked.

That's funny.


I'm sorry, but just because a magazine prints it, doesn't make it the truth.

That so called respected magazine has been milking Axl's name for years.



As I said nobody credible.

How do you explain your statement that Beta had said the album was handed in? Did you get that all wrong?




/jarmo

actually the quote from Beta in the magazine says

"The album was finished before christmas, but everyone knows that, we're in negotiations now with the record company."

so sorry i misconstrued it, its been a while since i read the article...still i dont know what your big beef is with the mag...if Beta was willing to talk to them they cant be all that bad  :hihi:

so could this be a case of the label not wanting to talk until the album is handed over? and Axl not wanting to hand over the album until the negotiations are done? so basically its a stalemate and nobody is saying shit to each other? that would jive with what i heard from someone in contact with Universal Music, and it would also jive with the "The ball is in the Record Company's court" comment from whoever said that...mysteron, del, beta? someone said it ... i remember :hihi:

Glad you got that cleared up.  : ok:




/jarmo

Friend... You Know The Magic Word:



 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

HBK *

From what I've read (not profess) there are about thirty songs. So there might be three cd's released at different time periods.
My guess is that these negotiations are again about control and how Axl's record company wants to control it and Axl's way of controlling it. Plus these negotiations involve a tour. (That's if there's going to be a tour.) Personally I think Axl is very wise in taking his sweet time and dealing with the record company. We all know that most of the money in the sales of  these cd's are going to the record companies pocket. I understand that now the record companies are also cutting themselves on the touring and merchandising of bands. This is usually were the band makes their profit. Ahh yes. The ugly side of the music business is certainly no bed of roses!!!!

There is a lot to think about in structuring deals between big artists and the industry these days.  For GN'R this is especially true considering the money invested and hype surrounding CD.  Seems like most big deals today, like the ones involving Live Nation, in addition to getting a piece of touring, merchandise, etc. have multiple ways of distributing the music in order to maximize profits.  The days of selling out by licensing your music to be used in commericals, etc. are in large part over.  Axl is likely going to be very particular about how his music is distributed and licensed, as he has always been very protective of his work.  And I certainly can't blame him.  But with new management in tow, things should work out one hopes without threats of litigation or anything like that. 

However, whats most curious to me is how back in Dec. 2006, Axl thought that it would be very possible to turn in CD by January and have it released by March.  Knowing the complications of the business, there has to have been a long stalemate for some time between Axl and the record company.  I mean, certainly they have not been working fulltime on negotiations for the past 16 months.  My guess is that the two sides refused to come together until certain things could be agreed upon, and whatever those certain things are were not negotiated, therefore leading to the waiting game.  And Axl being Axl has likely been somewhat complacement in laying low for awhile as he has done over the years.  Thats his life and his right to do so. 

But we've gotten a few messages as of late that indicate that the wheels are in motion again.  I for one do not thing Axl would have responded to the Dr. Pepper thing if he didn't anticipate being able to release CD by years end.  So there is plenty to be optimistic about.

that's likely.. that contract what was said in it? 3 records or something? can't remember