Here Today... Gone To Hell!

First, I kinda see Chinese Democracy as a bookend of GNR albums.
That's not to say if they put out something, I wouldn't push an old lady down to be the first in line to buy it, but I just don't know that it's realistic to expect a new album. There's all kinds of rumors about not getting together to write it, people leaving the band, other people saying the new album is almost done.
Maybe a new album just isn't in the cards?
They tour and put on great shows every couple of years. Maybe that's all they want, maybe it's just a part time deal for them.

A few months ago I interviewed a member of Warrant. It was very enlightening. He was like, "yeah, we were big rock stars back then." But now he makes wine as his day job. On the weekends, he tours under the Warrant banner, more as a hobby that he can make a few extra bucks at than as a "I'm a famous musician!" type of thing. But Warrant isn't who he is day to day. And they put on a great little show.

Maybe that's what it is for GNR. They all have their other projects and bands and things they do, and then every couple of years they do a little touring and maybe a residency under the GNR banner.

I don't know what Axl thinks, but maybe he just wants to live a quiet life and play with his band once in a while? Maybe this obsessive need we as fans have for new material is misplaced. Maybe there isn't any, and isn't going to be any. Maybe giving some fantastic concerts every couple years is all Axl wants out of it?

What do you guys think?

Impossible to say, but I do suspect that making and releasing Chinese Democracy was such an uphill battle that he's not really chomping at the bit to do it again.

But he just gave an interview where he talked about the follow up to CD?both remixes of CD songs and CDII songs.  He talked about songs already being done.

If they are just a touring act, then stop holding out the carrot of new songs.  Just admit that?s what you are.  Instead, we read interview after interview from DJ, Dizzy, Richard?all talking about how the next album?s almost done, can?t wait to get back in the studio, etc.  I never put much stock into these interviews, because they?ve been saying this for years.

But when Axl chimed in?to me that?s a game changer.  IMO, that added credibility that there is going to be another album.  However, their actions (same tour, no new songs) speak louder than their words. 
They straddle this line of touring act/band, and then people get mad when they get called out for being a touring act.  Bands write music (we know the current lineup hasn?t written one song) and release albums.  Touring acts don?t.  Pick one.  Instead, they act like one and say they?re the other.  That leads to a lot of confusion and misdirection?and lord knows we got enough of that already.

Tremendous.

When I read your stuff, its like reading my own thoughts without the inborn smartassery.

Ha.  I often find myself saying the same thing when I read your stuff...although I gather from your posts you're from Philly so while we're both on the same page with GnR, I think our sports allegiances vary greatly (I'm from NY).  If a Philly guy and New York guy can get along, why can't GnR...

Anyway, keep up the good work. 

Hey guys, this simply:

CD IS DEAD IN THE INDUSTRY, NEW FORMAT ALIVE IS DIGITAL

 :smoking:

Ok then...why haven't they digitally recorded or released one song?  I don't think the format is the issue...

Yeah, what stops them releasing one song on iTunes?

The real reason, I'm asking.  Not the laundry list of preposterous excuses we are usually fed to make all this inactivity seem not only normal, but noble.

That is a good point. When the man himself says "hey, we're almost done with some new stuff!" you kinda start anticipating new stuff.
Maybe he was misquoted?


Nah, the media has never done anything like that with this band ...  ;)

Also a good point. Maybe the have to fulfill a contract still?

Another question is why are no new songs performed during their concerts if there is new material in the can?

Yes, another great question.  There are plenty of opportunities to advance the ball and play new songs...instead they dust off another UYI song and a new DJ solo.  I know I'm complaining about shows I didn't go to...but I feel like I was there, since I saw them in 2010, 2012, and 2013 in what was essentially the same concert each time.

It makes zero sense.

If they played even one new song, it would be the overwhelming topic of discussion on every board.  It would get people excited again.

Look at the reaction they got for simply moving YCBM to the opener for one show.  Or dusting off 'Yesterdays' for the first time in 21 years.  People were way into it.

So why not play us a new song?  The 3 new songs they played at RIR III were just about all I listened to for like, a year.

Hard comparison...Sounds like Warrant, and I wonder how many other bands, are doing shows for Shits N' Giggles..As for GNR they are doing lengthy high end tours...

I don't know if the guy from Warrant should be making it sound like he's moonlighting as a musician. The gigs on the weekend probably go into the winery.

Las Vegas 2012 Is Digitally

 : ok:

Indeed it is! And,just because no new music has been released as soon as some people deem necessary doesn't mean none is coming.

All signs point to another release in due time :)

Oh yeah, right...and what song did the current lineup record and create in that 2012 digital release???

Sorry for thinking that a band (to be a band) needs to release new music.  It's not really that crazy of a concept.  The only place in the entire world where this notion is dismissed is here.

Also, I'm not sure that "all signs point to another release"...although I do appreciate the glass half full thinking.  Bumble's recent comments certainly cast some doubt as to how much progress has been made on the next album.  That no new songs were played on the most recent tour also indicate nothing has changed.  But Axl's Revolver interview is promising. 

So why are you on a GNR fan forum?

I don't think Ron's highly publicized passive aggressive whinings in the press are truly reflective of GNR's current status on the new album.
Why is it so important that the current lineup be on a release?

2014 has been a very good year for GNR for the real fans and supporters! Looking forward to next step.

Ok so that?s an interesting response.  Why am I on the forum?  I guess you?re asking that because I?m not 100% on board, 100% of the time, with every decision or non-decision made by the band/Axl.  In short, to be on a fan forum you need to have blind faith and never step out of line.

By that logic, why are you on the fan forum?  You?re complaining about Ron and his passive aggressive whining.  Is it ok to criticize some band members but not others?  Or are you assuming Ron's out of the band so it's fair game to pounce on him?  I?m a little confused there.

I?m guessing we?re both on here because GnR is our favorite band.  I do think there are some encouraging signs for new music soon (the biggest sign being Axl?s interview which I have said numerous time on here is a game changer).  But that doesn?t mean I can?t independently think on my own and reach my own conclusions based on what I see.  Sorry, but I?m not going to buy that everything?s on the up and up, going according to plan, and there are no problems.  That?s just not reality?and commenting on how I may think there may be problems (what?s up with Ron, have they recorded one song in 8 years, etc.) doesn?t automatically make me not a fan.

It?s similar to a sports team.  I?m a huge NY Giants fan.  Like GnR, they?ve been my favorite team my entire life.  But?I?m not too happy with the new Offensive Coordinator they brought in, and what the hell are they going to do about the Tight End?  However, come Week 1, I?m still going to be rocking my Bavaro jersey and cheer them on.  Get it?

If you?re looking for blind faith, join a mega-church. I?m here to discuss the band and have real conversations about the current state of affairs (good and bad)?and yes, I do want them to release new music.  Sorry if that doesn?t make me a fan.

Tl;dr

I expected a long winded post attempting to somehow justify and validate whining about the band not operating to suit your every whim. :D

You didn't disappoint! ;)

There's every reason to be positive and looking forward to what comes next with GNR!

Really, that was too long for you to read?  Or is that just a convenient excuse for you not to address anything?  I?ll keep this one short.  I expected you to completely ignore your blatant hypocrisy (i.e. it?s ok for you to whine and complain about Ron but not for me to express my opinion on GnR as a whole).  Got it.  Well played.

Wanting a band to release music is hardly a far-fetched belief, certainly not suiting my every whim.  If that were the case, Axl would be at my birthday party.

I've said it multiple times. Wanting new music is great. It means you're interested in it. Awesome. We all want that.

But, there's a fine line between wanting and wanting new music. To the point where it becomes endless moaning about not getting it at your convenience....

For some of you it's tiresome to have to deal with those of us who believe in GN'R and see how amazing the band is, instead of focusing on other things we have no control over. If that's the case, you gotta realize it can get tiresome for some to constantly read the endless opinions about how much certain fans need and/or want a new album.....

:)



/jarmo

Well said! It gets very old hearing some people moan endlessly about new music and why they need new music so badly and desperately that they seem unable to see just how awesome the band already is and enjoying the present :)

There were so many occasions just this year to get to a show and have a good time. We have a great dvd blu-ray to enjoy, watch and listen to.

I focus on the positives, and there have been many this year.The people that constantly whine and complain about what they want and what they think they need for them to enjoy the band are boring and annoying.
I enjoy all aspects of the band and dont need things on my terms to appreciate what an amazing band it is, has been, and will be! :D

I love how you take things to the extreme (and how you continue to dodge your own hypocrisy).

Because some of us think they should put out new music (you know, like what real bands do) that means we constantly whine and complain, and our lives will never be fulfilled until THEY do what WE want them to do.

To be clear, if they never release another album or song, I?ll still live.  Life will go on.  GnR will still be my favorite band.  Axl will still be my favorite ginger.  If they do release another album, I?ll buy it.  If they tour near me, I?ll go see them, even If it?s still the same setlist.
 
In the end, it?s just a band.  But if you honestly think that things couldn?t be better, the band is so unpredictable, everything?s going according to plan, etc., then you are drinking the Kool-Aid.  Good for you.  I disagree, but whatever.  However, you seem to have this obsession that if people don?t think your way, then we?re disgruntled, dirty reunionists.  For the record, I don?t think things are bad?I just don?t think they?re all puppies and rainbows.  I did post on the Positives of GNR thread too, as there are some positives this year that I hope they are able to capitalize on.  But I?m not blinded to the point where if something?s weird (i.e. Ron?s current state of limbo with no official word from either side) I?ll pretend it doesn?t exist.  And sorry, but I don't think DJ's better than the old one, but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop listening to them.

It is possible for GnR to be your favorite band without believing that everything they do is the greatest thing ever and nothing ever goes wrong.  Your cultish attitude toward them is a little creepy.  Sorry if this was too long for you?I realize you?ve stopped reading a while ago.

Aren't you contradicting yourself there?

If things don't go as planned, doesn't that make something kinda unpredictable?  :P



/jarmo

I don't think so.  I meant that as people buying into the notion that each show is unpredictable.  A simple perusing of setlist.fm will show you that the shows are not unpredictable, despite how some band members characterize them.  Yet, some folks will refuse to recognize that, because acknowledging that would be putting the band in a bad light, which is impossible to do because things are the best they've ever been and the band has never done anything wrong.  It's ok to not be 100% on board with every decision/comment made by the band.  Jarmo, I get your allegiance...but for the regular Joe/Jane, it doesn't make sense.

There is also a fine line between giving a relevant answer to a question asked, and answering with something that has nothing to do with it.

Example :

Q : Man, Axl's interview was great.  Really gives fans hope we might actually get another album.  What sort of time frame do you think is reasonable?

A : They just played Peru this year!  PERU!!  And they released a DVD.

In what rational universe does that answer have anything to do with the question?

I also posted in the GNR positives thread, because I also see things that look promising.

But no reasonable human being can always come down that everything that happens was the best possible outcome, nothing can be improved, and everything is tip top.  Its not credible.  You do not come off as a credible person saying these things.

I put in the GNR positives thread that the Vegas residency was good.  That Axl sounded real good, and there were even some setlist surprises.  I said these things because that's what happened.

Back in March, I posted in those show threads that the shows were not so good.  Axl sounded spotty (at best) at most of them, and the setlist was completely uninteresting.  I said those things because that's what happened.

You have to be logical about the things you say.  Otherwise, you just come off as a pom-pom waver.

Its just foolishness.  And its only even a thing because we are reacting to what we are told.

If DJ says its going to be a great show, come on out, you'll have a blast...fine.  All bands likely say that.  And I'm not sure who would disagree with such a position.

But when DJ says they have no setlist, things are crazy unpredictable, and they are going to mix it up for people going multiple nights...that draw eye rolls.  Because we know its not true.  And he knows we know that's not true.  At that point, the focus shifts to how ill advised those comments are.

As for the over the top allegiance, we all know Jarmo's deal.  But some of the others, yeah, I have the same reaction.  Its like they think they are going to meet Axl and be able to tell him their screen name so that he can check up on how positive they have been.  I read a lot of these comments with the thinking people actually think Axl is making a Naughty & Nice list of internet posters, and there will be some big payoff for all their "loyalty".

Well in that case, please be more specific next time.

Things not going according to plan makes something unpredictable.  :P


Ah, the same setlist discussion.

Yet it seems the only times GN'R think about strictly following a specific setlist is when there's a specific reason for it. Like a 90 minute festival set time to follow....
But what do I know...




/jarmo

But Jarmo, every show this year (except the GG performance and La Paz) started out:  CD, WTTJ, ISE, Brownstone, Estranged and then (with minor variation) Better, RQ, Fortus solo, LALD, TIL.

Note [before everyone over-reacts]:  I am not complaining about the setlist.  I am complaining (your word, not mine) about the notion that things are unscripted and unpredictable (anything can happen, we don?t know what we?re going to play next!).  It seems so disingenuous when people (especially members of the band) say that because, in reality, things are pretty scripted?and that?s fine.  What?s the harm in admitting that?  Is there a fear that it?s less ?rock n roll??  I don?t get it.

Yeah, this isn't so much complaining about the setlist as it is asking why DJ thinks we're all fucking idiots.

Anyone who believes that Dj is DELIBERATELY trying to deceive the fans or misrepresent what the audience will get when they attend a GNR show IS a fucking idiot!

So if the shoe fits....  ;)

Warrant were a terrible band. Nelson and Pretty Boy Floyd painted a better picture back in the day.

Settle down over there.

Think of it like a political talking point.  Its repeated like a script and said as second nature. 

Even if it has no basis in reality.

Who left the sack of idiots open? Haha cultish?

Not dodging a thing, I dont require your permission nor validation to enjoy GNR :D
I also don't care what your "points" are or what your little complaints entail because it has no bearing on me enjoying my favorite band.

How can you possibly call someone else a hypocrite when you come on a fan forum to whine and complain that the band isn't doing things that are necessary in your little narrow scope of vision?

I enjoyed some great shows in SA, in Penn., in LA and in vegas this year-and I still think the online people who criticize,  whine and complain are boring sacks of crybaby trash and need to get a life. ;)

Why would DJ attempt to deceive people? I certainly wasn't expecting some of the songs that were played in Vegas.

Your labels and opinions have no basis in reality.

The Idiot shoe definitely fits a few people here  ;)

In what rational universe is it your duty to criticize and complain 24-7 ?

There is a fine line between constructive criticism and blatant nonstop bitching.

Settle down??  I'm zen.  8)


"repeated like a script" ... "said as second nature" ... "no basis in reality"
You've just described 95% of your posts.

What the hell are those sorts of responses?  Good lord.

Am I at MYGNR?

Right.  And I love how we?re perceived as complaining 24/7 because we dare to have an opinion that doesn?t start and end with ?GnR can do no wrong.?

I know it fits your narrative better, but we?re hardly complaining 24/7.  Perhaps you didn?t read our posts in the Positives of GnR thread (or you conveniently forgot about them).   I?d say we?re pretty realistic about the band and its current standing?but continue on with your insults.  Super mature, btw.

I'm not even talking about the opinions as I am the mindset.  I'm talking about a civil discussion

If I come at you like a prick at rip you personally, fine, let me have it.  But to answer an opinion on the band that you happen not to like with "you are just a fucking idiot"...what's that?  Is this high school?  Gotta do a better job there. 

If I wanted that schtick, I'd be over at MYGNR smearing my feces on the walls like many of them do all the live long day.  I go there to goof around, but I come here to actually talk about things.

What I said is my personal opinion. To me it seems like the only time there was a more strict set list to follow was when the set time was shorter. Even then, there wasn't a definite set list as far as I know.

The other times GNR always played what they felt like and how long they felt like. But, as I said, what do I know...


/jarmo

You deleted your original reply about wanting to get back to a constructive conversation and replaced it with this??!!!??!!!!! :lmao:

Oh, I didn't mean you, Jarmo.

I was referring to the other 2 champions of constructive dialogue on the last page.

I did, yes.

After I did it, I thought it sounded pissy and juvenile.  Felt it rather flew in the face of the point I was making.

YOU were the one who brought the term "fucking idiot" into this conversation.  EmilyGNR and I were expressing our opinions that we disagreed with your assessment of Dj's statements by using your own words.

And why the disparaging remarks about mygnr?  I personally am not a member there but like Jarmo has always said, just because their forum is handled different than HTGTH doesn't mean anyone here should stoop to mud slinging at another GNR fan site.

There's a MYGNR thread in one of the folders here.  I was one of the only ones defending the place.  Do believe I'm still the last post, from June.

I like both sites, but both are different.  Over there, its more a goof around vibe.  Which I like.  But if I wanted to seriously talk about the current band or the future, I'd come here.

But, the downside to that goof around vibe is that there is a lot of petty name calling and juvenile antics that often are thrown out in the place of an actual conversation.  But there, not here.

Basically, I expected more from a varsity letterman.

What does that have to do with you bringing them up in this thread?  ???
(rhetorical question)

I have no idea what this means so let's try to steer the conversation back on topic....


IMO, 7/8ths of GNR do not consider themselves ONLY a touring band (not sure of BBF's opinion).

IMO comments by the band members about the setlist or content/status of the next album are probably made mostly tongue-in-cheek because they won't, shouldn't or possibly can't discuss the in-processes progress.

IMO, no one in the band (or management) is deliberately trying to deceive the fans.



That is what this topic is about, right?  :P

 

But my point is?what is the basis of your opinion?  Is it your gut, blind faith, insider info, trust?  I am asking this seriously (and would hope to have a more productive discussion than I?m just a douche).  This is the most stable lineup in the history of GnR, they?ve played countless number of shows all over the world?but have yet to release one song and (according to BBF) have yet to record one note or make any meaningful progress towards a new album. 

You?d think that such a stable lineup would be able to release an album.  That?s what leads me to believe new music/album is not a high priority for them (despite what they may say in interviews).  How could they not consider themselves a touring band if that?s the only thing they?ve ever done?  Why should they be looked at as anything but a touring band?  Actions speak louder than words.

Now, Axl?s recent interview gave me hope that perhaps the focus is shifting and they are going to be releasing something soon (anyone?s guess as to what ?soon? means).  There are positive signs for sure, but it?s not 100% perfect?they may have just lost their Co-Lead Guitarist?so  I?m not sure how one can credibly say all signs point to new music?I hope they do, but things aren?t exactly a beacon of clarity in GnR land.  Hope is the best you can do.  And it?s ok to acknowledge that things may be murky and uncertain?it doesn?t make you less of a fan.  Trust me.

Not sure if you quoted & are addressing me by mistake (since you & EmilyGNR were the ones going back & forth) but I'll gladly give my serious, no name calling, opinion. 


I disagree with your opinion that "this is the most stable lineup in the history of GnR."  I really don't think GNR ever had a 'stable' lineup but if I had to pick one, I guess it would be the AFD lineup from Day 1 up until the day when they started to consider firing Steven.  Up to that point they were all probably on somewhat equally fucked-up/unstable ground hence making that equality the foundation of the "stability."  Once they started to recognize how disproportionate Steven's instability was even to their own, any semblance of stability was gone and, IMO, to this day is still in flux.

The 'current' lineup came into existence in 2009 when Dj joined so we've really got to give them a year or so after that to form a solid foundation to become a stable band.  Problem with that is by that point in time, Bumblefoot was already publicly voicing his displeasure about what he perceived to be what was wrong with how GNR was doing things.  Hardly makes for a stable band.

To your other point about writing and releasing music:  FIVE of the eight current members of GNR contributed to the writing of CD I and, it's reasonable to presume, these FIVE people also contributed to the writing of the CD II & CD III material that is more than likely what Axl was alluding to releasing soon.

So for this discussion, we have five of eight guys' past/present/future contributions already accounted for.  Now let's add Frank and Dj into the mix.  They can go the route of CD I and have them re-record the drum and guitar parts written by their predecessors for CD II & CD III OR they can add new drum & guitar parts written by them to existing songs in order to get something released "soon."  In the meantime, they can be writing stuff to be considered for CD IV.

That leaves Bumblefoot.  As I stated before, he's been publicly voicing his displeasure with how things are being done for quite some time now.  This, along with his stories about the altercations between him and other band members when he first joined the band, doesn't exactly make for a conducive atmosphere for stability or togetherness as a writing/recording/functioning band.   

With the mixed messages we're getting from Bumblefoot, it's hard to figure out where he fits into any scenario or even if he or they still want him to fit.

So it's my conclusion that at least seven of the eight band members are and consider themselves to be more than just a touring band.

And that is the basis of my opinion.

Nothing is murky nor uncertain, the band is on a well deserved break, a hiatus.

Why are you relating success to your personal want of new music? Why are they not successful to you until they release a new album?

You are equating success with releasing a new album and new music, GNR has released a very successful DVD/Blu-ray this year that is still in the top ten after seven weeks.

Nobody in GNR is attempting to purposefully mislead, if they say they have a call list and not a set list then it is the truth, it is not a matter worth lying over and if you feel lied to than you greatly overestimate your level of importance.

Albums are not as lucrative and profitable as they once were, so releasing a new album would have to be undertaken carefully and cautiously.

The latest data from Nielsen Soundscan, tracking album sales, singles sales, airplay, streams, and digital downloads for the six month period from 30th December, 2013 through to 29th June, 2014 shows a general trend in the American music sector that mirrors Australia?s 2013 sales year, it?s worst decline ever.

Generally, while the revenue from digital music sales and subscription based streaming platforms continues to grow, the concern is that it doesn?t seem to be happening at a pace quick enough to offset the sharp decline from physical music.

As Billboard reports, compared to last year, the first six months of 2014 saw overall album sales dropping 14.9%, from 235 million (in 2013) to 227 million. That includes digital album sales, which reached 113.2 million units in the first half of 2014, a decline of 15.9 million from the 129 million tallied in the equivalent sales period in 2013.

All the more depressing when you consider last year?s album sales hit an all-time low, dropping to the worst stretch in album sales in the 20 years since Nielsen SoundScan began tracking sales.

Everyone except Ron in the band indicates that new music is being considered and concentrated on, I dont think Ron is in the loop so I tend to overlook all his public whining and complaining

People that constantly whine and complain about everything that is wrong instead of everything that is right are boring  and have tunnel vision IMO.

And you dont get to define what constitutes a fan or makes one less of a fan, some seem to feel it is their public duty to constantly complain about different issues, to voice their displeasure at every turn, and to offer unwanted amateur armchair quarterback advice about how the band should operate.

I dont consider this type of person a fan at all IMO ;)

If you expect more than remember the adage that people tend to treat others like others treat them.

Honestly I'm fed up with your complaining over basically every aspect of GNRs and I'm honestly of the opinion that no matter what happens that you will find something wrong, something to complain about, and a negative way to spin it.

I'd much rather be known as a champion of constructive dialogue than a whining, complaining, negative little bitch, but I don't like to be labelled so I assume others dont either  ;)

Some people prefer to believe a lie over the truth even when the truth is told by numerous reliable people ;)

She's my Cherry Pie!

All of the stats you listed (and I?ll just assume that they are correct) affect every band, not just GnR.  Yet, somehow other bands, despite the declining market conditions of album sales, still release albums and create new music.  The only place where it?s used as an excuse to not create new music is with GnR.  That doesn?t make sense to me.

It?s pretty clear that there are some behind the scenes stuff going on with Ron?but you have an inability to acknowledge that things may be in a state of flux.  Chalking it up to the band?s on hiatus (and nothing more to see here) is willfully ignoring reality.

And if you think I?m the only one that wants to hear new music?you are very mistaken.  You interpret my desire for a new album as my own selfish demand.  Just like everyone wants their favorite team to win, everyone wants their favorite band to make music.  It?s not a novel concept or just my personal want.  I?m guessing even you would like to hear new music.

It does not matter what, if anything is going on behind the scenes, it is not my business and it is not yours. You are not entitled to that information.

There is a minority of very vocal fans that aren't really about supporting the band and it's endeavors, they are about identifying with something so strongly that it takes the place of personal creativity and an independent life. They dive into entitlement headfirst and somehow think because they have followed the band, invested their time, bought albums and have seen a few concerts, they have been loyal and true and feel like they have the right to dictate what goes on. Many forums seem to be devoted and dominated by discourse of discontented adolescents

One person starts complaining and others jump in to look coolio. If you are personally affronted by events and information, or lack of concerning GNRs, you may need to take a break from the internet.

I'm definitely interested in new music, and what's next but I know the difference between wants and needs and will support the band regardless. I am not so clueless, deceived and naive to think they should operate on my schedule. When a new release is ready I will buy it, when new shows are announced I will go.

 It is that simple. :peace:

We are the only fanbase in the world that goes down this road.

Artists release albums every week of every year.  From the biggest of big time acts, right on down to indie start-ups.  Somehow, they do so, despite the downturn in album sales that only GNR fans are hip to.



Reconcile those two lines in bold for me.  Is this part of a bit you are doing about the chronically self unaware?  A statement on irony?  Break it down.

As for what a terrible fan I am, my sig is what I think.  If you want to live in a world where we just praise everything that happens and would rather not talk about the inconvenient things that don't, that's your prerogative.  I don't see the point.  You are not a better fan or a more loyal fan because you are a pom-pom waver.  You think it makes you top shelf.  I think it shows an appalling lack of objectivity topped only by the lack of just about all credibility.

"Everything Is Awesome" is a song from a kid's movie.  Its not a realistic credo for life.

Yeah, we all will.  If you are still online talking about this band in 2014 (especially at this particular board) you are still all in. 

This narrative that anyone uttering a critical word about the band is doing so because their lack of productivity has ground our real lives to a stand still is preposterous.  No one is not sleeping and scrawling stuff on the walls like 'A Beautiful Mind' because Axl can't get it together.

We just talk about what goes on.  What goes on is that this band doesn't do much.  That's not whining.  Its being minimally observant.  And when circumstances change, so will the reaction.

Unless you already think everything is awesome.  Which, sorry, makes no sense.  It was cooler in 2006 when they started touring and in 2008 when the album came out than it was from 2003-2005 when we heard nothing, literally nothing about this band.  To say everything was constant during all that time is pretty silly.

No.  Anything having to do with Warrant will never be "what it is for GNR."  GNR, its music, and some of its members/former members are iconic.  Icons don't have day jobs, other than collecting royalty checks due to their art being a permanent fixture in the world's consciousness.  However active or inactive the band may be in the future will never change that. 

Well, maybe the whole point is that some people choose to live their likes like every year since 2008 has been like 2003 all over year after year with nothing going on.... When in reality that's not even remotely the case!

Maybe some could relate to some of the endless whining a decade ago, but it's obvious that the constant whining for the sake of whining has lost its (never present) allure to some in the previous decade....

In other words, it's fucking boring to read the same people whine year after year about how nothing happens just because they don't get what they want.

We're sorry that you can't get that much needed missing piece of the puzzle that you call your life. We all want a new album, but it seems some aren't as dependent on it as others are. They seem to manage fine without having to vent about it day after day and turn everything positive into the same fucking boring tirade about how there's still no new album.

One thing is for certain. The next GN'R album will be the best the band has ever made. It must be. No other album has been this "needed" before. It's like giving a glass of water to the person who didn't drink for weeks. Best glass of water ever!

Yeah, I'm joking. We all know the drill. We've been there already and know how it all went down last time GN'R released and album some fans "needed".....


/jarmo

2003-2005 was so damn grim.  Sure looked like it was all over.

But just because the album eventually came out in 2008 doesn't mean they "showed us" or "proved the haters wrong".  It just means it eventually came out.  2003-2005 don't retroactively become better in hindsight.

I guess that's more my point here.  After all of 2003 and 2004 went with near total radio silence from the operation, you were not somehow out of line to say in 2005 that it looks over.  That is what the facts on the ground indicated at the time. 

The fact it got back on track was great, but that doesn't mean that anyone that spent 2003-2005 assuring "the haters" everything was fine are up for sainthood.  The same applies today.  If the next album comes out in 2017, can you really say you "called it"?

Yeah, we all listened to it and liked it.  The people that shit on it weren't going to give it a chance regardless. 

You sure seem spent an inordinate amount of time on those last causes. 

The album came out, how did that not prove everybody, who said it would never come out, wrong?

With that kind of thinking, those idiots are always winning.... Since they can never be proven wrong!


/jarmo

Just because you don't know what is going on doesn't mean nothing is happening, so I'm not sure how you are making all these "intelligent observations" when you are not privvy to first hand information, nor should you be.

I choose to remain optimistic,  the recent interviews with everyone (except Ron) have been upbeat and mentioned new music and I'm looking forward to this when it is deemed ready to be released.

Not understanding why you seem to think "everything was cooler in 2006" . I honestly think you are pulling reasons to be overly critical and negative out of your lower colon and it is boring not to mention a downer to read your posts constantly complaining or continually and redundantly finding something negative to harp on.

You aren't the only one doing that, so don't feel like I'm singling you out.I'm addressing you because you chose to respond here :peace:

Well, we are getting a bit into semantics here.  If those are your parameters, yes, I suppose so.

My point was more that if your faith wavered during 3 looooooooooooong years of silence, you aren't a terrible person.  And I don't see how an album that eventually came out in 2008 retroactively means that if you doubted in those 3 years, you can go fuck yourself or are some fake fan.  The doubt in 2005-05 was justified given the disastrous 2002 tour, band defections, and lack of any communication with anyone in the operation.

If you asked me in 2003-05 if the album was ever coming out, I'd say it looks like a longshot and I would really doubt it.  But that is not the same thing as saying its never, ever, ever coming out, and you can take that to the bank.

Is it?

And it does not make you a better or more credible peson to moan and groan continuously about percieved wrongs and whine about everything you envision as bad. :D

"Gloom, despair,and agony on me-Deep dark depression excessive misery" was a joke song off of a stupid hillbilly comedy show called "Hee-Haw" but it could well be your theme song here.

:peace:

I think Axl was in better shape (physically and vocally) and the band at that time was a bit tighter.  Just about every bootleg / live clip backs that up when compared to the tours that came after.

I also didn't really understand 2 further years of delay as those suckers were pretty much done.  We waited 2 extra years for a few Ron riffs and Frank drum fills on what were already completed.  Don't dislike what was done, but did that take 2 years?

As to your last point, not to sound flippant, but if what I say bothers you that much, ignore me.  Its not like there is a shortage of others around here telling you everything is swell and we are the luckiest fans in the universe.  Most of those posts annoy me, to be honest.  As a result, I don't spend a lot of time on them.

You tell me in one line that I don't get to decide who the real fans are.  Then in the next freakin' line, there you are passing judgment on who is worthy and who is not.

If that was a joke, well done.  If that was serious, however...

I'm having a conversation.  Every time one of these threads gets derailed, its because you, or one of the other members of the sunshine brigade, want to stop traffic and tell us that we are out of line.  So we spend 2-3 pages debating what you feel should be talked about and how it should be done.

You send us down this road.  Not me.  Not Ginger King.  Not sofine11.  Not any of we other supposed traitors to the cause.  You.

Yawn , there you go again "we waited two extra years" poor, poor you.

I read a very good quote once it went like this:

"If you're waiting...don't. Live your life. That's your responsibility not mine. If it were not to happen, you won't have missed a thing. If in fact it does, you might get something that works for you ? in the end you could win on this either way. But if you're really into waiting, try holding your breath for Jesus 'cause I hear the payoff may be that much greater."

Nobody told you to wait, nobody promised you a rose garden and if my posts bother you ignore me  ;)

I happen to like jokes, sarcasm and irony, I'm fluent there and  I tend to employ those when dealing with certain kinds of people  ;)


Feel free to stop responding to me and by all means don't let me lead you down any roads- you seem to be enjoying your misery far too much ;)

Yeah, I pretty much didn't leave my house.  Just rocked back in forth in the corner, chanting "Axl is coming...Axl is coming...".

I was obviously speaking from a business perspective.  It made more sense to release an album when you are currently on tour, sounding great, and with the band that actually made the music.  Compare that to releasing it 2 years later after you spent that entire year in hiding, and would do so for the next year as well, before emerging on the far side of the world with no momentum and a different band line-up.  

Its an Option A vs. Option B thing.  Option A made more sense.  Simple as that.

Great.  I look forward to seeing some of that.

So you are speaking from a business perspective? How interesting, Im sure you have years upon years of experience in the music industry so you are offering up unwanted and unsolicited expert advice and judgement on how to operate a band. How refreshing.

And for a moment I thought you were merely acting like an entitled armchair quarterback, silly me :D

Yep.  I did my undergrad work at the School Of Hard Knocks, then got my masters at Whatsamatta U.

I do consulting work now.

Yeah, it?s super hard to figure out they could?ve gone about the release process of CD a bit differently.  You totally need an advanced business degree for that one.

Fascinating, so how many successful CDs or albums have you released?
I know that is "totally" a "super hard" question :D

Do you comment on politics?  Ah, you must be a President. 

How about on sports?  Then you must be an athlete.

See how silly that sounds? 

That's just a way to shut down a conversation you don't want to have because the facts aren't on your side.  You must see this. 

No, I am not the one complaining, offering unsolicited amateur advice or pretending I know how to run operations and businesses that don't belong to me.

So your conclusion and assessment is flawed, and your attempt to spin this in your favor was a failure.

I think all this posturing is a coverup for the fact that you aren't getting what you want, the philosopher Jagger once said, 'You can't always get what you want.'"

You should start.  It's fun.

Have we really gone this deep into this thread without a 'Down Boys' reference?

No thanks, if I agreed with you we'd both be wrong and Im not particularly interested in seeing how life is from the top of a bell curve.

In order to be an effective smart ass, you have to be smart- otherwise you are just an ass :peace:

My Uncle Tom says that comment takes the Cherry Pie.. :hihi:

The philosopher Jagger also said: "But if you try sometimes well you might find, you get what you need."  I like his logic.

I know it?s more convenient for you to label us as constant complainers (with ridiculous demands) whining about how the band should do what we want them to do when we want them to do it, but that?s just not true.  If anything, I think we offer a pretty objective outlook.  Some things are good, some not so good, and I think it?s ok to comment on the good and not so good (in a productive way).  Kind of the point of this forum, no?  You don't have to be a record exec. to have an opinion that's different than yours.  And, if your opinion is the band is always right/never wrong...well, that's just not credible.  No one is right 100% of the time...not even Jarmo.

And, so that we?re very clear:  I am spending zero sleepless nights wondering when my next GnR album is coming.  I do not walk into work dejected because I don't have the General on my iTunes.  I come on here, yuck it up a little, try to figure out what's going on, and go about my business.  Somehow, life goes on.

I know a secret down at Uncle Tom's cabin...

Hahahaha.

Well played, sir.

And why risk not being part of the chosen when Axl comes down for The Rapture and rescues all the true believers?

Joke will be on me then, huh?

Just to be clear- you cannot offer up an informed opinion when you are not informed- you are merely shooting in the dark and coloring it with your own biases.
Speculation employs those powerful pseudo-laws, the Principles of Mediocrity and Minimal Assumption.

To use two Warrant songs, You may think I have "Blind Faith" but I am positive you are all "Big Talk"
All these anonymous critics on the internet, with all their complaints, advice, and helpful suggestions would not be so forthcoming nor courageous if the cloak of anonymity weren't present. ;)

Oh now you are choosing half-wit humor attempts in lieu of a legitimate reply in an attempt to trivialize and save face in this discussion?

Why am I not surprised ;)

No, you're not a terrible person. But maybe you need to fill that void in your life with something other than whining about Axl on a daily basis for years and years? I mean, without being any kind of expert, that doesn't sound too healthy in the long run to live like that....


Those are your words not mine.

I think if you were doubting the album to ever come out, then when it came out, you could've admitted that you were wrong. That's not a whole lot to admit. Yet it seems like a lot of people "forgot" how they kept repeating "it's never coming out" all those years and then moved onto something else that was "wrong".

Some have a very hard time admitting they were wrong and GN'R has done something right. Simple as that.
 



/jarmo

Because you don't bring much to the table.  Sorry.

I wasted enough time with constructive posts that you were either unable or just unwilling to address.

Jokey answers are what you get from now on, until you show me something.

Jesus Christ, Jarmo.  How many times are you going to trot out this tired, repeatedly discredited talking point?

Taking a few minutes to avoid work to post on a message board does not equal unhappiness with life, no matter how many times you try and insist it does.



I would say from 2003-2005, no, I did not think it was ever coming out.  Once he got his shit together in 2006, the chances of it improved greatly. 

So, if it makes you happy (not that you ever concede me much of anything), yes, I was wrong during the period of 2003-2005.  I do not feel holding that opinion during those years was unjustified, but since it did eventually come out, yes, I was wrong about that.



Of all the things you say that carry no weight with anyone sane, this is the ultimate.  When you can so much as offer a mild suggestion that maybe, perhaps, just possibly, that something they did was handled wrong...then you can lecture about who needs to say what about what.  Until then, its a challenge with no validity.

Just about any of we supposed dissidents have already conceded being wrong about something more than you have conceded the band might be in the wrong...because so long as we've done so at least once, we got you beat.

Your points aren't valid, the only things you bring to the table are a misplaced sense of entitlement, and rampant amounts of epicaricacy or schadenfraud.

But by all means continue to try and save face with your idiot jokes ;)

Who said my opinion was informed?  If I had an informed opinion, I don't think I'd be posting on a fan forum to discuss the band and ask questions.  By your logic, why should your opinion be given any credibility?  Is it informed, or are you just "shooting in the dark and coloring it with your own biases"?

Sometimes I think some of these folks would be happier if a day went by where no one posted about anything.

Speculation?  Dangerous and ill informed. 

Criticism?  Get out of here with that. 

Show reviews?  Only if you can produce a ticket stub.

Enjoy the silence.  Its fucking golden.

Just because you do, doesn't mean it's true for all others who share your negative point of view.  :)




Great. Now imagine if all the others who keep whining about things and then get proven wrong would be able to do the same...




Anyone sane? Why'd you exclude yourself like that?

You seem to live in the fantasy that everyone who whines about GN'R is a level headed unbiased individual who would want nothing more than GN'R to be the biggest band in the world today.... Just because someone posts a lot of garbage on the Internet doesn't mean they mean well.


/jarmo

I don't know.  Just doesn't ring true to me.

Statements like yours come across as your way of striking back indirectly because you can't do it directly.  If anyone laments the prolonged inactivity or lack of progress, obviously, you can't refute that directly.  Those facts are what they are.  So you pivot to how we must be unhappy with our lives.  Yeah, that must be it.  Let's not talk about the actual band's foibles, because that's inconvenient.  So let's shift to how unhappy we must be with life because you dare utter a critical word about a rock band on the internet during a work day.

Just makes no sense to me.  This is rock band.  I find it impossible to believe no one is living their life because of something a rock band does or does not do.  Its a just a way for you to change the subject.



Its not even about GNR, per se.  Its an overall mindset. 

Pick any topic in the world.  If all you can ever say is how everything is great, that's not real.  Its not logical.  If the closest you can bring yourself to say anything critical is "its not my place to say", that's weak.  At least you have a vested interest in going down that road with this band.  What are some of these other people's excuse? 

And I'm talking any subject.  Politics, religion, sports, artists.  You check your credibility at the door if you can't ever bring yourself to say some stuff is wrong.

Mike Tyson is my favorite athlete ever.  How seriously could anyone take me if I refused to talk about any of the bad stuff (which is obvious and plain as day), or lamely ducked those sorts of questions by saying its not my place to comment? 

No one should take such a person seriously.  You come off like a Kool-Aid drinker.  Or an overprotective mother with a blind spot about her darling boy.

Only a fool goes looking for a rainstorm on a sunny day, it is great to be skeptical but when you verbalize it all the time and around the wrong audience you come off as negative and nitpicky.

You aren't impressing anyone with how analytical and supposedly insightful you pretend to be.

You can constantly complain about how roses have thorns or you can be glad that thorns have roses :peace:

Well, this is the bottom line, isn't it?  When you get right down to it.

Do you ever go to any other GNR forums but this one?  This is a serious question.  Because if you think someone like me or Ginger King represents true hardcore dissent and haterism, you are in for a world of shock, believe me.

Everything that is in agreement with your personal desires seems true to you everything that does not line up catapults you into a catechism of criticisms and complaints.

You have a strong case of the "shoulds" and "musts" for others, you have so far attempted to use humor and implied intimidation to try and  get your way and justify your statements and validate your views, both have proven futile and ineffective.

If you find this band so disappointing and unfufilling why not go find one that makes you happy?
Healthy and happy people dont continually focus on negatives, and exhibit toxic behavior.

So you are claiming to be innocent by a matter of degree? If you arent part of the solution you are part of the problem.

I probably hate my job, my family...hell, my life, really.  That should be obvious from the way I ask why it takes 10 years to record an rock album.  

If there is another reason someone would say such a thing other than the fact they have a daily struggle to keep the gun out of their mouth...I am unaware of it.

I question the validity of the "problem".

Look, anyone that chooses to post here knows the deal.  Its rah-rah all the time, sunshine and puppy dog tails, and just about zero dissent.  Its why so many of the online community refuses to come here.  These are not state secrets.

A guy like me, or a Ginger King, a sofine11, or any number of us...it puts us in a tough spot.  We are still interested in the current band and its future.  The only place such things are talked about in any sort of serious way is here.  So its here that we must come.

The tricky part is wanting to have those conversations while we are constantly forced to accepted a rather skewed version of reality and be constantly told we aren't real fans or hate our lives.  All because we don't just nod along and agree everything is awesome and we are the luckiest fans in the universe.

Ultimately, I like coming here, even despite the flack I take.  But if it means I'm never going to be in the inner circle because of all those pesky questions I ask, that's fine too.

And my original point was that while we might seem like hardass haters according to this site definition of the term, we ain't.

The reason we come here and talk about current events is that we still want to see the current band do well.  Most actual haters at the other boards want nothing of the kind.  They want to make thread after thread about reunions, Axl being fat, etc.

Not productive conversations.  Some can be funny, but not all the damn time.

This.  I do enjoy coming here.  It?s the only site I post on.  I have resisted posting on others, mainly because there?s a bit more (and by a bit more I mean 100% more) debauchery and non-productive conversations.  At times, some of it?s funny (like fart jokes are funny) but it?s a little too constant and can get pretty nasty.  D-X is right, if you think we?re Team Negative, I?d invite you to visit a couple other sites and see what many, many others have to say. 

But it?s definitely a double-edged sword because, by posting here, we?re constantly reminded what worthless fans we are, how our lives depend on GnR doing our personal bidding, and how we should find another favorite band.  Really?  Find another band?  Only true believers need apply?  That?s very Waco. 

It?s ironic because the only place in the world where I am not recognized as a real GnR fan is here. 

IMO, you are the one with the skewed version of reality because the ONLY thing you want to talk about is an imminent release of new material that ONLY includes songs ENTIRELY written and performed ONLY by ALL the current guys.

There's a ton of "new" music we might be getting 'soon' but you don't want that because it wasn't written & performed by ONLY & ALL the current guys.

There's the 2012 LV residency DVD we got but you don't want that because it wasn't released with the format you want.  (which is surprising because up until the 2014 LV residency, you trashed every performance you've seen on youtube because you didn't like the 'audio' you heard from the guitars to the vocals.)

After three months of GNR touring & the residency, six of the eight guys have been touring with their solo bands.  You don't want to talk about their solo gigs because you ONLY want to talk about them ONLY doing GNR stuff.


You turn almost every thread into an argument about why GNR isn't giving you ONLY & EXACTLY what you want in the way you want it.

IMO, your attitude & posts make conversations here constrictive & combative NOT constructive.

Understood, but the constant voice of dissention and continual complaining about almost every aspect of the band honestly rubs me the wrong way and tends to lead me to group you with similar others like the hecklers, the righteous judgemental assholes and the poisoned toxic naysayers.

The criticisim and hatred generated by jealousy, envy, insecurity, inadequacy is a bitch and I'm not afraid to strike back and bitchslap those who are poisoned by it and choose to project and vent their frustrations and project their negativity onto the band.

I see the positives, I don't harbor misplaced entitlement issues and I don't expect GNR to operate on my expectations nor my schedule. I have seen some great shows through the years and I honestly don't see how mentally healthy and happy people derive some sort of perverse pleasure from bitching, whining, moaning and complaining about GNR at every opportunity.

That is my viewpoint.

You raise some good points (it is conversations like these why I am here).  When I say this is the most stable lineup ever, I mean a couple things.  One, these guys seem (reasonably) sober and cohesive, and not hooked on the hard core drugs of the past.  Granted, the drug-fueled volatility brought us AFD, but clearly that lifestyle has a short shelf life.

Also, the current lineup has been the same since 2009, coming up on six years.  Not entirely sure, but that?s either as long (if not longer) than the AFD lineup was together (depending on when Steven left).

As 5 of the 8 current members contributed to the leftover CD songs, I would agree that you?d think they would all be interested in having that material released?but since more than a decade has passed and the songs have yet to see the light of day, I wonder how interested they are.

My point is if they really want to release it, they?d find a way.  They would work through whatever issues exist (record label, past member compensation, artwork for the booklet, proper promotion, etc.) and do it.  You think other bands don?t have issues with their labels, past members, marketing, etc.?  They find a way to work it out, but here it seems as though these issues are used as excuses why new music can?t be released, despite the band doing everything in their power to do so.  If Axl (and I do believe the buck starts and stops with him) wants to release new music, he?ll find a way to make it work.  His recent interview gives me hope that he?s interested in finding a way.

" My point is if they really want to release it, they?d find a way.  They would work through whatever issues exist (record label, past member compensation, artwork for the booklet, proper promotion, etc.) and do it"

- Maybe it has taken some time to iron out all difficulties and pave the way for an optimum release-

"You think other bands don?t have issues with their labels, past members, marketing, etc.?  They find a way to work it out"

-who said or thinks that other bands don't have problems? Why is the issues other bands have in any way relevant to this band?-

"but here it seems as though these issues are used as excuses why new music can?t be released, despite the band doing everything in their power to do so"

-why do you feel that these reasons are only excuses and somehow just employed to foul up your personal ideal idea of a release schedule?-

" If Axl (and I do believe the buck starts and stops with him) wants to release new music, he?ll find a way to make it work.  His recent interview gives me hope that he?s interested in finding a way."

- Yes the recent interviews with most of the band members indicates that new music is being looked at, I dont think optimisim is unwarranted, it's all good! :peace:

Repeated attempts at dismissive sarcastic humor, you would do well not to quit your day job.
Perhaps I would view you as being more genuinely interested and sincere about this band if you werent posting disparaging and snarky comments on other forums.

No, I'd just consider that the best case scenario and the one that makes the most logical sense.

But its not going to happen.  If we even get another album, I know it will be songs from 10-12 years ago featuring guys long gone.

But I'll take it.  It may not be my preferred outcome, but I'm not so married to that outcome I'd take a hard line and say I'd rather have nothing.

That's silly.

I in no way think he's moving heaven and earth to get a new release out.  That he's trying his damndest, but keep getting thwarted by that evil label, lawyers, what have you.

I'd say it like you just did.  If he was truly focused and dedicated to getting something out, he finds a way.  He has not found that way.

And I have trouble with the narrative he's a fighter that never gives up when it looks, by appearances anyway, that he's thrown up his hands and given up.

But that interview changed that outlook for me.  I thought Axl's interview was the most positive bit of GNR news in 5 years.  Hope has been restored.

I tone it way down around here and try and color within the lines.  Know your audience.

Jarmo has pretty reasonable letting me speak my mind, despite the fact he seems like he'd rather set me on fucking fire a lot of the time  I'm not going to piss all over that by being the smartass I am in all other phases of life.

You, on the other hand, could lighten up some.  Its just a rock band.  Its not a religion.

When people tell me to "lighten up" or "just get over it", I find it insulting and rude.  After all, they are basically telling me that my feelings/concerns are of little importance.

I have the right to address people who are making crap statements about GNRs as well as the stupid careless statements that play off either exhausted old stereotypes, wrong or assumed false information or personal predjudices without being told to "lighten up."

I care enough to actually put myself out there, face criticism and educate myself and others. I don?t care if I annoy people, or they want me to just be quiet and let them be comfortably ignorant and silent. I?m never going to ?lighten up.?? I?m just getting started.

Nobody except you is actually comparing a band with a religion.

I don?t think he?s comparing GnR to religion, but rather analogizing your devotion to them.  You do seem to have a holier than thou approach to GnR, are quick (and harsh) to judge others that don?t follow along with your beliefs, and continue to profess that the right way is whatever the band does, and that the band is, at all times, beyond reproach.  Kind of textbook definition of religious zealot.  I?m guessing you disagree. 

Forums concern discussions and discussion necessitates, a certain degree of consent and dissent. A fanbase which merely, agrees and supports their chosen band would be tedious in the extreme. I do not really post here too much because, I, I suppose, possess an opinion that is too critical (of new guns) for this place - and absolutely loath censorship. In my opinion though, a fan who criticises a band - in a fairly objective and non pejorative fashion - is the superior fan (to a blind worshiper). It takes a superior fan to be that passionate about a subject and to know their subject so well, that they know when that said subject gets it, wholly wrong. Did Beatles fans unilaterally applaud Let it Be? Did Metallica fans unanimously love St Anger and support Lars's Napster tirade? No way did they. No way. It only seems to be Guns N' Roses fans who have this problem with, support, and dissent, freedom and censorship - much of it emanates from the man and Team Brazil itself of course (Axl seems to like to surround himself with people who only support him).

Ask yourself this: if you are faced with two positive - but, slightly different - reviews of an album (let's say, Chinese Democracy), one by a critical fan, and one by a blind supporter, whose review would you be more impressed with? A blind supporter is naturally going to love everything and agree with everything - is this the sort of review people would be impressed with, here?

That's all well and good.  Only problem is that in the GNR forum world  "fairly objective and non pejorative" fans are so rare they are almost nonexistent.

As bad as blind worship is, so are those who criticize just to criticize and so are those who make personal attacks against the band and each other.

Some "fans" seem to be so set in seeing everything in a negative light that they bring that same negative criticism into every topic (thread).

Yes there are definitely GNR fans who fall into the "blind worship" category BUT it's absurd to label the critics "superior" especially when the topics are often about stuff that none of us have any real "inside" information on.   

And some "fans" come to HTGTH to deliberately post over-the-top negative shit or to break the site rules because they know the reaction it will get. 


P.S.  I had to look up what "pejorative" means.  :P

I gathered as much connotation from mentioned statement, however I was dealing in denotation, I cant know for sure what was meant or intended-merely what was actually said.

Feel free to label me any way you must, I prefer to say things online that I wouldn't be ashamed or hesitant to say in person.

Accountability for one's words  shouldn't be thwarted by the anonimity of the internet :)

The signal-to-noise ratio on forums does seem to be worsening, and eventually you get the feeling like you?re at one of those parties where all anyone is doing is bitching and griping.

 It doesn?t matter what they?re bitching about so much as, sooner or later, that?s all you can really hear.
Eventually the polite, reasonable people stop feeling like it?s a group of people they want to hang around. So they leave, and those who remain start to see only those who agree with them? and, because that?s all they see, they think that?s all there is.

They think Everyone feels as they do, according to them. Once the tipping point is passed, you?re left with the extremes? those who hate, and those who dislike the haters enough to endure the toxic atmosphere to try and combat them. Each clash between those groups drives more of the others away.

One need only attend a concert to see there are plenty of positive, enthusiastic fans out there? and while a cynic might suggest liking ?those people? means we want to hear only praise regarding GNR and nothing else that?s simply not true.

 It?s possible to like something overall and yet dislike parts of it, or to be disappointed overall in something you were hoping to like, and in either case to have a positive discussion regarding what you?ve disliked,there is no need to be adversarial or disrespectful.

Personally I?d really like to seek out positive interactions and not engage with those who are out to attack, belittle, undercut, ridicule and whine as well as complain about every move, every decision, every day nonstop without fail. Toxic people are boring and depressing to be around.

:peace:

It's funny that you mention a 'signal to noise' ratio, considering the band we are talking about...  :peace:

I agree with the general tenure of your post, however, I would not say this is an accurate description of the posters under discussion here, i.e. GenerationX and Ginger King, who, I feel are fairly balanced in their appraisal of the situation; it is therefore a bit of a straw man argument. I do not see too many cries for a 'reunion with Slash', jokes about Ashba's commercialism, or posts concerning Axl's expanding waist line, emanating from them. These are all frequent topics on other boards. If you want 'toxic people', who ''attack, belittle', do as you so describe, I can certainly point you in the right direction. I have been on enough Guns N' Roses fora over the years to know that, the majority of fans - fans who were actually hardcore supporters of the 'nu' band to a certain point - are more negative than the posters being discussed here. I, for instance, could probably be described as more negative than generationx (which is one of the reasons why I do not post here much I suppose).
 
As I said, look at the other forums.

I was basically describing the tone and content of those "other" communities, I still look but haven't posted in them for years.

I don't think Dgenx is being sincere about his supposed interest in the band, consider the following:

D-GenerationX
Yesterday, 12:01 PM

" I still tell people GNR is my favorite band ever. But I have never, ever, ever meant it as anything that has happened since 1994."

Either he is lying there or being disingenuous here, I can provide many more examples. I'm far from ignorant about other forums, I don't participate in them, but certainly know what they are about.

Why do you feel the need to defend people like this?

Well, I'm not.

I'm telling you that we are talking about a freakin' rock band here.  We aren't debating abortion, civil rights, or foreign policy.  I think some of the level of outrage and general "how dare you!!" bit could be turned down some.

That's all.

Great post here.

Its hard to take someone seriously that thinks everything is super duper all the damn time.  Objectivity and credibility suffers greatly.

Which also goes for confusing fandom with blind devotion.  Those examples you gave were great ones.  If those other band's fanbases operated like ours, saying that you felt 'Let It Be' was not up to par would have you labeled a fake fan and someone that should go like some other band.  They don't need your kind around here.

Crazyness.


It sure seems that way. 

When a review of an album comes out that is way over the top negative, its discredited.  Its author is unfair, and let's be honest, probably an asshole in real life.  We've all seen that play out time and again with this band.

A glowing review finding no faults with anything?  Well, that guy gets it.  He just speaks the truth.

Think about that.

It's always nice to meet a fan.  I also post over at MYGNR if you are looking to round out your collection.  Same username.

I stand by that statement.  I happen to enjoy some of the stuff that has happened since 1994, but let's get real here.  The general public barely acknowledges the current band as a thing. 

This exchange :

Me : "Favorite band of alltime?  That's easy.  Guns N' Roses"

Other guy : "Yeah, I like them too.  Hey, know what's a great song?  'Street Of Dreams'."

Yeah, that exchange never happens. 

Guns N' Roses to most people is the original line-up.  I know that gets some people fired the fuck up, but that's life in the big city.  In a general conversation with people, waxing poetic about 'Shackler's Revenge' will get you shoulder shrugs.  No one knows what the hell you are even talking about.

And I'm not a convert guy.  I'm not going to start pounding on the desk and insist they give the current band a shot.  I'd put 'There Was A Time' in my top 10 GNR songs ever.  That puts me in probably less than 1% of the people in a conversation about GNR that goes on somewhere other than these boards.

It?s true.  I know it?s a reality that some would rather ignore, but if you walk out on the street right now and ask who?s the guitarist for Guns n Roses, more people say Slash than Ashba or BBF.  I?ve had many conversations with my friends who, when I ask them if they want to go to a GnR concert, say, ?are they still around??  The current lineup has given them nothing to distinguish themselves, so at best they are viewed by many as Axl and Friends.

It?s been said here that the current lineup should be viewed the same as the UYI lineup, because the UYI did not have all original members, and Gilby and Matt did not contribute to the songs.  Point taken, but the UYI still had 3 original members?and Axl, Slash and Duff are the iconic figures in Guns (us forum people know that Izzy?s contributions should not be discounted either).  It?s been 20+ years since UYI?with sporadic activity from the band (and multiple changing parts).  The general public has moved on from Guns n Roses.  Maybe that's what they want, maybe they don't care about winning over the hearts and minds of the general public, but let's not pretend that they are the same as the past because the name is the same.

I know this will be looked at as me being negative and a hating ginger-troll?but it?s not me being negative (or wanting a reunion).  It?s an honest assessment of where this band is today in the macro environment (outside of the forum world).  Can it change?  Of course.  Would I like it to change?  Of course.  Do I think they have to release new music for it to change?  Of course.  Am I demanding they do it to satisfy my selfish desires and fill the dark void in my heart?  Of course not. 

There?s been a lot of good buzz about GnR this year, and IMO, they have the opportunity to capitalize on it and re-establish themselves (if they want to). 

I hope its not lost on Axl that on those rare occasions he does attend some public event, he's almost always treated very warmly. 

People would rather see him out there in some capacity.

You keep repeating this over and over and over in almost every thread.

By your logic, Axl has to be the most powerful individual in the entire music industry. 

Axl is sooooo powerful that one of the top record labels with all their high & mighty lawyers plus some of the industries top management teams all cower and quake while year after year tossing millions upon millions at him hoping against hope that Axl will emerge from the pits of his demonic kingdom to grant theirs and our GNR dreams.

For argument sake let's say you're correct.  That Axl does hold all the power and that the poor poor label/lawyers/whomever have been and continue to be hostages to his whims & folly.  GOOD FOR AXL!!!!  How is that not the most fucking awesome amazing mind-blowing thing ever!!!  That a choirboy from the middle-class mid-west became the end-all word to how these major players in the music industry can conduct their business!!!

IMO, you give Axl way too much credit disguised as blame because you, like the rest of us, have ZERO knowledge of what has been and is transpiring behind the scenes.

Yet you know enough to tell me I'm wrong.

Its nice when things work out, isn't it?  Just one of life's happy accidents.

I think this summarizes the main disconnect that I have with those who continually criticize the band's failure to release more music in the post-Old GNR era.  I want the band to release more new music because I expect that I will love the music more than anything else put out there these days (as I did with CD).  But I don't care if they ever re-establish themselves with the general public.  All I care is that they're popular enough to make it worth their while to continue touring and continue making new music. 

If you see 'new music' as mainly a vehicle for the band to reach its late 80s / early 90s mainstream popularity or anything close to that, then you're setting yourself up to be disappointed.  That's just not going happen.  That was lightning in a bottle. 

Basically, unlike with the Old GNR music, when you're listening to CD or any other music they release from this point on, the vast majority of people will have no idea of what you're listening to (maybe some will recognize Axl's voice).  I think that making peace with that is the key to enjoying what this band has to offer from here on out.   :peace:

Very true.

But its so, so frustrating to see people point to this as a reason to not do anything.  "It's not 1991 anymore, you know".  That whole bit.

No shit its not.  But when has anyone ever said they want a new GNR album because they want to see #1 singles and albums?  It's a phony argument.  No one has said that in the history of ever. 

And nobody points to 1991 as a reason not to do anything.  It's just an observation that the band has more challenges to deal with now than they did then. 

And who's not doing anything?  Axl publicly stated that CDII is just about done, etc.  We'll have that in our hands in due time, definitely not as soon as you or I would like, but so what? 

That interview was awesome.  The most positive thing that happened in the GNRverse in 5 years.

I, like many, had grown rather numb to Dizzy, Richard, or whoever tell us they were working on it.  Axl saying it is a game changer.

Well, for one, not everybody who posts shit about GN'R on the Internet is old enough to actually have a job. So your excuse of posting to kill time at work falls flat right there.

Like I said, just because you can't imagine something happening doesn't meant it can't. Just because something is true for you, doesn't mean its true for everyone else. I thought you knew this already.

If you honestly believe that all these whiny people love GN'R and they have no motives other than wanting the band to succeed, I might have a bridge to sell you. Now, before the generalization brigade arrives, I didn't say everybody is like that.

And yes, there's probably some people who are unhappy with something and they feed off the attention they get by becoming somebody on a GN'R forum.
That's my belief. Once again, it might not make sense to you. My experiences differ from yours.




You can always find things to complain about if that's your goal.

Other people see things differently. They don't necessarily get any satisfaction from pointing out others' mistakes, instead they look for a bigger picture. The whys and hows.



/jarmo

I cannot speak for him but there has been only one album of original material released, post 1994 (1991 in fact). Also, Guns N' Roses existed in a complete vacuum, 1994 - late-1999 (Oh My God) and again, 2003-2006, so by default, these are naturally going to be GN'R's two worst periods.

The thing is with Guns N' Roses, there situation is different to other bands. For other bands of a certain age, e.g. The Stones, Metallica, you have albums - and whole eras - which, according to their fan bases, 'stink'. The fans openly acknowledge this. You will not find too many Stones fans defending Jagger's late 70s early '80s attempts at disco (Miss You aside), or Metallica fans, St Anger. New GN'R do not really have this. They just have this one album surrounded by sporadic and rather aimless batches of touring. Seemingly, you are 'on board' or 'not' with this scenario. It would be interesting if New GN'R had released, say, three albums. Would some of the hardcore supporters be able to bring themselves to say, ''I disliked album two, preferring album one and three instead'' and be able to list their reasons why, e.g. 'The production work on two is shitty'? I doubt it as there is inherent 'negativity'' present in such a statement - just as there is positives ('the production on one and three is excellent'). It seems New gnr fans are expected to have this one big unilateral opinion - everybody is happy and everything the band do is equally perfect and we all live in Na Na land! The act of criticising a band, placing some albums above others (the much used, 'top 10' list), disagreeing with certain decisions the band makes, is however normal activity for most fans (of other groups).

No, I don?t expect the current lineup to get back to the AFD or UYI popularity?it?s impossible.  What I hope is that they can achieve a level of independence and be looked at without the shadow of the past.  To do that, or at least to try and do that, IMO, they need to release new music.  There?s been some progress mentioned in that regard and I hope it turns out to be true.

Also, IMO, everyone?s side projects and other endeavors (it seems like everyone but Axl has one) distracts from being looked at as a band, and creates the impression that being in GnR is more of a means to help facilitate other passions.
 
I would love it if each member could answer the question, ?what do you do?? with:  ?I?m in Gun and fucking Roses.  Period.  End of Story.? 

IMO stands for IN MY OPINION and gave MY opinion as to why I think it's ludicrous to believe that the record label (or whomever) is an innocent bystander or victim in the business of GNR.  Yet you fail to give any reasoning as to why you believe the label (or whomever) is at Axl's mercy.

I truly hope I'm the one who is wrong and that you are totally correct that Axl does have all that control and power in every aspect and decision concerning what does or does not happen with GNR.
 

No it doesn't, because its the truth.  I am speaking only about myself and the tired rhetoric you try and force feed me.  No one else is part of this conversation.

If you want to try and run that "you must hate your life" shit up the flagpole towards someone else, you do that.  Doesn't apply to me.

Much like you can make excuses for everything or avoid having to say anything critical if that is your goal.  Two way street there, no?

You have your reasons to approach things the way you do.  I do not have those same motivations, so I don't have to walk on eggshells in the same fashion.

I tend to not believe Axl has tried repeatedly from several different angles to get material out.  Only to be thwarted by the label as their twirl their moustaches and laugh manically as they tell him no.

What sense does that make? 

They spend a bloody fortune getting all these songs recorded.  We can quibble on what return on their investment they get by releasing them, but logic would dictate whatever they get has to be better than having it all sit around unheard.


I think he is the driving force behind anything getting done.  Nothing will happen without him, for instance.

Honestly, I don't believe he's even talked to the label about any of this in years.  And after some of his shenanigans with the last release, I doubt they are real motivated to reach out to him either.

But I do not believe that if Axl decided to reopen conversations with them, they would be opposed to doing so.  This is about business, not being best friends.  Without that conversation, nothing ever moves forward.

But going by his last interview, he seems willing to have that conversation, which is great news for all of us.

I cannot imagine living my life being completely uncritical about, anything really. Do the supporters (Jarmo etc) here - do you apply your same logic to  other topics of discussion in your life? Israel-Palestine? ''I do not know anything and prefer to be positive''. But you must have an opinion? Is Israel justified because of Hamas? ''No, I am positive about everything and you are creating a shit storm by even mentioning this controversial subject''. But it is not about being positive (or negative for that matter) - it is about having an opinion? ''No, can't do''. Or even trivial discussions. Do you prefer pasta or salad with your burger? ''No, I will not be drawn into negativity created by naysayers like you''. But, which one do you prefer? ''You must be emotionally damaged to bring up a potentially negative topic such as, whether I prefer Pasta or Salad?'' Alright then, here is, just the burger.

Don't we already know, albeit from Axl's mouth, that it was the label (or whomever) that repeatedly thwarted the release of material by attempting to strong arm him into agreeing to do things that he is fundamentally opposed to?   

I would agree that Axl should be the driving force behind anything getting done.
Are you saying this SHOULDN'T be the case?


I don't understand what would make you believe that there has not been any conversation in years between Axl and the label considering there are tons of things contractually at stake.  If that weren't the case, either side would/could have walked away a long, long time ago, right?

It's my opinion that there were plenty of 'shenanigans' on both sides before and after the last release.  I think the chicken n' egg scenario can be equally argued here.
 

Hahahaha.

I wonder this too, sometimes.

Eh...that's his spin.  Like you said, that's Axl talking.

I'd certainly need some of that picture colored in before I could say how valid his objections are.  Lot of mountains out of molehills with our man.   



I believe that because its been 5 years.

The hard part of an album is writing and recording it.  That's done and been done.

If there is truly a dialogue going on between both parties, what the holy hell could be taking this long?  I think its more likely communication has not been all that frequent.


Here, we agree.  Both have marks in their "con" column :

Label con : Messing up the booklet and not getting back to the GNR people to sign off on it.  That's inexcusable.

Axl con : Going MIA for the two months before its release, doing no real promotion

The problem, as you so rightly put it, is the chicken and the egg.  Axl supposedly took off because he was pissed at them.  Which leads to them saying "you know what, fuck him."

But they can also wonder how a guy that worked so hard and so long on this would be passive about its production.  And then to be so quick to storm off in a huff.    Even if he had what he felt were valid reasons, that was not the way to handle it.

My fear, at least it has been my fear until I read that interview, was that Axl is in one of those standoffish situations where he felt he is owed this big apology to even get started.  And they can call him when they are ready to do that.

But, #1, they aren't going to do that.  #2, that should not be imperative to get things moving.  Both sides made mistakes, so let's get it right this time. 

And if you say why should Axl have to be the bigger man, so to speak, the reason is because its his career.  They go on just fine if he never calls them.  He goes nowhere until they start getting back to work together.

 
Going by your logic that interview implies Axl IS the bigger man and did make the first move to get the ball rolling by saying he's looking in to releasing new material.  ;)

Oh, agreed.  That's excellent news.

I don't think that's realistic either.  That shadow will always be there.  Which is fine with me. 

As far as how invested the band members are... all I know is that they put on an amazing show and the one album that has been released in this era was great, due in no small part to the contributions from other band members.  So long as that continues, I'm not concerned about their side projects or whether they're towing the company line. 

The simple answer in this case is: I make my mind and base my opinion on GN'R related things based on what I know. You make up your mind based on what you know.

 : ok:


/jarmo

True.

Of course, if you have something to share with the rest off the class that might disprove something I suggest, we'll take that at any time.  You are certainly closer to the situation than any of us will ever be.

But absent that sort of specific correction, you chiding me (or anyone else) about us having it wrong while offering nothing to back it up, even with your increased access, is not going to carry any more weight than some other random guy.

"You are wrong because you are just wrong and I can't go into it" is a rather toothless statement.

Whatever you say.

For anybody else reading this, it's kinda obvious what the point I made is. Some might have experiences that give them a different perspective on things.

For example, for some fans Guns N' Roses isn't even a human thing. It's a name on a screen or on a poster on their walls....


/jarmo

Oh, I'm sure the fact you actually know these people gives you a different perspective than the rest of us.  How could it not?

 

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.
Since you are not informed and not only attempt to discuss but also habitually belittle people and situations you know very limited info about I think we can all see who gets to wear the "Ignorant" badge of dishonor here, without research, without background, without understanding, it?s nothing. It?s just bibble-babble. It?s like a fart in a wind tunnel and almost as pleasant to bystanders.

I'm very excited to see how things unfold going forward :peace:

You are honestly comparing viewpoints on GNR to the israel-hamas conflict?  :nervous:

Never mind that comparison.  @mortismurphy's mindset is apparently so negative that he couldn't even imagine the positive scenario of having both pasta AND salad with that burger!!!  :nervous:

---

You indicated that BOTH reviews were positive so depending on what the actual difference of opinion was about would be the only way to determine which review one would be more impressed with.

Now change that up to this and see the difference:

Ask yourself this: if you are faced with two positive - but, slightly different - reviews of a GNR concert,  one by a 'critical' fan watching on youtube, and one by a fan that attended the show, whose review would you be more impressed with?

This is NOT to say that the fan watching on youtube shouldn't have any opinion whatsoever.  It's to point out how some "critical" fans tend to dismiss the positive opinions of those who, IMO, have a better perspective.

Obviously I was being facetious.


But with Guns N' Roses we are getting neither. We are not even getting a bun to put the burger in!


Let's say, one review is by somebody who agrees with Nugnr 100% and likes everything Nugnr do, how they operate, how they advertise themselves - everything. The other review is by somebody who, sometimes criticises Nugnr, sometimes praises them, sometimes in the middle - someone a bit more objective. Both reviews are positive but both, different in tone. Which is the better review?

About the youtube thing, I take the viewpoint that both have their limitations as an objective witness. A spectator has the whole sensory experience of having witnessed the thing live, yet is sometimes swayed by subjectivity. Sometimes he is swayed by his own fandom (perhaps he has waited years for this show?), or because he has paid a load of money so must naturally walk away from an 'enjoyable show' (I have done this myself, convinced myself that the show was better than it actually was). Perhaps also he is carried away with the general exuberance and momentum of a live gig, the crowd, the volume and other considerations. Youtube has the ability to replay the thing and instantly cross reference with other performances, yet, has obvious technical limitations. In an open contest between a Youtube clip and a spectator, it would depend on the objectivity of the spectator; assuming I did not know the person, I would probably give the benefit of doubt to the spectator. I would certainly trust a spectator who was more, a 'general rock fan' (for lack of a better term) than a particular fan of that band (no offence but, that would rule out people who post on that band's forums).

In some ways, the best way to see a live gig is on television. Whether you are attending in person, or watching a youtube clips, you are basically tied to one perspective and one sound zone. And as anyone knows who has moved around at a gig, your positioning can change things a lot. Multi-camera set ups allow you to see the action from different perspectives and bring you closer to the action than ever before. Sound deficiencies, such as feedback and PA leakage, can be eradicated by a remix. Obviously I am being rather, objective and matter of the fact here. Nothing beats seeing a band in person - but there is a level of truth in that if you want to sit back and analyse things in a detached manner. Just a random thought.

Again it depends on how the review was written.

Example:
Review by Always 100% Positive Fan:  Wow!  That Chinese Democracy album is so awesome!!!  My FAV song on the album is Sorry.  I especially like the chord it's sung in along with the different inflections in Axl's voice!!!

Review by Sometimes Critical Fan:  Wow!  That Chinese Democracy album is so awesome!!!  My FAV song on the album is Sorry.  I especially like how Axl sings the line 'But I don't want to do it' in his Bela Legosi Dracula voice!!!


Even though both are saying the same thing, most people would be more impressed with the first review.



The question was about whose review would one give more credence.  We're talking about LIVE performances where, as you point out, there are so many variables.  IMO, the person who actually attended the show would have a more credible opinion over the fan watching on youtube or tv.

IMO, watching a live gig on tv (as opposed to watching it in person) is similar to watching it on youtube.  You're at the mercy of the filmer/director and where they're picking the sound up from i.e., the same speakers as the audience or soundboard, etc.  Again, a fan in attendance's perspective would be the one most would find more credible.

Let's say the reviews are different then. Reviewer One gives the band an excellent review, an A+. Reviewer One's previous 4 reviews also consisted of, A+, A+, A+, A+. Reviewer Two givers the band, a mediocre C. Two's previous four reviews consisted of, B, A+, D, A. There is simply no way, One can be considered a credible reviewer as he obviously has been compromised somehow, whether that be through fandom, hero worship, personal access (to the band). Two however seems to be merely reacting on a, show by show basis. Two therefore must be the more reliable reviewer. Two also, in my opinion, is the superior fan.

I do not totally disagree with you about the live spectator being the more credible witness. I would tend to give them the benefit of the doubt myself. I merely think that, for although videos of various descriptions may have their limitations, nobody could call them biased. The same, can occasionally be applied to fans. The thing is, you have to judge the medium just as much as the item the medium contains. What if you capture an 'excellent' GN'R performance, and a 'terrible' GN'R performance, on the exact same phone from, roughly, the same location in a crowd. If the 'terrible' show is 'untrustworthy' because it was recorded on a phone, then can we trust the apparent 'excellence' of the first show, also recorded on a phone? Why do the years, 2006-07, or even 2010, just happen to throw forth so many excellent phone recorded Youtube clips (of Guns N' Roses) whereas, the years 2012-14 have not been, so fortunate (even considering the Vegas DVD)? Has phone technology somehow deteriorated, since 2006?
 

I really dislike the term "superior fan" used to describe either.

I truly understand the point you're trying to make but again my response is going to be that most people reading both sets of reviews will base whom they feel gave the more credible review by what/how they are or are not criticizing.

Using my Bela Legosi voice example:  some "fans" tend to be exceptionally critical because they absolutely HATE some of the inflections or pitch or whatever that Axl uses during his live performances.  They refuse to take into consideration that IT IS A LIVE performance with all the variables going on or that maybe Axl likes singing certain songs live that way or maybe even Axl's just having fun with his voice or whatever. 

If your "fan #2" is known for their hatred of Axl's inflections and that's why they gave that show a 'D' then most of us aren't going to take that reviewer as credible. 


Go watch any of the 2014 Vegas residency youtubes. :headbanger:



P.S.  For the record: 
A.  I absolutely love Axl's Bela Lugosi voice and how he does that both on the record and in live performances.
B.  I absolutely love the 2012 Vegas DVD but would have preferred if the director kept the camera on Axl more!!!  Axl moves around the stage so much that all the other guys would've gotten enough screen time with that and their solos!!!  (See!!!  Even a "blind worship" fan like me can find fault.)  ;)


Anyways ....
Sort of on the topic of does GNR just consider themselves a touring band:  Dj's solos, specifically Ballad of Death... was that written just for GNR shows (as opposed to Ron or Tommy's solos which appear on their individual solo albums)?  Watching the evolution of that song being played live, other than Axl and Chris, the contributions to that song by the other guys has grown into an epic performance.  I have no clue how the process works but wouldn't this be concrete evidence that GNR are actively writing songs together?

Are you not allowing room for, Axl having a 'bad day at the office'. Has it got to come down to, 'inflections' or 'pitch'. You cannot seem to admit that Axl can have an awful gig (even he probably admits this in his, more introspective moments). The Stones have had whole decades where they have stunk to high heaven, and no Stones fan is going to challenge this conclusion. Old GN'R had some awful gigs and admitted as such; the Texas Jam thing that Slash often mentions, after which, people were sending the band their Appetite cassettes, such was its awfulness.

Absolutely not.  As I said, it's a live performance and there are many variables to take into consideration... including Axl and/or the band having bad nights. 

My example was to show how some fans, as you just did, will ONLY focus on possible negatives.  Using your reply, you took ONE thing I said and turned it into that I think Axl could never do wrong.  Why should anyone take anything you say as anything other than you dismissing any possible positive scenarios and you looking ONLY for negative things about the band?

See, where we differ is, I feel the people who are negative sort of, have a point. There are actual reasons for this, i.e. it is not just vacuous trolling.

We definitely disagree.  I feel some people vacuously troll to specifically focus on negatives.

Do you believe this is an unique phenomenon to Guns N' Roses? If yes, then why?

Trolling?  No.  I do NOT believe trolling is a unique phenomenon to GNR.
GNR is the only band I "follow" on the internet so I don't really know what is or isn't said on other band's forums but I know from following other people/topics that trolling is definitely NOT unique to GNR.   

I do however believe that some 'fans' will specifically troll HTGTH in an attempt to turn focus on any or all GNR discussions into a negative direction or to deliberately break the site rules so they can go to other GNR forums to whine about how they were wronged by the admin/mods here.

The elephant in the room here is:
one album of original material in 23 years(!!),
touring lineup of players not personally responsible for live material, and
rapidly deteriorating abilities of fabled frontman.

this really has nothing to do with youtube, cell phone recordings screen resolution, or connection speed

And yet you're still here.  ::)

We're still here because GnR is still our favorite band...and that doesn't change (or at least not easily).  As long as Axl is still around, I'll always be interested in what he does, how he sounds, etc.  From hearing him this year, and reading his interview, it seems there's still gas in the tank, which is encouraging.  However, that's not to deny that things aren't always awesome, or that at times he sounds bad/the band sounds bad (e.g. DJ's patience interpretation).

You don't just have to be a devout believer to be here...how boring would that be?

Wait...your "fault" is that Axl isn't on camera enough?  Sorry, that doesn't count.  ;D

And I really like BOD, IMO the best thing DJ has played. 

Other band's forums are different because they have albums and stuff to talk about.

Returning to the object of discussion, I do not see anyone here who could be labelled a troll; I am not disputing the fact that 'trolls' exist, merely that they are, not present here. If you go on the other Guns boards, you will swiftly come in contact with trolls - trust me. I do think there are a significant amount of Guns N' Roses fans however who are not, 'trolls', but are frustrated and vocal in their frustrations. These fans do have a point in my opinion.

Agree.  There's a rush here to lump anyone that utters an ounce of criticism as a perpetually negative, constantly complaining troll.  It's very easy to distinguish between the actual trolls, and those who support the band but have independent opinions that may at times (gasp) be critical.

Some of these people have made a quantum leap from fan to fault-finder  :beer:

Is this really a thing, or another way to lump all of us together as one hating, troll-mongering group?  I find it pretty far-fetched that people would come here to "stir up trouble" just so they can go to another forum and (brag?) talk about how they were scolded here.  If that really happens, pardon my ignorance...and people have way too much time on their hands.

I'm not saying we all need to be 'devout believers' but IMO some of you have a very masochistic view of your FAV band.


Concert promoter trying to choose which band should headline a major music festival decides to put it out there for the fans to vote.

Concert promoter:  Tell us who is your FAV band and why.
GNR2014:  Guns N' Roses!!!  :headbanger:
..... one album of original material in 23 years(!!),
..... touring lineup of players not personally responsible for live material, and
..... rapidly deteriorating abilities of fabled frontman.

Concert promoter:  Say what??  ???  :confused:

Why is it that everyone who shits on this lineup has not attended the 2014 residency shows?  If there is someone who attended those shows and has harsh criticism....then I would like to hear from them.  I LOVED the 2014 shows....even more that the DVD (2012) shows.  All too often I hear WAAAYYYYY too much whinning is by people who havent even seen this band or talked to them.

These residencies are a fans dream come true.  Fuck get off your asses and go.  The band gives you unprecedented access.  I've stood in line for coffee with Frank, talked to Ron in the Casino, met Dizzy at the circle bar, etc.

 :confused:

Who's shitting on the Vegas shows?  I don't think anyone (at least anyone here) was complaining about the latest residency.  I think they sounded great, and you can definitely hear the improvement form the SA tour. 

I think what we're shitting on (really just debating) is what comes next/what's the status of the band?  Some here are of the opinion that everything's fine, the band is just on hiatus, nothing to see here, everything is fine (actually, awesome, because things are always awesome)...others (myself included) think that things aren't exactly squeaky clean, that Ron's status is up in the air, and the the current lineup acts more as a touring act than a band.

And yes, I have seen the current lineup multiple times (was not able to get to Vegas this year).  Why do you have to be at the shows to have an opinion?  Are people's opinions on the band less valid, or if they're not spending money on tickets they shouldn't get to comment?  I always confused by that one.

"rapidly deteriorating abilities of fabled frontman" = shitting

And yes someone who went to the latest Vegas residency has a more valid opinion on the current status of the band than someone who saw the concerts in 2006 (or whenever in the past).  The Vegas shows is the most recent information on how GNR is currently "working".  If I asked about buying your car, I would want to test drive it today versus 6 years ago.  And showing me pictures of it 6 years ago or video of it running then isn't going to change my mind about test driving it today before purchase.

I do not agree.

I don't agree either.
 
Attending those shows didn't give anyone there any more insight or answers as to the "current status" of the band than the rest of us.

IMO, it was from Axl's recent statements that it appears the "current status" is that GNR is moving forward to release new material.

The questions surrounding Bumblefoot's status started way before the Vegas shows and his recent lack of information to the fans plus all his previous public statements only goes to show how in HIS mind GNR is currently not "working" for him.

Everyone seems to agree that the 2014 residency shows were absolutely awesome, both in person and on youtube, but to say the opinions of anyone who ever attended a GNR show prior to this residency is somehow invalid is just silly.
 

I think you guys/gals are being ridiculous.
If you went to the Vegas shows, you saw a band operating differently (my opinion BETTER) than years previous.  Hell you might even have got to see Duff's interaction with the band.
And if you walked around the casino and talked to the band.....then definitely you have a more informed perspective than people sitting at home.

In 2012, Ron was at the show early and I must have chatted with him for 20 minutes (hell he even got on the phone with my brothers girlfreind for a bit).
I got his take (firsthand) on DVD delays, the removal of Madagascar from the set, his immediate plans, etc.
At that point in time, I bet I had a more valid opinion about that stuff than 90% of the people on here.  Now time has passed and things have changed....but whoever has had that most recent contact would have the most valid opinion versus an internet philosopher any day.

Arguing otherwise, is just arguing....   :beer:

I've also yet to see the validity of a Youtube clip questioned if he sounds good.

Take 'Prostitute' from last June.  Was anyone saying that you can't go by what you hear?  Of course not.  It was "epic" and "killer".

Didn't hear too many people praising the clip being asked to produce a ticket stub.

All those excellent youtube clips from 2006 have to be disregarded as, we were not present for the majority of them. In fact, why not question the Ritz 88 if you were not there - after all, we are still just watching it on a television screen? Let's also cast doubts on the brilliance of Hendrix at Monterrey, The Who Woodstock etc. In fact, let's doubt every live performance ever unless, present.

WOW....are you gonna tell me you have as valid an opinion on woodstock from watching video of the WHO versus someone who attended and maybe spoke with the band?

Is that really what you are arguing....

there's no sense in continuing this, if you want to sit on the computer and talk about things, there's absolutely no problem with that, but if you want to take the next step and know more.....go to the show and talk with the band

Look, let's just say what it is.

Disregarding anything critical said after viewing something online and saying if you weren't there then you don't know is a defense mechanism, simple as that.  The first few shows back in March, he did not sound good.  But rather than talk about that, we get bogged down in the misdirection that if you weren't there, you can't trust your eyes and ears.

And again, who the hell ever goes down that road when the clips are good?  The clips from Vegas were very solid.  Suddenly, that unreliable Youtube got real reliable.

IMO, this logic is just as ridiculous as Ja5oN's.

There's really no debate about those shows or the reliability of a youtube opinion because everyone is in agreement that those shows were awesome.  From all accounts ... the people who attended the shows and those that watched clips online ... the 2014 Vegas residency was top notch all the way around so you have the youtube point of view with conformation from those in attendance.

The debate brought up earlier in this thread is about whether a positive opinion by someone who attended a show is more reliable than a negative opinion by someone who watched it online.

IMO, there is no debate about only those in attendance at the 2014 residency shows can have an opinion on the band's current status because no one, even probably the band members themselves, knows that.  To insinuate that because you were there that gives you some special insight to the current status of the band is, again, ridiculous.

This.  You can't say trust cellphone quality videos and pro-shot videos when they sound good but disregard when they sound bad (and chide people for relying on them in the first place and ask for their ticket stub).  

No.  This.

I agree...but oftentimes here the response to "man, I heard some clips of the show and they didn't sound that good" is met with (a) you can't trust youtube clips; followed by (b) if you really cared about the band you would've bought a ticket; followed by (c) suck it internet warrior, you have no right to talk about the band, the crowd had fun.

Can't the simple answer be that maybe, just maybe, they didn't sound that good on that particular night?  Calling into question the authenticity of the video and integrity of the poster is just a defensive response to guard against any criticism.  

Of course the band as a whole or an individual member or even the tech handing off the guitar can/will have an off night.  They're LIVE performances so you're never going to get studio quality of any aspect of any show.

That being said, if someone who watched something on youtube posts a negative opinion of something in a show and someone who was in attendance (or even another youtube watcher) posts a positive or different opinion about that same thing and... this is important... gives their reasoning why they disagree with the negative opinion, then most of us would probably give more credence to the one who attended the show.

But you are missing my point. Your argument works both ways. You say that phone-camera/Youtube technology is an unreliable witness: my point is, your argument can be used to discredit so called, 'excellent' clips, just as much as so called, 'bad' clips. Why did the phone technology of 2006 throw forward a multitude of clips of Axl in fine voice, whereas, the phone technology of 2014 produces clips of Axl in terrible form?

I see it more as common sense.

If it sounds good, it sounds good.  If it doesn't, it doesn't.  And twisting yourself into a pretzel talking about Youtube, cell phones, acoustics of the building, etc, is just a way to avoid saying 7 simple words "yeah, he doesn't sound too good here."

Exactly right.

But you also have to recognize that we had soundboard recordings from 2011 that were deemed unreliable.  Can't be trusted. 

Or how it was different when someone was there just 2 days prior and he was excellent.  We are just unlucky that the night the concert was put on the radio, that was the night he struggled.  Well, if you can even trust that radio broadcast.  That radio station probably has their own nefarious agenda, the pricks.

The problem with that is some people go out of the way to point out something negative and completely ignore anything positive.  I believe you'll remember a certain 9-ish minute youtube clip of NR where at something like the 8 minute 50 second mark of the show Axl's voice cracked/hit a wrong note/sounded off/whatever.  Some people's focus was ONLY on that one bad 10 seconds part at the end of the song making it sound like the entire performance was bad.

But, bottom line...did it sound good?  No, clearly not.

And saying so doesn't mean you are saying that you bet everyone in that building is sorry they bought a ticket and you are sure is just having a terrible time.  You are simply remarking that, no, he doesn't sound so hot on that particular song of that particular show.

Doesn't mean he can't come back the next night and kill it.  Or hell, the next song. 

No one is going to pull your fan card for expressing an obvious opinion.  Face it, who other than the hardest of hardcore is searching the internet ASAP to see these clips?

The rest of the song sounded great with the exception of the one snag at the very end of the song.  How is it that you dismiss 95% of that song performance?  How fair a critique is that?  It's a LIVE performance NOT a studio cut.

OK, then compare it to other live versions of that song.  Of which we have hundreds, literally hundreds.  Up to par with what we've come to know?  Not really.

I just called up that version of 'Prostitute' from June.  Its truly incredible.  He sounds amazing.

Now...suppose they try it again the next time they are on the road, and it goes poorly.  Then what?  We all look at our shoes?  We remind people how good it sounded that time in June 2014?  We tell people that they are just a bunch of fucking ingrates, and how come we can't talk about the version of 'It's So Easy' from 45 minutes prior in the same show?

None of that has any relevance. 

Axl sounded great in that clip from June 2014.  He sounded bad on the 2 versions from December 2009.  There is no correlation.  One sounds good, two did not.  End of story.

Yes.  Let's talk about the version of 'It's So Easy' from 45 minutes prior in the same show.

But that's not going to happen because some people only want to focus on what didn't go good in the show.

Let's just dismiss everything else that was good so the real superior fans can dissect every nuance of the show to prove to the rest of us how bad this band can be on any given night/performance.   

Or...flipside, don't freak the fuck out like a overprotective stage mother when someone is critical about a clip of a rock band on the internet.

So, you know...two schools.

He's not watching us.  You realize this, right?  He's not coming down from above to smite me for my insolence, nor to reward you for your "loyalty".  He doesn't know we exist.

Being constructively critical and only seeking to find where there's fault are two different things also even about a clip of a rock band on the internet.

Really?

Well, I have to ask.  What do you consider to be constructive and valid criticism?  Because I have to tell you, I've been posting with you almost a year now, and I struggle to think of even on instance you either deemed criticism as in bounds, nor didn't try to run anyone off who ever said anything but a gushing valentine.

So, what are we talking about?  What's constructive and valid, as you see it?

I never claimed perfection, there are lots of fuck ups. 2014 GNR in my mind was far supperior to the 2008 GNR I saw.
As far as clips go....i've seen good, i've seen bad.  Do clips always do justice....Hell NO!

Clips give you one point of view and are limited to the technology.  Being there allows you to have multiple views and ins't constrained by the technology.

I do think some people expect perfection, which I think is a joke....it is Rock N Roll.
I've said it before....perfection is more for an opera or symphony, hard rock is more about the experience and performance energy.

I hope we get to see a 2015 residency.....actually I hope we get a New Years performance.....that would be awesome!

IMO, constructive and valid is when the reasoning behind the criticism is articulated and that it also takes into consideration the entirety of the song/performance.

Example:
Invalid IMO:  Axl sounded horrible in that NR clip!!!
Valid IMO:  Axl's voice was fucked up at the end of that NR clip!!!

Oh, I don't think people expect perfection.  Live music is often imperfect.

I just don't see the logic of reacting to a bad performance of one song by saying how great one sounded 45 minutes earlier.  Aren't they 2 different topics?  Can't 'It's So Easy' be great AND 'Prostitute' be a little off?  And if you dare say anything bad about 'Prostitute', must you preface it by lauding 'It's So Easy' first?

Does that make sense to anybody?

I don't see a hell of a lot of difference, frankly.

Its THAT important that you specify he only sounded off for 10 seconds?  That's your barometer?  Your first example is that much of a grave insult?

It makes sense if you only post what was 'off' and never say anything ever about what was 'right'

You take exception every time someone labels a critic to be a troll who is miserable with their life, yet you have no problem labeling fans who choose to stay positive and optimistic about the band as delusional fan boys/girls who hope Axl is watching and will reward them for their cheerleading.  

Can't have it both ways.  Nobody knows one another personally here, so on both sides nobody should be (mis)judging anyone on a personal level.  

But lauding absolutely everything, and never is heard a discouraging word...that's all good in the hood.  Come on now.

No, there is room for both.  Fans don't have to take some half ass loyalty pledge if they dare choose to point something out that's inconvenient.

Yeah, but I'm 70% kidding.

But yes, overall, I agree with you.

Pot/Kettle.

Just as there are some fans who laud absolutely everything, so are there some fans that criticize absolutely everything.

It's only THAT important if you want people to take your critiques as fair.

I think you'd have a FAR easier time finding instances where I was positive than we could some of you really stepping up and saying the opposite.

I'd have zero problem taking that Pepsi challenge.

And this doesn't even get into percentages, which would be HEAVILY skewed in my favor.

Q :"Did you catch 'November Rain' from last night's show?  Yeah, Axl was a little dodgy."

A : "What do you mean?  Which parts?  Are you saying he was terrible from minute one straight through?  Or was he generally on form, but just a few bad moments?  How unfair are you with your generalities?  I need some clarification, preferably to the second.  And how come you can't talk about 'Mr. Brownstone', anyway?"

For me personally, I only post on HTGTH because I want to focus on the positives of what my fav band is doing.  I know the people in the band/crew/etc are human like me and 'perfection' is impossible.  I see no reason to focus on what went wrong when I can enjoy all the things that went right.

That being said, when I read what is IMO unfair or uncalled for criticism, I'm more often than not going to call that out.



Considering this IS a forum meant for that type of discussion, I find that response to be appropriate.

A forum which subsisted on, solely positivity, would be like Play School, Sesame Street (or CBeebies if you live in the UK): ''be happy, make threads, let's all be nice''. A bit of criticism never hurt anyone, or, as we say in England, ''piss pulling'' - ''pulling the piss''. Where is the humour and irony going to come from amidst, a tedious 'love in'?

That's true as long as the criticism is fair and open for opposing views and discussion.

Constant negativity is also tedious and nonconstructive and where 'humor and irony' tends to be more like malicious personal attacks. 

You have never put mygnr on and laughed at some of the stuff on there, although, deep down, you know a lot of it is 'below the belt' and a bit tasteless?

I'm not member of mygnr and I normally don't check out their forum unless someone posts a link here.

No doubt.  Me too.  Gotta come here for that bit.

Do you at least see how the other lives though?  Read but not post, maybe? 

Some of it absolutely unproductive, but a lot of it is just goofy.  I'd be lying if I said it didn't make me laugh several times a day.

Yeah, this is what I'm talking about.  Some of it can be truly funny.

Shit can get derailed for pages, but I just skip all that stuff.  I go there to laugh.

No.  I generally don't.
Maybe if the band is on tour to check out the show updates if we're not getting them from Jarmo.


I'm sure mygnr is happy you enjoy their site.
I personally prefer HTGTH.
To each his own.

[quote author=jarmo link=topic=65964.msg1370048#msg1370048 date=

We're sorry that you can't get that much needed missing piece of the puzzle that you call your life. We all want a new album, but it seems some aren't as dependent on it as others are. They seem to manage fine without having to vent about it day after day and turn everything positive into the same fucking boring tirade about how there's still no new album.

One thing is for certain. The next GN'R album will be the best the band has ever made. It must be. No other album has been this "needed" before. It's like giving a glass of water to the person who didn't drink for weeks. Best glass of water ever!

Yeah, I'm joking. We all know the drill. We've been there already and know how it all went down last time GN'R released and album some fans "needed".....




/jarmo


[/quote]


I think it's like this: Axl came into many of our lives like a hurricane back in '87, and by his own account, the band and the music came above all else. No one else sounds like him, and no one else writes like he does--his passion captivated us then and for me at least, the fascination has never waivered. I remember the first time I heard KOHD. It came on the radio, I had no idea Guns had recorded it (life before Internet was tough). Within the first few words I knew who I was listening to and it was magical--hearing Axls voice on something new always affects me the same way. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'd pay to hear him sing the phone book. So yeah, I want new music too. I personally don't care who wrote the music, who played on the tracks,  blah blah--in the end if it gets THAT voice out there again, well that's all that matters. I think we can all agree, Axl Rose is a vocal and lyrical genius, and we need him. The touring is great, I travel often to see them and the set list doesn't matter--it's the experience I'm after--but I do hope that the drive to create that once lived in Axl is still there. I choose to believe it is--it's just really hard to wait   ;)

You can get an idea of a show or live performance through Youtube. But to only go by that is a bit like removing the beef patty from a hamburger... You can get an idea of what the whole meal might be like, but you can't replace the main ingredient just like that.

Same thing with shows. Being present gives you a whole different perspective on it. Why do you think any serious journalist who reviews live concerts don't just use Youtube clips to base their reviews on? A concert is much more than just how well the songs are performed. If you want a perfect sounding performance, you got the album.

Hell, these days many concerts are more about dance moves, choreography, clothes and other visual stimulation than about the audio aspect!





/jarmo

I agree with all of this.

and Hell freezes over.....lol

Hahahaha

I actually get along better with Jarmo then some of these other cats.

Ultimately, we are all lifelong, insane level fans.  There's common ground there.

But I will say this, I don't put too much importance or weight on peoples' opinion on live shows based on concert recordings on Youtube.

A concert is something you enjoy there and then. Not something you sit and analyze frame by frame and compare to how the songs sound on the records.

It's always kinda amusing reading people "review" performances they didn't attend after you went to that show and saw fans leaving with smiles on their faces...



/jarmo

But that's a given.  Its inevitable.  I never understood why this is supposed to be some trump card.

I just went and saw Motley Crue's farewell tour with my brother, because we've been fans for 25 years.  And I had a blast.  Everyone around me had a blast.

But that is not a rebuttal to someone that produces a clip from that show where Vince sounds spotty.  Did I notice it at the time?  Hell no.  The fans almost always drown out the singer anyway.  Did it detract from my good time?  Not even a little bit.

But you can say both.  You can say everyone in the building had a blast, but looking at the actual clips afterwards might show some weak spots.  Not a crime to hold both opinions simultaneously.

I'm against blatant, unrepentant denial as way to avoid saying what's what.  Poor way to go through life.  Unrealistic.

People at RIR 2011 probably had a blast.  But that is one shoddy performance from the band, if we are being honest.

Even positive reviews, of clips from, say, 2006?

No, they are OK.

Cell phones from 8 years ago were far superior.  They tell you the story.

Ditto the soundboard stuff that show Axl killing it in 2006, versus the ones in 2011-12 that literally hurt the ears.  Obviously, technology downgraded over time.

Trade in your smart phones for an old Nokia which somehow, miraculously, transforms Axl's vocals into 2006 vintage. I think some of these modern phones also make Axl fluff lines.

"But that is not a rebuttal to someone that produces a clip from that show where Vince sounds spotty.  Did I notice it at the time?  Hell no.  "

But that right there is my point.  Isn't the purpose of the concert to deliver that good time and not produce youtube clips to be scrutinized.  People seem to forget that during their critiques sometimes.  The performance is meant for the audience, not the folks at home or on the net.

I negatively reviewed some shows I attended years ago and they were deleted.  Still never got an answer as to why they were deleted

True, but it is essentially the same as bootlegs recorded on camcorders, except, now, everyone has access to the technology. For me, bootlegs fulfill an important purpose.

Don't you know? It is physically impossible for Axl to have a bad night. You must have been lying then, hence the deletion. Just goes to show how much better Guns N' Roses are, to other bands. I mean, The Stones, Metallica and basically, everybody else who has ever played live (except Guns N' Roses of course), all produce dreadful shows on occasions.

Asking rhetorically, isn't there already an abundance of this kind of negative sarcasm and snark aimed at the band in every other GNR forum and the mainstream media in general?  Aren't there already enough outlets for the criticism, be it objective or malicious?  Why does it need to be brought here, the one single place where GNR fans can come to focus primarily on what's positive about the band? 

Alright, alright, I was being slightly sarcastic but I was replying to a legitimate concern: why did the above poster have their reviews deleted?

But about what you say, I do not see how any forum can run on pure, 100%, positivity. It is, A/ completely impossible (that is, as a successful forum and not just, a place consisting of two-three people), B/ insanely boring and just a bit, Sesame Street and, C/ Not the real world - it is a 'la la land'. Go on any forum, of any other band, and you will see people saying ''that was a rubbish show'', ''that was a rubbish album'' and similar. It is not a big deal. The fact they found 'x' show rubbish does not reflect poorly on their fandom. They may then find 'y' show excellent. I mean, grow a backbone. How would you survive as a politician (where, negativity is, stock and trade)? A bit of criticism never hurt anyone. If you disagree, just move on.

Do you mean "grow a backbone" like don't kowtow down to a few who are in the minority thinking that someone should change the way they've been doing something successfully for the past 18 years?  ::)


No matter how many times we try to explain it to you, you just keep repeating the same negative/tired/boring/tedious argument over and over.

Physician heal thyself!!!  Follow your own advice and just move on!!!!

I make no illusions that this is not my type of place. I absolutely loath censorship and have a rather ironic 'British' sense of humour which, you would label, 'overtly negative' no doubt, and see as a sign of some moral or professional weakness on my part, but I would label as simply, 'pulling the piss'. To summarize: I am not a regular poster here so you do not have to worry, Sesame Street is saved. We all live in a land of daisies and violets and overwhelming positivity, in which no negativity may dwell. At the end of the day, if all the type of posting you desire is this,


(repeated between two-three people)

then good luck with that. We obviously have completely different concepts of what it is to be a 'fan' but I am sure, these type of discussions will continue to provide you with a source of amusement, well into the future.

Now, back to the real world.

So you can dish it out but you can't take it?

Again, follow your own advice.

Pardon? I will continue debating as long as you want (I am ill in bed by the way, hence the fact that I have a lot of free time).

Well firstly Gypsy you claimed that I,


Considering the fact that I only started re-posting, 27th August 2014, I do not believe I have posted quantifiably sufficient enough posts for one to judge whether they are, 'tired/boring/tedious'. For someone to have become, 'tired/boring/tedious' you presumably require enough posts, over a certain period of time, for them to become so. To be 'tired' of something, one inherently requires, continuous exposure to that item that they are, tired of. I have not provided that. I think I must have posted about fifteen or so times, and each post has been sufficiently varied enough to not be considered, 'tired/boring/tedious'. You are basically judging me without any sort of knowledge of me, because I, A/ admit negativity in forum discussions (and see nothing bad in that!),  and, B/ hate censorship.

It rather sums up, HTGTH!

First off, I'm sorry you're ill and hope you're feeling better soon.
Second, I hope we can have constructive debates about whatever GNR is doing for a very long time to come.
 
My mistake.
A bit of criticism never hurt anyone when you're British and you absolutely loath censorship because you're pulling the piss here at Sesame Street.  ;)



What do you say we all get back to talking about GNR?

I tried before to get opinions on this...

Sort of on the topic of does GNR just consider themselves a touring band:   Dj's solos, specifically Ballad of Death... was that written just for GNR shows (as opposed to Ron or Tommy's solos which appear on their individual solo albums)?  Watching the evolution of that song being played live, other than Axl and Chris, the contributions to that song by the other guys has grown into an epic performance.  I have no clue how the process works but wouldn't this be concrete evidence that GNR are actively writing songs together?

Also, if lyrics are added for Axl to sing and some synth for Chris to play, should GNR add BOD to CD II along with the re-recorded "new" songs from the previous line-ups?  Or should BOD be saved for CD III that would contain ONLY material written by the current line-up?

But when the clip is played for you, and you are asked about the quality of the singer's perfromance, the answer is never ever, ever, "all I know is that people around me had fun."

Know who says that?  People who know god damn well the clip they are being played doesn't sound good, but feel is "disloyal" to say so.  I'm not here for that.

I saw the Crue 15 years ago.  Vince was missing words and out of puff, THEN.  I knew going to see him last week that situation had likely not improved.  I have since looked up clips from the show, and I am correct.

Great time at the show?  Yep.  A solid recording I think would make a good addition to my iPod?  No.

That's where I'm coming from.

You would argue this has been a successfully run operation, lo these past 18 years?

Successful exodus perhaps.

I think the never ending debate here stems from two completely different trains of thought.
Two sides that have no desire to budge. One side has been described as negative by most, realistic, objective by some.
The other as positive by most, delusional by some.

I can understand to an extent where both sides are coming from.
Myself, I love the GN?R I grew up with. Tough for me to find many negative things to say about the ?87-?93 era.
Since then there have been some amazing highs, some cool moments, and some incredible lows. Not necessarily in that order.
Hearing Axl?s voice again for the first time in years on The Blues, and again on bootlegs/leaks, and the 2006 shows I attended made for some truly amazing memories.
Other than that, if I?m being nice, I?d sum post ?93 GN?R as a big missed opportunity.
If I?m being blunt, a trainwreck. That?s what my eyes and ears tell me. I?m certainly not happy about it. I?d much rather be jacked up about the future of my favorite band.
Just isn?t the case. Doesn?t change what those first 4 albums mean to me.
My stance now is that I have no expectations. If a new record materializes I will be first in line to buy it, and I am rooting for my all time favorite frontman to regain his form.

If it?s not to be, well, Ive had a long time to come to terms with the fact that that prospect is a distinct possibility.

I?m not trying to push my negative thoughts on anyone else. If other posters here think that Axl sounds great these days, who am I to say they are wrong?
I hear what I hear and don?t need anyone to validate my opinion.
If other posters are still excited, and enthusiastic about GN?Rs future, well that?s great. I don?t quite understand the fascination some people here have with trying to change others minds.
It?s not gonna happen. The fact that we are posting on a GN?R fan forum in 2014 means we are stubborn as fuck.

I don?t take this that seriously. If someone doesn?t agree with me, and most don?t, cool. I?ve got a bit of a twisted sense of humor, so making light of the situation that is current GN?R does appeal to me if it?s in good fun.
That can get out of hand though, and this forum has a more serious feel to it, which it?s cool.
If the majority of posters here choose to focus on the positives and don?t want to beat the negatives to death, it?s not too bizarre of a concept seeing that this is a GN?R fan forum.

Well said, I'm right with you.

'87-'93 was so excellent, its bought goodwill and benefit of the doubt with me for life.  I think it has with just about all of us that were fans in their prime and still keep our ear to the ground to see what's going on with what is likely our favorite singer ever.



I could do with a bit more levity, to be honest.  Things are so serious around here a lot of the time.

Its a rock band, not anything serious.  So gallows humor is appropriate sometimes if its helps break the tension, I say.  You have to be able to laugh at life.

I know this place will always be glass WAY half full, and I know that before I log on.  I just think we could have some more fun with it all.

Life is too short to be wound so tight and ready to Thunderdome over every damn thing.

Most definitely!!! :beer:
HTGTH is where most GNR fans come to when they want the real deal.
How many people can say they've spent 18 years doing something they enjoy and doing it on their own terms?
IMO, that's what success is all about.

Oh...the site.

I thought you meant the band.  Haha.

I think this site does ?focus primarily on what?s positive about the band.?  The problem is that some people want to focus exclusively on what?s positive?and not even that, but to pretend that negativity doesn?t exist, and anyone who offers something other than sunshine is a misinformed, constantly complaining, Axl-hating troll demanding new music to fill the empty void in their life.

I?d argue that everyone who posts on this site focuses primarily on what?s positive about the band?but that?s not good enough for some.

No, but it?s bizarre when the majority of posters only want people to talk about the positives, and act like everything is on the up and up at all times, and that nothing negative has ever happened to the band. 

There are people here that act like Ron?s current situation is no big deal (the band is just on hiatus, nothing to see here).  Clearly, some behind the scenes shit is going on.  His status is, at best, in limbo.  You can acknowledge that and still be an A+, super-duper fan.

"There are people here that act like Ron?s current situation is no big deal"....

BECAUSE....no one on here KNOWS the current situation.  Poor guy uses the wrong tense in a sentence and everyone jumps on it.

Some people would rather just chill, enjoy what we have and deal with things as they become fact and NOT internet fiction.

How do you know he used the wrong tense?  Also, pretty sure there are more signs than that which point to something is wrong (his tweets, interviews, etc.). 

Waiting until a final resolution (i.e. they go on tour and he's not there, or there is an official announcement) kind of defeats the purpose of the forum...and stifles any real conversation on the issue.

But why is that your job?  I think that's the disconnect here.

A guitarist potentially leaving your band is a big deal.  Why is talking about it filed under treason & sedition?

Who is affected by this all this supposed reckless and dangerous speculation?  Does any outside GNR fandom give a flying fuck about this story?  Hell, I'd parse it down even further and say only the online contingent of GNR fandom cares about this story.

The reason its brought up at places like this is because we are, quite literally, the only group of people on the planet who care about this.  So we kick it around.  And speculation about the fate of a guitarist in a rock band ain't exactly the Kennedy assassination.  No one is harmed if some of the speculation turns out wrong.

It's just something to talk about to pass the time.

Well, I don't disagree with the preference for 'primarily' instead of 'exclusively' (which is why I used that word), but it takes effort to keep things that way.  The Internet is a toilet, you know that, so negativity will always drown out the good vibes if left unchecked.  All the other forums are proof of that.  
  

As far as the band, maybe the most difficult management aspect is touring, especially when traveling internationally.  That part has gone relatively well since 2006, no?

But what are the "good vibes" of the Ron situation though?

By all appearances, seems most of the vibes are bad ones.  So we just ignore them?

Comparatively speaking, absolutely.

But taking the past 15 years of this operation, even including better functioning touring, I don't think any other bands are going to be Xeroxing this one's overall business plan.

I think Ron is an incredible guitarist, would suck if he left, but still no confirmation of that, so that's good.   :peace:

Also, I've always liked how Ron is a bit of a wildcard.  The fact that he is the way he is, but hasn't been kicked to the curb is evidence of how much he's valued by the band for his abilities.  

That said, the band has survived the loss of a guitarist who was a main songwriter, a superstar guitarist who many believe defined their sound, and a couple more good ones after that.  As great as Ron is, if they can survive losing those guys, they would find a way to manage without him too.  

Oh, life will go one without Ron.  No question.

To be brutally frank, just about the only thing I am concerned about with this whole deal is keeping continuity and not having another built in excuse. 

Can't you just see Axl telling us mid-next year that there is no album because they had to deal with Ron's exit?

Anything's possible, but I wouldn't expect it to factor or for it to be used as an excuse.  As far as we know, the album is in post-recording stages, which wouldn't involve Ron. 

But if it does cause delays, then those are the breaks.  I made my peace long ago about needing to curb my expectations about new music.  But I get that many other fans haven't, so I don't begrudge anyone who might get frustrated over that (to a point). 

Which would be my argument as well.

The good news is that Axl is not averse to releasing stuff with guy gone from the fold.  So if Ron laid anything down, it shouldn't really have to be redone.