Here Today... Gone To Hell!

I just love that Axl takes some well deserved time off and remains completely silent. A period of hiatus adds more mysticism I think.
  :peace:
Please discuss.  :beer:

Lost time is not found again.

It seems like it's getting more and more rare to have people who are in the entertainment industry to just take time off. You have to keep everybody updated at all times to remain visible...





/jarmo

This is very, very true.  With Social Media....fans expect to have instant, and near constant, access to the subject of their fandom.  And that's not just specific to music, either. 

And many "famous folks" provide it...in fact, some are almost famous simply BECAUSE of it.

I'm not saying it's the right or wrong way to conduct yourself....but it certainly seems to be the way things are moving.  Especially with the younger generation of celebs. 

An offshoot of that conversation is the ever shrinking attention span of today's consumer.  With the vast amount of content available, near instantaneously.....there's a reason why people are struggling to constantly remain visible, and in the public conciousness.

Axl's case is.... unique....

He was the biggest rock star on the planet... and then literally disappeared for 8 years at the height of it... and has done some unique things since re surfacing

so when there is again quiet with him... people get nervous

The crazy thing is that when he does poke his head out, its almost always news. 

And well received.  Its not like people hate the man.

Agreed.

Yes, I kinda enjoy the fact that that he stays 100% out of the public eye when he is not touring.

Now days we get a few tweets, and stories he shares via music journals.

Still amazes me how theres only a coulple photos of Axl 1994-2000 era that surfaced and a couple from 2003-2005 and zero from 2008!

Look at other people who were popular back then and what happened.
Some fans are quick to point out the "lost time" and whatnot. They don't consider how many artists haven't stepped away for a while and ended up.... Not so great.




/jarmo

That's a pretty defeatist attitude, no?

Artists have a very finite prime.  Not as extreme as athletes, but a similar principle.  Wasting large chunks of decades with no output is a strange use of one's time in the sun.

Now if "some fans" are going to grade everything a homerun, they will never see it that way.  But, I'm not sure how credible it is to heap the same amount of praise on a guy that has an album out every 2-3 years, or if he spends 8-10 years hiding under an afghan in his panic room.  If "some fans" take the position that every move was the right move, hard to find fault with anything.  Its all gold.

Actually, I disagree that artists have a "prime".  There are plenty of examples of older artists having a second and even third or 4th "wind" in their careers. Or becoming successful later in life, even.

I think it becomes more challenging, as you get older, to remain RELEVANT to the larger demographic of music consumers...because that demo tends to be relatively young. But I don't think its unique, or even rare, for artists to find ways to do it. 

Look at the whole thing going on with Kanye and Paul McCartney.......

Defeatist?
Some bands and artists I used to listen to about 20 years ago don't exist on this planet anymore. I wish some of them could have walked away and be here today.
Maybe I have a different point of view from you, but if an artist want to take a break instead of doing what you think they should, I let them.

But coming from people who can't seem to think of any reasons why somebody would like to walk away from the fame, it's not surprising.



/jarmo

Please tell me you just didn't bust out Odds and Ends from The Basement Tapes? If so, nice.

Dylan is a perfect example of an artist who had multiple "primes" during his career.

While I agree that there are artists who have a late career renaissance such as, Dylan on Time Out Of Mind, Johnny Cash under Rick Rubin and Neil Young with Freedom and Ragged Glory, there is still a discernible 'prime' - usually when they are in their twenties and early-mid 30s. As great as Time Out Of Mind was, it cannot quantifiably compete with that, 'roll', Dylan achieved in the 1960s when he was putting out masterpieces year-by-year. You could make an argument that Sinatra was at his peak during his 'second' era, at Capitol records. Other examples are, Elvis 1968-1969. AC/DC who repeated the trick twice, once on the Razor's Edge and secondly, with Black Ice. You could also argue, The Stones with Some Girls.

Big time.

I think your relevance and viability sort of maxes out around 40-50, somewhere in there.

Thus, spending years 32 to 37 and then the years 40 to 43 in the federal witness protection program, you can't get that time back.

I see excuse making for what it is.

You are trying to go all heavy handed invoking death, disease, or whatever the fuck else in hopes we can stop talking about the near decade of his career our favorite guy pissed away.

Maybe someone will buy that, but he's not typing this reply.

Well said.

I think the problem with Axl is, when he did come back, between 1999-2002, he completely messed it up. You could make an argument that Axl had reasons for losing those years in the late 1990s because of the collapse of the old band. Also, he does seem to have been quite active. Most of CD - all the Tobias stuff anyhow - seems to have been written and recorded 1998-99. If Axl released his trilogy of all of this, it would have sort of justified the wait. What did we get instead? Another wait between 2003-2006 and 2008 for the first installment.

2nd and 3rd parts still pending!

I don't think he was truly ready in 2002.

And look, you can't turn back time, but its hard to say 2006 wasn't the window.  Looking good, sounding good, band was tight, leaks were generating buzz.

This just...has to be a troll thread..... :nervous:

Yes, I've said it before, if an artists wants to walk away, I won't condemn them for it. Their lives.
People who feel entitled have issues with it though.

What's it called when somebody condemns other people's life choices based on the fact that they didn't get what they wanted?
We're not talking about a builder building your house and going on holidays for a year. You're not the paying customer here.

self?ish
ˈselfiSH/
adjective
adjective: selfish

    (of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.


Could it be? Nah....  :rofl:

Don't get upset. Just busting your cyber balls here yo.




/jarmo

Add to your list:

Paul Simon, Paul Mcartney, Neil Diamond, Aerosmith, The Eagles, Madonna, Streisand, Bette Midler,..theres more....a lot more.  Enough more to say that its not a rarity to find either continued success later into your career, or to "refind" sucess later.

Yes, you will find a segment of artists who only find success in their 20s and early 30s. But to say there is a definitive "prime" seems misleading.  There are just too many exceptions.

Agree completely.  I'd say 80% of today's celebrities are more famous for tweeting, facebook, public behavior, and press coverage than they are for any songs, movies, etc, that they'd done.

But Bucket had gone, a key member of the band.

I think you have to approach this on an artist-by-artist basis. Sinatra, Deep Purple - you could even say Dylan if you believe Blood on the Tracks is his greatest album - actually peaked after their initial period of success, but then a lot of bands who had later successes still do not match the brilliance of their former years. I do not think many people would argue that Paul has been as consistently brilliant as he was with the Beatles, in the 1960s. But it is true, you can have great triumphs later on (perhaps for less sustained periods). What you tend to find is you cannot write off the 'greats'. They tend to have a few duds but then astonish you with a brilliant album like Some Girls, Ray of Light, Flaming Pie, Freedom, Time out of Mind.

Axl has never really given himself a chance here as he just files material away.

All careers are different though. Some bands are slow burners. It took the Stones until 1968 to really hit a period of sustained brilliance whereas, for Guns, it was instant, with Appetite. My own opinion (and I am not alone here) is, Guns (and I include the ex-members solo careers) never achieved anything as brilliant as on that first album. Some careers though are much slower. It took their third album, Toys in the Attic, for Aerosmith to really find their voice.

I think thats largely my point in rejecting the notion of there being a specific, generic, "prime" applicable to every act...aka...their 20s and 30s. Every artist is different..thus my objection to that specfic notion.

You can argue about gnr, and I will leave you to it,but its such a huge matter of opinion its an excersize in tail chasing. You have people here who prefer afd, some who prefer the uyi era stuff, some who actually prefer cd. Im sure there is someone out there who adamantly believes their Sympathy for the Devil cover is some sort of pinnacle. It takes all kinds...

And, since we dont know what the future holds, you have to end with words like "so far" and "yet". Or at least you should...

I know he deserves time off but we don't know that he's sunning himself by the pool or watching 24hr tv or just maybe he's working from home on a new song/album?

All I know is I hate the quietness for ages, would love an interview on tv and a couple of photos over the 7 months since we last saw him. Something while he's relaxed & not under the pressure of touring & travelling constantly.  :love:

J-man....did you just say yo? lol

There are always exceptions, but I do think that most bands at least in the hard rock genre have a "creative prime."  That doesn't mean they can't be a relevant band or live act 30 years into their career, but if you look at the history of the genre most bands put out their best stuff in a 6-10 year window.  That is not a knock on any of those bands, but just goes to show how hard it is to put out good music consistently.  I know a band like AC/DC had a big record a few years back with "Black Ice", but can anyone actually name any of those songs on that record?  "Death Magnetic" was a huge record for Metallica in 2008, but does it even scratch the surface of what they did from 83-91?   Ozzy Osbourne still packs an arena and he hasn't put out a good record since 1991.  Motley Crue just packed arenas on their farewell tour, and it was a setlist full of songs recorded between 1981-1989.  The Rolling Stones, Bruce Springsteen, Kiss, Iron Maiden, Judas Priest are all still big arena acts, when was the last time they put out an album with songs that the crowd actually pays money to hear?  At the end of the day, if you get to the level of any of those bands I mentioned its really hard to match the output of what got you that big in the first place, because to get that big you really have  had to have put out something special. 

Guns N Roses are an exception.  If you factor in the frequency in which most bands put out records, with only 4 full length albums of original material that started in 1987,  it is only 1995 in GNR time right now. So we still have some great records to come! :hihi:

Yes, I agree. In the rock n' roll genre you tend to have a prime in your 20s and 30s. On a slightly related note, Rock N' Roll always inherently has that connotation of being a, 'young man's game' (hence all the jokes about The Strolling Bones). It is different from other genre. If you look at blues, people like John Lee Hooker and Howlin Wolf were seen as peaking in their old age! But rock has not adapted itself so well (probably because it was deliberately designed as 'teenager' music back in the 1950s).

The best artists for aging are Neil Young, Dylan and Springsteen. Some of their very greatest records have came, only just, the last twenty years! Their setlists are full of new album tracks and deep cuts. (Someone like Slash follows a similar work method, however, obviously his records are never going to reach the lofty heights of Time Out of Mind or The Rising)). Unfortunately the Stones, Axl (and Metallica now, so it appears) are more atypical, whereby they just shut up shop on the album/creative front and play greatest hits setlists forevermore. Even bands who still put out albums on a semi-regular basis such as Kiss follow this pattern, with usually only one-two new songs making the, then current setlist - as a token gesture. But Young, Bob and Bruce do it all right. Pearl Jam seem the obvious heirs on this front.

Time well spent is not lost-

Did not grow up with the internet so the transparency on social media is not something that interests me remotely, I can totally understand the need for some down time.

I am with ya Emily.....all this pontificating by closet music industry experts gets quite boring after a while.  ::)

That's great... we would all like some extra time to lay around the house... but then again... i'm not a rockstar... I work 9-5 like im sure a lot of you do.

but in Axl's case.... Do you think he wanted to be out of sight for all those years? Don't you think he would have wanted the transition to his new band would have been an easier and quicker process?

True.  And that was a bummer.

But you still had Robin who was a huge part of the creation of the new album.  You also still had Brain, the drummer on said material.  The band sounded tighter live.

Axl just seemed so much more into it.  Great shape, great voice.  Compared to sitting around for a year after his album did come out and then come back not looking or sounding as good.  It gives the impression, at least to me, that he lost some of his fire and might have missed his window.

We also might have had another album by now, but I may be getting carried away there, I'll admit.

I can too.  I imagine we all do.

I think the disconnect is mailing in several consecutive years at a time.

I said after this past tour it was completely unrealistic to expect them go get right back to work on the album.  No, you need downtime.  You have other things to do.  That's all perfectly understandable.

But to come off the road in June 2014, go the rest of the 2014 and then maybe all of 2015?  At that point, that's not downtime or recharging.  Its just flat out inactivity.

Does the have the right to do it?  Of course he does.  Does everyone have to consider that normal, or to some, even noble?  Of course not.  Not that anything said here will get him moving, but there is nothing wrong with an eyeroll at the situation.

One of the things I've always found about "creative primes" is that its not necessarily a function of the artists ability, but more a product of consumer's appetite.  I think many of us as consumers of music have a finite appreciation for the output of any musician.  It is difficult to enjoy the 10th album released by your favorite band as their first 5.  And that may be because of your youth at the time of the first 5 releases vs. now where years ago you had more time and enjoying of music in general.  We know its difficult for any artist to sustainabily attract new fans and tastes change.  So once you stuck a fan base, its inevitable that the fan base dwindles because of their priorities and their devaluation of music, not necessarily because of the music being of lesser quality. 

BIG TIME

My favorite band other than GNR is Pearl Jam.  And there is absolutely a drop off in both my interest and appreciation after the first 5 albums.

Of course, those 5 albums also coincided with being in high school and college.  That's no accident.

Yeah, that was largely my point when I mentioned remaining relevant with the commercial audience.

Thats why I love bands like Green Day, Social Distortion, Rancid, they don't let me down, even if it does take years in between albums to recharge, they do get another one out and I usually dig it more than any of their previous albums just because its my fave band and the songs are FRESH.  Its a shame how long GNR fans have to wait to get new music. Maybe one day after this drought, it'l pour with new music, we can only hope.

No, the fact that you dont see activity, or what is occuring out of the public eye does not mean it is "flat out inactivity".

Define "normal" please. I find that to be a relative term.

Haha, doesn't it though?  : ok:

Closet industry e-experts, armchair quarterbacks, and people that are all too anxious to offer up amateur, unsolicited advice to a situation they are not included in, gets very tiresome. I don't find their "insights" enlightening, interesting or original and novel.

It is mostly simply entitlement- flavored whining.  :peace:

By this rationale, the years 2003-2005 were humming along nicely.  I would disagree with that and have a hard time making that argument with a straight face.

I also completely reject conveniently inconsistent deductive reasoning.  Tends to come across more than a week bit self serving.

Meaning, in this case, that the lack of proof of anything being done during over 1,000 calendar days cannot both support you and discredit me.  We are starting from the same point.  You may feel its your obligation to always look on the bright side of life.  But I would argue that is based more on what you feel is your duty as a fan than anything concrete that might support that sunny side up narrative.



It might not be the best term.  A better term might be the level of seriousness.

Meaning, you tell us in early 2014 "you are seriously taking a look at things in that regard" with respect to a new album.  No one really expected anything in 2014 given the touring scheduled and decompression time.  But if you go all of 2015 without any word of progress...guess what?  You weren't serious.

I am choosing to believe in that interview.  People tell me all the time that Axl so rarely speaks because he only does so when there is something to say.  Well, Axl spoke.

Now we wait and see how serious he was.

Didn't the Mona Lisa take four years to paint?

Artists and their art, you can not put time limits on people.

Yawn, same schtick- different day.

"Nobody owes you, not one godamned thing"- including an explanation of how they spent their time.

You asked for some clarification, I gave it you.

If all that generates is this pissy nonsense, well, its your dime.  Have at it.

Is Emily the originator of that old chestnut, the ''Axl does not owe you anything'' line?

Nah.  I was hearing that at MYGNR 5-7 years before I even came here and met Little Miss Sunshine.

And it annoys the shit out of some fans because they need the album so much.



/jarmo

Yes, you are not a 'real fan' to commit such a heinous crime as, desire new material from a favourite act.

Desire is one thing. Whining is another: :D

I hope the new album is out yesterday. But it doesn't make me a whiny smart ass.... :)




/jarmo

Smart ass is a tricky thing.  Its all in the delivery and timing.  You don't really have either.

And you laugh at your own jokes.  C'mon, man.

If there is one lesson to be learnt from HTGTH, it is, one guy's 'whining' is another guy's, 'constructive criticism'.

Laughing at your posts while typing a response isn't laughing at my own jokes. :D



/jarmo

Didn't you say like five minutes ago that you tell posters here that they aren't 'real fans' because you think it's hilarious?

I admitted that it's an easy way to get somebody to react when you question their so called fandom and the replies are often funny.

It's childish, I know. But the response is always predictable. :D


It's ok for for certain fans to question people to the left and right. They can accuse people of all kinds of things. People they do not know. That's all fine and part of discussion.
But if somebody dares to question how much of a fan they really are, they need to STFU.

That's comedy. :)




/jarmo

I dunno.  I would imagine someone getting their panties in a violent twist over other fans questioning management's handling of the band is worth a chuckle or two.  If a team loses, you look to the coach.  That's the name of the game.  If a band seemingly cannot get a recorded album out for the life of them, who should we look to? I know, I know...It's the label, Slash, Azoff, Bigfoot...I'm just a little tired of all that.

Unless Jarmo has reason to disagree with me, there is reason to assume that some new GN'R music could appear this year.

As a fan forum, can we not focus on the future, rather than biting each other about the past

That would be fantastic.  Here's hoping!  : ok:

Cool

So as part of a supposed fantastic future, what would your -realistic- expectations be. Short term and longer term.

If the band read the forum, you, and others, could make a difference

For this year?  My pie in the sky wish is that Axl & Chris were putting the final touches/mixing Chinese 2 back in November/early December, and that their final track selection for said album is currently being mastered under the radar for a Spring/Summer release.  Possible?  Of course.  Likely? Who knows.

It is pie in the sky, but it is a fun post, and food for thought.

Will there be older or newer tracks, who knows.

A random question, is the order of the tracks an important decision these days?

I think most members who have spoken on it, including Axl, have said that this album is essentially going to be the second half of Chinese.  Meaning, the rest of the tracks recorded during that era, that were meant for the (albeit heavily delayed) subsequent release. 

If there are tracks that were written and recorded from 09 and later on the album, I imagine that it wouldn't be more than 1 or 2.  Not sure if order of the tracks matters to anyone involved, but I would assume so.

You can question anything you want. But, when there's simple logical explanations, people like to run way and act like they saw nothing.
Also, people are here "questioning" things that are not in any way specific to current management. Easy to criticize, difficult to give credit. That's how some operate. And the only reason I've gotten for this is because people don't think they are the right managers for GN'R.

A lot of the so called questioning is not based on any results. Because we got a lot since 2012 and I don't ever recall this kind of negativity towards past management teams. It's like it's personal. I don't get that part. Constantly looking for or focusing on things you don't like. Doesn't sound like a good time to me.

But that's just me. And apparently I got no credibility.  :crying:




/jarmo

TB has done an excellent job IMO, there have been successful tours and even a live DVD/Blu-ray release

Why not focus on the possibility of a new Album release this year, instead of complaining about non- negotiable situations?

Not a fan's decision as to who is in the band, and who manages that band.

Some people keep singing the "entitlement blues". Poor them, life is so hard. :crying:

It's funny how when a musical artist is starving and has no money they seem to find away to get there product out there

Seems when certain artists get a certain amount of fame and success they loose there drive and that will to put out new material. 

Not saying this is Axl. But I just wonder if he wasn't sitting on 100 million in the bank if he would have a little more drive to put new material out quicker, or would he rather go hungry

I know personally, if I was sitting on 100 million in the bank it sure would make waking to go to work pretty tough

You really think he is that well off? I doubt it... he seems like one that spends easily...and has many costs and a lot of people to feed.

I realize that this post is a little out of sequence, but if you want to include a guitarist who has definitely found his comeback and made an excellent album, check out Leslie West's "Still Climbing." Leslie, as you may remember, is from Mountain which was a hard rock band in the 1970s. I saw on VH1 Classic that he is rated just above or just below Slash as all time great guitarists (I can't remember which exactly but I think he is one notch below Slash).

I've often wondered about this.

He has the royalties and the publishing, but we aren't talking about a huge body of work here.

Then you had all those years without much of a revenue stream coming in.

I doubt the guy is clipping coupons, but I don't know if he's super duper rich as some might assume.

Doesn't he split publishing royalties with Slash and Duff?

Yeah he certainly must have a few million stashed away... but 100 million sounds far fetched.

It's kinda hard to know what the guy is sitting on in the bank.  I am just tossing numbers out there off the top of my head.  If you believe some of those celebrity wealth sites they say Axl is worth 200 +.  But who  knows.

The guy has no kids and has never been married, huge savings there
Had no real drug problems or serious visas.
Has had the most song writing credits on the guns back catalogue, hence bigger royalty cheques than any other member
Huge world tour in the 90s, then many big festivals in the 2000s.  Where I am sure the split of each show is equal amongst band mates
And all the time has lived a very reclusive lifestyle.   That means cheap.  If you don't leave the house you don't spend money

Regardless. I am sure he is sitting on fat bank and is set for life.   10, 50, 100, 200 million take your pick.  But the original point is, with money comes lack of motivation to get out there and work for more

Oh, he's absolutely set for life.  But he doesn't exactly live a frugal life either. 

And then you just have some of the goofier shit he does.  Like shell out megabucks for an apartment in New York City that he paid rent on for 2 years and never set foot in the place. 

If there are several of those things at work, that all adds up.

Certainly, if they orchestrate an album release this year I will be the first to sing their praises.

Duff also said it took them 2 years to break even on the Illusions tour.... it cost a fortune to operate and with all the 5 star hotels and after parties and music videos... They took home a lot less than it might appear from afar.

All just guessing.. Like I said I am quite sure he's gtg even if he never cases another check in his life.

You are probably just saying that as cover so you can say other mean stuff.  

Why are you so mean, anyway?  Why??

Remember the backstage set-up?

They would insist on this elaborate set up with awesome spreads, booze, pinball machines, the whole bit.  And some nights, never even used it.  Money wasted to set up, tear down, and for the stuff itself.

Then you had all the fines for lateness and the overtime costs for the crew.  Not cheap.

I liked Axls point I read years ago.   If you want to be the biggest band in the world you have to act like it   I wonder how much of that whole set up was just for show.  Just because they could

And yes major money costs!

They had themed parties. One night it was a toga party with a suckling pig. I think it was just to give, Amy and Stuart something to do.

The whole over the top excess ... all that .. was part of the appeal to me as a kid.... as an adult ... the drugs and the antics is a bit of a turn off...but back then... yeah.... i loved that they acted the part of rock stars.

It's who they were.

Oh, I still love it.  That's who the band is to me.

Sort of why I don't get mortismurphy's beef with the Vegas thing.  This has never exactly been a keeping it real, salt of the earth, down to earth operation.

I suppose that is why I prefer the Appetite/Lies era over the Illusion era. The Illusion era, the epic videos, the white shorts, was all a bit embarrassing.

Nah... I watched the You Could Be Mine video last night... that look of the band is just simply...perfect... the purple jacket!!  The band with Matt AND Izzy performing can't be topped for me.

I love that video. It has a funny ending, with Arnie. Probably my favourite Illusion video. It is the trilogy, Don't Cry, NR and Estranged which is embarrassing. I still however prefer the Appetite era and the sound of that album over Illusion.

So basically you like one GNR record..haha

Two. There is Lies also!

No, I love the Illusions. I just do not like them as much as Appetite.

Ah, then I get it now.

That's my favorite era of the band.  1991-92.

The goto picture of Axl in my head is not the guy in leather and avaiators with the bad teeth.  Its the white shorts, boots, bandana, beard, and #22 Mean Machine jersey.

Did you just get a funny feeling?  :hihi:


mortismurphy pretty much only loves the old band. I'm sure he doesn't have issues with the strippers on stage before they got Appetite out though... Or the inflated Appetite monsters. Or the chaps.



/jarmo

Do you not have a favourite era - let me guess, this era? The era of glitter balls and flying pianos?

Part of what has always drawn me to GNR is the over the top excess of it all.

I've seen Pearl Jam probably 10-12 times in my life.  They come out on a basic stage with freakin' candles lit.  I would never want to see GNR in such a fashion.

Its all the same.  There are no eras.

There is no Dana.  Only Zuul.

Lol @ The ghostbusters reference

Not really favorite. I've enjoyed them all. The albums are like soundtracks of different chapters of my life. I don't sit here and wish it was the 80s again or something. Or think that was the greatest time ever and nothing could top it. That sounds pretty sad to me. Sounds like old people talk! "Things used to be better back....".

I don't recall going to see the band in 1991 and wishing Steven Adler was there to be honest. The show was great.

Same thing in 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014.





/jarmo

We're going a little far afield, but...

Keep in mind, net worth typically includes property value.

The guy has owned his place since the early 90's, right?

I don't know what other property he owns, but given what we know of his place....yowza.

Also keep in mind that GnR's back catalog still sells (meaning ALBUM sales, not even publishing rights and use rights, etc) pretty well.  Then add royalties and the like. Then add tour income, etc.  I don't know if Axl is a spender or a saver, but...it wouldn't surprise me if he had a sizeable nest egg.

As long as you are smart with your money, you should be all set.

Axl is not like some dumb ass athlete or movie star investing in night clubs and vodkas.

Just an FYI:

None of the above would be costs to the band.

Venue pays out for anything in the rider (and might pass along, if the demands are extravagant, the cost to the promoter via increased "something" (0.5% extra on the gate, maybe?).

Promoter is paying the fines and OT costs for the crew (if there are any..only union positions are being paid hourly...lots/most of the roadies are paid by the gig).  Rarely does that get written into the contract for the promoter to recoup by reducing payment to the artist....and, honestly, rarely does the venue even try to collect the (relatively small, in a boilerplate) fee for going past "curfew".  The venue does reserve the right to pull the plug, though.

And they just eat all that shit?  Wow.

Even the backstage set-up is not on the band?

If that's the case, then Duff's comment is all the stranger, I think.

Not when I worked at a venue.  We aquired it all, set it up, etc. Everyone else I've talked to did the same thing. I was IT for Finance and Marketing (mostly software stuff and data analysis, but some light desktop and networking, too...plus all kinds of odd shit for the artists when they needed something they thought might be "IT" related).

It can all be negotiated. Almost every show had their own idiosynchratic shit.  And, I guess...you could argue that if there were not riders, maybe the promoter would get a bit more money from the venue, and the band could negotiate a bit more from the promoter.  But, generally....nope. And, generally, the riders aren't all that crazy (feed the crew and the artist type stuff).

I mean, there might be EXTRA stuff provided, that the band brings in themselves.  But the stuff IN THE RIDER is all on the venue.

And don't worry about waste.  Anything unused/unopened would be put to good use....either by feeding the crew, the venue employees or going to a local soup kitchen.  It's not like it ALL went in the trash.  At least not in our venue (and most of the venues around us).

If it was opened....or "exposed"...well, yeah. Some of that too. That stuff had to be disposed of, somehow.  How varied wildly by what it was... ;)

That's really the only "eating" going on.  Promoter expects costs to be what they are...and the OT they pay out is miniscule because there are relatively few hourly employees in the crew (which is the point).  Venues don't try to collect on "late fees" because it's a PITA to do it.  It's not worth the time and effort to collect.  I remember ONE show we actually went after the band (who I will not name) for the fee...and it was because we also had to go after them for a bunch of other stuff, too...so we lumped it in to the report.  I don't think we actually go it, though.

Again, anecdotally...that was par for the course.  That being said, our municipality was a little more forgiving about "curfew" times, anyway.  Hartford is a little stricter (for the XL center, which was then the Civic Center), but even they are pretty forgiving.  If you're doing your encore by curfew, they don't give a shit.  If you're 2 hours past....they might gripe a little bit about officer OT.  If you're 4 hours past, you're paying (and with a midnight curfew time....I can't think of a show that would be).

Refresh my memory on Duff's comments....??

http://ultimateclassicrock.com/guns-n-roses-use-your-illusion-tour/

Yeah, I don't know what their specific deal was for the tour, or who their promoter was.  Maybe they negotiated a different deal than boiler plate, thinking they could clean up?

That tour (and Slash's comments) was a little odd, too. It was a stadium, rather than arena tour...and things could be ENTIRELY different (as in...union positions, etc, required to run) for that than where I worked.  I don't know.

You also had THREE (ostensibly) headline acts for those shows.  They may have had to negotiate very differently for that to happen. Different crews, different rules, different riders, etc.  That would be a LOT to put on the back of one venue to track, etc....especially if they were stadiums not used to dealing with stuff beyond sporting events.

So it's possible that they did things different for that tour than they do for most of them.

In addition to all that...I will say this: If your record label is also your promoter...things happen VERY differently.  Those were the oddest contracts.  Typically the label handled everything and you just sat back, took the gate, staffed the concessions, and went home at the end of the night.

It was rare..but it happened.

ALSO keep in mind...part of your deal with the promoter could be for a cut of the back end.  In other words....you get your fee per show, but your additional isn't a flat cut of the gate, merch, and concessions.  It's a cut of the overall PROFIT from the tour.

Only really huge acts tend to do that...and GnR in that era would qualify. And, with the 3 acts, and their various needs, I can TOTALLY see them setting things up that way.  I doubt GnR of 2000 would do the same.

The venue wouldn't "see" that piece, though...so I wouldn't know one way or the other.

I have heard a number of comments by Slash and Duff over the years, which state that the band were specifically loosing money on those parties. Apparently the Illusion tour barely made even until its final year.


Surely you have a favourite album? Although thinking about it, from what I know of your beliefs, I guess you probably haven't since the very act of having a favourite presuppose 'negativity' (since it would imply, not having favourites). Spread the positivity!!

Wrong. But not because of my beliefs as you think you know.

It changes.



/jarmo

Do you wake up in the morning and look at the news, seeing a, terrorist attack, and go: ''must be neutral. I am positive. Must not have an opinion either way. Positive. Positive. Positive''? What about if you see a rubbish film like a Star Wars prequel? ''Criticising the Phantom Menace is negative behaviour. I prefer to look for the positives in life.'' Heck, you must have seen the odd rubbish Guns show in your time. Admit it. Even Slash - and this was when he was in Guns - has discussed some particularly awful show the band played in Texas. Do you actually turn to these people, Del etc, and act like it was the greatest thing since Woodstock?

Terrorist attack? I thought we were talking about GN'R albums.

My favorite album changes. It's not been one album since its release. Simple as that.
Got nothing to do with Star Wars or terrorist attacks.




/jarmo

I am just, generalising, trying to understand your way of thinking here (because I have never came across anyone who thinks like you in my entire life): absolute positivity, ''golly gosh, jee whiz, Guns are sure swell'' etc.

Thank you!

Coming from you, I really take it as a compliment.



/jarmo

I will give you credit, you carry the spirit of your convictions. There are some, on other fora, who believe you act this way merely to get your VIP freebies, but, having talked with you at some length, I actually think you generally believe this stuff, and believe fans should act this way.

The only think I believe in is that I think your act had some kind of base in 2005. When we had close to nothing to new to talk about. Nothing was going on. It's easy to be frustrated.

If you're still frustrated ten years later, only because it's not the 2002, 1992 or 1987 anymore, then I can't really see the point in all that.
Sorry, my understanding has some limits.




/jarmo

To me the order of tracks is important. I almost never listen to single songs, I love listening to albums so when the album flows from song to song and even seems to tell a continuous story like Chinese, for me it is a huge bonus.

As for what I wish I could have from the band this year, I think I speak for many people when I say that another album would be greatly appreciated.

Also, I wish Axl would talk more about CD. The little tidbit he shared about Catcher in the chats really blew me away and provided insight into the song that increased the value of the song for me. And of course, there was no possible way for me to gain that insight on my own.

C'mon.  Its not exactly the riddle of the sphinx here.

Says the guy who likes to think he has it all figured out.




/jarmo

Everything?  No.

This?  Yes.

Which parts do you have figured out? :D


/jarmo

When I first came here, one of the first things I did was go back and read as far back as I could.  Wanted to see how the delay played around here, as well as when the album dropped.

2004ish Jarmo and present day Jarmo are VERY different people.  A hard turn seems to have been taken circa 2006.  I've heard things.

Look, end of the day there is the general perception vs. a guy that doesn't' like that perception so he insists its all mistaken.  End of the day, we both are pretty sure we're right, correct?

Let's chalk it up to a win-win.  Neither of us will ever convince the other that its all a big misunderstanding.  Its not a fruitful conversation.

I sure hope so!

The difference is that people like yourself make up assumptions based on your own fantasies, when there's reasonable explanations for most things in life. You just choose to believe what you come up with based on those fantasies. When presented with actual facts, you refuse to believe them because in your mind, you can't be wrong.

Something pretty epic happened in 2006. GN'R toured and I got to see them for the first time since 1991. The band was active. And has been more or less ever since.
Very simple. 

For the record, I hope you're not the same person you were eleven years ago. I hope you've learned something that made you a better person in the past decade.... I can only hope.



/jarmo

Glad we got that cleared up.  I'm satisfied.

DJ says the band is on hiatus:

http://www.vh1.com/news/9039/guns-n-roses-on-hiatus/?xrs=CLASS_1pm

I think he means they've been touring for 6 years, and they're taking a much needed break.

Since 2006, the only year they didn't tour was 2008, and that was the year we got Chinese Democracy. They're due for a break....

In 2009, they did 4 shows.  And none before December 11th.

Promo ChinDem.

 :smoking:

Axl=Eddie and the Cruisers...

They also auditioned guitar players and rehearsed that year.




/jarmo