Here Today... Gone To Hell!

The GUNS N' ROSES biography "Reckless Road: Guns N' Roses And The Making Of Appetite For Destruction", in which author Marc Canter tells of the making of the band's multimillion-selling debut, "Appetite for Destruction", is being made into a movie. The film, which will not be a documentary, has been in works for about four months now and will feature "a few A-list people in the cast," according to Canter, who says that he is not making the movie himself but insists that the people behind it "will do it right."

Writing on the unofficial GUNS N' ROSES web site MyGNRForum.com, Canter (pictured above) says: "I do have a big say-so on the script, which is still being put together now, but so far looking cool.

"I am going to see that everyone in the cast is doing their job and doing justice to the band. Since I was there, I know what the dialog was between the band for many of the events that took place."

He continues: "When you find out who is making the movie, you will then understand that it will be very cool.

"I'm proud of all the hard work that was put into this project and it's just going to kick ass! In no way will it be a cheesy movie like 'Rock Star' [the 2001 Warner Bros. film starring Mark Wahlberg as a salesman-turned-rock star styled after Tim 'Ripper' Owens, who fronted a JUDAS PRIEST cover band before being tapped to become the new lead singer of the actual group]."

Canter, an amateur photographer and the owner and general manager of the legendary rock 'n' roll hangout Canter's Deli in Los Angeles, California, adds: "There really is such a great story here that even the outtakes will be great."

With regards to whether the current and former members of GUNS N' ROSES ? including singer Axl Rose ? are backing the project, Canter says: "Axl doesn't support anything to do with the old band except playing their songs live. However, I do think he will be happy with the fact that it will clear up some stories that have been said about him from those days that were told incompletely. So setting the record straight on some of those evens will be a good thing for him to see happen."

He adds: "Axl should know by now that I have his back and that it will be done right.

"If I'm involved in a GUNS N' ROSES project, then you know I have their backs.

"There is a great story about the birth of the band which I was very much involved in.

"This has nothing to do with where the band is today.

"The history is very important and that's why Axl was the one who was most supportive of me documenting what they were doing when they first started out."

Canter, who has been friends with Slash for over 35 years and had unlimited access to the formative years of one of the greatest rock bands of all time, also reiterated that the movie will not be a cheesy, low-budget affair and that he will go to great lengths to insure that the story of GUNS N' ROSES' early days is told accurately.

"The people I'm working with are the best ones to do this project," he says.

"There is so much detail in the way it all came together that tells the killer rock 'n' roll story of the best band around. Why hide it? I have all the resources to help make it right.

"When the script is done, the band will be able to look at it and help fix things that are off a bit. The goal is to get it right."

He continues: "No one has been cast at this point but I would expect to see a few A-list people in the cast. [We're] just working on [putting together] the perfect script. Then they will move on to the next step, and yes, it will bring in a whole new slew of fans and sell a shitload of records for the band. Also the band will do well on the music used for the movie."

Canter adds: "I did get Axl a draft copy of the book about a month before it went to print but never heard back from him. If there was something he wanted to add, it would have got added."

When teenager and amateur photographer Marc Canter set out to document his best friend Saul Hudson's rise as a rock guitarist in 1982, he never imagined he was documenting the genesis of the next great rock 'n' roll band. His friend became the legendary guitarist Slash, and Canter found himself witnessing the creation of GUNS N' ROSES front and center. The candid shots contained in "Reckless Road", taken as the band toured in 1985-1987 and made the legendary album "Appetite For Destruction", capture their raw, blood-sweat-and-tears performances as well as their intimate moments. Containing original gig memorabilia including show flyers, ticket stubs, set lists, press clippings, and handwritten lyrics as well as in-depth interviews with band members and the people closest to them, "Reckless Road" offers an explicit, first-person perspective readers won't find anywhere else.

Originally published in America in 2008, "Reckless Road" contains interviews with Slash, Duff McKagan and Steven Adler, as well as groupies, failed producers, and former managers and bandmates. Canter amassed a treasure trove of memorabilia, including:

* Lyrics to "My Michelle", written on the back of a water-stained flier
* A $37,500 advance check from Geffen that has Slash's name misspelled as "Stash"
* 1,000 never-before-seen photos


http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/guns-n-roses-reckless-road-biography-to-be-turned-into-movie/

 A Guns N Roses movie?  Fuckin lame.  Also, am I the only one who doesn't give a fuck about how "Appetite For Destruction" got made anymore?  It's 2014.  The story has been told ad nauseum for the past 27 years.  Who gives a shit about lyrics on  the back of a pizza box, recorded sex acts in "Rocket Queen"  or any of the other thousand stories we have heard at this point?  We got it.

Also this dude claims to have Axl's back while at the same time dropping this line which seems like a not too subtle insult.
"Axl doesn't support anything to do with the old band except playing their songs live."  ::)

Something dosent seem right here.

im not that interested either to be honest.

In the other hand me being a huge Illusion geek i would love a doc-film about those times, especially with the footage they shooted during that time, none lame actor shit, the real deal with real footage, and no 2010s era commentary interviews only 90s footage.

Did anyone else read that the reckless road book is being turned into a movie? I think it would be cool! Who could possibly play those 5 guys?

I have the book and really like it. While the movie could go either way, I will at least give it a shot and check it out when it comes around. It has the potential to 1: be pretty cool, 2: improve Axl's public image, and 3: stir up some welcome interest in the band.

Same here. And there should be tons of material from UYI era, especially from the tour. I think there was a project called "Perfect Crime" that was supposed to be a documentary of the UYI tour with lots of footage on stage and off stage. But I guess that got cancelled after the tour. Would be great to see some video material from the studio too, if possible.

But this acting stuff? Meh. A good documentary of the AFD era would be great, but this sounds like it's going to be a high school movie project of "my favourite band".

To the first part, I agree.  Seems like pretty well worn tread on this tire.

To the second part, sort of a good point.  Does seem like a little shot.

Yeah, the 'Perfect Crime' project, right?

I too would be more interested in that.

This is a 'Dead Horse' already? The news is only 2 days old  ???

It's about the Old Time.

Ah, I see. I thought those went here: http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?board=12.0

Yeah, decent point.

I just can't recall any topic about the old era exclusively lasting in the big room.  I actually never even noticed that other section.  I thought all old shit went here.

Marc is on the naughty list and he's going to forever stay there after this...

Very hard to make a movie like this just like a sports movie ...hard to make it look and feel authentic

I thought the Jonny Cash movie was pretty good. Not sure how accurate it was or whatever, but I do remember hearing Jonny Cash music everywhere for a while after it came out.

The band has a 30 year history and we're only allowed to discuss one album -- Chinese Democracy?

It's not that we aren't allowed to discuss anything other than CD, its just that the movie isn't really relevant to what Guns is doing now which is what the focus of the main GNR discussion board is if I'm not mistaken.

I always assumed the big room was current events only.

But not any just new band stuff.  If you started some thread about 2006, I don't think it stays there.

First of all the band is doing nothing at the moment. Unless you mean the side projects. But that?s not GN?R related stuff. So I don?t see anything wrong about talking about this in the main GN?R forum. My personal opinion on the matter is the following: knowing Axl I wouldn?t be surprised if this plan to make a movie ends up in a lawsuit against Marc Canter.

I hope it does.

Why?

Because the idea sounds simply horrible to me and I wouldn't want something like this to be made. But that's just me.

That movie was excellent... they actually used Joaquin and Reese to sing the songs too... They trained for like a year.

I gotta admit... I dont see any way this turns out all that great...but I sure as hell want to see it regardless ha

Even Slash has said in the past that this should be left alone...

I have a hard time seeing this coming to fruition.

I'm unclear where the market would be for this thing.

There is none.  Movies about bands or even with bands in them is such a niche market.  The only people who would see this are some of the super die hard fans. The casual fan or someone who isn't a fan of the band at all wouldn't go to this thing for free.  I wouldn't even go to this thing for free.

The Doors and Walk the Line did alright.  So there's precedent and potential for it being the exception instead of the rule.  Personally, as low as my expectations would be for this thing, I couldn't not go see it. 

Those were BIG budget movies... if this got that kind of push.. I'm sure it would do just fine ...

Again it's just hard to do and I don't see it coming to fruition..... one of these guys cross the street and their is a lawsuit over it going both ways.

Let me also say this about Marc...

I think he is a pretty naive about certain things...and I don't know why people ask him about Axl when they haven't spoken a word in like 8 years... so how would he know anything,  but I think he's genuine in that he is not trying to piss anybody off or use GNR to make a dollar... he really thinks he is doing the fanbase a service with all he does.

and his book was/is great.

If he does make a nice pay check from this movie... then all the power to him... I don't think he would be in the wrong... but he should also know that Axl will most definitely never deal with him again.

plus due to their friendship im sure Slash will at least support this in some way... so Axl never will

Doesn't the "based on a true story" disclaimer give directors broad license to represent (or misrepresent) any actual facts? 

As far as use of music, no way they get permission for that, but I think they would be legally allowed to have the actors perform the songs (which would be interesting) so long as the required ASCAP royalties are paid. 

All the juicy stuff that has gone on with GNR happened way after... The story of them forming a band and getting a record deal which is what his book about is... that really a movie?

But yeah they certainly could take liberties with it...but we'd all know them.

Granted... we doubt this will see the light of day... but I'm surprised it's not being discussed to death yet... a major movie production based on Guns N Roses?

No, Marc has said that there won?t be a "based on". He will have a say on the script and also band members. They will have the right to review and change things if necessary. Look, all this in talk at this point nothing has been agreed yet. If the director, producer or whoever wants to make a cheese and full of cliche movie then it doesn?t look like there will be a deal to make it.

If it ever gets that far, my guess is that Axl and Izzy would not take them up on the opportunity to review/change the script.  Just as they didn't want to contribute anything to the book.

Yep.

http://classicrock.teamrock.com/news/2014-11-16/guns-n-roses-book-to-be-made-into-feature-film

This is very interesting. Could they actually find someone that resembles Axl and then train him to sing and perform the way he did? That sounds like a tough job! The way he looks and his voice are extremely unique.

Tom Cruise did an excellent vocal job in Rock Of Ages, his cover of Paradise City was quite impressive.

so I suppose it's possible. working with Axl's vocal coach is probably a plus...

I'll say one thing id pay every dollar I have to my name to be a fly in the room when Axl watches this thing for the first time haha

What's the thoughts on this? Who do you think they might cast?

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/nov/18/guns-n-roses-feature-film-marc-canter

Terrible idea

Yeah, he did do a great job, but where's the rasp? That's really what does it for me. Maybe they will just digitally alter the voices or something if they can't find someone that is able to pull it off.

http://www.inquisitr.com/1640410/guns-n-roses-movie-is-christian-bale-the-right-fit-for-axl-rose/ (http://www.inquisitr.com/1640410/guns-n-roses-movie-is-christian-bale-the-right-fit-for-axl-rose/)



Guns N? Roses Movie: Is Christian Bale The Right Fit For Axl Rose?
 
Guns N' Roses

With news that the story of Guns N? Roses is gong to get the full Hollywood treatment, all thoughts have turned in a serpentine manner to the actor who will play the role of Axl Rose. Is Christian Bale?s name slowly elbowing its way into the frame, one wonders?

If there?s any band who?ll make an entertaining movie adaptation, it?s Guns N? Roses. During the Appetite For Destruction era, it would have been nigh on impossible for any band to be any more cool, reckless, menacing, explosive, dynamic, and unique.

Like the four riders of the apocalypse, plus one, Axl, Slash, Izzy, and Duff strode into town with their trademark brand of bottled lightning, closely followed by Steven on the drums.

If rock n? roll had a look, Guns N? Roses were it. If rock n? roll had an attitude then they defined it, and if rock n? roll had a sound, Guns N? Roses owned it. With an effortless cool and ragged glory, the hell-raising outlaws scaled the highest peaks and entertained with the most elusive of epiphanies.

Guns-n-roses
Then, like anything touched by the hand of god or sense of infinite otherness, it didn?t last, and fell apart quicker than one of Slash?s solos. What was once raw and without compromise broke down in a very mundane, ignoble, and cliched manner.

By the time the Use Your Illusion era came crawling down the highway, the wheels had already started to fall off this rock n? roll juggernaut, as massive egos, frayed nerves, addictive personalities, a weary nihilism, and an indifferent approach all conspired to create a freak show without equal. A freak show that would eventually run its course and come to a grinding and unspectacular halt.

Yet, before their sad and slow decline, for the briefest of periods, Guns N? Roses ignited the world and one another, untouchable, unbounded, and complete.

So thankfully the Guns N? Roses biopic currently in development concentrates on the Appetite For Destruction era, when Axl and the band were mean, lean, and full of jumping beans and didn?t carry the bewildering botch, bloat, and baggage of their twilight years.

According to Billboard, the film will be adapted from Marc Canter?s 2008 biography of the band, Reckless Road: Guns N? Roses and the Making of Appetite for Destruction.

Spin reported that Canter has specifically stated that the forthcoming flick will not be a documentary, but it will be ?very detailed? with ?no short cuts.?

Posting to GNR?s message board, Canter outlined a few details, and told fans that in no uncertain terms the film is going to kick ass as well as revealing a few intriguing things about the film.


?I do have a big say so on the script which is still being put together now but so far looking cool. I am going to see that everyone in the cast is doing their job and doing justice to the band. Since I was there, I know what the dialog was between the band for many of the events that took place. When you find out who is making the movie, you will then understand that it will be very cool. I?m proud of all the hard work that was put into this project and it?s just going to KICK ASS! In no way will it be a cheesy movie like Rock Star. There really is such a great story here that even the outtakes will be great. The truth is a movie could be made just from Hell Tour alone which was only about a week or so long.?

Somewhat unsurprisingly, Axl Rose will not be involved with the film, but Canter has elaborated that Axl and the rest of the band will get to review the finished script ?and help fix things that are off a bit. The goal is to get it right.?


?As you all know Axl doesn?t support anything to do with the old band except playing their songs live. However I do think he will be happy with the fact that it will clear up some stories that have been said about him from those days that were told incompletely.?

The Guardian reports that Slash, however, has been much less enthusiastic.

?I don?t think rock n? roll translates in the movies,? he told the Belfast Telegraph earlier this year. ?I don?t think they really get the gritty vibe of what it?s like? [and] I would not like to see a Guns N? Roses biopic.?

Whether Slash, Axl, or anyone else who used to be in Guns n? Roses want to see the film go ahead, these things tend to have a life of their own, as Canter explained.

?In the end it?s just a cool story about five guys that got together in Los Angeles and put together great music and made it work and the reckless road that they traveled on the way.?

To date no one has been cast for the project but Canter has suggested they?ll probably expect to enlist some A-list actors.

A comment which has caused a great deal of speculation about who will fill the shoes of one of the greatest frontmen of all time ? Axl Rose.


Obviously, to play the Guns N? Roses singer, any actor would need to bring a certain amount of complexity, anger, paranoia, and wounded vulnerability to the table, as was well as carrying a tangible ?Fuck you? air about their person. Not an easy ask.

I think we can safely rule the likes of Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise out. Too old and too clean-cut. Robert Pattinson perhaps? Nowhere near enough edge or menace. How about Johnny Depp? Plausible in some alternate reality perhaps, but just a little too quirky. Can you just imagine the travesty that would be Captain Axl Sparrow?

What about Leonardo DiCaprio? The face just wouldn?t fit, I?m afraid. Jude Law? You?re kidding! Ryan Gosling then? Too cool and laconic. Plus, he was once a member of the Mickey Mouse club.

Ewan McGregor? Too charming. Well, who then? Christian Bale, that?s who. The actor who put the darkness into the Dark Knight carries a similar strain of intensity and aloofness as Axl and would have a definite edge over the entire flock of other famous thespians when it comes to playing the Guns n? Roses singer.

Both Axl and Bale are obsessive about what they do because they?ve long realized that the devil is always in the detail. Both are extremely guarded about their private lives, and above all, both are prone to full-blown and expletive rants in public. Remember Bale?s vicious and rambling ?Why the fuck you trashing my scene?? tirade on the set of the 2009 Terminator movie?

It?s not a million miles removed from Axl?s legendary onstage rants about Warren Beatty, Kurt Cobain, Metallica, and of course, parking attendants.


When Christian Bale recently revealed to Empire Magazine that upon hearing that Ben Affleck was taking over the role of the Caped Crusader, he just ?stopped and stared into nothing for half an hour,? you can just imagine that such neurosis is coming from pretty much the same place that led a young Axl to jump out of Slash?s car as it was speeding down the highway because he didn?t like what his lead guitarist was saying.

Just like in American Psycho, The Machinist, and The Fighter, Bale could have a career defining role in the new Guns N? Roses film. Whether this match made in Heaven ? or should that be Hell? ? will ever take place is another story.

Right! Now we?ve got the casting for Axl Rose sorted, let?s move onto Slash. Ideas anyone?

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1640410/guns-n-roses-movie-is-christian-bale-the-right-fit-for-axl-rose/#W3ci2SVSgGyehZ73.99


Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1640410/guns-n-roses-movie-is-christian-bale-the-right-fit-for-axl-rose/#DxyByLX1rbFx9vA4.99

Unless this movie blatantly slanderous and/or involves song rights that aren't cleared, there is nothing Axl can do legally.  Like it or not, Axl (and Steven, Slash, Izzy, and Duff) is a public figure.  This movie won't be breaking the law any more than one of the trillion "unauthorized" GNR videos that have been released over the years.  And it can't be any worse, regardless of whether people want to see the movie or not.

There is now supposedly a script and a director.

Should be real soon before we get some announcements... should make for some interesting message board drama

Unless this winds up being a big budget thing with decent names attached, I'm not sure Axl would care.

Well, he'll still care on some level, but that's blunted if this is some under the radar thing no one notices.

I would prefer to see it on HBO.

In something like a 6 part mini-series, dealing from the start of the band on the 80s, up until present day

Not sure there is demand for something on that scale.

Oh I agree I don't think the demand is there for something of the scale I am thinking.   However, it's just what I want, not what I think would be the best for buisness or what they could actually do

God damn that would be so cool.  :drool:

I just don't think the story is that interesting ....ha

Like 5 guys met in LA did a lot of heroine ..banged some strippers and made a record...and after like a year of being out it caught steam... is that really a movie?

Of course i will see it opening night because I love that band ...but is it a big budget movie? ha i dont kow

Completely agree.  This is some pretty thin source material.

Kurt Cobain tends to get nothing but hate on GNR boards for obvious reasons, be he had a quote about Axl Rose I always found interesting, and one that might apply to his fans too.

"There is nothing interesting about Axl Rose.  There has always been an Axl Rose in rock.  Nothing that happens to him is new or different, its just seems that way to him because its happening to him."

I think the point that hardcore fans can sometimes over value things is a valid one.

I hate Kurt Cobain....lol ... Axl was an easy target for him to go after...Axl made himself that tho with the rants, the riots, the supermodel gf.. he fit the casting for the rockstar to a T

Marc Canter has this fantasy that the beginnings of the band was a magical time because he grew up with them...but it really isn't

truthfully by many accounts the original GNR isnt filled with a good group of guys...

It's a fairly unremarkable story.

Once they hit, getting so big so fast, that's kind of interesting.  But the days of them playing the Cathouse?  I dunno.

What's with Cobain's quote? Axl is a very interesting person. I see him as a high intelligence Jim Morrison type that survived the initial phases of becoming a super famous rock star. If Jim was still around today people might not talk about him in the same way. He could very well be just another aging rock star. If Axl died say in the midst of the UYI tours he may have been an even bigger legend than Kurt Goblam or Jimbo.

Before anyone goes bitching about me comparing Axl to Jim: Danny Sugerman (a person that was very close to Jim, the writer of "No One Here Gets Out Alive") said that he felt Axl was the next sort of incarnation of the Dionysian spirit that once inhabited Jim. Even that one guy that worked for Geffen and got the band signed (his name escapes me at the moment) said the first time he encountered Axl he got a real Jim Morrison kind of vibe from him. I don't believe in reincarnation or anything like that but I do think the two men are rather similar and interesting.

I don't think there's a lack of amusing stories to tell. Lots of interesting characters to be portrayed as far as I can see from the books I've read. The market for old guns is still huge so I think many people will go see it if it's actually a high budget Hollywood type thing. I can see why Axl isn't interested in being involved but if he was that would definitely make it all the more awesome. He could get some of his movie star admirers on board, give vocal lessons and advice to the person playing him in the film, and let us fans in on more of his perspective in the overall scheme of GNR. I think it has the potential to be a great movie. It may not turn out that way though, can't really say at this point.

But y'know, I always kinda figured they would have waited till Axl and or Slash died to make a movie like this. Anyway it will probably be a trip for the band members to watch Hollywood portray them on screen if it's actually a high budget big deal thing and not some dainty unknown thing that flies under everyone's radar.

I don?t hate him but he was promoting himself by talking about Axl. And I think he was an hypocrat. He was always saying he was antistablishment when he never was. All those Seatle bands pretending to be anti 80s. Their music and image to some extend was but not their lifestyle.

Guns has a really interesting story, but the most interesting part  for me is anything 1989-2009

So if they decide to skip my hbo idea dealing with the band from beginning to its current state then they will have to go with this idea

The story of the band from beginning to the break up and fall of the band   Ending with duff leaving. 

Where I agree that a lot of the source material may be week, or nothing special.  The story will have to be about the characters.  If there is strong enough actors representing these artisits that were truely over the top characters then you will have a great movie   

Nirvana sucks btw

Problem with taking this past when they first hit and through the break-up, you are going to have to put in a number of scenes that show Axl acting like a dick towards the end.

Well I am sure there would be moments close to the break up where all the members are acting like dicks...

I could take Axls side, when it comes to dealing with drunks and junkies..   Unless, you are a drunk/junkie hanging out with these type of people sure can be tough.   Hard to do sober, just me.   And all reports are that Axl was pretty sober around this time, with the other band members pretty messed up.  In recent picks and stories from the last Guns N Roses tour, it looks like Axl is actually partying and enjoying himself now more. 

But I don't think there is anything wrong with showing the band as dicks or assholes.  I am sure they all were at times.

When he gave the speech at the Stones show, I was only 12.  Couldn't really appreciate it.

Once I got older, and was exposed to drinking and drug use, I finally saw his point.  Because just like you say, its sucks balls being the lone sober guy in a room full of fuck-ups.  I totally understood his frustration.

Thing I could never get though?  Once Adler sees where the speech is going, why not start in with the drums and cut him off?

I posted a great interview by Slash, over in his section, that I just listened to the other day.  He talks about these Stones shows and has a few really great stories regarding them, some of them actually are not to flattering to Slash himself.  He does talk about how pissed Axl was, because at the first show the band was so fucked up that they couldn't even play.  He says that he(slash), played the whole show with his back turned to the crowed facing his amp and that the rest of the band, sucked..  Axl, then said to management to let Slash know that if Slash didn't apologize to the crowd the next night he would walk out..   Sure he was serious...  So again, I say if anyone was to cut Axl off, he would of just left.   And I don't blame him.   

Funny story Slash had regarding the show.  All the band and the stones grabbed a group photo, the only one missing was Slash.  Who said he was too busy to take the photo cause he was shooting up smack in his car after the show.

Thing is, if you look at all sort of band/artists   Some of the best music ever written was done while the artist was a junkie.   Seems once people do sober up, a lot of them loose there creative spark

I'd agree.

I'm never one to tell someone to not drink, not do drugs, or any of that.  You just have to be able to maintain.  So long as you can still do the work, no worries.  If the work suffers, no good.

To me, that's what got Steven tossed.  He couldn't do the work.

Well I think that is one reason he got tossed...  I am sure there is more to it and a reason he won a lawsuit against the band...   But all you get with a junkie with money, is a junkie with more drugs.   We have all heard those reports of his horrible playing on the civil war recordings... 

My personal view on those things is, anything is fine in moderation, just don't get hooked on shit   Have will power.   That goes for anything though.  From drugs to cheeseburgers....

I agree that drugs can really help make good Rock and Roll. Part of the reason Japanese R n R doesn't seem to cut it for me is that you can hear the obedience in it, even when it's really heavy stuff. Sure, the bands are always really well organized, they play their instruments great, I'm sure everyone practices a lot, but there's usually no edge and definitely no "trippy" quality to it. It's either too poppy and tame or sounds like music from Castlevania or something. The drug penalties are really heavy in Japan and most people think that marijuana is just as bad as heroin, lots of ridiculous anti drug propaganda going around there. When I want to let one of my Japanese friends know that I smoke weed, I always have to ease into it. It generally just scares the shit out of them.

And no doubt if Adler cut Axl off, Axl would have got the fuck out of there.

As far as the movie goes, the thing that I find the most interesting about Axl (his voice) may not end up getting too big of a role. Y'know, I would like to see how he found his voice and how it works. Kind of like in a superhero movie how they go into their powers/abilities and stuff, I'd like to see some of that but with Axl's voice.

I agree.  Besides, much like the rest of the band, Steven was caught totally off guard and couldn't have reacted quickly, especially since the speech isn't very long.  I have the 10/18/89 bootleg with that speech.  Interestingly, the show doesn't sound anywhere near as bad as the band members say it was.  But they have their perspective....

I agree.

I have all 4 shows.  And I think the 3rd of the 4 nights (10.21.89) is the best one, but that first show is not a bad one.

I'm  not a fan of Canter, I hope this never sees the light of day.

And as for that last statement it isnt "their" music, it is music Axl helped to write and create.

Whats wrong with Marc Canter? him talking about GNR offends your delicate sensibilities? : )


Are you a Guns N Roses fan?... because I am... and because of that i'd be interested to see what is presented...I seriously doubt it would be a "good" movie... but i still would be very interested to see what comes of it.

I'm not opposed to it just because I think Axl probably doesn't approve.

There is your disconnect.

I don't even blame Axl, really.  He obviously gives no fucks about any sort of reunion or reliving the glory days.

Does Canter really have any fans, per say?  hahaha..

U have eaten at the Canters Deli, in the Mirage Hotel in Las Vegas.  and I must tell you the cake there is to die for!  Nothing better than a grill cheese and double chocolate cake in vegas at 3am.   lol, oh ya there is way more better things there..  But it was still good.

More stupid comments, why am I not surprised?

Don't know how delicate your sensibilities are, but my sensibilities are based on common sense.

I think deli boy has ridden the coat tails of GNR long enough, he hasn't had any contact in years but yet there he is answering questions about current GNRs.

Optioning is by no stretch of the imagination a guarantee that a movie will be made, I hope it never is.

He seems to have a little crowd of synchophants gathered around him in his netherworld.

I've eaten at Canter's in LA at the insistence of friends, wasn't really impressed at the food or the cleanliness.

Yeah, piss on Marc Canter, right?  ::)

He gave us "Reckless Road" book, which is so unique that it should get some form of Nobel Prize in music (related) business. He is a true and honest(!) source for classic (pre-)AFD GN'R times and, wuuhuhuu evil Marc is communicating with fans nearly on a daily basis about exact that era Axl kinda works on to erase from his life. There is hardly any other way to get information about! And, believe it or not, there are still armys of fans of THAT era!

edit:
communicating with fans nearly on a daily basis

I honestly hope the movie gets made just to piss you off.

I think him answering questions about how Axl currently feels is quite silly... he wouldn't know...

But like you said... stories about old GNR... he's a great source.

Who cares if a deli owner talks to fans on an online forum about someone he used to communicate with in the past?

He has no right nor approval to be flapping his pie hole about any current GNR biz.

That's  what we need, a crap movie about GNRs, that isn't condoned nor endorsed.

It isn't Canter's story to tell, he needs to stick to his fascinating deli business. I'm  sure a Motza ball movie would be fascinating.

What a grandstanding leech he is. :rant:

Marc is definitely an opportunist.  But I'd have the same amount of zero interest in a movie Axl "condoned or endorsed". 

Canter might just be peddling a tale of "remember when.." ("The lowest form of conversation" - Tony Soprano), but at least the stuff happened.  Axl's would be a fairy tale.

Hi, just to go off topic a bit. Quick question, Why would a topic about the Reckless Road movie be in the Dead Horse section? Wouldn't the movie be about GNR? Just a question from a newbie not meant to cause any arguments.

It's from the old time.

Because it's one of those things that has been talked about for ages. "Who's gonna be Axl?", and so on and so on.





/jarmo

I share that view on Canter, but it is extra special that you can peek into people's minds online, and come to the conclusion "it would be a fairy tale".

I think Jarmo has summed you up nicely, "you think you know everything" (but you haven't  got a clue)  :-*

I have never met him, but he really doesn't come off as a bad guy to me... maybe a little delusional I don't know, and obviously very hurt, so maybe he feels like he's getting revenge or whatever or trying to fix something...and if he is hoping for a reconciliation, that ship has most definitely sailed.

I don't feel like he's trying to make money off the GNR name... he seems to genuinely care

Remember he was  Axl's CLOSE friend....not a former employee of his. There is deep rooted stuff there.


But like I;ve said people who ask him questions on how Axl currently feels.... makes no sense... he wouldn't know

Well, here's what I do know.

Axl released a statement after not attending the Rock N' Roll Hall Of Fame thanking people for the "overwhelming support" he received for not going.  And how he was "relieved" because he thought it might have gone the other way, and he would be seen in the wrong.

Cute story.

In actual fact, he was skewered from just about every angle imaginable, up to, and including the event itself.  Where he was booed by a room full of Guns N' Roses fans.

This does not suggest a man that is a slave to accuracy (or really, even reality) if it comes to a situation where he looks bad. 

Therefore, I have a hard time believing any film that he was behind would show him in anything but the most favorable of lights.  Even if you have to flat out make shit up to get there.

Maybe he doesn't count people like yourself? :D
Maybe he's not talking about fans of the old band who don't consider the band Guns N' Roses? Maybe their opinion doesn't matter to him?

Also, is it possible that Axl's response wasn't only based on what you know? Is it possible people reached out to him and supported his decision without you knowing this happened? Is it possible that you don't know this part?




/jarmo

Oh, no doubt.  Another case of the unverifiable that, wouldn't you know it, broke totally his way.  His middle name might as well be Fortuitous.

That press release was embarrassing and a total vacation from reality.  It read like any number of your posts around here, frankly.  Makes sense only if you shut your brain off.

He was not lauded or respected for it.  At best, people thought he could have sucked it up.  At worst, it was just another entry into the file that he doesn't play well with others.

Stop the madness.

The madness is you assuming that everybody disagreed with it because it fucked up your big plan for the reunion.

By the way, in case you forgot, both the guys who were there and started Guns N' Roses skipped the ceremony.




/jarmo

What do you mean he isn't talking about all those folks?  The public that Axl addressed is indeed the public, which constitutes more than mere random, selective groups that conveniently support his side of the story.


I'm sure people who knew him did reach out and support him.  Axl and his current band have got their fans and there is no disputing that.

But given the fact that Axl directed these statements to the public -- not to mention the fact that he stated outright that he expected the reaction to go the other way, and that he expected to deal with the fallout for months -- very strongly implies that he isn't talking strictly about his personal friends or people that only he personally would hear from.  He was obviously talking about the public in general, otherwise his references to them wouldn't have been so strong.

In both his original letter and follow up letters, Axl clearly indicates that he is aware of the negative channels of perception towards him (and that he contends with it), so it isn't logical to assume he only pays attention to personal, private messages that he got from his fans, his twitter, his facebook, or wherever.

In Axl's defense, he admitted that he didn't tune in to the Hall of Fame ceremony in 2012.  So perhaps he genuinely isn't aware that the entire crowd launched into a massive chorus of boos when Axl was announced.... and Billie Joe Armstrong didn't even recognize Axl by name!  He merely said, "now who am I missing...." and the crowd didn't hesitate to hurl catcalls Axl's way, to the point where Armstrong had to silence them multiple times before they stopped.

So yes, of course Axl has supporters that back him in his decision not to attend the Hall of Fame.  It was his own decision, and if he feels it was right for him, I say power to him.  But let's not kid ourselves and/or rewrite history and say that the general public reaction towards Axl was "overwhelmingly positive".

The public is a pretty general term isn't it?

Sometimes when people say "fans", they actually might mean a specific group of people, like the people who go to the shows and spend money on tickets. Not the ones who stay at home complaining about the setlist. But both think of themselves as fans... ;)




There you go.


Nobody's rewriting history. Except that one guy who claimed Chinese was sold for $1.99 the week after its release... ;)

Just pointing out that there's always more to the picture than some either want to see, or can't see.




/jarmo

Right, my big reunion plans.

Which is why I consistently say I'd want a new album from the current line-up more than anything, but would also roll with one done by the CD guys.

This is how I communicate my reunion desires.

As a bonus, I also mercilessly mock anyone and everyone that thought the HOF was going to lead to some Hollywood ending where they work it all out.  Lampoon them as complete fucking idiots living in fantasyland.

This is how I communicate my reunion desires.

It all adds up.

That none of us ever see or hear from.  Just take our man's word this is all happening.

A real fan wouldn't have to question it.



Exactly.  C'mon now.

Critical thinking involves surveying available evidence and forming a conclusion.

Not starting with a desired conclusion and then crafting a set of circumstances where it might be plausible.

You're saying the people who didn't agree with the decision did so because they didn't want that reunion?



Funny how it often means ignoring things you don't want to hear/know...  :hihi:

Part of the conclusion could be that the so called available evidence is either misleading, bullshit or just not enough to form a proper conclusion. Now, I'm aware that none of this matters to you.
Also, other people might have other evidence to survey and therefore might come to different conclusions than someone such as yourself.  :D



I'm very critical of most of the things you say. See, critical thinking in action! :D




/jarmo

Some, but not all.

They are part of a smaller subset of a general public that felt like he could have sucked it up for 25-35 minutes of his life.  Not everyone that thought he looked bad not showing up wanted a reunion, but everyone that thought he looked bad showing up felt he was being a bit juvenile.

The main idea being that the reaction was not "overwhelmingly positive" by any means.



You are critical, sure.  But most of your counterarguemnts are nonsensical, and show a complete lack of critical thinking.

Everything starts from the same point : Axl is not in the wrong.  From there, we craft a scenario where that might make sense.

Example : The reaction to his not going to the HOF was not "overwhelmingly positive", as he claimed.

The Jarmospin :  "Ok, well...maybe he didn't mean the general public (yeah, OK).  Perhaps he meant he got support behind the scenes (yeah...behind the scenes, that works).  And just because you can't disprove that, you can't say it didn't happen.  (yeah, yeah, that's the ticket).  So, really...it actually does make sense. And no real fan would be questioning any of this."

But come on, man.  Is it really the end of the world to say Axl's statement was off base?  That's a big deal?

My belief is that I don't judge based on one side of the story. You on the other hand have no problem with this.

Usually when people write an open letter, it's from their point of view. If something appears to be positive and supportive to them, then who are you to say they're wrong because that's how it looks from your point of view?

I'm happy that you got one more thing you don't like about Axl on your list.


/jarmo

A little melodramatic there, Jarmo.

Common sense.



/jarmo

so, after lots of "unseen" years i did see "Sick Of It All" last night and had a blast. they do have a very stable line up for like 20 years or so?
it makes it some extra special indeed, not that i didnt know it before, but that really was just the extra kick, seeing your old heroes in the same band still. and they really delivered a great show, too! no bad aging to be seen there.
its good not to concentrate on 1 band only.

back to topic:
i feel a nice documentary, not a movie with actors, would be the better solution when it comes to GN'R Pre-Appetite era. Marc Canter has all the footage and pics and still good connections. i'd be a first day buyer anyway. but do we get like Axl's permission in this? i really hope so! he blocks and sues anout everything having Slash in it, it makes me wonder if we ever can get out smth. great in video from that era (next to concert recordings)?

Synch rights will be necessary to use GNR music in this purported "film".

Who thinks they will be granted?

So its "common sense" that rolling one's eyes as a laughable spin someone tries to put on an unfavorable situation means you don't like the guy?

Totally ridiculous.  

It just means you found his spin on that subject to be total foolishness.  Don't overthink it.

How do you know he didn't get a lot of support? (Rhetorical question)

The RRHOF is Jann Wenner's good ol' boys club, that they have convinced some of the gullible public is relevant and somewhat important. It is a circle jerk of massive proportions and corrupt, imo.

People always hate, and resent people they can't control, and people they can't be. :-*

Because I saw the reaction.  Both in the room that night (a room of his own fans) and via several outlets where people spoke on it.  "Good for you, Axl!!" wasn't a thing that happened.

Now, if Jarmo, or you, or anyone else wants to jump trough a bunch of hoops to craft some scenario where his statement was true, you have at it.  Like how its wrong to infer he meant public reaction (which was all negative) and what he really meant was that his got the thumbs up from his own mailman and the guy at the deli counter.  I have no interest in that sort of rationalization, because its sillyness.

The simplest answer is often the right one.  Unless you don't like that answer, of course.  Then, we theorize.  Sometimes, to absurd lengths.

His own fans who paid to be there hoping to see a reunion of some sort.

For a person who loves to speculate a lot about matters you have limited knowledge of, for some reason that speculation is often one sided.



/jarmo

Like was said earlier : some, not all. 

But all felt he could have sucked it up for a half hour.



I speculate based on the reality of things.  If the reality I'm given is a grim one, not much I can do about that.

But its not on me to try and church it up.  Nor am I some bad fan if I don't feel the need to perpetually look for the good spin.  Who, exactly, am I trying to fool?  If I find Axl's spin to be a fantasy based on everything I see, why is it then incumbent on me to try and find some other scenario, any scenario, where if might, possibly, if you think about it...be true?

Of course they do! They wanted to see that reunion in some form. It's very simple.
Those of us who don't care, we weren't booing!  :hihi:




I don't think that's always the case.
I think you just choose to believe certain things.




/jarmo

You seem to break things into 2 categories : good news, and how can we spin this as good news (or at the least, not bad news).

I don't share that desire.  Never have, never will. 

I'm not going to start throwing stuff out there that makes me look like a joke if I actually believe it, all for the grand payoff of being deemed a worthy fan by you, or anyone else.

No, but what I don't do is revel in bad news. And I know that whatever happens, there's a reason. Sometimes what you consider bad news is in the eye of the beholder.





/jarmo

No hoops required :-*

http://www.cnn.com/videos/bestoftv/2012/04/20/piers-morgan-only-in-america-in-defense-of-axl-rose.cnn (http://www.cnn.com/videos/bestoftv/2012/04/20/piers-morgan-only-in-america-in-defense-of-axl-rose.cnn)

1) He's right, that August 1991 Copenhagen show is awesome.

2) I don't disagree with him saying he's not shocked Axl didn't go.  I was shocked people thought he might.  Since when does he play ball?

3) But ultimately, this is one dude.  And one dude, "overwhelming support" does not make.

Perhaps not overwhelming, but you nonetheless spent the past 2 pages going on about how Axl and his mailman were the only ones who supported him when in fact Piers Morgan - a fairly big deal in the journalism community - went on national television and vehemently defended Axl's decision.

If that works for you, I'm not going to shit on it.

Classic.  :hihi:




/jarmo

I wouldn't call one guy "overwhelming support". 

Then again, I wouldn't call a disgraced tabloid guy "a fairly big deal in the journalism community" either.

We seem to have something of a disconnect.  Simple as that.  Like I said, if both of those statements ring true to you, like I said, not gonna shit on it.

Not necessarily.  A lot of fans who attended the show might not have cared about the reunion either.  They booed Axl because he didn't care to show up at the Hall of Fame.  That's not the same thing as booing because there wasn't a reunion (even if a brief, podium reunion would've occurred).  The fans at the Hall of Fame paid money to see Guns N Roses inducted and the singer didn't show up.  That rubbed some people the wrong way.  They're entitled to feel that way.  It doesn't mean they're doing it strictly because they're reunion hounds.

And yes, I realized they didn't boo no-show Stradlin, but Izzy isn't Axl (meaning they're not equal in the public's perception of GNR), and Izzy didn't make a huge announcement on why he was refusing to attend.

Precisely.

That's what I meant. They wanted Axl on stage with the majority of the old band at the same time.

The bought tickets hoping to see it, just like sports fans buy tickets and hope to see their team win. There's no guarantee though.


/jarmo

Frankly, it was a bad bet.   You were pretty much hoping went totally against convention.

If they had a beef, its that his initial statement didn't exactly shoot it down.  But, we've been fan of this guy 25 years.  Was there much chance he was going to show up and chill with his buddy Slash?

That's not the only issue. These people who run this organization are telling artists who's in and who's not. There's no clear guidelines.

Of course they would've loved the publicity if they had managed to reunite the old band for their event.




/jarmo

If I'd have bought tickets, I would only realistically expect the others.

If Axl showed up out of nowhere, hey, great.  But if that's why you bought tickets, you were foolish.

I could see not wanting to perform with the old guys, because his current band is dead in the water at that very moment.  Totally support his not wanting to play.  I can also get onboard not wanting to sit there and bullshit with a guy you CLEARLY have issues with.  Hey, fine.

But would it have killed him to arrive mid-show, wait backstage, come out and accept the award with the other guys...and then walk right offstage and out of the building?  Shit, you could have kept the car running if you wanted.

Wouldn't that have been a nice thing for the fans?  And at the same time, be some decent P.R. for Axl Rose, the difficult diva?

Even KISS managed to show up together last year at the HOF, and there was bad mouthing old band members all way up to the event.

The "overwhelming support" is just a bad joke, twisted crap and nonsense in Axl's unrealistic view of the world.
stuff like that happens when concentrating (or being concentrated!) on a very few positive things only, but leaving out about all the other factors. to give an extreme analogy: you can say Hitler created lots of cool motorways and cared about over-polution  :confused:

I have said this before... my only beef with Axl was the nonsense about how he or his "camp" (which is amusingly a word known by all GNR fans) made no demands from the HOF... anybody with half a brain knows thats not true, Unless team brazil does all the negotiating behind his back... then that was definitely false. (Not looking to argue about it tho)

I would have liked to have seen him attend and accept the award. I 100 percent am behind the decision not to have performed a one off, because it would have been the end of the current Guns N Roses. But IMO, him not showing up at all and sending out that letter made him look petty, and I like it when he looks good, not bad.

Exactly.

Which is why I shake me head when people start going on about how he can't get a fair shake in the press.  Know why?  Its shit like this.  What is the sense of feeding into the established clich? about yourself?  Is that doing you any favors?

And who the fuck knows... maybe if he had gone... these two knuckleheads could have said hello to each other and maybe we could finally end the constant bi annual lawsuits back n forth !

 ;)

So in your opinion Axl needs to kiss the media's ass to be treated fairly.
In other words, you want him to be less himself and more like somebody else.

In usual fashion, instead of having understanding for "your" team, you have understanding for the other team.




/jarmo

No.  Just act like a grown-up every now and again.

The petulant child thing might seem good in the moment.  Over time, a picture of you develops and that becomes your public perception.

if you truly don't care, there is no big deal.  But Axl does care.  And his fans like you DEFINITELY care.



My god, "your team", "other team"?  Do you hear yourself right now?

Axl didnt show to award show   :crying:

I mean really do you care? and on top of that i think the rock n roll hall of fame is a load of bollocks. (Im not british)

Since when music, especially rock n roll music is a competition?
Then when you win you have to pay thousands of dollars for a table at the ceremony just that you can wear a suit in front of the music industry and thank them because they made you a rock n roll winner.

Nobody is bitching that Dizzy and Izzy didnt show up.

Same goes with the Grammy awards.


I think Axl Dizzy and Izzy made the right decision 

Do I care?  No.  I never expected him to go.  Since when does he do the right thing?

Does he look bad for not going?  Yes.  It doesn't make him a serial killer, but it just fed into the existing picture of the man.

This all started, not talking him not showing up, but his take he received "overwhelming support" for not doing so.  That's nonsense.  Yes, yes...even with the Piers Morgan stamp of approval.

And I don't buy into all these questions he has about the HOF.  That's just he and some of his more rabid defenders trying to church it up.  He didn't go for 2 reasons :

- Slash was there
- He didn't want to invite the comparison between line-ups, a battle he loses handily

Just to play the other side of the coin.... did you also protest Axl accepting the Golden God award? ( I know, they honored only Axl, and didn't disgustingly try to get him on a stage with the evil one)

btw I would have liked to have seen Izzy show up at the HOF as well... but this is a GNR board... which Axl is in firm control of and has been for some time, so the focus is naturally on him, and not Izzy

as for Dizzy... would have been cool to see him too, but he proved that he doesn't have a thought of his own when he first said it was an honor and that he was going to go, only to change his mind when Axl decided not to

BUT, I agree with you, music is not a competition, I think we are just discussing all the sides and dressing that went with it and this band.

It is most certainly a Dead Horse, but it was a big moment in GNR history, so that's why it's frequently discussed.

GREAT point.

People around here were waxing poetic about that like it was a lifetime achievement Oscar.  It was a random show broadcast from what looked like an empty warehouse, and shown in the middle of the night on basic cable.

Do you really want to try and compare the 2 honors?



Very much so.  He also didn't do much to combat the public perception he has.

I know MSL has a checkered history with GNR,  but he stated recently that he knows the "camp" had tried hard to negotiate a resolution with the HOF... that they wouldn't play but that he'd get on stage with the other guys for the acceptance as long as the others were not labeled as members of Guns N Roses on screen.

He also said Duff thought this was going to happen up until the letter was sent out.

Thought that was interesting.

I'd like to go back to this potential movie...

if the stars aligned and Axl supported it in some fashion... and whoever made it , did a good job with it ... It could be a great promotional tool for the entire GNR brand no?

I am a cynical as can be.  All the more when it comes to our name here.

But even I must admit that first letter he put out did give me pause for a second.  That he might actually do the right thing.

It was fleeting, however.

No, I didnt think much of it, of course its nice that the work of Guns gets honored,

but if it makes Axl and the band happy to do a award show like this and on top of that they get to play a little show, thats great! Im sure that everybody there had a great day, and the fans got a new pro-shot gig to watch (the full uncut version still hasent gone out right?)


Im not protesting, I just think that no one should  criticize people who have the balls to refuse doing something they stand against, or simply dosent feel right for them.

I'm not critical of the decision, I just think the letter wasnt completely accurate.

As a fan of Axl, I was disappointed, but if the final outcome made him sleep easier at night, then all the power to him.

Did you read his actual letter? Maybe you accidentally forgot.
He explained his reasons and it was very adult. For some reason, this didn't register with you. Doesn't fit your image of Axl or the "go to image" of him that resides in your head.




My God, do you ever address points or just try to ridicule what others say?
Fact remains, you are quick to understand the media but not Axl. No need to explain yourself. We know how biased you truly are.


Here you are, almost three years later with you complaining about how Axl handled an award show. Wanna go back to talking about the lack of promotion again?

 :hihi:



/jarmo

But who was really doing that?

This was about the spin he tried to put out after, claiming "overwhelming support" for his decision.

Yep.  To put it mildly.

I read it.  It was damage control spin and a fantasy read of how it played with the peeps.

Pretty much as I've said for pages now.

You don't like that, of course, because god forbid we criticize something.  Even something as trivial as this.



I answered your points in the first section of the post.  I quoted this part separately because it didn't have to do with the subject.

But you sound ridiculous with that whole bit.  "your team", "other team", etc.  If that's how you see the world, little wonder why you are such the life of the party around here.  My lord.



No, I'm talking about a topic that came up.  Simple as that.

I don't think you realize there were TWO letters and I'm talking about the first one: http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/news/shownews.php?newsid=2247
Easy to forget.


Here you are! :D




Don't care how I sound to you. I'd love to see you prove me wrong on what I said. Even once. Instead of trying to ridicule me. :D
Your condescending tone speaks volumes. This has nothing to do with how I might, or might not, see the world. You take the side of whoever isn't on Axl's side of the so called virtual fence.




/jarmo

Read it.  Read it the day it came out, as all of us did, I suspect.



Well, not too long. 

He got that "overwhelmingly positive" reaction right after.  It all worked out for him, right?



There are no "teams".  Its a freakin' rock band.

Putting this in those terms speaks to a rabid persecution complex and a deep need for there to always be boogeymen in your life.

You'll be there until eternity to remind us all of it.


I used the fucking quotation marks for a reason.
You've yet to prove me wrong by the way. You just keep trying to ridicule what I said. I'm sure you got the point, but won't address it. It's fine. Let's focus on what I look like. It's more important. Always is more important to talk about me than the issues brought up.

 :D



/jarmo

What is there to talk about on that front?

You are in Axl's pocket, I'm not, this annoys you.  Is that front page news?

I'm not anybody's pocket.

Does it annoy you that some of the things Axl has said could be aimed at you?




/jarmo

Yeah, you're a wicked free thinker.

Does it annoy me?  Not really.  For starters, I'm assured all the time that I nothing I say matters.  Seems a bit disingenuous to now suggest Axl is tailoring responses to me or anyone like me.

But in a more bottom line sense, I don't take all that much offense to things my favorite athletes or artists say.  I have never had a problem divorcing my appreciation for their talents versus what kind of person they might be.  Any Mike Tyson fan, or Axl Rose fan for that matter, can tell you the same.

You're funny.

Can I use that same card on you? You're one sad individual who fills a void in his life by constantly whining about a band. It's only a rock band, supposed to not be serious but you spend day after day whining about shit you have no control over. Sounds productive and fun!

Is that ok? Can I do that? I don't know you, never met you, but can I still post things about you no matter how far of, or close to the truth it is?



It doesn't matter what they think of you? How come your kind is always quick to point out how the band's management doesn't like the fans. Obviously that kind of shit does matter!




/jarmo

Go right ahead.  It's your dime.

I'd be content to measure our respective reactions to each to gauge how close to home such talk hits.

Would you?

It's difficult to have a conversation with somebody who has a skewed view of reality as yourself.

You know very little about me. Yet you post things like you knew me and what I'm about.
You just have an image in your head. Just like you have images in your head about anybody you never met. You think you know them because you've read about them and seen interviews, but you really have no clue.



/jarmo

I don't know you the person.  Never claimed I did.

I know the online you.  All of my comments are about the online you.  And all of it is backed up by your own posts.

I would have zero qualms defending any of it (along with notations) nor much fear an objective third party could read any of it and say I was making wild or unfounded assumptions.

But if I'm so wrong, why not just let me be wrong?  I can assure you I would never, ever, ever spend this much time fretting over some incorrect assumption you made about me.  Tends to fly in the face of the claim it does not bother me.

Just some food for thought.

You're saying you don't care when somebody questions whether or not you're a real fan?

The "problem " (notice the quotes) I have is that you come here and keep posting shit that simply isn't true. I have no problem with what you think of me, I don't care. But you can't come to my house and talk shit about me. You can think what you want, don't care. I'm not gonna sit idly by while you spew that on here though.

I'm not aiming for popularity. Never was.



/jarmo

In that particular case, I'd likely ask the other person for some basis for that label so we could talk about it.

Once provided, I'm not too worried about being able to set it straight myself.  Assuming anyone reading the case against me wouldn't already be at that conclusion on their own.

Eddie Trunk supported his decision too. Howard Stern also talked about how ridiculous the RRHOF is as far as who's not in it, so he supported Axl's questioning how people get in. I remember other supportive articles at the time too. "Overwhelming" support is completely subjective. No one is arguing that the reaction tipped the scales to the negative side more than the positive. But if Axl expected to get ZERO support, and he actually got more than a few to Take his side. That right there could be viewed as "overwhelming" from his standpoint.

Fair enough.

I would obviously disagree, but its an argument to make.

I'm sure they could list a bunch of things.




It's in the eye of the beholder.

Like I've said.

D-X isn't Axl Rose.
No matter how much he wishes he was. ;)




/jarmo

And I am still disputing that, regardless of what kind of reunion you meant.  Reunion or no reunion, the fact is that Axl didn't show up.  People booed him for that -- for no-showing -- not just because it killed their dreams of a reunion.

Agreed.

People booed because Axl couldn't have sucked it up for a few minutes, all to celebrate the greatest success he will ever have in his life.

You think they would've cheered him if he had showed up after everybody else left the stage?

He didn't wanna be there. It wasn't for him. Instead of people respecting that, we got people booing. They bought tickets to a party somebody organizes for somebody else and then get pissed off when that person decides to skip the party since it's not really his thing...




/jarmo

No, he certainly doesn't, although if he had appeared briefly at the Hall of Fame and accepted, I hardly think that would've constituted "kissing the media's ass".


And after it too.  The only moments that the Simmons/Stanley side played nice with the Criss/Frehley side was right there at the event.

Axl could've done exactly what Gene did: acknowledge current members of the band in his speech.  Gene mentioned Eric Singer and Tommy Thayer, as well as past players who weren't inducted, Bruce Kulick and Eric Carr.  (Paul and Gene also previously disputed what lineup should be inducted, or perform at the event.)


Well, it wasn't wholeheartedly immature, I'll grant you.  But he did make the comments about how the Hall of Fame wasn't a place where he was wanted or respected.

I'm not privy to what may have gone on behind the scenes if the Hall spoke to Axl privately (and maybe that will be the rebuttal presented to my comments here), but I suspect that Axl felt (especially given his other comments implying the Hall didn't have any "right" to choose the members inducted) that the lack of current members was behind his statement there.  If the Hall is recognizing the original lineup, Axl certainly is welcome there, and if he feels otherwise, maybe it's because HE is awkward around the other original members, as opposed to his claim the Hall of Fame is the place that doesn't want or respect him.

I'm sure the Hall of Fame wasn't entirely ignorant of the feuding between original GNR members, but that doesn't mean they deliberately inducted the 5 original guys just for the sake of putting them onstage together to get a reaction.  As Duff said very eloquently in response to all the controversy, "I don't know if it matters who's here, [because] it's about the music this band created".

Exactly.  The music got them inducted by the Hall, not the controversy on who might show up.  So Axl's comments about the HALL not wanting or respecting him were a little off, if you ask me.


It would've been awkward, but it would've gone over a little better, I would think.  At least Axl would've been standing there, and the fans would've heard him speak to them.



Well, "respect" is a funny thing.  Like everything else in life, "respect" is a two-way street.  You can argue that Axl's decision should've been respected, which is fair enough.  He had his reasons.  But the other side is that some people think Axl didn't respect the fans enough to acknowledge what they considered to be a great accomplishment.  Whichever side you are on, you're always going to disagree with the other side.  You're always gonna think your side is more logical, reasonable, and acceptable.  But in the end, it will always be a two-way street, and we all have to contend with that.  That certainly includes people on both sides of this issue.

Great post, Bridge.  Well said, all around.

My comment wasn't about the ceremony. It was general.
Not everything said about Axl is based on that night.




Of course they can be seen that way. We're all outsiders looking in.
We didn't have to deal with most of it.

But when one band gets their latest guitarist inducted and GN'R only gets their pre-1991 members inducted, it's not that difficult to see why Axl might not feel welcome.



The thing here is that many of those disagreeing with Axl probably wouldn't like to go spend time with certain people from their past just because others think they should....




/jarmo

But nothing done post 1993 is relevant to GNR's induction.

If they never put out another album from 1994 on, they still get in.  Its not like anything Axl has done 2001 onwards moved the needle at all.



But is that realistic?  The analogy, I mean.

Millions of people didn't follow myself and a friendship with some dude that went south for whatever reason.

Maybe that's why Axl felt that way!?!
Imagine you being told that nothing that you've done in your life for the last two decades didn't matter.



Regarding the analogy. So just because you become famous with somebody, you'll always have to remain "friendly" with that person? That's not how business works in reality.

It's a rock band, it's not supposed to be serious. That's what I've read.
Yet people booing took it very seriously...
 



/jarmo

Well...who's fault is that?

If Axl didn't spend 12 years making one album, he might have had a stronger case for split induction.  If he had 3 albums out in that time frame, how is his argument not strengthened?

But you can't turn back time.



And in reality, sometime you have to do shit you don't want to do.  That's called being an adult.

This was a celebratory event.  Can we stop pretending it was working on a chain gang?  This was a celebration of the best work Axl will ever do.

And it would have been nice for the fans.  That's what you can't seem to get into your noggin.  Any hard feelings, from the stuff published online right through the boos in room itself, it was an expression of disappointment Axl couldn't suck it up.

Is that among the rules? You can't spend more than X amount of time on an album or it'll get disregarded?




Sometimes you need to do shit you don't want to because you literally have no choice. Axl had a choice....

Would you like to lead by example and be a bit more positive? I know you don't want to, but if you were asked nicely by others, could you? :D




Which fans?
As you know, I'm not like you, and a bunch of people aren't like you either. Some of us really don't care about that whole award. We didn't lose any sleep over it or boo anybody.




/jarmo

The induction was in 2012.

When you don't get an album out until 2008, and it doesn't make any impact on the band legacy, that's all you have to try and argue the post 1993 guys might deserve induction.

Logically, if you'd have gotten out more work in all that time, you would have more to argue with.  Both in terms of volume of body of work, and perhaps something would have caught on or made some sort of mark.

But none of that happened.  Axl only left himself one show to make a mark with all his delays, and it didn't land.  His argument was weak.



Which he made and people reacted to it.  No one is saying any differently.

No, I don't agree. As I've pointed out, other bands had current members inducted even if they didn't take part in the band's "golden years".

There's no rules, these people do as they want. I guess it's fair since it's their museum. But you can't expect everybody to agree with it.




/jarmo

True. But in GNR's case do you think they got the members who were inducted wrong.......

I guess we could argue they did or didn't until we were blue in the face... but let's be real.

It's been a few years now, it really isn't a big deal anymore. I't was a tough spot for Axl. His FIRST letter doesn't make a whole lotta sense in some regards, they certainly did try to make some demands of the HOF...it didn't work out. Slash was and is too big of a hurdle.

I feel for the fan who was hoping to see the band they grew up with be recognized together. I understand the lure of that.

I have no idea how they choose who gets in and who doesn't. Personally, this museum doesn't matter. Doesn't make a band or artists any better if they're in, or if they aren't.


But I can see why Axl wrote that letter. They just disregarded what he had spent over 15 years on. You can say what you want about that, that's your opinion. You might not like the album, you might not like the band, whatever. But to others it definitely looks like the usual "GN'R doesn't exist anymore" crap.



/jarmo

So, basically, you are taking them to task for following his lead.

The museum may not matter, but it's not like it's not an honor to be recognized. Even Axl who claimed to have several issues with the HOF acknowledged several times that it was an honor to be nominated and inducted.

I don't look at it as they don't exist or don't matter, I think the album is great. It's just the proof is in the pudding... theres only a handful of songs to examine from this time period.

Like I said, if you were invited to a party based on something you did about 20 years ago, and you were told you need to hang out with your friends from that period only, maybe you'd stay at home too.



/jarmo

I don't disagree with that aspect of it.

Did any of the current guys even feel they should have been in attendance or inducted?  Was that said somewhere?

Don't think they talked about it.




/jarmo

Didn't think so. 

Axl's suspect argument would perhaps be strengthened if they did though.

I've wondered, if they had ventured in to CD for inductions... where do you draw the line? Everybody from Freese to Frank and Bucket to DJ ? Induct everybody who ever got paid for one recording session or played at least one show?

I don't think that was Axl's main gripe as fas as attending or not attending... I'm sure Axl understands... Just guessing, that it was more to how an appearance with Slash would affect the current efforts.

Of course that's what it is.  These hypothetical and diversionary conversations are fun as a lark, but we all know god damn well this was about Slash.

As for the current guys, or even the guys that worked on CD but are long gone, do you think they seriously expected induction?  DJ Ashba has literally never performed a note on a GNR album.  Guys like Ron or Frank were not involved in any sort of creation, and simply had some of their stuff imposed over finished tracks to give the impression of collaboration.

These guys thought they deserved to go into the HOF under the GNR banner?  I have a hard time believing that.

In the final analysis, Axl is using all this "confusion" about the process because it sounds better than saying he's not going because he's mad at Slash.

Do you think Axl has a real strong understanding of the inner working and process the Golden Gods uses?  I doubt it.  Did he even ask?  I doubt it.

But Slash wasn't there, so Axl was.  Simple as that.

Probably not quite as simple as that... but overall... I do think if Slash had stated he wasn't attending the HOF... the percentages of Axl showing would have gone up 95 percent. 

Not judging the man... we all hate who we hate.

Agreed.

And conversely, if Slash started making noises about coming to the Golden Gods, Axl's interest in that one plummets.

Nah, it isn't  "as simple as that" wrong again.

But you know it all, or pretend like you do.

It's a gift.

And a curse.

Let me get this straight. People think Axl didn't go because of Slash?
Once the induction was announced back in 2011, I think everyone assumed the former members inducted would attend? Don't you think?

So, if Axl knew that Slash was going back then, couldn't he have said "No!" since day one? But he didn't.


I think this is just another case of "it makes sense to me, so this is how it must be".



/jarmo

Yeah.  Pretty much.

I don't know how seriously he was considering attending anyway, as such things tend to not be his bag.  But I think the chances of his attendance were 0% with Slash there.  How much they increase if he was told he was not going to be there, I can't say.  But any number is higher than zero.

Then, you have the Golden Gods.  So even if you want to say that its not out of the ordinary for Axl to skip award type shows, I'd agree.  But it seems so long as you honor Axl Rose, and not the band Guns N' Roses, and therefore have no former members there...he shows up. 

And doesn't fret about "the process" of it all.

Golden Gods was his award, not the band's.

And the band was performing there. Not the old band, and no reunion issues to "worry" about.


I don't think he had closed the door on attending until he found out more about it all. So in essence, I don't think who was attending was the final straw.


/jarmo

So you think the new Red Hot Chili Peppers guitarist who was in the band all of 15 minutes at the time of their induction deserved to be inducted but not even Tommy Stinson and Chris Pitman who've been in Guns' for 17 years and have played hundreds of shows with the band?

Obviously that was a fugaze induction

But no I don't think tommy and Chris belong and I'm sure neither do they

Certain people seem set on rewriting history and events to support their narrative.

I have no opinion on the Chili Peppers.

17 years is a long time, but what are the fruits of that labor?  15 total songs.

And did those 15 songs really affect the band's legacy?  If Axl never got it together and CD was still in the vault collecting dust, do you honestly think they don't get in?

I think they'd feel awkward saying it out loud.

Why not? You have an opinion on everything else!

Maybe it's not convenient to say yes or no because it proves the point the poster made.





/jarmo

Yeah?  Well you can keep arguing tons of examples: wasn't Robert Trujillo inducted (rather absurdly) with Metallica?  Then there was Kiss, where only the original four members were inducted, despite Kiss continuing to be a successful, platinum selling act sans makeup during the 1980s, featuring members such as Bruce Kulick and Eric Carr?  One could easily argue that the 80s lineups kept Kiss in the public eye enough to make people want a reunion of the original members.

However, at the end of the day, comparing GNR to other inducted acts is merely grabbing for straws.  We all acknowledge that the Hall of Fame has no guidelines, they make the judgment call as to what members get in.  It doesn't change the fact that the current GNR lineup (or any lineup post-1993) hasn't advanced GNR's legacy.  The 2002-present lineups have served as little more than fodder for hardcore fans, like many bands after their heyday has passed, regardless of the fact that any of those lineups has included long-serving members.

Yup . End of story .

Not really.

Who got in with the Chili Peppers, who didn't get in with the Chili Peppers, whether the Chili Peppers were abducted by aliens.

None of that is going to affect my opinion the current guys don't have a strong case for inclusion.

Spot on.

So in your opinion it's logical that a guy who played guitar on one album is inducted while people who were there for 15 years weren't even considered?
I mean, I know it makes sense to you since in your opinion those guys aren't really GN'R...




/jarmo

I'm saying I don't care!  Who gives a shit?

If they decided to put different guys in for the Chili Peppers, so what?  Had they done it the way you saw fit, is that going to have any bearing on GNR legacy?

What's the endgame of this particular line of argument? 

The endgame (another one of your favorite terms, I just wanna add pity party and track record so we get a more complete post with all phrases in one place), is that the so called Hall of Fame makes no fucking sense and it's no wonder Axl didn't feel welcome when some bands get whoever inducted, other bands never get inducted and in other cases it's dictated what band members should be in and who shouldn't.

Yes, it's their party. Their rules. But don't be surprised if everybody doesn't wanna come and play your game.



/jarmo

It's not really much of a wonder.

As for the endgame of the argument, I'm just struggling to see the connection.  Who did, or did not, get in for another band has zero to do with nothing after 1994 having anything to do with GNR's own induction.

You are saying things just to say them.  There is no substance behind it.

You're struggling to see the connection because in your mind the only possible reason is whatever you dreamed up. The Axl in the Mean Machine jersey doesn't go because of Slash. That's it. Nothing else makes sense.




/jarmo

I think it played a huge role, yes.

But we were talking about the current guy's merit for induction.  Not Slash.  That was a conversation or two back. 

Why not just stay on the current band's merit?  Where does Slash come in? 

Thanks for proving my point about the idiotic and illogical nature of the induction process in much more detail than I originally offered : ok:

Well, let's forget about the Hall's process for a moment.

What do you think?  Do you, personally, think any of the post 1994 guys deserve induction?

I never asked you about your opinion on the Chili Peppers. I asked you how their new guitarist is deserving of induction while Guns' members in the band for over a decade longer are undeserving.


So what? Wes Anderson and Paul Thomas Anderson are considered two of the best directors around and only have a handful of films each. Tool have been around for almost as long Guns' and have even less albums. Quality over quantity.


They did for me as tracks like Better and TWAT are some of my all-time favorite Guns' tracks and get more airplay in my household than a lot of the older material. You think people going to the shows these days got into Guns' strictly through an appreciation of the old band? Explains the droves of people who wore KFC buckets to the shows or nowadays sing along to Better, Street of Dreams or This I Love; they must have been compelled to do so by an overwhelming love for Slash.


Please indicate where anyone on here implied the only reason Guns' were inducted was because of CD.


Why wouldn't they? They helped create a Guns N' Roses album, played countless shows with the band, and have been with the band almost as long, or in some cases longer, than the original members. What more do they need to do to be deserving of induction in your eyes? Find a cure for cancer? Bring about world peace?

No, no one did.

I would argue it didn't affect the vote at all, pro or con.  As if it never came out at all.



Make some sort of impact on how the band is viewed.

I personally happen to agree with you about a song like TWAT.  I think its a top 10 alltime song for the band, standing right alongside old classics.  Amazing tune.

But can you tell the story of Guns N' Roses without it?  That's how I think it breaks down, in terms of being deserving of induction. 

You could never tell the story of Van Halen without including both David Lee Roth and Sammy Hagar, for instance.  But do you need Gary Cherone to tell that story?  Not really.  His lone record made no impact on VH legacy and doesn't move the needle for their induction either way.

Agree or disagree?

I don't think you can. It likely features the greatest solo in the entire Guns' catalogue and perhaps Axl's most haunting and achingly beautiful vocals. I know I'd feel as if I was doing a major disservice to the band if I were to give a Gn'R mixtape to someone and not include it.

Yeah, that guitar outro is incredible.

I even like the one in the middle a whole lot.

Anytime i read/hear

Anyone compliment the work on Twat i have to give a high five. 

As the poster said above  and i agree. Some of the best guitar work u will ever hear

But what makes it a perfect gnr song.   That should be on any toptsn list

Is

The perfect balance with axls killing his vocals for the song.   Writting greAt lyrics.   That are fun to sing in the car!!! 

Thena couple of great guitar players in there prime putting out a couple of some of the best guitar music you will ever hear. Ever

What would of came out of this band had we kept robin and bucket around   

Shit we are still hoping to hear whAt ghey recorded 10 yeRs ago. 

If they stayed.   Damn.  2 great guitar players in there prime.   Just wanting to write music and release it and tour with the greAtest fron man of all time.   Axl rose.  You is in my 10 list of song writters as well.   

Were did all that all go wrong? 

Because nothing else makes sense to you. Trying to explain anything to you is like talking to a brick wall. Sorry for being so blunt.

Do you think it would've made a difference if the people at the RNRHOF had told Axl they were considering some of the long time band members to be inducted along with him? Your answer should be no because he didn't go because Slash was there.  :hihi:  ;)



/jarmo

Its two different conversations, slick.

One has to go with Axl's attendance, which is where Slash comes into this.

The other conversation, the one we were actually having, had to do with any sort of rationale why anyone post 1994 would deserve an induction.

But one has nothing to do with the other.

I honestly thought when the hall of fame thing happened that Guns N' Roses got inducted. And everybody in the band would get honoured, along with ex members.

Saying that somebody has to be more respected than another guy in the band is just silly and disrespectful towards the band and everyone of its members.
 Thats just good manners.

Imagine a sports team winning a olympic gold, half of the team dosent get their medals, because the olympic committee thinks that they dont deserve it as much as the ones that were on the spotlight.

So normally rock hall of fame should induct Individual people and not bands.

I asked you a simple question and you managed to ignore it because things have nothing to do with each other.  :rofl:

You: Axl didn't go because Slash was there
Me: I don't think that is the issue. I think if he was made feel more welcome he might have gone.
You: No, because Slash was there.
Me: Don't you think there's a chance he might have gone if they had considered some of the current members for induction?
You: No, because Slash was there.





/jarmo

List of that I think, since there seems to be all this confusion. 

(hey, much like the HOF process, I guess)

Anyway, here 'tis :

- I think the primary reason Axl didn't go was because Slash was there.  There was no chance of his attendance with Slash in the building.

- I think rather than say that, and look like a petty jackass, he decides to put out the spin he doesn't understand the HOF, and its all just so confusing.  And without any clear answers, well...damn the luck, he can't go.

- I think the argument any of the current guys deserve induction is not a strong one because the one album they appear on did not have anything to do with their induction.

That's it.  That's the list.

Now, if you have a mental block about being able to say out loud that Slash haunts Axl's dreams to the point of absurdity, you are obviously not going to agree with any of this. 

If in your version of the world, he would have no problem sharing a stage with Slash.  If his supposed confusion really was the reason he didn't go.  If you think the current guys deserve induction on merit. 

If you think all of that...hey, its your fantasy.  I'm not going to tell you how to structure it.

But I would find it impossible to make those arguments with a straight face.  And I'd look a bit askew at anyone that DIDN'T laugh.

What do you base this on? Something he said? He knew the old band would be there the second the induction was announced. Why didn't he say "nope" back in 2011? Yes, your answer is "it would make him look bad".



And this is based on what exactly?



Do you think the Red Hot Chili Peppers were inducted based on their latest album? No? How come their guitarist got in?

They don't induct an era of a band, they induct a band. It doesn't say "Guns N' Roses 1985-1991" was inducted. It says Guns N' Roses.
Guns N' Roses in 2012 was not those guys that got inducted. Guns N' Roses didn't perform at the ceremony. Those are facts.




Unlike you, I don't claim to know something for sure without actually knowing for sure.

The RNRHOF basically shit on everything Axl had done since some of those guys, up on that stage being  inducted, left the band. Quite the welcome.





/jarmo

Axl wasnt sure how to handle it in 2011, and finally meeting Slash again most likely was the biggest problem! He then ducked out about the last minute with his childish letter with the intention a) trying to save face and b) to not give Slash and the other guys (and the HOF) time for a nice set-up without him. IMO he failed in both big time.


experience about how Axl seems to handle things he doesnt like.

Well, you can say Guns N' Roses DID perform at the HOF, just without their old singer and the old rhythm guitarist. you've had Duff, Slash, Adler, Matt and even Gilby there! and the "borrowed" singer Myles Kennedy did an professional job making no drama out of it and also sounded pretty damn good, something i havent heard from Axl since 2010.


it was all about AFD and early UYI, about the time the band created all the fuzz and became the biggest rock band back then. thats why GN'R got inducted.

What was childish about it?




Oh right.




Former members of GN'R performed with that guy from the Rockstar movie who's also in a band with the guys from Creed.. ;)
The two people who STARTED Guns N' Roses weren't present. So you could say Road Crew performed with Matt, Gilby and your favorite singer. :D



It was all about trying to use the induction as a way to orchestrate a reunion.



/jarmo

Yes, right.

I suggest you read the rules once again. Your "Right" and "I agree" posts don't add a single thing to the discussions. : ok:




/jarmo

Maybe we could read them together, in terms of the conversation we have going in the big room.

Being a smart ass isn't doing you any favors either.  : ok:



/jarmo

you're twisting it like expected. doesnt change the facts for the masses though  : ok:

Come on!

If you're gonna make claims like something is childish, you gotta be able to back that claim up.

Maybe the reality of the situation that your feelings and opinions are only based on the simple fact that you're biased?
Maybe you knew how you'd feel about it even before Axl had said a single word about not attending.




/jarmo

Thanks for completely ignoring my point that the particulars of the induction process doesn't change the fact that the current GNR lineup hasn't furthered the GNR legacy one iota.   : ok:


See above.  Bottom line: and this has already been addressed -- if GNR had never existed in any form beyond 1993, they'd still be remembered as much, as still be a worthy inclusion in the Hall of Fame.  Anything that happened after that has been "extra" at best, regardless of long-serving members and how many shows they've done.  Lots of bands can claim long-serving members and tours, that alone doesn't make them worthy of induction.


I always thought that was better left unexplained.   :hihi:   I used to say that if you'd worn a KFC bucket on your head to a GNR show in 1988, Axl himself would've mocked you from the stage, if the fans hadn't kicked your ass first.

Yeah, why just gloss right over that?  Because its inconvenient?

Right. People are going to (and enjoying the shows) and singing along to the new songs because the GNR legacy has been at a standstill since 1993 ::)


An "extra" to you perhaps. Lots of other fans have enjoyed most or all of the post-UYI lineups, enjoyed the new album and the shows the band put on. Just because you choose to sit at home with your panties in a knot because Slash left nearly 2 decades ago while watching the Ritz DVD on a loop doesn't mean everybody else operates like you.

No one is saying any of that though.

We're saying the post UYI line-ups don't affect how the band legacy is viewed, or into their induction.

No one is saying the new band is bad.

Yet another point that I've already made that you completely ignored.  There are tons of bands that still tour long after their heyday has expired.  Fans still come to see them, sometimes in considerable numbers.  But what you're obviously not understanding is that there is a difference between "concert attendance" and a band's legacy.  By your logic, Great White and Poison are still every bit as relevant as they were in 1987 simply because they are still touring and releasing albums.

(And if you start arguing "well, Great White and Poison aren't as great as GNR", or "are you saying Great White belongs in the Hall of Fame?", then you will again have missed my point.)


Ah yes.  Those who prove their argument is meritless by resorting to silly personal comments.  Nicely done!   : ok:

I was unaware Great White and Poison headline major music festivals like Rock in Rio, Download, or get invited by Neil Young to perform at his charity concert. Thanks for enlightening me. We clearly must be stuck in 1993 for any of these things to be transpiring.


"Truth is the truth hurts, won't you agree?" :-*

You missed my edit, so here it is again...

(And if you start arguing "well, Great White and Poison aren't as great as GNR", or "are you saying Great White belongs in the Hall of Fame?", then you will again have missed my point.)

Or in this case, arguing what festivals they've played.

It really is astonishing that you've managed to miss every single point that's ever made here.  But go ahead, keep misunderstanding the meaning of the word "legacy", and keep thinking that mere concert attendance constitutes legacy.

Can you explain once and for all how that guitar player in RHCP contributed to their legacy since he got inducted?



Apparently neither did the Gilby line up (1991-1993). And they were among the biggest bands in the world at that point. Ironic.





/jarmo

Gilby was sort of an iffy addition.  I'd agree there.

But he was at least in the band people remember.  That's why he got in.

Yet if you wanted to say, on merit, he didn't belong, I'd agree.

Wouldn't agree his time in the band didn't further their legacy.  That's a pretty shaky argument.

But he didn't get in!

He was in the band at the height of the UYI popularity and tour. Didn't get inducted. So in other words whoever says only people who furthered GN'R's legacy got in, are saying the GN'R legacy ended in 1991.


That's not my opinion at all.
When Nirvana was inducted, only the three guys on Nevermind and In Utero were inducted. I guess Bleach didn't matter. But the guy who joined RHCP matters? Makes no sense.


/jarmo

Huh.  I thought he did.

Well, like I said, he would have been iffy.  He didn't really create anything with them.

No, what's astonishing (aside from you spending your time on a board for a band you don't even like) is your inability to provide a rational explanation for why organizers behind major festivals like Rio or Download would have any interest in booking a band to headline whose entire legacy supposedly rests on everything pre-1993. You'd think they would have called up Great White or Poison if relevance in the 21st century meant so little to them.

My local radio station did a Guns N' Roses weekend this summer in celebration of Appetite's birthday and played songs from Chinese Democracy. Why in the world would they do that if their legacy solely rests on everything pre-1993? They should only have played the old songs :crying:

He didn't create anything, but somebody like Tommy Stinson sure created something with GN'R.

Should he have been inducted? I have no idea.
I think he contributed to the band's legacy. More than Gilby.




/jarmo

I would agree with that.

And Matt Sorum did? Weren't pretty much all of the UYI drum parts written before he joined? Unless you're going to say him covering other people's drum parts on TSI? was some stunning contribution to GN'R's legacy.

I'm saying he played on 2 albums that comprise the bulk of the original material that people know and are familiar with.

I'm doubting Dizzy was Johnny Songwriter on those suckers either, but he's on them.

It is a little confusing as to who the hall of fame picks from the band to go in

Shit, how long has tommy been in the band?

Where Matt and dizzy actually band members, with writes to make band decisions?  I don't think so. They were more like paid band members. Sort of like the guy who played the harmonica on the uyi albums.  Why isn't he in?  Teddy zig zag!

I do agree with Axl in a way that the process is just weird.  Especially with a band with a rotating roster of players

So when nine inch nails gets put in, who will be inducted?  Really it's just all Trent resnor...   Some great players played on the records but they weren't true band memes in the sense of controlling the band, hired players.  And there is nothing wrong with that

17 years, I think.

But what stamp would you say he put on the GNR legacy?  What is his biggest contribution, for instance?

All this time I thought Gilby and Matt were there just not to leave Slash, Duff and Steven all alone. I think Duff at the time wrote in his social media or column something like Thanks Gilby for once again saving our asses.

I think if Axl and Izzy would?ve shown up we would?ve never seen Matt and Gilby. Look at the Live Era booklet. They were just additional musicians.

Matt was listed on the Wikipedia page last night when I had to double check Gilby.

Like I said last night, Dizzy and Matt weren't really song writers, but did play on the material.

Its not like its the song writing hall of fame.

Matt was inducted, Gilby wasn't.

So much for the legacy reason. Doesn't really make a lot of sense.
The simple reason is that Gilby isn't a star. RNRHOF probably couldn't care less about him. Even if he was in the band during their biggest tours of the 1990s and appeared in those huge videos people still remember today.




/jarmo

Thats a good point.  

Seems to be no real criteria as to who goes in with the bands

Matt had a much bigger impact on Guns than Gilby. Gilby was just a touring replacement, where Matt came in when they needed a new drum machine for their next full lenghts studio albums. To quote Axl 8/1990: "Matt.....he saved the band!" i cant see that from the keyboard player though, but he was part of UYI recordings, too, and also toured with the band 1991-93 when they peaked in their career. Thats what got him in!
Again, its all about AFD and early UYI.

From all reports tommy has been sort of the leader of the musicians.   Durring shows etc

So I would say his legacy has been hos loyalty to Axl as well as his ability to keep most shows running smoothly

<buzzer sound>

Well, that's hardly strong grounds for hall of fame induction.

Being Axl's wingman long after most people stopped paying attention to the band is not really the sort of thing that resonates.

I agree.

I don't think Gilby belongs, but if you wanted to say he was there for a big part of their prime, you can't deny it.  But it would be real shaky because he didn't help create anything.

Not to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like you think the RNRHOF got it right when it comes to who got inducted from GNR. There are countless other examples that could be argued they got it wrong with other bands. So the overall point is they choose arbitrarily. They have no blueprint. That was the problem. Thir process makes no sense. What makes Tommy Stinson (for example) less deserving than the RHCP guitarist, Metallica's bassist, etc.? I think Axl, and MANY others (he's hardly the only one), to feel that way. If he felt that strongly about how they choose who gets in and didn't agree with it, he had every right to not attend. I was there that night and while I much would've preferred to see him there, I don't hold it against him and still had an awesome time.

Hahaha well you asked what his biggest contribution was.   Thats it

Do i think its hall of fame worthy....   

I dont know,   I would have tommy in before dizzy or gilby mb even matt

Dizzy and matt just played on the albums and toured.  Could any other piano player or drummer do what they did?  I would say mb

Gilby just toured with the band.   Could any other rythm guitarest do this?   I wouls say ya

Not trying to takw away anything from some of the musicians that have played in my fav band.   Just trying to figure out.  Why some guys would be put in and others not

Funny how they decide part of the era when the band was among the biggest in the world doesn't really matter.

But this little club never made a lot of sense to begin with. Like I said, Gilby is mostly unknown, even back in the day people thought he was Izzy...
Unknown people don't make money for the RNRHOF. ;)




/jarmo

you mean the Gilby tour parts era? the band was already absolute huge then in 12/1991!

Gilby didnt add anything to the own studio albums, it simply was all up to UYI release and pre-Gilby touring. That was the choice, the fuzz from the original classic members up to the UYI albums, and its totally valide.

Well, they got it right with this one.

I don't care who did, or did not, get in with some other band.  No matter which way you want to argue any of those examples (so and so should have gotten in, so and so should not have gotten in), none of it has any bearing on post 1994 Guns N' Roses.

You can argue about Metallica, RHCP, Kiss...or whoever, until god calls you.  It will have no bearing on GNR.

Is that some way out there notion?

I think it comes down to creation of material, I suspect.

If he appeared on an album of original material in their prime, he'd be in.  Its why Matt and Dizzy are in, and Gilby is not.



Its a celebration of your work, and a nice night for your fans.

Every single band with all these supposed questions, concerns, and just general confusion about it all has one common denominator : inter-band strife.

Our band is CERTAINLY no exception to that.

Neither Gilby nor Matt nor Dizzy are worthy of the HOF.  They were never part of the of partnership, just hired guys and additional musicians.

 For that matter one could argue that Tracii Guns deserves the HOF as well. But for him GN?R was just a side Project. His band was L.A. Guns. As for Tommy he is gonna get in the HOF when The Replacements get enough votes one of these days.  

He didn't add anything to the original albums. True.
But in a way he added something else. He was there. But, like I said, that doesn't matter to the RNRHOF. He's not a star. He's not on those albums.

This museum is just examples of weird decisions.




/jarmo

Yeah, but they play on a double album that comprises the bulk of the material from their prime.

Doesn't that count for something?

Nope it means nothing to me.  As I feel many other artisits could do.  What they did.   

What if gnr released 2 more albums in the 90s?   And had another huge world tour.  With a different drummer and rythm guitar player and piano player.    Would all those people get in the hall as well?   Its so silly

I would of liked to have seen Axl, slash, izzy and steven just put in

Since they added more players.   I would of liked them to of include any membee that has ever had a writting credit on a song and been considered a member of the band.

Tommy has done way more for guns that Matt has.   

That's all well and good, but it does matter when discussing why Axl chose not to attend. Many want to claim it's because Slash was there. Others claim he wanted the current band included. In his words, he struggled to make sense of how the Hall chooses who gets in and who doesn't. It really doesn't matter whether or not they got it right in the case of GNR. That's completely subjective, especially considering some of the odd choices they've made over the years.

other bands aside, but for GN'R the HOF did a pretty good job in selecting the members, all those 7 were important for the bands legacy all the way when they made it to the top!

I don't necessarily disagree with that. They have to draw a line somewhere you'd think. It might be a little crazy to induct 15 members of a band. Though I heard The E Street Band induction was kind of like that. But it's certainly reasonable to question how they make these decisions and why. Obviously Axl did not agree with, or see their methods of reasoning.

It's largely an eye test, no question about it.  It ain't scientific.

But, I can't help feeling that some here are playing a bit intentionally dense to spare themselves having to admit certain realities.

I think it comes down to 3 criteria :

- who was the driving force in the creation of their best known stuff
- who was in the band when they did their most classic material
- who is the band in the eyes of the general public

This is why I can't put any of the post 1994 guys in, because they don't even meet one of those.  Or really, even come close on one of them.

I get the feeling that the overwhelming reason for pushback on that is having to concede the post 1994 guys don't match-up on any level.  Personally, I don't see how that's a diss.  Its a fact, but not an insult.

So I would argue that Chinease D was there most hyped anticipated and talked about album.  How could you say that album would not be classified as one of there most reconized albums.  Everyone knows about it. It has sold more copies than 2 of guns other records.   I think the ranking goes, afd yui 1/2 lies great hits chinease then the other ones.  So it sold ok

Guns is a very. Unique band.  The hall treated the band like they stopped in 1994.  When in fact some of there best work came years later

Do they? 

Or is "Chinese Democracy" the catch all most people use to describe what Axl has done with the band since people stopped paying attention?  Which they couldn't tell you a thing about. 

Are any of these things ever heard :

- "Coming up, we got some Guns N' Roses for you guys"....<commercial break>...."Alright, as promised, its Guns N' Roses with <insert any Chinese Democracy song here>."
- "Guns N' Roses, the legendary rock band known for such songs as 'Welcome To The Jungle', 'November Rain', and 'Better'."
- "Hey, did you hear that Robin Finck is out of Guns N' Roses?  Yeah, DJ Ashba took his spot."

Keep in mind we are talking public perception, here.  Not that any of us lifelong, never going to lose us, diehard fans think TWAT is a great jam.

You would seriously argue those three examples are plausible things one might hear?  Ever??

I think it's insulting to Axl.

You can disregard whether or not you think any of those guys should have been inducted. Doesn't matter.

But obviously you have to be able to see that it's insulting to Axl for them to disregard anything relating to the spent 15+ years of his life that he kept going between the old band breaking up and the induction. Even if you're one of those fans who don't think the band is GN'R and you only love anything that happened before member X left the band. Even if those are your feelings about GN'R, surely you'll be able to see how it's disrespectful to act like those 15+ years never happened and they don't matter at all.




/jarmo

The same argument could be made nobody new Matt. Gilby or dizzy right? 

Most of the public can only name a hand full of gun n roses songs from the early era anyways.  So I am not to worried the general public cant name any songs off of CD.  It had no hits.  Sure most of the general public doesnt even know guns even has a live offical album!

Fact ia the hall of fame acted loke guns just stopped in 1994 and thats not right.   

But don't you see how that might not sit well with Axl.? We're making a lot of assumptions here. Are we assuming he wanted all members post 1994 inducted? We don't really know that. Maybe he simply wanted them acknowledged and the Hall said no. With some bands they let guys who aren't all that high on the importance list get inducted. Or they let ex members perform with current members. We don't know what Axl expected of them, if anything at all. But he's hardly the only person to not show up to receive the honor. People have their reasons. They wanted that "reunion" because it would've been huge news. But they wanted it on their terms. I can't blame Axl for not wanting to appease their bloated egos.

Of course the HOF do it in their own terms! All the HOF in sports or whatever work the same way. Can you imagine the NFL HOF doing things according to Bill Belichick terms one year and Jerry Jones terms the following year?

I understand disagreements. Hey I disagree with many things about The Oscars. But They can?t do things according to what Quentin Tarantino or Angelina Jolie want. And I don?t think Tarantino feels insulted.

If they gave him an award based on Pulp Fiction alone today, maybe he would.




/jarmo

We will be debating this till the end of time...

Is the HOF voting process absurd? 100 percent it is....

Did Axl feel slighted and does he have a right to feel that way ? Yeah of course he does

Was Matt or Dizzy's inclusion questionable? Yes (and no they're not big stars , so the argument thats why people get in is weak)

But the argument that Tommy deserves induction in to it under the GNR name because he has been on board for 17 years.... with all due respect...what are you guys smoking? The guy doesn't even fucking like the music that the band was inducted for creating !!!!

Forget people from other bands... we are just debating the GNR aspect of it.

I think they got it right with GNR's induction as terms of who they picked... Axl has the right to feel slighted about "disregarding" the 20 years it took to make Chinese Democracy but they were still honoring 90 percent of his career on the first year he was eligible... not exactly a disturbing insult either...

GNR has such a crazy unique history...

No matter what they were not going to appease everybody... and eventually it's like where do you draw the line....

Should Brain AND Frank be inducted? Paul Huge? Josh Freese?

If you contend that the CD era of Guns N Roses belongs... do you induct all 15 guys involved ?

It's like.... as I said... crazy and unique...

So maybe Axl wanted them all included, maybe he didn't... but it's not an easy conclusion to come to

Many bands who were inducted had a definite end. So it makes sense to celebrate their (short) history or whatever.

I get that some of you see it as GN'R ended in 1993. I get that part. But it didn't end. No matter how much you want the opposite to be true.
To suggest to Axl that he should go there to celebrate the band up until 1991 is kinda ridiculous.

Some people are into that. Like Al Bundy.  :hihi:



/jarmo

Please show nothing but respect for Al Bundy...

It's not about the band ending or not... but the band DID completely change .. the members, the sound, the impact... all of it...

There is nothing to compare it to... but logically... does a Tommy or a Frank or anybody else who only contributed to one record that came out 7 years ago belong in the Hall of Fame?

if you think so.... great i guess.... I don't ... just like i don't think the Metallica bassist or any other new member of any band should get in... they have a 25 year wait period to judge a persons work over time... the new GNR that was created... we cant judge them yet in terms of their legacy...it had only just started when the "GNR" induction was taking place

Axl... its his deal .. he has the right to feel any way he wants...

Great, so you don't agree with the weird decisions the RNRHOF has made.  : ok:




/jarmo

I disagree.  I don't think insults factor into this at all.

However, if you want to go down that road, I think a better case is made that its an insult to the guys that did the work being honored to have other guys stand up there with them who did not contribute anything to the reason they are there that night.



I think this argument only works with next to no context.  But once context is introduced, it rather falls apart.

The knee jerk is to say that 15 years, why, that's half of the band's career!  Yeah...in calendar days maybe.  But the past 15 years have netted you 15 songs. 

If over those past 15 years, the new band put out 3-4 albums, yes, I do think you'd have to put them all in.  Even if nothing the new band did was ever any sort of hit.  If you wound up with 3 albums of original material, an EP and a cover album from the old band...and 3 albums from the new band, you couldn't ignore that.

But that didn't happen.  The numbers are not on your side.  And numbers would have been your only saving grace, because measuring impact is a total losing cause.

Pre-UYI (or in Gilby's case, UYI videos and tour), no.

But I wouldn't include Gilby anyway.  Matt and Dizzy I would, because they played on a large chuck of the music that got them there. 



To us, maybe. 

And really, not even all of us.  Only to those of us that insist to the point of threatening to cut a motherfucker that this has been all on continuous operation.

The general public obviously doesn't see it that way.  Not even all GNR fans see it that way.  Hell, even those of us still sticking with it all this time don't all think that.

You are talking about a niche of a niche of a niche at that point.

But I do agree about who they inducted for GNR  : ok:

That was an extremely damning comment that does cast something of a shadow over all of this.  I still can't believe he said that publically.



That's misdirection as a coping mechanism.

Face it, if the case for the new guys was strong enough on its own merit, are we talking about other bands?  Of course not.

But since that case is weak as shit, we then have to look elsewhere.  We attack this just confounding process and use other examples.  How could <insert player here> go in with <insert band here> but not <insert other player here>?  Its madness!!  

Does any of this have to do with the current GNR line-up's impact on their legacy?  Well...no.  But if we can start talking about other bands, we change the subject and hopefully that point gets lost.

That tends to fall on the band themselves.

The other surviving members of CCR were banned from the stage on Fogerty's say so, not the Hall. 

Same think with Blondie, who didn't want certain people up there.  That was their call.

Hahahahaha

Yep.

More disturbing to me is people don't seem to care that he said that.... I'll never understand that... I dont care how much he may like Axl personally and how loyal he may be to him... the fact that he said that about GNR music...

Without trying to take shots at people who disagree with me on this... I do think ur right....

Well just because the Hall let those undeserving guys get in... our undeserving guys should get in too !!!!

Yeah, we just gloss over that.

Yet they can produce something Axl said back in 2002 on a moment's notice if they think it'll show you and show you good.  So, its not like the search feature is broken.

I don't happen to think that all these guys are just in this for the paycheck.  But a comment like that doesn't help that argument.

Of course you don't because it's Axl!




Yeah, and having Axl stand up there with some people who wanted the band to end isn't insulting to him at all. You make no sense.






Robert Trujillo had been in Metallica for about six years and played on one studio album when he was inducted. Nothing to do with the past success or their legacy as pioneers of a genre.


You can twist it anyway you want, but the fact remains, their decisions make no fucking sense. They make sense to the "it's not GN'R" crowd, obviously.



/jarmo

That's just you doing your usual defender of his feelings bit.  Projecting slights that aren't there, to then rail against, thus showing your "loyalty".

There's no insult here.



If anything doesn't make sense here, its that statement.





So can you, it seems.

But what did or did not happen in Metallica, or what did or did not happen in any other band you want to try and use to change the subject, has zero bearing on what the current guys or the last album means to the GNR legacy.

Your beef is with the wasted years of inactivity.  Not the evil bastards at the HOF out to get Axl Rose.

The legacy?

Many bands have had highs and lows. Are you saying Metallica with Trujillo on bass has had the same impact as they did with their albums in the 1980s or 1991? Of course not.
If they were inducted based on their legacy, they should've only inducted them until about 1993?
Red Hot Chili Peppers get former members inducted that didn't even play on any major hits. What about their legacy?

You see, some bands get members inducted who joined the bands AFTER their had their most popular era. In GN'R's case, that's just ignored in order to facilitate that reunion.
And people championing that idea, or who think this band isn't GN'R,  don't see anything wrong, or even insulting, with this.

If you think the band ended in the 1990s, of course you agree. The RNRHOF is giving you evidence that your idea of the band ending is valid. Unfortunately for you, not all fans agree and the fact remains, the band didn't end.



/jarmo

Jesus Fucking Christ, Jarmo.

What did or did not happen in some other band has nothing to do with the 'Chinese Democracy' saga or its lack of impact on GNR's standing with 95 plus percent of the world.

Deal with it.

I'm dealing with people who have no understanding of why Axl didn't feel welcome at this museum.

Green Day inducted GN'R. Green Day?  :hihi:



/jarmo

I found them to be an odd pick as well.

They should have had Art of Anarchy do it  :)

It becomes an issue when their "terms" are inconsistent and all over the place. I'll admit there probably isn't a perfect formula when choosing which band members get inducted. It's a case by case basis. For some bands they seem to get it right in the eyes of most. In others, not so much. Sports HOF's are much different, so there's no real comparison there. Individuals are inducted in sports, not entire teams. The Rock Hall inducts certain members of the bands that get in and the way they choose is secretive in a way. In sports they vote on the individual players. You can go look up what % of the vote each player gets. Again, not a perfect system, but it's easier to explain. Maybe they could adopt a system like that. It may not change anything, but at least we'd have a comparison of sorts. Sports HOF's are also WAY MORE revered and less criticized than the Rock Hall. So again, not a good comparison. Are you going to start to leave guys out of the Rock Hall because of drug use? You'd have a pretty empty Hall.  ;)

But it does matter when discussing why Axl didn't agree with the Hall's decision and how they come up with it. You HAVE to look at other bands to get some sort of comparison. You can't live in a vacuum where GNR is the only band ever inducted. If that was the case you'd have no argument. But if other bands have guys who appeared on one album or were in the band for a few years who get inducted. Well there's some sort of comparison there where people, Axl included, could scratch their heads and wonder why he gets in but he doesn't, etc.

Yeah, but would any of those other bands have to interact with Slash for a few minutes of their lives?

you hit the nail! 
the main reason of Axl not attending (still) is his Slash psychosis.

as people are speculating in this thread, lets pull out an idea not being discussed yet:
imagine Axl could or did not trick out the the GN'R brand name back then, so the name GN'R really were buried in mid 90s, and they left each other as bitter and hurt as they did in reality. now answer this:

would he then have gone to the HOF in 2012?

Yep.


Nope.

Good or bad you have to respect everyone?s particular system of selection. We all know nothing is perfect yet they can?t go out there giving special rights to one person. Once you go that path you have to give it to anyone else who wants a special right. Then you end up with anarchy and unfairness regardeless.

I don?t know why it is so hard to understand that new GN?R and CD didn?t make the same impact than the old band with AFD and UYI made. On top of that the new band is a revolving door. Imagine if BBF would?ve been inducted. It is clear that it wasn?t worthy. Any current member could be out at some point. We could even have a reunion in a couple of years. It?s not likely but never say never. With so much uncertanty you have to go with what was the golden era.

Trick? That alone speaks volumes of your mentality regarding this.
It's his band name. He came up with it before many of those other guys were in the band. You don't like that? Too bad.


You mean, if he didn't get his band name, would he have gone in 2012?
Maybe he would've gotten it some other way. There's evidence the name Guns N' Roses existed before that show in June 1985. Just stating facts.

IF GN'R had ended in 1993 or whatever, I'm sure he'd feel different about the whole situation. Then it's celebrating a band he was in for a while. Similar to The Beatles, Nirvana or any other band that ceased to exist.


He knew Slash was gonna be there in 2011, but he didn't just say "no". Obviously for you guys this is all part of the evil master plan Axl had. Fits the image you have of him.




Nobody even claims anything like that!
Other bands have gotten members inducted, members who had little to do with the band's so called legacy. It's been mentioned many times, yet you guys who defend the right for the RNRHOF to dictate who's important and who's not in bands, never acknowledge that with anything other than "other bands don't matter".




/jarmo

Yep.

And just to touch on some of the other stuff.

"Maybe he wanted the new band to be acknowledged in some way"

OK...how does that go, exactly?  Does Billie Joe finish with :

"And then, after everyone quit, Axl soldiered on and eventually put out 'Chinese Democracy' 16 years later."  Then we pan to the current guys at the table, half of whom aren't even in the group of people Billie Joe is talking about.  Come on.  I seriously meant it when I said the current guys likely didn't want any part of that.  It's awkward and weird.

"Maybe Axl wanted the current guys to be able to perform."

Be serious.  He's inviting that comparison?  How would that work?  The rest of GNR and Myles go, and then the current band goes?  Does the current band play any of the old songs?

With all due respect, you don't have your own image of him?

Sure you do.  The perpetually wronged and continually put upon crusader for all that is right and just. 

Are you under the impression we couldn't throw that back in your face every time?  Of course we could.  But what does it serve?  Would just make us look like whiners, which, I'm afraid also means...



Really?

Because you wouldn't concede that at gunpoint and have been arguing for...how many pages now, that they should be acknowledged along side the people that actually did the work being honored?

Do you type stuff and then immediately forget it?  Seems it, sometimes.

 Jarmo, I also said that the new band has been a revolving door. You can?t risk inducting a guy who might be gone the next day. Besides I said if the HOF gives a special right to Axl then they have to give it to anyone who request a special right as well. The HOF can?t do that. So my comment was not based only on the golden era.

But yes, there were bands like Van Halen and both David Lee Roth and Sammy Haggar were there. But they didn?t change their singer 100 times.

And there is your problem.  Well, a big part of it.

Its not a case of inducting 2 singers.  Or inducting 2 lead guitarists.  This is a case of inducting the band everyone knows...along with a shout out to the revolving cast of people Axl has tried to make of a go of it with since.

We are quick to laud to Axl for all the bravery and defiance of continuing on, but then we never seem to want to acknowledge any of the problems that bought him.  Or if we do, we have countless caveats why its not his fault.

Do I have an image of him based on interviews, Youtube clips and his albums? No.





You seem to not understand that's going on here. Nobody has a problem with the old band being honored. Nobody said the Chinese era has the same impact as let's say Appetite. Nobody said that.

The issue is, some bands get honored for their whole career, others not.
You can't seem to understand this part, since all you can reply with is "other bands don't matter, it's GN'R".




We're not talking about inducting anybody. We're talking about how they could've handled it a bit differently and made Axl more welcome.
Some of the band guys have been in the band for more than a decade.

Did you even check out any of the other bands who have been inducted and how their former/current members got in?



/jarmo

Well, to the rest of the world that doesn't get to pal around with him over chicken salad, that's what we go on.

Anecdotal evidence tends to be overlooked as it can rarely be proven or disproven.



Oh, I understand it.

What I also understand is that no one gives a shit about what happened after they broke up.  That's the part YOU don't understand.  Or, at best, understand people might think that, but they are wrong and cruel and not respectful of Axl's feelings.

But its how it is, bro.  Outside of diehards that are never leaving his side, (as in, all of us) no one cares what he's done since the break-up.  This is highly unlikely to ever change.

You when you attempt that taunt towards me about not considering this current crop GNR?  Its not much of a taunt.  Well, its certainly not specific to me, nor some sort of statement how I am all alone on some island thinking that.




You've thrown this out there a few times.  How about some suggestion how this might be done?

I just did a post a few up the page stating how this would be quite difficult to do.  Why don't you set me straight, if I am wrong?

Once again you can?t give a special right to one person. Then you have to give it to everyone else who wants something in particular.. It doesn?t matter how long Dizzy, Tommy or Pittman have been in the band. They could be gone tomorrow

Not really, you have the other side of the coin, but those people get labeled as ass kissers and whatnot.




Obviously some do since they bought Chinese Democracy and went to the shows. Or go to fan sites to post about how Axl should've done this or that.




How you acknowledge that the band didn't end in 1991?
All it would take is to have someone who doesn't limit themselves to thinking that the band ended in 1991 to induct the band. That's a start.



Yeah, and Steven Adler was replaced too. And Izzy.... And...




/jarmo

For the purposes of this induction, it did.

And how do you even word that?  Does Billie Joe tack on some bit at the end how they are still "going strong" with a cast of characters none of you know?  Should one of the CD tunes been in the performance?

Jarmo...question.

You seem real big on how the band didn't end in the 90s, how Axl kept it all going.  You then reference all the people that still go to shows.

If CD had never come out, and Axl was just touring with this same band as GNR playing GNR tunes.....what changes?  Aren't all the people that are still buying tickets still doing so?

First of, Bilie Joe shouldn't have been there.  :rofl:

Some of the induction speeches I've seen are by people who actually respect the ones getting inducted.
Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsXrsmNjmYc



Apparently people go to the shows because of the new music. That's what I've been reading.
Yes, some people go to the shows to hear the hits. It's true for most bands. Do people go see Metallica only because of Death Magnetic?




/jarmo

I think it would've been a little weird if Axl showed up and they failed to at least reference that The band has continued on with Axl at the helm for the last decade plus. Regardless of what impact they've had. Thats not even broaching the subject of who should or shouldn't be inducted. To honor a band like they stopped existing in the early 90's undermines everything Axl has tried to do since then. Again, you can argue he's done damage to the brand, he's wasted his prime years, etc. That's besides the point. The fact is, Chinese Democracy was released, and the band toured over the course of the last decade. If the Hall was unwilling to recognize that in SOME way, I could see why Axl could get a little upset.

Billie Joe was a goofy choice.  Not going to get an argument from me on that.

But perhaps they had trouble getting people?  I could never figure out how Slash or Duff, guys with actual friends the industry, couldn't have come up with a better name.



I contend 10 out of every 10 people in every people are there because they are monster fans of Axl Rose and will roll with whatever he's doing with whoever he's doing it with.

I also contend that attendance would not be down one bit if CD never came out.

I do not believe there is one person there in those buildings that is there for CD material, but is simply willing to endure the old hits.  That this is some sort of Twilight Zone where they are up rocking during 'Better', but sitting on their hands bored during 'Sweet Child O' Mine'.

But you guys have been arguing that there needs to be a new album before the next tour.  :rofl:



/jarmo

It was going to be an awkward situation regardless. IF Axl showed up, what harm would it have done to reference that they are still active? They don't have to give an annual rundown of the last 10 years, but at least acknowledge that The band is still active. I doubt people would have booed, if Axl and Slash were in the same room together.

Yeah, to be considered a serious and viable band, which we are constantly assured they are.

The very second they just come out and say "you know what, we're just going to tour and that's all there is, that's who we are", people will stop asking about a new album.

But they have to make a choice on that.  We can't do it for them. 

Well, some people need daily reaffirmation.

Some like to be told they are loved by their favorite band. Others apparently need to be told that the band wants to release new music.
The fact that the lead singer has talked about it on numerous occasions isn't evidence enough. They need to hear it more, and more often.



I've been to shows when the Internet connection went down so I couldn't post any updates and some started to think there was a riot or the show didn't happen.

Everybody's different.
People assume different things.


/jarmo

Surely there is a happy medium between daily affirmation and 7-10 year intervals though, right?

Considering he talked about new music last year, there's a while still left before we get to that point.
Keep holding your breath!  : ok:


/jarmo

yes, Jarmo, Axl tricked out the name. it was an ego power move all of his own. Alan Niven, Slash, Duff and lots of others said this multiple times. even the attorneys back then didnt dare to touch the brand name subject like that. also he didnt come up with the name all on his own, he kinda took it from Tracii (who still is called "Guns"), Hollywood Rose and the girl he mentioned in his 12/08 chats. besides that it was just a little name back then, like every garage band has to pick at a point, no brand from the beginning but he twisted it like that, its part of his weird view of reality.
But.....it was also a group effort with splitted rights to the name up until middle of the UYI tours. by the way thats also when Steph came in and it all went more and more nuts.

We're getting close.

1994 : Last original GNR release

2001 : Holy shit, he actually has new songs

2008 : Holy shit, he actually put out an album

Now its 2015.  Getting tight.

You forgot 1999.
How could you?




/jarmo

Then we go back to impact that Izzy Adler, Slash and Duff made despite the fact they left. In all honesty I don?t think it was the right time to induct GN?R. But they got the votes. And those who voted wanted the original line up. Axl could?ve shown up and thank all the line ups just like he did when he got the Revolver Magazine Award last year. The saddest thing is that now Axl will never get inducted when he really deserves it

I'm almost positive that he WAS inducted despite his request not to be.....

That's right, 'Oh My God'.

I did forget.  I really like that tune too.

Was just gonna say that.  The years they were in the band etched Guns N Roses in stone, something that nobody after them will ever be able to claim, regardless of the length of tenure.


Just watched that.  He said it all as quickly as he could.   :hihi:


Axl was indeed inducted into the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame.  I knew they would anyway, despite his request for exclusion.  Billie Joe described and paid tribute to Axl but just didn't mention Axl's name out loud whilst doing it.

He just said that. "I thank all the line ups" Well he made a little speech with thank yous all around. And all the line ups were part of it. You can see the whole thing on YouTube.

He was having a good time that day. Having Duff touring with him did reallly pay off  :)

So who picks the presenters to the award winners at the RRHF?

Is it the artists or the hall?  Or a combo?

I think Green Day was a silly choice, they seemed to like guns, but where pretty ignorant to Axl.

Alice cooper, Steven Tyler Joe Perry, Tom Petty, The Stones, Many other choices out there

I think the museum picks the presenter...

I might be wrong about this one, but I think often times they choose presenters who came AFTER the artist being inducted, almost like the young guy on the block paying homage...

I might be off on that, just seems that way sometimes. (VR inducting VH as one other example)


EDIT: Duh moment by me... Axl inducting Elton john as another prime example

Yes, often they choose somebody who was inspired by the artists/band.




/jarmo

Which makes Green Day an odd choice.

But, to be honest, who came along after GNR that you can say was inspired by them?  Its a short list, bordering on non-existent.

True... there aren't many bands in a similar mode since them.

They just came along at a weird time.  Right when Nirvana changed the game.

Most kids growing up in the 90s, who would form bands that came later, were taught that bands like GNR were not cool.  And it was cooler to take the stage in the clothes you were in at the time and not have any sort of stage show or "rock star" schtick.

I really wish Cobain didn't kill himself.... we wouldn't be subject to endless Nirvana worshipping.

Pearl Jam, STP and Soundgarden are all 100 times better than Nirvana ever was.

I am the rare GNR fan that not only doesn't reflexively hate Nirvana, but actually like them quite a bit.

I also find Pearl Jam to be the far superior band, but they didn't make the impact Nirvana did.

Yeah but don't you think thats because he's dead... IF it had been Eddie and not Kurt... i think it would be opposite in terms of impact.

Yes and no.

The band was pretty much broken up when he died.  There wasn't any more Nirvana stuff coming out.

And he'd have gotten weird and maybe released some goofy solo thing that didn't resonate with anyone.

But he'd always have those few prime years where he turned things on their head.

Just because a band doesn't sound or look like GN'R, doesn't mean they weren't influenced by them.

Take somebody like Marilyn Manson. You don't think Axl and GN'R influenced him in anyway?
GN'R doesn't get the credit a band like Nirvana gets for "changing the music world". But if you remember how things were back in the mid- to late 1980s, it wasn't that exciting before GN'R came along. Bands like Bon Jovi, Def Leppard... Safe radio pop rock.

It would be interesting to see how many bands have members who own a GN'R album. Or artists. And what impact it had on them, or their careers. Then you'd see the real influence.




/jarmo

There's no denying the impact that Nirvana had on rock music at that time, I know I was very much into them back then.  I don't think Cobain's death made him an icon, but rather the iconic status he had at the time became permanent once he died.   I don't think that would have lasted had he lived, much in the way I don't think their music has lasted (at least for me it hasn't; every single song was the 'go from really low to really loud' gimmick).  I never listen to them anymore.

I agree with this totally, but what bands/artists have come out and said gnr were a huge influence on them growing up

I am racking my brain trying to think of some.   You think you have the most iconic front man and the most iconic lead guitarist of all time, surely someone would be there

Fergie?  Lol

Buck cherry?

On the Brit side and this is stretching it as my memory isn't what it used to be, but it's still worth more than $1.99

I remember Noel Gallagher from oasis saying he was a huge fan (inspired) lol, and also I remember the lead guy in cold play saying the same

Yeah... I mean Kurt Cobain might be the only person in history to not like GNR  ;D

I know its fashionable to knock Slash for playing with Fergie... but I think shes a good rock singer ... not bad to look at it either...that's just me.

Richard has played with a couple of female pop stars too ... don't see what the big deal is.


Speaking of crossovers.... Joe Perry did a song with Nelly... I think it's called "One" ... I used to love that track.

Fergie is sexy and in her prime she was one party animal.  Nothing hotter in a chick than one that can party hard!

Cross overs are great and a great way to brings fans from both markets into the fold

Slash seemed for a while to play for anyone who called though, even though most did turn out good

I do not.  And I'm a pretty big Manson fan, so this is not just me being difficult.

I can't think of one. 

I actually thought that would hurt their HOF chances.  Lack of influence.

I wasn't talking musically influenced.




/jarmo

A7X have cited Guns and Axl in particular as a huge influence on them.

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/news/shownews.php?newsid=66

Also, Manson claims in his book that he introduced Axl to Charlie Manson's music or something like it. I think they could have influenced each other actually, although it's probably not in a big way.

Are we off topic or whay?  :P



Oh, hadn't noticed that this was in dead horse nor how inactive the thread had been since the last posts.