Here Today... Gone To Hell!

What would the Ideal situation for GNR be going forward?

A. Release CD2
B. Scrap it and start over with the new band.
C. Go on tour.
D. Reunion

Personally I'd like to see them scrap whatever they had and try to make new music with the current band.

I would only welcome a reunion if it led to new music.

Axl Rose has always been one of my favorite lyricists. It's time for us to hear some new Inspired material from one of the all time greats/

A, B, D, C.

If they are not going to do A or B and release new material then the old guys may as well reunite. Another new band tour would be the worst possible course of action.

Whoops, I just noticed that you mentioned 'new music' with the reunion. Well that changes everything,

D, A, B, C

Anything Exept D

Really? Even if a reunion led to new music?

In a perfect world fans would realize that GNR doesn't need or require any armchair quarterbacks.  :-*

D, then C, then A, then B.

Id rather hear new music from the current GNR than 80s GNR.

 By all means 80s GNR was great while it lasted, obviously it didnt work out.
Plus i have a hard time believing that a reunion wouldnt be done just for the money. If i would want to see a band sell out i would go see Van Halen. Or some other band.

I would say D, B, A, C. 

D, B, A, C

Option C is not moving the least bit forward.  If they aren't going to move forward, than give me the real band and Option D. 

I would love Option B and think its makes the most sense.  Also know its never going to happen.  So if you are interested in seeing Axl move forward, you will have to make due with Option A.  Which is fine with me.  Its the best we're going to do.

What do I think actually will happen?  Option C.  Coupled with the same vague talk about still trying to get a handle on how to best tackle this amazing material locked up in Fort Knox.

D, B, A, C

REUNION, NEW MUSIC, WORLD TOUR :)

If this just becomes another dull reunion thread, I'm going to move it to Dead Horse.

Don't see how this topic qualifies as an armchair quarterback. Care to explain?

Maybe you can start your own thread about how great everything seems to be going right now.

Have never really gotten the whole cash grab argument. Of course it's going to be a cash grab. People don't do this for free. Plus the originals worked so hard (literally from the bottom up) to establish the brand. Why shouldnt they enjoy the fruits of there labor?

Not what I had in mind when I created the thread. Not much going on in the GNR world...just wanted to see what the popular choices would be.

3 of the 4 options are for the new band.

She always says that sort of thing though.  You are just supposed to sit quietly in the corner. 

And any discussion, not matter how benign, is both an insult to the band as well as your proclamation that you should be running the band because you know everything about everything.

Same here.

All tours for any band are "cash grabs".  That's pretty much the job.

Agreed.

If there was something more relevant or current, we'd be talking about that.  It's our fault nothing is happening on those fronts?

Nah, sorry.

Playing armchair quarterback would imply that I am trying to tell or suggest what the band does next. All I was doing with this thread was asking a simple multiple choice question.

Your last sentence said "It's time for us to hear new music etc"  You don't get to decide or determine when "It's time", and "us" certainly does not refer to everyone in the fanbase.

I'm very content to wait until the music is deemed ready, I have a life. :-*

We all have lives.  What does that have to do with anything? 

We don't come here to talk about our lives though, do we?  We come here to talk about Guns N' Roses.

So anyone telling you something you don't want to hear about GNR doesn't have a life?  That's your big takeaway here?

Who said that I was trying to decide anything? I offered my opinion of what I would like.

Glad you have a life...enjoy it.

I have one too. Doesn't stop me from offering opinions on my favorite band.

Good for you if your happy with the staus quo.

Personally as someone in a band, I wouldnt want the people who follow us to be happy with the status quo. That would be boring no? Them wanting more shows me that they are interested to see what we put out and inspires us to keep on going and creating because ultimately it's what we do.

Make no mistake, when a new album is available from GNR, I will buy it, and when the next touring cycle happens, I will be there.

I just am cognizant of the fact that this will happen when GNR deems it ready and not before.

I find it amusing when people mention "they are in a band" as some sort of qualifier or attempt at making their opinion more relevant  :hihi:

Once again I'm offering my opionion about people who follow my band. In no way have I ever implied that it makes my opinion more relevant than anyone elses. Im a fan like everyone else on this board.
Personally I dont get your angle here. I started the thread as a means to get "fans" opinions on what they would want in a perfect world. You have used it as an oportunity to attack. Not once have you said which of the four options you would want. Only that you'll be content with whatever comes next.

That's not news.

Search her posts.  All she brings to the table in most any thread is lecturing people on things they never said based on her false premises.

It's to the point of getting ridiculous. All I'm trying to do is get an honest discussion among "fans". Isn't this a fan site after all? Nobody is trying to play "armchair quarterback". No one is demanding anything from anybody.

And the attack on me saying that I use the fact that I'm in a band to enhance my points is such a crock. She totally missed my point.

Not for nothing but as a fan would you be happy if they just decided to become a novelty act? I mean if your truly happy with whatever they do then you would welcome that.

Not me, these guys are way too talented to go that route. I would love to hear more from them. ( Thats not a demand)

I think Appetite For Another Residency with no new material is just the band running place.  Its hard to get crazy excited about it.

Now, that will be twisted into me saying I don't want to see them tour, don't want people to go to the shows, don't want people to have fun, etc.

But its not that at all.  Its sort of like you say, how happy can you be with that?  I would think any fan wants to see them progress, do new things, and do them well.

Some say that Las Vegas residencies are just like the places were dinosaurs went to die.Whales do that as well.
I think the 2 previous were very successfull,we got a release from that era,moving forward now is not another 12-show casino house band.
Release whatever song is ready,go on summer festivals around the world and not a word again on reunion.

I would take that. At least the band would be moving forward with a new release.

There were a lot of positive things from last year that made you feel (not demand) that the next chapter was happening.  The band sounded great, Axl himself talked about new music being already recorded, there was multiple band members talking about touring in 2015, studio tweets, etc...and then it all seemed to stop.  Or as some have described it here, "something changed."  We don't know what that something is (BBF leaving, everyone's side project increasing in demand) but clearly something changed and the movie is on pause now. 

The point of all of this (I think) is for fans to discuss their opinions...knowing quite well that (a) we've never met Axl, and (b) management will not act based on our discussions.  If you're opinion is sit back and be happy when they tell you to be happy, then there's no real point of having a discussion, right?

I think it is basically a given that nothing we will ever talk about will ever in any way steer Axl in that said direction. His own band mates seem to have a problem motivating him so I highly doubt any poster here holds any illusions that they are able to influence the turn of events. It is such a given, that it should be left unstated.

I would honestly hope he isnt motivated by anything being spoken in a fan message board.

Honestly, Vegas was the best time I've ever had following this band.
I've got my fingers-crossed for another residency soon, and enjoying Axl's activity on Twitter.
Can't wait to see what Beatrazr will come up with next.  :drool:

Please post all my false premises oh learned one -

I have stated previously that the band needs no armchair quarterbacks

I have stated the band does not need unsolicited amateur advice about non-negotiable issues.

And I have stated people tired of waiting should stop waiting, I was inspired by some very wise words on this matter - here's a refresher in case you've forgotten.

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

Read more at http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/guns-n-roses-axl-rose-speaks/#h6R4iJPXP810qVgG.99

IF he ever was like that,we'd get Chinese Democracy in 2002-2003 and they'd be playing requests like Metallica  ::) (pathetic).
...and i'm not even touching the original members universe.imagine what would happen there.

Please provide proof for band mates having a problem motivating him without mentioning Ron's endless whining.

I sincerely think the calibre of most forums and members is taken into consideration.  :rofl:

You started this topic with the words "In a perfect world"  I simply stated my preferences for my view of a perfect world.
I didn't want to vote on  the choices you gave, so I invented an alternative choice that I believe in.

You have twisted what I said, I stated that I'm always amused when someone feels a need to say "they are in a band" to try and give more relevance to their opinion.

Why mention it at all?

If you feel "attacked" you are incapable of honest discussion and reasonable debate.

On a more pleasant note, I have 4 months of vacation saved up for when the next tour is announced  :peace:

Well I was going to mention Ron, but you may also mention Slash, Duff and Matt turning up to an Axlless studio in 1996 (ironically, his sessions, his time, his direction), or Axl's inability or unwillingless to forge a songwriting partnership with Gilby Clarke. Buckethead obviously was not a motivation enough to get CD out on time, and Robin looked for pastures new. It is also not hard to read between the lines that the current members (minus Axl) desire an album.

halp, reunionists! :help: TEH POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS J00!

release a new album and go fucking tour, remember to bite a securityhitler in sweden

Yawn, Gilby was a temporary fill in, in order to tour.

You continue to attempt to discredit and paint Axl in the worst possible light on a GNR Fan Forum, it isn't hard to "read in between the lines of your agenda".

Maybe you should go find a forum more suited to whatever it is you like? You won't be missed here.

Is it so controversial to say that, countless members both former and present, have desired an album only to hit a gigantic wall in Axl and the way the band operates? This is not exactly some left, out-of-the-box, hypothesis here!


Correct but you yourself also seem to be doing an excellent job of making friends around here recently!!

"Countless" members?? You are clearly delusional   ::)

I have several friends here, don't really care if the toxic tribe of whiners  don't like me, I can assure you it is mutual.

Please answer what you have brought to the "honest debate?" 

Once again the reason I mention myself being in a band is not to give more relavance to my opinions. It's more to do with how "I" see things. It is my opinion. Im not telling anyone how to do things. Im not suggesting anyone follow anything I say. Its a fan board, we discuss things. We offer opinions. Not everyone needs to like them.

True.

That might be good advice for the management, however.

You have, maybe, 3 total posts in your entire playbook.  They are all lectures.

Someone will talk about what might happen or what they might like to see happen.  From that, you lash out with one of three accusations :

- that poster thinks they run the band
- that poster thinks they are experts in the industry
- that poster thinks what they say on a fan message board will dictate band policy

Here's the rub.

No one that your chide has ever, ever, ever, EVER said any of those things.  But you pretend those are all real positions and then rail against them.  But they never actually, you know...happened.  No one has ever said that stuff, not one time.

Then there is your catch all that anyone that doesn't just sit quietly in the corner, or if they simply MUST say something, have it venture past illuminating stuff like "I like Guns N' Roses" or "I had fun at their show"...they are whiny and entitled.  That's swell if that's how you see it, but you are the only one.

A member search of your collected body of work will find examples of this time and time and time again.  The posts I'm describing could fill a word document.  And the posts of your that aren't in their vein fill a tweet.  Maybe.

If I'm lyin', I'm dyin'.

 Release CD 2 and re-release CD with the proper artwork/booklet.  :peace:

Yes a re-release of Chinese with a second disc of remixes to coincide with the new album would be awesome.

To me its all good as long as they are moving forward with new material.

That's the best case, no doubt.

And even a reunion tour, at least the first time around, is interesting because it had been so long and no one ever expected it.

But another round of touring with the new band with no new album and just playing the same setlist?  What's real compelling about that?

I brought an opinion about some "fans" that many don't like and don't like to discuss-but it is true that GNR don't need a forum full of armchair quarterbacks offering up advice.

I don't honestly care that you are in some band, I thought it was odd to mention it and it reeked of implied exclusivity.

My opinion still stands, "we discuss things, not everyone has to like them"
Your words  :hihi:

You are indeed dying intellectually if you belive this tripe.

You have 1 play in your limited bag of tricks, it is to criticize and demean GNR, it's mgmt, It's members and this forum's admin as much as you can, and as often as you can here without getting outright banned, in a desperate attempt to impress others, pretty pathetic and sad actually.

We obviously play for different teams.  :-*

The mgmt does not require your advice. They are doing an exemplary job.  :-*

Let me try to explain this to you. You, and some others, like to act like their opinions are facts and like they know what's best for the band in any situation. Now, if that comes across to some as thinking you are a wannabe manager or whatnot. It's logic, common sense.

If you don't want that to happen, change your ways a bit. Don't think you're always right, don't make claims about how the business works and so on. Then these kinds of "accusations" won't happen. Simple really.

Just some friendly advice so you can avoid making this same argument over and over again. : ok:


/jarmo

That'd be cool.




/jarmo

Your posts are all readily available to any of us.  And we can all read.

I'm not too worried about what I typed this morning not being proven, easily. 

As a side note, the fact you are disputing it in this fashion only strengthens an already rock solid argument. 

Do you think it reflects well on the professionalism of a band's management to see them get involved with petty squabbles with the band's fans on internet message boards?

If you do, I do not share that view.

Its like when you see some celeb start getting into with some fan on Twitter.  Does that ever go well, or make said celeb look all the better for it?

In my perfect world, I'd like to have CD 2 released as an EP or something, similar to Lies, where it isn't a full album, but best recordings of the songs to hold the fan base over. Then, have the current band write new songs and record them as a brand new album, or at least mostly new, with maybe some older songs that Axl feels deserve better treatment and a proper release. As an example, Reckless Life is a pretty good song. Never had "an album" version of it, but I don't think that hurts the song. Now, November Rain. This song, from my understanding, has been around since 1984. Axl took the time and attention this song deserves and gave it a proper release.  That's my wish list. And if that doesn't happen or as soon as the album is recorded, for them to get back on the road and tour. It's been too long since I've seen them last.

Actually, I only ever have to have this conversation with the one person.  And if you take a look around, I ain't the only one saying these same things to her. 

Are we all wrong?

People from all different viewpoints all over this place say the same things to her about how she acts and treats everyone.  Think, perhaps, there is a common denominator at play?

Are you wrong? Perhaps. Because the way I see it, your actions have consequences. In this case, you come off as somebody who acts like they know facts and what's best for the band.
In reality, you're a fan like the rest of us. Guessing about things.

As I said, just some friendly advice to avoid this kind of misunderstandings.  :)



/jarmo

I have long thought something similar.

Doesn't make much sense to me to release an album with guys so long gone and not coming back.  But that's not to say some of those songs might not be great.  So why not re-record them with the new band?

However, touching on your idea, maybe there are a few that are deemed perfect as is.  So you could release them as a tide over EP, and say you are coming back with a new album of songs, actually done in this decade, by people actually in the band right now.

Sure, further your delusion that you are the expert here that everyone should value and take notice of.

I'm merely a card-carrying cult member, is that your narrative?

Very predictable and amusing to those that are aware of the truth of the matter.  :hihi:

I think people should be responsible for the things they say, most people wouldn't post the things they do if they were held accountable for their words.

If you talk crap about something or someone and get called out over it, I have no issue with that.

Of course, I wouldn't expect someone of your calibre to agree with being held accountable for what you say.  :-*

As I said, if you thought it was a good showing on their part, I do not share your view.

Emily, you do go a tad overboard with your accusation of not being a fan if someone  disagrees with Axl or doesn't like a song. You did to me. My suggestion is not to jump  right away, but actually listen to what the person is saying. 

Perhaps, but are you a person of high caliber?

Not to be impolite, but I didn't honestly ask for any suggestions.

GNR is my favorite band, I have been a fan for over 20 years and I like what the band does. As a fan, I feel it is not my job to critisize or second guess, or whine about things, nor try to dictate when the releases "should" happen, or what "should" be released, who "should" be in the band, etc. I'm not trying to impress anyone here, I don't care what you think about my stance, this is the way I honestly feel.

I have very little patience nor tolerance for whiners, complainers and overt critics, nor for people with obvious misplaced entitlement issues. All the endless redundant complaining by the same few people is tiring, boring and pointless.

I enjoy and appreciate GNR  :peace:

So, go ahead and accuse me of being a card carrying, tin foil hat wearing, kool aid drinking, cult member, it won't affect my life in the slightest.

I like to think so  :-*

Super, thanks for the enlightening insight  ::) I personally don't see the problem.

There is your 'negativity' and it is blatantly obvious who is creating it.

A man can fail many times, but he isn't a failure until he begins to blame somebody else. ;)

Does not seem a very apt maxim considering I personally have not been involved in this argument enough to fail or otherwise, conversely, succeed! Ironically you actually started the argument with somebody who is not usually considered by you and others, a 'whiner'. This place is so uncompromising in its rhetoric and 'negativity' - yes, you heard that right, 'negativity' (the whole 'positive' thing is a gigantic sham) - you and others are even consuming your own supporters with your vitriol!

I started this thread to truly get "fans" opinions on what they would like to see going forward from our favorite band. Fans should be able to honestly debate and give their opinions without being accused (by one person) of trying to dictate to management what should be done next.

No one is demanding, no one is whining. Its our opinions. One person feels that they need to bash people for having one. Apparently true fans are the ones that follow blindly.

Please define what you mean by "me and others".

If you aren't a happy camper here, there are always the AC/DC forums you can run to and infect them with your sunny disposition and invented facts.  :hihi:

It was my opinion I expressed as well, apparently only those with a certain outlook are accepted en masse.

I don't plan on changing my opinion in order to fit in or gain some acceptance, or acquire some support or implied validation.

I'm certainly not a "blind follower" as you alluded to above, I'm simply loyal and supportive, I don't see that as some sort of purported sin on my part.

Apparently the cool thing to do is bash GNR and also to bash the people that believe in and support GNR. Guess I'm not a member of the cool club.

Define bashing GNR? I really havent seen anyone do that here.

The only one at issue here is Emily.  There is no one else.

And once again, its not about having a differing opinion.  Its about being the only one that treats everyone here like total dogshit. 

No one is taking you to task for having the opinions you have, Emily.  Simply that the way you treat people is deplorable and embarrassing.  For whatever reason, you have carte blanche to act in this fashion.  That is what it is, but let's just say what it is.  The way you talk to people is a disgrace.

I would like to see a greatest hits volume 2 released.

I would like the set list to be picked by Axl, Slash, Duff and Izzy.

I would like the album to also have around 4-6 unlreased bonus tracks on it...  These bonus tracks would be from the CD recordings

I would like some form of Guns N Roses to tour, supporting this max shift albums release....

While on tour I would like that line up to record 2-6 singles....

I would then release another album from that line up..  On one side 6 new songs written freshly, then on the other side, 6 more unrealeased songs from the CD recordings.

I feel this is the best way to get old unreleased music out to the masses, that may never buy the album..  Its also the best way to get new music out there.....

 :beer:

That's pretty cool!!

This all sounds good, but probably only to the few remaining members of the fanbase that can appreciate both old and new.

I can only see Axl, Slash and Duff sitting down to do a GH2 is there is some sort of reunion tour.

If there was, I can't see where Slash or Duff would be all that excited about something Axl wrote with Bucket, Robin, and Paul Tobias in 2001.  Or calling it Guns N' Roses, only now going as far as to put their own names on it, implying approval and validation.

And the audience you be marketing this to would be people interested in a reunion above all else.  People that have never shown much interest in any post-Slash configuration of the band.

I think Van Halen did something on there greatest hits albums where both singers were featured and had new songs by both singers. Can someone here confirm that?

I can see the record company pusshing for a GH v2.0 sometime in the future.....

It would be great to get some involvement from the old band as to the track listing, but it is not nessesary (How many old songs are actually left that would be put on).

And as for the reunion..  Ya it would be ideal, but it is what it is.

As for the older guys, not wanting to promote previoulsy unreleased songs....    I cant see that being to much of a problem..  Hell they could all just over dub some things and get added to the writting credits...   I am sure this would happen with a new guitar player anyways (as history has shown)

Once everything happens as I stated above.  Then they can release the Anthology...  Containing all songs from all the years, untouched and released as first recorded

I am pretty shocked there hasnt been more public pressure from the record company for anytype of release.  They are sitting on songs that are already paid for.  Its free content for the label

Their first greatest hits, they brought back Dave for the first time in 12 years for 2 news songs, 'Me Wise Magic' and 'Can't Get This Stuff No More'.  But the tour never materialized.

They then did a second greatest hits like 6-7 years later with 3 new songs with Sammy to support a reunion tour.  But nothing from Dave that time around.

Honestly, I think they consider Axl out of sight, out of mind.

If he actually got his shit together and got them something, I trust it would be released.  But as he lets the calendar pages flip on by, I don't think they spend much time worrying about how he's coming along.

Basically, I think the label treats Axl the way some of the folks around here think we all should.  Its ready when its ready.  And little point hoping and wishing he's going to suddenly get bitten by the ambition bug.

The label made a fortune on the first greatest hits release, without the approval of Axl or the past band and with zero label marketing.

I am shocked they havnt tried to release another greatest hits album.   With the serious decline in album sales, you would think that the label would take every opportunity they could find to make a buck.  Especially when they have already paid for these unreleased songs.

Makes me think that in the current guns label deal, there are no album release requirments.   Seems everything contract wise was fufilled with the release of CD

Stating non-facts to be facts, inventing facts to back up a pre-planned narrative and painting everything GNR in the darkest and most dire light possible.

I have seen the same people do this time and time again, while attempting to paint themselves as some sort of victim.

If you honestly have not seen that going on here, then I can only assume it is ignorance, willful or otherwise.

See, I find the way you come here each day to whine about all things GNR and to pick arguments with Jarmo on his site a disgrace.

I find that behavior deplorable and unforgivable.

We obviously play for different teams.

Baconman,

Wasn't a second greatest hits close to being released at one time? I remember seeing Artwork for this, but it got pulled for some reason. ???

Edit, here's what Im talking about
http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/it-s-official-second-guns-n-roses-hits-album-on-the-way/

The tracklist for the first one, with the exception of the inclusion of 'Ain't It Fun', was pretty much what one would expect, no?

I know some people might argue against 'Sympathy', but it had never been on an official GNR release.  I assume that was why.

But were Axl and the others seriously arguing if they were allowed input, that songs like 'Sweet Child' or 'November Rain' would have been left off?

GH tracklists tend to be self explanatory.

Can you provide 3 examples of this deplorable behavior that happens time and time again here?

I remember reading that the old guys didnt want any cover songs at all on the album

I can see there point

Why release a greatest hits album and have to pay royalties to other artists.  A greatest hits album should be a gravy train for both the label and the artist

I get that, I suppose.

But for a lot of people, a GH might be the only thing from an artist they own.

A lot of us are the same age, I assume.  And in college, did not every dorm room have Bob Marley's Greatest Hits, Elton John's Greatest Hits, Steve Miller Band Greatest Hits?  What they did not have was anything else by those artists.

So if you were only going to spring for on GNR release, a GH, would you not want KOHD and LALD?

Ya I remember seeing this.

But it was sorta a threat by the record label to Axl.   If he didnt turn over CD, they would release another GH album....

Which is why I am kinda shocked now.    Why wouldnt the label threaten them again...   Unless they cant..  I.E, no records left on the deal

Yeah, and I'd throw in Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers GH too.  It seems like all of these GH albums were handed out to incoming freshmen each year.

IF (and I stress if b/c obviously I have no clue) there are no records left on the deal, doesn't that take away the whole evil record company holding Axl back from releasing new music angle?

Bacon, you make a good point.  Why wouldn't the label release another GH album?  AFD and GH are in the Billboard 200, it's only logical to assume that a new GH album would be in there as well.

Who knows.  I'm holding out some hope that there is some plan in place b/t management and the label.  It may be a loosely construed plan, but I got to think that talks about the next step (if any) have been held.

I would think the label hasnt released another greatest hits album becuase...  They cant..

Personaly I hate those two songs...   So frpm a personal stand point I would not include them in a greatest hits release

From a buisness point of view.

I think the sales of the greatest hits album would of been strong enough on its own, without including and covers..

I think by keeping the cover songs on there original albums, UYI 1/2, Spagettie and Lies, it would actually help maintain those albums sales...  By giving a fan something they cant find any place else..

The old guys other problem they had witht he release of this greatest hits album was that it was going to affect there royality cheque payments..   Well the GH album made them all even richer, too there shock and the album AFD has never really seen a drop in sales...   However, sales for all the other albums are not as strong...   Keeping the cover songs only on those albums, could only help

Are you incapable of looking through the threads yourself?

My name is not google, and I am not your secretary.

It is very apparent the same negativity and the same whining goes on here from the same few members.

Honestly did not expect you to acknowledge it, so no surprise here.  ::)

It is 'greatest hits', not 'best of'. If it was a best of, It's so Easy, Brownstone and Nightrain would have certainly been included at the expense of TSI songs/Sympathy. Saying that however, they a stretching the term 'greatest hits' to breaking point. Sympathy made only US #55.

And important distinction, to be sure.

A "greatest hits" is basically a list of their singles.  That's why I said its pretty self explanatory.  You could put together the most likely greatest hits tracklist of a band you didn't even like, so long as you had Wikipedia to look up their singles.

Its not really common for there to be album cuts on a such a thing.  A "best of", yeah, maybe.

Not that anybody cares but I would have just rolled with these ten songs.......tracklist them however you want....nice tight album.  :peace:

Welcome To The Jungle

Live And Let Die

Knockin' On Heaven's Door

Sweet Child Of Mine

November Rain

Patience

Paradise City

Civil War

You Could Be Mine

Don't Cry (original)

 

The second Greatest Hits record that's been mentioned here was actually a "best of" double album called "Welcome To The Jungle: The Very Best Of Guns N' Roses".

The cover art leaked, and I remember we managed to figure out the track list:

(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c21/sunn074/gnr_cover01.jpg)

(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c21/sunn074/gnr_cds.jpg)


Track list:

CD 1:
1. Welcome To The Jungle
2. Mr. Brownstone
3. Sweet Child O' Mine
4. November Rain
5. Civil War
6. 14 Years
7. Used To Love Her
8. Out Ta Get Me
9. Down On The Farm
10. Perfect Crime
11. My Michelle
12. Coma
13. Move To The City
14. Nightrain
15. Live And Let Die
16. Don't Cry

CD 2:
1. It's So Easy
2. You Could Be Mine
3. Paradise City
4. Knockin' On Heaven's Door
5. Patience
6. Yesterdays
7. Pretty Tied Up
8. Black Leather
9. Double Talkin' Jive
10. Locomotive
11. Dead Horse
12. You're Crazy
13. Estranged
14. Rocket Queen

Now if they were to release that double best of album, you could say good buy to sales of all there past albums. 

It's pretty silly that a band at the time only really had 4 albums of original music would release 3 CDs worth of a compilation of those 4 albums.  Hahaha. Crazy

There was probably a good reason why they considered doing this. I can't remember if this was with band involvement or not, but as the band disagreed on the final track list of the firs Greatest Hits, this could've been their response as to what it should've been.

As for sales of their past albums, they were released so long ago at the time that I doubt that was part of the equation. The income they (band and record company) got from sales of the original albums in 2005 was probably not very much anyway. A best of release would have multiplied their then current album sales income many, many times. It's all about the money I guess.


Anyways, I think this one was ultimately scrapped because Chinese got slated for release in 2006.

No this was going to be forced out by the record company if Axl did not turn over CD.  Once he did plans for this best of album where scrapped

The old band members and Axl sued the record company and lost.  This was to try and prevent the release of the first GH album.  Part of there argument was that a GH album would affect sales of there past albums...

I know the first GH album was all record company. I'm not 100% sure about this "best of"?release. It even uses their then new logo on the cover, it seems to me like this is something Axl had okayed.

The record company did threaten to release another greatest hits album if they didn't receive CD

If what you posted above is that, or isn't that, I don't know   

The band wouldn't have any say in the release of a greatest hits 2.0, as they didn't in the first and lost a law suit dealing with it

They band was very public with the fact that they didn't want the first GH album released, so I can't see how there minds would change just a couple years later.

But mb there minds did change with the huge success that GH was

Or, they wanted to put out something that would destroy GH. Either way, it would be a win-win financially speaking.

There is no way TSI tracks should ever be on any kind of best of. That album stinks to high heaven.

As a punk album yes.

As a GN'R album, I think it's okay.

It would not be a win win

A double best of album that is just a compilation of there past 4 albums would totally kill sales of those past 4 albums.  Plain and simple

There best bet would be to release a hybrid.  Half the album would be best of tracks and half the album unreleased songs

Promote the album with proper marketing and a touring band with Axl singing and I don't care who else is in it..... 

It was fine for what it was attended to be.  Which was just a gap filler until the next studio album.   That studio album just took 15 years to come out.  And the gap greated was just to big to fill with the album TSI

I like down on the farm and new rose.  But again....   A band with only 4 studio albums should stay away from all these covers! 

Thank you Spirit, was looking for that when I posted the BBM link  :beer:

The album sales of their studio albums couldn't have been very high in 2005. As I said, not their main income source so to speak.

If the sales numbers of a "Best of" would've exceeded the combined sales numbers they had of their albums in the year of 2005, why would they care if the sales went down on the rest of the albums? They would've made more money.

Haven't sales of Appetite and Illusion exhausted themselves? Although I do agree with your central point that four albums is a ridiculously low figure to cull a hits album from. You may as well just buy the original four albums second hand from ebay or amazon marketplaces. Twice the music for a much cheaper price.

So the success of the first GH album came to a surprise to pretty much everyone.  It was thought that it would also cut into the strong yearly sales of guns back catalog.   Which it also didn't.  Another surprise

AFD was very strong yearly sales.  I am pretty sure it sells a couple hundred thousand every year.  It's like Metalicas Black album.  People keep buying it

There were reasons the band tried to prevent the release of GH......   

But....   With that success there minds may have changed

If they could release another hits album.  With no costs involved.  And sell it between 8-15 bux and that sells 5 million plus in the USA like the first GH album.   And stays in the top 200 charts every year almost ever since.   I am sure they would take that

The old band only released 46 original songs...12 on afd, 6 on Lies, 15 on UYI 1 and 13 on UYI 2.

not sure what my point is!  :hihi:

new band 15 songs for a total of 61 songs in 30 years of existence.  :P

In one way this speaks to the impact and quality of the material they released.

Most big, legendary bands on the same level as Guns N Roses have much more material in their catalogue. Makes you think then, if you'd cut down the amount of material of those bands, down to the same amount as GN'R, would they still be as big? I think that list of bands would've been much shorter.

Those 46 songs are kind of the equivalent of Zep's first 4 albums...written and released in roughly a four year period...same size catalog as Aerosmith from 73-77...Van Halen's David Lee Roth catalog in the 80's...Nirvana's catalog while Kurt was alive...all pretty damn good hard rock bands in my humble opinion.

After a while there just isn't anything to write about.......

Most artistest best work comes in the first few years    Sometimes financial struggles, drug and substance abuse, parting hard, ones upbringing (told throw songs)....   Usually all covered in the first few years

Bands get rich.  Get married.  Have kids.  Settle down....   What is left to write about?

Personally I like when bands age.  Usually they become better musicians so the live shows and recordings are better.    It's just the lyrics that don't really age all that well

All good hard rock bands, I agree.

Take AC/DC though. Would they have been as big as they are without Back In Black and onwards?

of course not....

Again, I agree.

It's not about what I think of the songs though. But the point I made earlier was about making an impact with the masses, being successful. Guns N' Roses did that with only 45 songs, 12 really.

gotcha...for the record, I don't think they need another GH or a Best Of...the catalog is fine and people can buy their own collection of songs individually through itunes,etc

Although I buy them, I agree, they're not needed.

I wish this band would do something to capture the imagination of the public again. The world needs a "Great" band. The music industry as a whole needs a kick in the Ass.

I've never been one to call for a reunion (god knows I've been asking to hear new music from the current band), but maybe its time for the "worlds most dangerous band" to make a comeback. To me that was the last great rock band. No one has come close to being as big and as influential since then. I mean name another band where most people can name multiple members?

Just my two cents. Not demanding, Not Whining.

My two cents is that men in their early 50"s aren't the guys to start a revolution.  :hihi:

and they will definitely never be the world's most dangerous band again.  ::)

4 teetotalers and a madman hardly fit that description! :rofl:

All valid points. 

There is absolutely a void in rock bands right now.  There was an opportunity for GNR almost by sheer default.

Im not even saying start a revolution. Certainly a new album by them would generate some buzz around the industry. That followed by a tour would be incredible.

It would.

But its going to take some actual publicity.  Not just an interview with Billboard 3 months after it drops, when no has heard from you in forever.

Probably 10 years to late now. The 'kids' wont get on board with a bunch of 50 year olds now.

Yeah, they missed their window bungling the last release, I agree.

Even if they could just get one song that might become a radio staple, that would be something.

If were speaking about the current lineup yes if its about a reunion I disagree. I think that the AFD and UYI lineups (w/ Izzy), are so legendary that whatever they do will sell. That band will never have a window.

I think Axl has let so much time pass by, he's painted himself into a corner.
It?s taken some real effort to diminish, but the legacy of Guns N? Roses has taken a hit over the years, and the longer they go without a release, the more watered down it becomes, and the more foolish he looks.

The public?s curiosity of what he was up to all those years, and what he had up his sleeves was appeased upon the release of Chinese Democracy.
It didn?t strike a chord, so they won?t be lining up to purchase ?the second half?.

People want to see him and Slash playing together again, so I think the reception of a reunion would still be very positive.
But having been so outspoken, steadfastly against it for so long, even with a change of heart, does Axl even consider that to be an option?

Regardless of who?s at fault, and I?m sure there?s plenty of blame pie to go around, things have been handled so poorly for so long, that there is no obvious next play.

Very well said.  Agree with all of that.

Its a lesser case of what might have been, on top of the elephant in the room case of what might have been when it comes to this band.

Its a shame.

The whole "what might could have/might have been" theme to the Guns N Roses classic line up is no doubt a very common thing that is brought up a lot.  I have been a fan of the band since the Illusion line up was together, and I don't really feel like there is anything that band didn't accomplish.  Top selling debut of all time, had the biggest stadium tours, only band to put out 2 albums in one day and have them both chart at the top of the Billboard charts...etc..  To me there isn't any unfinished business there.  Thats why I am not into the whole reunion idea.

The only thing I would change about everything that went down with that band is I wish they would have gotten just one more record out sometime in 1994 or 1995. The only reason for that is so we wouldn't to this day have to hear the common misconception that Nirvana somehow ended their career, which is a load of bullshit.  Aerosmith had their biggest record in 1994 and Metallica had enormous success with Load in 1996.  I have no doubt GNR would have gotten another number 1 record and had the same amount of success as those guys.  The fact is, GNR were hanging on by a thread before the Illusions even came out, that band was a time bomb.  The timing of that bands break up and Nirvana hitting it big was pure coincidence.

There are still journalists who will lump GNR in with hair metal bands because of this.  Now does what some clueless journalist has to say really matter?  No.  But as a fan it is annoying to hear the end of old GNR constantly brought up when reading stories or watching documentaries on Nirvana.  The two had nothing to do with each other.

spot on bro

Great points! : ok:

Nirvana spelling the end of GN?R is obviously revisionist history.
Guns demise was self-inflicted.

But clash of personalities aside, tough to think the tank was empty, whereas their last album of original material ranks among the great rock records in history.
Sure it would be a tall task to match that performance, but I?m not sure hearing Axl?s voice singing over Izzy riffs, Slash solos etc would all of a sudden sound stale in ?94, ?95. Maybe they had a lot more to offer. Maybe they truly were out of gas, and it?s for the best that they split, and while the Guns back catalogue is modest in numbers, the material is potent.

So I'd agree that if there was a time for the classic lineup to get their shit together, and record another album, it was during the mid 90's.
I don't feel the need for one now.

Regret comes into play with the fact that while Slash, Duff, Izzy, Matt were all able to move on and continue their careers, Axl has been treading water at best since the split.
While it?s never ideal to watch great bands disintegrate, at least you typically get a chance to follow each members career moving forward.
Axl seemed to be in his creative prime with UYI, and to think he?s only managed 1 album in the 24 years that have followed is tough to wrap your head around.

Chinese Democracy far and away outshined any of the releases by other alumni imo.

I perfer quality over quantity, I enjoy CD very much-it would be my album of choice for the 2000s.

Am very excited for the next release :)

Any journey that is started has to be completed. Many people start to learn a musical instrument, or a foreign language, then give up. It never feels right when that happens, so option B has to be a no no.

Option C is forever welcome, Axl is an entertainer, so anytime he wants to entertain, bring it on.

Option D is fine, but respect has to be given to the current GN'R band family, they have the long straws just now.

Option A should only happen if there is a happy process going on, free of legal, and anything else that interrupts the artistic output. If a new album is to be released, for me, I want to hear what Axl wants us to hear. It has to be clean, crisp, innovative, everything you expect from a GN'R release. As it is art, only the best versions of all of the songs should be released for our ears to listen to.

Hi Mysteron, Can you elaborate on your option D comment? Just curious to know what you mean. You make great points on the other 3.

Hiya, I just meant that priority should be given to the current members over other ex members  :peace:

Priority from who though? Axl? Or the public?

Oh, I assume Axl.  We all know what the public would prefer.

Unfortunately for the dreamers, Slash also just qualified where he stands.

Tough to say what the ideal situation would be, not knowing the reasons causing the dearth of productivity.

Maybe there is an album in the can. Maybe there are 40 albums in the can.
In the end, who gives a shit if they can?t/won't release them.
One thing the current band has proven over the years, is their inability to release records.
Is that on Axl? the band? the label? All of the above?
We may never know.

Option A sounds pretty logical, but logic doesn?t often apply with GN?R.
Option B would be fine by me if it sparked creativity and the desire to release new music. They could always revisit the previously recorded material down the line.
Option C would signal their satisfaction with being a touring act. Not a good look.
Option D is something that should have happened long ago. In hindsight, Axl carrying on as Guns N? Roses without the alumni looks like a colossal mistake.
Financially speaking, yes it was in his best interest. Artistically speaking, not much got accomplished. Hard to imagine a scenario where less could be done had he down his own thing. If a reunion happened, I?d attend the show. A great live performance is something they could definitely pull off. If they recorded an album, I?d buy it, but I would be cautiously optimistic at best. I just think to much time has passed, and having heard many of their peer?s comeback albums, they don?t typically end up being essential.

The ideal situation for me would be to find out that UYI III has been sitting in the vault since 1991 and they are going to release, reunite and tour it.
Since that?s too good to be true, I?m gonna go with Option E.

Guns has become a touring act. That?s one thing we know Axl is willing to do.
May as well do it right. Get the band(Slash, Duff, Izzy, Steven) back together while they are alive/healthy and can still put on a great show.
Either a one off, or a short tour like the Stones do. Then put it where it belongs, to bed.

Then maybe without the weight of the name, and having fulfilled as best he could the majority of his fans requests, Axl could finally find the inspiration to write, record, release music outside the confines of GN?R and begin the long overdue second phase of his career.

Ultimately, Axl.

I can't see faulting the label for moving on with their lives while Axl dithers.

The current band obviously stopped asking critical questions of their leader some time ago, if they ever asked them at all.

I think a reunion is a total pipe dream, even just a reunion tour, but this sure makes sense to me.

If you are going to build one city residencies around an album going on 30 years old, get the real band.  I'd love for Axl to move forward with his current band and take things in an even remotely progressive direction.  But if all he can find the fire to do is this sort of thing, why not do it correctly?

On a side note...was on FB this morning and Guns posted the video to Estranged. What a killer song. Made me want to hear more so I put on Appetitite. Incredible chemistry by that band made for an incredible album. Mike Clink totally captured the sound of that band.

Axl.

The public are insane  :hihi:

Maybe I'm being selfish, but I feel like Axl Rose has so much to offer the world. The fact that there is material ready to be released sitting on a shelf is shameful. The guy is one of the greatest lyricists in rock history. He needs to get inspired and get back out there. I hate to think that he's grown content. He seems to be more inspired when he's angry (hasnt written many happy songs).

An artist isn't in any way obligated to share their work with the public.

I don't think you deciding what he "needs to do" is in any way appropriate here.

There is absolutely no "shame" in an artist deciding when they choose to share their work with the public, if ever.

This is misguided entitlement talking.

Wow, Never said artists were obligated to share their work with the public. Never decided that he needed to do anything. Never shamed said artist for not sharing the work.

Maybe you should go back and re-read my post because you totally miscostrued (or understood it the way that you wanted to) what I said.

Yeah, good luck with all that.

Axl can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, however he wants.

But then, you deal with the fallout.  That's the part some people can't handle. 

And you can stomp your feet and foam at the mouth and insist that the whole world has it wrong, but its a fool's errand.  Its how it is.  If you choose not to see it that way, good for you. 

But recognize yours is the minority opinion.  Amongst both the general public and even within our own fanbase.

Axl Rose showed the world what he could do.  And he's amazing at his job.  95% of frontmen in rock history can't sniff his level of talent.

Its unrealistic to think people are going to find a guy wasting both time and opportunity to just bedoing god's work.  Most people will just shake their heads.  But yeah, some people are going to be critical.

Welcome to the world.

Maybe you "should" go back and read what you actually said.
Here it is.

"Maybe I'm being selfish, but I feel like Axl Rose has so much to offer the world. The fact that there is material ready to be released sitting on a shelf is shameful. The guy is one of the greatest lyricists in rock history. He needs to get inspired and get back out there. I hate to think that he's grown content. He seems to be more inspired when he's angry (hasnt written many happy songs)"

You clearly said that having unreleased material sitting on a shelf was "shameful"

You also said he "needs" to get inspired and "get back out there".

Artists deciding if and when to release their creations to the public is not "shameful" in any way.

I honestly don't think you are any sort of expert or familiar with the situation so how can you determine what he "needs" to do?

I understand people are impatient and greedy, they want what they want when they want it, and even convince themselves it is a "need".

People should be responsible for their words, even on the internet.

I honestly do not consider you part of the same fanbase, your posting history explains why.

It isn't your job to determine who is "wasting time" and you don't speak for anyone except yourself, not the public, and not the fanbase.

The disgruntled little whiners and  haters online only comprise a very small percentage of the entire worldwide fanbase.

go get em girl....quid pro quo I say. I honestly don't get their point of view either. These clowns have the balls to criticize a guy who is INFINITELY more succesful than they EVER will be. Let the man run his business as he chooses. It really is end of discussion. If he wants to retire, he has the right as he has earned it. If he wants to work again, let him work. Hell, how many people do you see criticize Jim Brown for retiring too soon? The man did his time, made his mark, and moved on. It is perplexing how much time and energy people put in to worrying about what someone else is doing.  ???

I don't think there's a strong argument to be made that he's been productive with his time.

His right?  Sure is.  Anything I (or anyone) can say that will change it?  Nope.

But we all have eyes.  And we all have calendars.

And some have misplaced entitlement issues  :-*

I agree with everything you said 110%

Some people seem intent on deciding what he "needs" to do, or "should" do, and I don't recall anyone asking for their uninformed, amateur advice.

It is laughable   : ok:

Bit of a bold statement unless you know the personal history of everybody here. You could be talking to people who are at the very pinnacle of their chosen field here for all you know.

It's a deflection tactic and a statement with no practical application to the issue being discussed.

If there was a relevant fact based counter argument to be made, there would be.  When that's not present, you get this sort of thing.

Next, he'll be telling us how our momma so fat.

...deflection my ass.

I state facts. You live in a make believe "shoulda coulda" "if this, then that" playground world. If you get your rocks off doing that, have fun jerking Mortis off across the pond.  :hihi:

Have a nice Sunday!

Don't try to explain to the self proclaimed experts that they're wrong.  :hihi:

Isn't it obvious they're the best at knowing how to manage, promote a major band and so on?

By the way, of course they never claimed to be experts or know it all. It's how you act, not always what you say. ;)


/jarmo

Haha! They will go to extraordinary lengths to attempt to defend their idiotic tactics and narrative, while attempting to be witty and amusing- failing miserably on all fronts.

The "should" and "needs" are hilariously a result of their misplaced entitlement issues and their inherent need to try and impress others online. It is equally as amusing when they try and play the poor, abused victim. :hihi:

Oh please, save your fairy tale nonsense for DGenX, you two seem to enjoy inventing delusions.

How is it a delusion? Sky stated Axl is ''INFINITELY more succesful than they EVER will be''. I do not see how that can be fairly stated as certifiable fact without a detailed life history of each individual poster it is applied to. That is assuming we have established certain quantifiable rules for measuring 'success' in the first place. For all you know, some of us could be top lawyers, successful business owners, top athletes, etc.

Of course, the original poster could have meant ''INFINITELY more succesful than they EVER will be as rock acts'' which is fair enough: none of us here are (probably) Mick Jagger!


I have always believed you have won the argument the moment the opposition retorts to crass pejorative comments. Emily loses nearly every one in such a manner.

The Ideal situation for me would to be in Seaclose Park on the Isle of Wight, waiting for GnfR to hit the stage. Living 2 miles from the venue has seen me hear Blur and the Prodigy headline for the past couple of nights. Today I have seen Fleetwood Mac come in by helicopter, so close I could see Mick Fleetwood and one of the women. For Years I hoped that Axl would pay a visit to Festival Island, heres hoping for next year... :yes:

Keep on inventing imaginary scenarios In your warped head.

I feel very safe in saying  that I seriously doubt whether the circle jerk of complainers and crybabies here has anywhere remotely close to the success that GNR enjoys.

If your only defense for the current situation with gnr is, to attack the other person personally whenever they point this out, then that just shows how indefensible gnr are.

I think you are all insane.

 :)

I have nothing else to contribute....It's the same shit all the time.

Wish there was something of substance to look at it, hopefully soon.

I have no need to "defend" GNR, they have done nothing wrong and are on hiatus at present.

You are a very twisted, negative and confused little person.

Please go infect a AC/DC forum and spread your toxic idiocy there.

We seem to have radically different opinions on just what constitutes a 'twisted and negative' person since you are about the most twisted and negative person I have seen on the internet.

It's totally meaningless.

Whether I am a world renowned brain surgeon, or a guy washing windshields at red lights...so what?  I'm neither, obviously, but what would it matter?

How is that the rebuttal of an easily proven premise that a rock star has not made great use of his time over the years?  Connect those dots for me.

Its just deflection, as I said.  And another way to dress us the same concept : stop pointing out inconvenient shit.

I think the argument is always thats its Axls time....   

So as "we" may see those years when Axl was in his mid 30's to mid 40's as "lost" years.  Axl himslef could be very proud of those years and got exacttly what he wanted out of them.

Personally, I see those years of his life, as the perfect time to pump out records and tour the crap out of the world with the greatest guns line up ever (early 2000s).

But for all I know, Axl is very happy with what he did and where he is in life..   So if that is the case, in no way is it a waste

He sure doesn't talk like it was a mardi gras though, does he?

You don't seem to like when it's pointed out to you that not everything is about releasing material. Plenty of bands and artists "retired" after experiencing either professional and/or personal difficulties.

In other words, you don't think it's a valid point to make that Axl did manage to get through things most people never have to deal with on that level.



/jarmo

I think its a pretty big stretch to take a guy that used terms like "the worst year of my life" and try and spin "well, whatever he was up to, at least he was having fun."

I'm not saying anything about having fun.

I made the argument that if you had the worst year of your life, and you managed to get through it, that's a win. It doesn't matter who you are.
It's not about releasing music.


/jarmo

Axl could have just cashed his chips in like Kurt Cobain did..... :-\

I think the argument could be made that Axl overcoming all his set back over the years is a win.  Axl could see that as very rewarding and then those years could been seen as very rewarding....

I think the argument could also be made that many of the setbacks that Axl has had to over come, where very self enduced and he has only had to over come problems he has created for himself...

I truely think there is a fine line between them both

I think what Jarmo is getting at is while Axl may not  have been having the time of his life, he may not have been prepared to deal with the recording/writing and everything else since he was dealing with some personal issues.

I think it's interesting to go back and listen to the bootlegs from the early nineties, specifically his rants and then think "How could this not have happened". The Chicago '92 rant is what sticks out in my mind. About how he can't fake it no more. And how he can't get up on stage and go "Yeah, I'm bad, I'm Rock n Roll, we're doing this Rock n Roll thing" if his life is falling apart. ( I think the fake it part came right after that, actually). He was/is going through a lot. And he did what he had to do as a person to take care of himself. But through it all, he didn't just curl up into a ball and die, he did press on. Wrote some great songs, and released an album. He seems to be a lot happier now, but who knows if he's still dealing with issues.

I still say Axl knows what's best for Axl and for GnR. As much as it sucks not having new music and not seeing them live, I am happy with what we have so far and I'll wait for more. But I also see your point. As fans , of course we want new music.

truth always lies somewhere in the middle Bacon...

BIG time.

Its a variation on the "part of the problem/part of the solution" concept. 

Shit can, does, and will happen.  But its often how you react to it that shapes how it goes for you.

Easily, certainly had enough adverse setbacks to discourage anyone.

I'm thankful to have the released GNR Albums, I'm thankful for all the great times and shows I've attended over the years.

I'm looking forward to the next cycle of touring and I am looking forward to the new release- difference is I dont mistakenly think the band "owes me, nor do I try to impress other trolls by posting how I could do things so much better than GNR, mgmt, etc- like some of the idiots do here.

I have to disagree. I know everyone has a cross to bear, but Axl has had a pretty good life as a rock star and millionaire. Just to put things into perspective, I've seen parents wondering how they were going to pay for their child's medical bills, mortgage, and put food on the table. I've seen my own parents coming from a different country who speak broken English and trying to be the best parents for a child and now adult with a disability (me). My own life I've had to go through 18 surgeries and discrimination. It hasn't been easy, but I'm a college graduate working for one of the biggest financial information/media companies in the world. Please don't use "inspiration". I have a huge pet peeve about that word.

It has killed me to watch a guy like Axl or even Kurt Cobain (not a fan  of his but he did write some good songs)waste their talents. The original lineup could have been the American version of the Rolling Stones, easily. It blew up. A wasted opportunity. Axl could have rebuilt  his career, but didn't. It's sad to see people take their talent for granted when they could be doing so much more with it.

If Axl started out his life as a millionaire and never did anything to deserve his position today, I could see people being less than impressed with his accomplishments. But, it's a real story in there for Axl as well. Beaten and sexually abused as a child, being poor and leaving home at a young age, he started with literally nothing except his musical abilities. I think that warrants respect, even if that made him millions of dollars.

There are many, many people who worked as hard as Axl in their different fields of expertise. Luckily for Axl his abilities created possibilities within a profession that can make you very rich, if you're good at it. The majority of those people won't reach the financial heights as he did because the field they're in simply isn't designed the same way as the music industry. Regardless, they deserve the same amount of respect. I'm happy for you, it seems like you've done quite well! :)




For this part, I agree with you when seen purely from a fan's perspective. Of course, this is what we want for our musical heroes - for them to be as successful as possible.

If you take the time to see it from his perspective though, it all depends on his mindset to it all. Being part of the next Rolling Stones might have been his dream starting out, but I'm not so sure he worries about that anymore. It might be that he simply is content within the situation he is, with no aspirations of being a stadium draw anymore. I wouldn't go as far as saying that he didn't rebuild his career. They've had some pretty good touring runs over the years and that might be exactly what Axl hoped to achieve at this point in his life.

This is why I think an in-depth interview with Axl would have been so interesting at this point. What are his thoughts about all this?

Everyone has their own battles, burdens and demons to contend with in life.

Your issues and battles have nothing to do with GNR, not sure why you thought it was comparable.

I don't see where anyone is "taking their talent for granted" or
"Wasting time" when they choose not to operate on anyone's schedule but their own and follow their own vision.

Artists are in no way obligated to share their talent nor creations with the public, this is a misconception many have.

Um, just to review :

You are the same person that was clapping like a seal not one page ago when the argument was made that I (or anyone else you don't like) haven't accomplished enough in our personal or professional lives to weigh in on the rather meager musical output of a rock star over the past 20 years, right?

That couldn't be more on point, correct?  Followed right along, did it?

That was you, yes? 

I just want to make sure there aren't 2 Emilys here, you understand.  Because based on those comments a page back, and then the above comments quoted here....well, there would pretty much have to be.

actually that was me, not Emily... ::)

I didn't say she made it.  I said she couldn't be more effusive with her "right on!!"s about it.

And then, just like that, using comparisons involving outside the world of GNR have no place talking about GNR.  In the course of a page.

Inconsistent.  Not credible.

I agree with you Spirit.Thank you! I'm just tired of some people here who are giving Axl every excuse NOT to release something. I think he needs a swift kick in the a$$ to say the least. He needs somebody to motivate him.

But very hard to expect when you have weeded out anything resembling a dissenting voice.  Never is heard a discouraging word.

That's further compounded by having people around you that would have to risk their own livelihood to tell the odd hard truth.

I'm not sure we're totally on the same page. For me, I reserve any "demands" for Axl to do anything right now because I'm open to the idea of him having a lot of things on his plate.

But, as time passes by, I will gradually be more impatient.. :)

Read a recent interview with Ricky Warwick about after initially planning to, opting to not release new material under the Thin Lizzy moniker out of respect for the late, great Phil?s legacy. He/they 100% made the right choice, in my opinion.

I wonder if Axl ever struggles with this himself, (obviously no one is truly dead in this case, thankfully, just the classic era of the band) and if that is one possible reason for his decline in creative release.
Obviously it didn?t stop him from releasing Chinese, but perhaps he views things differently having seen how it was eventually received, and after tensions have eased with some former members.

If we go back 10 years, I think this wouldn't cross Axl's mind. To him, there's only one Guns N' Roses, the current one which is always evolving. Something that's been true to him from day one I think.

I lean against him not having too many thoughts about it to this day, he's always seemed pretty determined and clear about what he considers to be "Guns N' Roses", although he hasn't spoken that much about that aspect in recent years. But as you say, with him having spent more and more time with both Izzy and Duff again, his thoughts might have gone back to the old days again, thoughts about writing and recording with the past members. I'm thinking about the experiences they shared while creating music, it could be experiences that he had forgotten about and then they've started to come back to some degree. If it's something that could affect him I'm not that sure about though.

I mean, Izzy and Axl together, writing songs, that's a team who's right up there amongst the greats and he probably knows that.

That was skydog actually.

If you would try and devote your limited little mental resources toward the refuse you attempt to pass off as truth, and not worry so much about what I say you would be far better off and might actually and eventually make decent posts.

It's something for you to work on and strive toward.  :-*

There goes the idiocy again, attempting to determine psychically what people they don't know "need".

I think you need a swift kick in the @ss to reset your brain.

Emily is that all you do on here???? ::)

It could be, but I wouldn't fret over it if I'm him.

The name had huge value.  Trying to keep it was the right move.

To be fair, I always take this from the business perspective and little else.  People start talking about legacies, disrespect and "slaps in the face" and whatnot...I don't know.  I sort of roll my eyes.

Its a rock band.  Its a business.  It was in the best business interest of this rock band to maintain the name "Guns N' Roses".

Axl was smart and the other two were dummies, as I see it.

If you want to tell me you wish Axl had been more ambitious trying to plant his flag when he took over to do his own thing, hey, I'm right with you.

But I don't think his failure to take a real shot means putting himself in the position to do so in the first place was the wrong move.

Actually there are only a small handful of negative idiots on here that rub me the wrong way.

I come here for news and updates on my favorite band, why do you come here?

I am looking forward to the next album and touring cycle, hope at least some of the haters are still here, I plan on gloating. :rofl:

But that sort of sums it up. He got the name. He had a fair amount of goodwill, around rio 3 as I remember, yet he did absolutely nothing with it. He may has well not bothered getting the name and instead put out a bunch of solo albums without the added pressure.

Yeah, but you were 'bout it, 'bout it.  

It was a solid rationale.  His comparison of a poster's personal life as it related to being able to be critical of the band...man, that was genuisy stuff.

Then draguns does the exact same thing (using a real world example to make a GNR point) and you call it out of bounds.

Why?  Because in the former you liked the point being made, and in the latter, you didn't like the tone.

You are a non serious person that makes non serious posts.

Oh, yeah. 

Totally cocked it up.  Never took a real shot.  Didn't really lay it all out there, wear it on his sleeve, and be willing to sink or swim and live with the results.  Did not give the new operation the best chance to succeed.

No question about it.

But I still think you keep the name.  Even now, diminished though it may be.  Some, by actions in his control and some, quite out of it.

But the name is everything.  "Guns N' Roses" is more attractive to a promoter than "Axl's Army".  Even if the latter is doing the exact same stage show.

People are dummies.  They are always drawn to a name.

I actually agree with most of your post, it is telling that the vast numbers of people making comments about "legacy", "slap in the face" and "distrspect" only exist on internet forums, which makes up a very small percentage of the actual worldwide fan base.

He doesnt "lack ambition" simply because you had a different release schedule in mind, that is an uninformed opinion and you aren't privvy to the full details of the situation.

And you are an attention whore that makes attention whoring posts for the most part.

Isn't there another group and their real fans that you can go whine about?

Yes, to the first part.  People need to chillax.  It's a rock band, here.

To the second, I don't know.  I got one album in 15 years of a new line-up, and one he didn't exactly bust his ass to put over and give the best chance to make a mark. 

I got to grade on a pretty major god damn curve to call that ambitious.

GNR has accomplished a great deal, regardless of this lie you are attempting to pass off as truth to suit your agenda.

CD was released in 2008, and there has been worldwide touring for literally years, in all type venues.

The Appetite for Democracy Blu-ray was released, there was the TMS appearance, the Kimmel appearance, The Award for lifetime achievement from Revolver GG- numerous interviews, the fan chats from 2008 - hardly "doing nothing".

The percentage of your posts with no real content, and where you are just calling people names and picking fights is high, way high.

When you just talk to us like human beings, we get some good stuff.  Wish we got more of it, to be honest.

Appetite for Democracy was also released, there does not exist a mandatory, fixed schedule for Artists to adhere to in releasing Albums- there were Television appearances and numerous interviews given.

I certainly did enjoy the many shows I attended.

But nothing has made any real mark.  The amount of people that think the band broke up 20 years ago is still absurdly high.

And of the people that know he's still out there, they can't tell you much about it.  They just know he tours with a bunch of guys named Harry.

That's what people mean when they say this stuff.

He never really got the new product out there and busted his ass to put it over.  Talk about his new material.  Talk about his new band.  Talk about how, oh my god, what we are doing is some of the best stuff I've ever done.

Never really promoted it.  Never really was willing to put his heart and soul out there, weat it on his sleeve, and live with the results.  That being people really digging it, or people shitting on it.

He played it safe.  He took no chances.  And what happened, happened.  Anything good that happened was gravy.

Unlike a Van Halen, that has 2 distinct eras and legacies people are aware of, GNR still, to this day...has only the one.

True or false?

One album in a twenty year time frame? Fairly poor. If you have the name and think you are 'gnr' then you have a hell of a legacy to continue. Also, you have to justify your name grab. You have Slash and Duff suing you and complaining in interviews, and the fan base complaining, so you are going to have to come back with something amazing.

Originally, the name carried Axl back into the arenas and headlining festivals of course. Now, Axl plays vegas. In all honesty, there is now not much commercial difference between Axl (with the name) and Slash (without the name).

I disagree.

Is Slash getting the same type of the headlining slots Axl is getting performing as Guns N' Roses?

As hard as you are trying here to paint the situation as dark and dire, the truth is an Album was released in 2008, a DVD/Blu-ray was released in 2014, there has been years of touring and two residencies- there is a new Album in the works and it is far from the dreary picture you try to paint.

I enjoyed both of the residencies, it was great to be able to attend multiple shows without travelling, enjoyed Hammerstein for the same reason.

If all you are going to do is whine here, why not go find a band you DO enjoy and stop bringing your toxic negativity here.

He is not.

You can argue the point of him headlining arenas and large venues but the size of the venues is not comparable to the ones GNR plays.

I totally agree.

Whenever Axl re-emerges, with whoever he brings out with him, he would have a better chance at a headlining gig than Slash, who has been out there this whole time with the same band.

I would agree if you are talking about anything up to and including, around 2011. Now I see them about on par. These little casinos are fairly embarrassing. There is also that tour which was sexed up as 'up close and personal' to disguise sagging sales. Do you believe Axl could headline another Rio now? You have to admit, his stock has fallen quite drastically the last few years.

It's so great to come back and read the same stuff about the same topics written by the same people saying the same things.

Especially when so much of it has not only been rehashed into oblivion, but, in some cases, demonstrated to be so wrongheaded based on actual "real world" events, situations, conditions, etc.

Anyway...carry on.

no doubt....back to the name issue.

Mortis, in 2013, Gnr headlined the Governors Ball...a pretty big festival in the States...

http://heavy.com/entertainment/2013/06/governors-ball-2013-tickets-lineup-preview-transportation/

don't let the facts get in the way of a good story though.  :hihi:

I saw both Guns n Roses and Slash in 2013.  One of them was a headlining act...the other opened for Def Leppard.

Sorry Mortis, even today, Axl and Guns still carry more star power than Slash and co.

Yea, it?s just mildly interesting now because fences have since been mended with Duff, Izzy and to an extent Matt, Steven.
I?m sure in the aftermath of the classic lineup, Axl wanted to show the world he could carry on without the others.
Just like I?m sure Slash, Duff & Matt wanted to prove they could be successful sans Axl with VR.
It?s just human nature.

It was probably, and perhaps still is difficult to look back and truly appreciate what they accomplished together when there was so much animosity between them.

Maybe since tensions have cooled, what they accomplished and what made them successful is more clear.
Maybe he holds that more sacred than before.

But like you said, I wouldn?t be surprised if it?s not the case at all, and if he just views it as the necessary evolution of GN?R.

And you figure a post like this is the best way to combat it?

As opposed to, say, pushing an existing conversation in a different direction?  Or starting a new topic altogether?

I guess I'm curious what the roadblocks are that are preventing such courses of action.  But, perhaps once identified, we can all put our heads together and try and find a way forward.

I'm just thinking out loud here, really.  There are no bad ideas in a brainstorming session, people.

Here, they opened for Aerosmith.

I guess you could say Aerosmith is the bigger name, which is obviously true.

But if Slash and his band of merry men could do their own headlining thing in a decent sized place, wouldn't they?

I understand the business side of it 100%.
It makes all the financial sense in the world to secure the name.
The name is a money printing machine. An indestructible money making machine.
It requires little to no maintenance. Stamp the name on product, product will sell. Got it.

I?m not even really talking about the initial decision to move forward without the others.
I?m talking about today, after the hassles/headaches he endured creating Chinese Democracy, and after it was released to lukewarm reception, and after he?s mended fences with the majority of the alumni. Is it easier for him to look back on that era fondly now that the animosity has potentially dissipated?

He?s got a pretty good idea how another record sans the alumni, in the vein of Chinese will probably be received.
Does all that give him pause to release additional records under the GN?R moniker?

maybe....

and the name is a huge deal.....Roger Waters says that was the biggest mistake he ever made was under-estimating the value of the name Pink Floyd. I am quite certain Axl knew this.



"It's one of the few times that the legal profession has taught me something," Waters said. "Because when I went to these chaps and said, 'Listen we're broke, this isn't Pink Floyd anymore,' they went, 'What do you mean? That's irrelevant, it is a label and it has commercial value. You can't say it's going to cease to exist . . . you obviously don't understand English jurisprudence.'"



Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/roger-waters-regrets-pink-floyd-legal-battle-20130919#ixzz3dQGqniKj
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

Yup, understood.
Axl doesn?t have to worry about that, though.
He owns the name whether he releases new music or not.

I don't care for Emily's approach... she's one of a kind on here... that's for sure.

But I agree with pilferk... this is in every single thread.. maybe you two should just ignore each other.

It's a very quiet time... no reason to hammer away with the same garbage every day in every thread.

Mending fences with Duff must have softened his stance on even Slash even if he doesn't realize it...

His beef's with both men were very similar...

I do think it will eventually lead to some kind of communication, but not a return to the band for Slash or some kind of appetite/illusions reunion.

I think the "beef" Axl had with Duff is/was much different than the one he had/has for Slash....

To me it seemed Axl resented Duff for hanging out with Slash and giving up on Guns in 97.   Plus all the lawsuits the two had against each other in the 2000s probably didnt help mend any fences.

The problems with Slash seem to be much deeper and personal.  Where as the problems with Duff seemed almost mostly about business

Axl stating that Duff calling him stupid and a loser was part of the problem in producing lyrics is not personal enough for you?

Obviously each case is different, but there were a lot of common issues.

I really hope Axl didnt have a issue with Duff calling him a, stupid loser...   Or a loser thats stupid, or a loser and stupid.

That seems pretty grade school and a insult that should just be laughed off.....

Next thing I am going to read is that Axl is mad at Slash because Slash called him a big dummy!

I cringed when Axl said that in that interview... but that's a whole 'nother story!

I just think its only natural that he's not as hot as he once was over everything, reconnecting Duff being the main reason.

So I agree with LongDayGone's overall stance.

For years Slash publicly attempted to paint Axl as the villian in the media, by lying and manipulation as well as passive aggressive jabs, thankfully he no longer does that.

I think substance abuse played a big part in some of those earlier Slash interviews and quotes.  Its no excuse at all, but it could be one of many reasons.

I think that is definitely a contributing factor, he was also married to Perla, she made a few nasty comments on her own, and undoubtedly influenced him.

Yup, I think it's the best way.

Because nothing else ever works.  I've/We've tried it.  Exactly the suggestions, above. Nobody points it out, but look back...how many "on another note", "on a similar topic", "Now that we've beaten that dead horse", "Moving on"'-s can you type out and/or read before you just get to a point where you have to stop, point, and call a spade, a spade. No matter how many tactics we try, the conversation gets dragged back, kicking and screaming.

I don't think there IS a way forward, for some posters, because they are squarely stuck in the past (note: I'm not necessarily pointing at YOU, here).  They refuse to not only acknowledge FACTS (like, the rock music scene in NA isn't what it was even 5 years ago), they refuse to accept the events as they've happened, both recently and in the distant past.  They need to rehash them every single god damn day. To interpret and re-imagine and rework and retell and....you get the picture.

Some of this stuff was 20 fucking years ago.  We've been discussing it, HERE, for well over a decade.

I get we get new blood all the time, and when those folks jump in with some of this stuff, I "get it" a little more, because nobody has any idea when their "fandom" began, and when first reading up on the history of this band, some of this stuff is mind blowing and confusing.

But, when it's the regulars? Less so.  It's boring. It's monotonous. It's repetitive.

You can say...as you have before..."Well, then there'd be no content".

I'll repeat my previous response: I'd be OK with that.  If having to decide between rehashing the same discussions of the same issues, or the same "Axl vs Slash" debates, or over how Axl came into possession of "the name", or if he should have continued using "the name" or...all the other dead horse topics and NOTHING...yeah, I choose more silence.

YMMV.

My "way forward" is to not participate anymore.  Not in any meaningful way.  It won't change anything, I know.  But maybe if enough people get bored with the topics, and those who feel the need to continue perpetuating decade+ old discussions, while not really bringing ANYTHING new to the conversation, are just shouting into the either, maybe they'll stop.  Or maybe not. I don't know.  But either way...yes...for the forseeable future, I'm "out" on this kinda stuff in any way EXCEPT the kind of response I posted initially.

No matter how wrong headed, backwards, or provably incorrect a post is.... :P

nice work Pilferk...

But that assumes your FACTS are true.  Rock is not dead, although that's used as a convenient excuse to justify not releasing anything.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/2014-year-rock-roll-article-1.2126036

Granted, the article takes some liberties into what they classify as rock, but the state of rock isn't as dire as some project it to be.

A LOT of liberties.  Do you consider Ed Sheeran and Lourde rock? 'Cause the charts do. And other artists like them.  The article is, to be perfectly honest, crap.

We discussed this, previously.  The only way you can make "rock" look "good" is by changing it's definition, and who you include under the umbrella.  I'm not willing to do that, just to try to make something look better than it is.

Tranditional rock isn't "dead".  But it's not selling like it was. It's not what it was 5 years ago (which is what I actually SAID, to be clear).  Metallica lost money LAST YEAR touring the U.S.  AC/DC has a super abbreviated NA tour this year...and I suspect that has a lot to do with the economics.  You see other traditional rock acts doing very similar things: Smaller venues, smaller tours, or both.

Those are economic realities.  Bury your head in the sand if you'd like, point to articles that redefine what you, me, and everyone else born prior to 2000 would actually call rock and roll, but none of that really changes things.

And, again, we're rehashing...so I'm out.  Feel free to continue on.

I totally disagree.

Your post reminded me of the guy that calls into the radio station and stays on hold for 45 minutes just to tell the host he doesn't like the day's topic.

Then the host invariably says that the floor is his and he can introduce something else.  At which point, the caller stammers and nothing new is said.

There is absolutely nothing stopping you from pushing things in another direction in any existing thread, or starting a new one altogether.  Those are both proactive solutions.

"Not this again"...but with nothing fresh in it's place?  That's accomplishing something?

Except:

1) I didn't wait to float my thoughts into the ether.
2) There is no host and this isn't anyone's "show".
3) Introducing a new topic, thought, bent, or opinion hasn't worked previously...so why should I expect it to be any different this time?

So, in essence, your analogy really doesn't have anything to do with what happened, was said, or what's going on here.

This would be a lot more like being in a group, and having the same two guys having the debate over whether Magic Johnson or Larry Bird was the better player. In 2015, for the 30000th time since the late 80's.  And one of the other members of the group saying "It's getting a little stale, guys...lets talk about the Finals that just wrapped up".  And this guy, for 20 years, has been doing the same thing....along with other members of the group.   At some point....when every conversation gets derailed back to Johnson/Bird....you realize introducing new topics doesn't change things.  It's just one more thing to get derailed.  So finally you just point out that it's stale, and stop engaging those members of the group. Right?


I'm not trying to be proactive, any more than the current discussions are pro- or reactive to anything going on.  They're just the typical derailments.  I'm venting frustration and, truthfully, disgust.


Yup, and I explained what in the ensuing previous response.

We simply disagree then, it seems.  Ain't no thing.

But somehow, someway (any Snoop fans?) AC/DC and Van Halen have released albums in these trying times.  Christ, Judas Priest just did.  Why should it matter if rock is dead or thriving...isn't it all about the quality of the music?  Waiting until rock sales increase isn't really a point in the artistic integrity column.

Look, fewer people go to football games now.  Doesn't mean the Cowboys stop playing (although I wish they would).

Sorry if this all just re-hashes things...believe me, I'd much rather talk about what's next for the band.  However, since the band's on a hiatus, and Dizzy just had his birthday, there's not much in the "new band info." dept. to speak of.

I've often said that you come up with funky ass shit like, every single day.

I was (and am) speaking more toward the touring side of things, not the album release side, and discussions of why GnR is doing Vegas (and how it pertains to their popularity vis a vis Slash's popularity).

BUT, on the album release side....you have a limited number of release slots, and a limited number of resources to promote sed releases, and a limited number of resources to promote. schedule, and physically release sed material.

And you have a HUGE, monolithic, label picking and choosing what comes out.

So..while sales might not effect the artists reasoning for release, it might effect their opportunities.

Even in the cases you pointed out above...the sales of those albums were NOT to the level they were 5, 10, 15 years ago.  Part of that is the health of the music industry and album sales in general.  But even considering that...those rock releases didn't remarkably sell well.  The back catalogs sell better.

Again, I want to point out...this isn't GnR specific.  I'm NOT saying "it's all the labels fault"that we don't have a new GnR album.  But there are economic realities that get totally ignored by a good chunk of folks, even when they are pointed out.

And are ignored again when they bring up the same point 3 weeks, 3 months, 3 years later.


Um...nope.  Not really.  Not to the kind of extent we're talking here.  This would be like the Cowboys going from 60k filled stadiums to 20k attendance.  They'd lose money. The league would lose money.  And they'd have to rethink how and why and when they do things.


So...why do people feel the need for there to be "noise" if the "noise" is 20 year old rehashes of rehashes of rehashes of rehashes?

I just don't think we need that.  YMMV.

To play devil's advocate of sorts, isn't this also a rehash?

There are certain topics you aren't happy with.  You haven't exactly been shy about reminding us.  You sure have been repetitive, however.

Is it really necessary for you weigh in with how unhappy you are with the same stuff?  Under your very premise, isn't that an established fact and nothing new?

Seems to me like when certain things bubble back up to the top, we could all sort of mentally say to ourselves "I bet pilferk is not digging this".

One could also argue that your chronic unhappiness over such isn't exactly affecting change either.

Yup, it sure is. But since I'm the one complaining about rehases...and you guys are all seemingly OK with it...I guess I'm only really annoying myself.  And I call that "Life", so....I'm good.


Not necessary. Cathartic, though.


Feel free to suffix all such posts exactly that way. :)


I'm not the Lorax. I don't speak for the Trees.  And I'm certainly under no illusion that it will effect actual change.  The only way that happens is if there are a BUNCH of us, who feel the same way, and we all leave the rehashes devoid of input...no matter how much it pains. Then you've got people screaming into the ether.  Maybe THAT effects change.  I freely admit that, in the past, I've been part of the problem by engaging, and letting the rehashes perpetuate.

I'm committed to not doing that. Only me.

Others can make their own decision.

Oh, don't bother me none.  Whatever gets talks about, gets talked about.  You run a (somewhat) open discussion forum, that's just what happens.

Ha!  Dare I say (and this certainly won't get me any Karma points) that I think our musical preferences are pretty similar.  I have AFD and The Chronic in my Top 5 albums.

Early Death Row (1992-95, before Dr. Dre bounced) is still my favorite rap stuff ever.

Early gangster rap was fun to listen too in its time.   The west/east rap war was fun for a white kid from Canada to witness.  I am looking forward to the new NWA movie that is coming out.   I was a huge Easy-E fan.

What I used to love about early guns was that Axl seemed to be on the cutting edge of new; soon to be trendy bands.   Seemed he would go out of his way to promote smaller artists and show his live to them by wearing some of there swag on stage.  We are talking nin, nirvana, Janes addiction and ice t. 

I remember a interview from the late 90s when Axl said he was into current bands such as limp bizzkat and Lincon park

Then just acopile years ago he gave a interview where he said he mostly listens to older stuff these days.......     He struck me as a artist that was/is influenced from current music as well as stuff he grew up with.   I just hope he wasn't lost that drive to deal out new music and artists.....    There is still lot of great music out there

Yeah, Axl was the first person I heard talking about Nine Inch Nails.

While I was still listening to Skid Row.

A bit off-Topic but I loved old-school rap and bands like Bones, Thugs & Harmony, NWA and Body Count.

NIN too, up until With Teeth.

All good music there!

Nin live performance at Woodstock 94 is is something that opened my eyes to them and most people I think.   Axl was into them years before that.   That's pretty cool

2 live Crew

Sorry, couldnt resist...

Can't help but think all the controversy they stirred up only served to sell more albums.

Sort of like the PMRC warning stickers on Albums did.

Slash's recent gig in Stockholm was at an amusement park.
Are you gonna make a puppet show joke about it?


/jarmo

Did you see the show?  :)

Well Slash will be playing at a food truck festival in NJ. So it's kinda interesting to see him play there :-\. As far as rap, you can't beat old school Public Enemy.

No.


/jarmo

Why not? I suppose their (both Axl and Slash) stock has diminished drastically since 1993 - this point is obvious. But my point is that Slash is playing bigger venues now (arenas in Europe) than when he was with Snakepit when he was playing clubs whereas Axl's stock seems to have plummeted since 2010-11, South America excepted. It would look better on a graph!

By the way, If Slash played Vegas residencies (not entirely out of the question) I would be just as critical of him, as I am of Axl. Vegas is no place for a musician with any pretense to creativity and art.

Last time GN'R played in Europe, they headlined festivals. Selective memory at work again.



/jarmo

The Killers are a great band and are from Las Vegas....  They soent years playing smaller shows around the city and still put on quite a bit of Vegas only shows.  I dont think Las Vegas has anything to do with a musicians loss of creative or loss ot there art.  Many bands are from the area and thrive in the enviroment.  Many bands have succesful careers and have tour stops in Vegas.   Is there credability lost for this?  How many shows in Vegas would it take in your opinion for a musician to loose credibilit by playing Las Vegas?  1, 2, 5, 10, 40 shows????   Some major performers have choosen to take up stays in major hotels.  Many have used the reason, its more money than they would make on the road.  Also some artists are sick of travel or just want a break from it, they can get this from a long stay in a city....  Also its a bit of a treat to fans.  A differenct experience for people that may have just seen the band come to there local market.   Were is every musician may not state these reasons or none at all, doesnt mean you should just rule that the reason for the long stay is for basiclly being lazy.

Las Vegas is also home to some of the largest hotels and casinos in the world.   Sure they have very small ones, like you mentioned, but last I check Guns played at the Hard Rock.  While not the biggest hotel in the world.  Its pretty big and a great venue for live music as well a one of the better pools in town.

Seems like you have hate for two things   (well actually many, but in this example only two)...    1)  Las Vegas in general    2)  And bands playing resedincies...

For example....   Would you have a problem if Axl did a 20 show engagment in London????

I get the frustration with the publics lack of information regarding current and furture plans with the music and the band...   But I dont understand the frustration with a resedency

Would you warm up to one, if Axl released new music.  Toured the world again playing barnd new songs with brand new setlists, then put on a resedency?   

I would love another one right now and would fly down and see multuple shows in a second.

When I say Vegas, I mean Vegas residencies.

It is about association. There is nothing inherently wrong with the physical act of playing Los Vegas, Nevada, but it is the association that comes with it. Vegas is the retirement home of musicians. It is where Pat Boone and the Monkees play greatest hits shows. It is about nostalgia and 'revivalism', recreating a past for layman crowds and not challenging yourself with new material. Unfortunately those images of Elvis dying a slow death on stage are difficult to forget.

Europe has not been played in ages though!

I think there are differences in a full-blown residency and a "mini-residency". The two times GN'R has been there they played 12 (2012) and 9 (2014) shows.

Also, both times they were part of a tour: in 2012 they went straight to Asia after Las Vegas and in 2014 the residency was following the South America tour.

If all GN'R did was play 70 shows a year in Vegas, and no concerts anywhere else in the world, then yes, I think the description you gave would apply to Guns.

I didn't mean to post smiley faces in my above post.  Ugh please forgive me

Vegas is way more than Dead Elvis and Pat Boon.    I travel down around 4 times a year.  Love seeking out what ever random live music is playing during my visit.   There are some great venues around the city.   Most are in the casinos and hotels    Some of the best music is out on by house bands    Who really have permanent resedicies   

I saw Cheap Trick at the Paris hotel durring one of there resedincies there.   Great great show.  Def leapord as well at the hard rock out on a great show

I think some people try and place two topics in one and act like its the same thing.   

If you want to talk about releasing new music, fresh set lists, world tours , that's fine.   It has nothing to do with playing shows in Las Vegas.  And playing shows in Las Vegas does not contribute to any of that not happening.   

And if you are trying to say that by playing shows there your band is not seen as relavent to the current music scene.   I would say that's just your opinion.   Probably not that of many other people.  I would think the vast majority of people don't really think twice about it

I see a correlation between the two.


Of course it is, but in my defense, I'm not the first person to see Vegas residencies in such a way. The association originates with Elvis and Engelbert Humperdinck, and jump suits and nostalgia revival shows. I am also not alone in saying to myself, ''oh shit - it's over'', the minute Axl started doing the Vegas thing.

Have you been to Vegas in the last 40 years?  Much has changed since Fat Elvis and Wayne Newton.  Perhaps it was once a retirement community for acts, but it's not anymore. 

I wouldn't go to Vegas if you paid me. Horrible tacky place.

So what is your opinion based on?   What you have read or seen through movies, pictures?   Or is your opinion based on other people's opinions that you have talked to or read?

I think your examples of Las Vegas are very outdated.   If you are a fan of live music.   I highly recommend checking out the city if you are given the chance

Also with guns playing Vegas....   It in zero way changes the general publics point of view of the band.   Take that as positive or negative.   But what ever the general public thought of the band going into a Vegas residency, they still think it.  I say this because there is zero promotion of the resedecy out side of Vegas.  So general public Joe Blow, wouldn't even have a clue that the band is playing there.   Unless they actively seek out that info, or are from the city

Aren't you doing the happy dance?


/jarmo

ridiculous conversation yet again from the "idealist" who seems to know what is best for the person named Axl Rose....he lives his life, you live whatever it is you live. More Ivory Tower BULLSHIT...and don't even remotely fuck with any version of Elvis. ;)

You are clearly deluded and not in touch with reality.

I enjoyed both residencies, it was great to be able to attend multiple shows without traveling.

Oh ya I as well loved it.   I would also welcome any future resedicies      I would prefer a city or country I haven't travelled to give me a great excuse to go spend a week there.  However if it wa Begas again, I would book my ticket with a smile

And hope to see you there so I could buy you a couple of shots

They've more or less done that, with both the theater mini-tour in and around NYC and the Hammerstein shows (which, honestly, were pretty much an NYC residency...no?)

I'd LOVE to see them do another one on the east coast....and if they were doing the same thing in L.A. or NYC or Miami or Boston or...well, you get the picture...I doubt we'd hear a peep.

Actually...we probably would, from someone.  Because there are people who are always gonna bitch, who are always going to be looking for something, ANYTHING, to complain about....no matter what happens.  It's true of pretty much any topic on the interwebz.

How many freaking threads are we going to talk about one person's hatred for Las vegas?

'

I just don't get it. 

Its a super fun town.  I go every year.  Last year, went twice.

Its basically impossible to not have fun there.

Agreed. Going next week for "holiday" as my Euro friends would say.

But his dislike for Axl playing there is in every freaking thread.

I do get his point that once you become "a Vegas act", you are often saying you are just a nostalgia act.  That's legit.

But that's sort of outdated thinking.  There are artists that play extended stays there that aren't just a greatest hits act.

I agree wholeheartedly, it is beyond redundant.

Wonder if the Las Vegas hater has actually been to Vegas lately- or ever.

I wouldn't say that the Hammerstein Ballroom was a residency. Something like what Billy Joel is currently doing at Madison Square Garden is. I would like to see Axl doing something similar.

Axl could never do a residency in a venue of that size without a reunion.

I don't agree with this

I would think in the current situation it would be very tough for guns to to do what you are asking

But

There is no need for the reunion.   

If guns managed to release new music and also managed to get a new hit single and followed that up proper marketing and promotion.  I garantee they would be able to do a resedecy in a large venue

I love Las Vegas ! I go pretty much twice a year.  Went to the last two residencies and had a blast.  Got to meet & chat with some of the band who were awesome and were very nice.  I'm chomping at the bit for Guns to do another residency in Vegas.

Well, I guess its fitting this is a thread titled "in a perfect world".  Are you kidding? 

You are talking about legwork and a foundation that needed to be laid YEARS ago.  The time for what you are talking about is long gone.  That window was missed.

The time for what you are talking about needed to be in the lead up to the eventual release, and then how things were handled after the release.  And they fucked it all up.  Worse, they never really tried.

I just don't see how in 2016 or later, you think you can get that all done now.  Its akin to starting your summer reading 3 days before the school year starts.

There's not a lot of room in today's market, on the radio or other media, for a rock n' roll band of their age to have a hit single.  So anyone that is going to measure success by that standard will most likely be let down. 

I agree that the days of them having a hit are over.  But the days of them being relevant should not be.

Has Pearl Jam had a hit since 'Last Kiss', which isn't even their song?  That was 17 years ago now.  But no one doubts their viability.  Nine Inch Nails isn't exactly burning up the Billboard Hot 100.  No one doubts their viability either.

In Mort?s defense, Vegas will always be associated with sweaty, bloated era Elvis.
It has the reputation of being where fading superstars go to take a bow.
Britney Spears may be there now.

I?ve been to Vegas a few times. Cool experience but don?t think I?ll ever feel the need to return.
I think you can see just about all you need to see in a day or two.

Went earlier this year, and drove from Vegas to Utah. Thought it made the trip more interesting to see the stark contrast between over the top Vegas and God country.

Whereas Guns only took up residency for a month or so in the middle of longer tours, I don?t view it as them being put out to pasture.
It doesn?t help in that regard, but probably the least of their worries.

I think the next tour of the U.S. will tell the tale.

If its another Vegas residency, coupled with a random festival in Ohio and a one off in Pennsylvania casino, that's probably all they can swing.

If its another "up close and personal" tour <wink, wink>, that's probably all they can swing.

Axl's Orchestra is a theatre band in the US....which is fine with me as the sound is always better in more intimate venues.

Axl?s Orchestra has a nice ring to it.
I?m with you, I?d much prefer to catch a theatre show.

I certainly don't discount the benefits of a playing smaller places.

I just hope we don't go too overboard with how its being done out of the goodness of their hearts.

I don't think that's necessarily true. I'm pretty sure they can sell out arenas in the biggest markets in the US. If they played a smaller tour including Florida (one city), New York, Chicago, Texas (one city) and Los Angeles, I'm sure they could sell out big arenas in all those places. It will harder for them to sell out arenas if they play 20-30 cities in the US, you'll lose a lot of people traveling in to the bigger cities then.

New York would probably be one of the few places where they still could sell out a big arena as part of a bigger US tour.

It is what it is...they can do arenas in certain cities but for the most part I think they are better off booking large theatres...classic venues that hold anywhere from 3000-5000 people.

A reunion tour would be large arenas in the US...likely stadiums outside the US.

But if they could, why haven't they been?

Their income might have been close to the same while playing a lot more (smaller) venues. I think it fares better with the fans if you play more shows, even if the shows are smaller. Less people have to travel far in order to see them.

Mini-residency?

I mean, they set up shop and did a ration of shows over a couple weeks, at the EXACT same venue. It wasn't as long as their Vegas stints have been, no.  It was prep for the tour, to be sure.  And, I guess, they're not technically LIVING at the Hammerstein, like they mostly do at the Hard Rock.  But it's a pretty fine line of distinction, to be honest.

Point being:  We've heard no complaints about "those" types of things before.  I doubt we would if they happened again (PLEASE DO ANOTHER BATCH OF THEATER SHOWS IN NYC!!!). :)

The Hammerstein Ballroom?

Not that big, man. :)  Capacity's only about 2500 peeps for a concert setup.

MSG?

Hmmmm....IDK. They draw really, really, really well in NYC.  They sell out MSG pretty quick, the past couple times they've played there.

If that was their ONLY tour stop, east coast, and they did a a month of weekend shows (Fri - Sun)?  I think they might be able to pull it off.  It's no sure thing, I grant you.

Move it out to LA....I think they manage it with no problems.

By the by...going into my freshman year in HS: Anna Karenina, Man of La Mancha, and The Collected Works of Edgar Allen Poe (which, admittedly, I was more than passingly familiar with) in 3 1/2 days...and that includes the write up/essay questions due.

;)

And that's the reality for most of what the folks here would consider rock tours, right now (aka, NOT Lourdes, Ed Sheeran, etc):

You're not doing 40 city tours in North America.  You're doing 20 (maybe)..and that includes at least 3-5 stops in Canada (or 8, if you're AC/DC).  New York, LA, Chicago, Boston, Dallas, Miami and Seattle are your go to's.  Detroit and San Fran are possibles.  You can probably pick out 2 to 3 more, where, as a specific band, you might have drawn well (but far enough away from other markets to not canibalize your attendance).

That's not just GnR, guys.  It's now Metallica, AC/DC, and most of the rest of the "untouchables", too.

Yeah, I'm a fast reader too.  But, not really the point I was going for, Johnny Humblebrag.

Except Crue and Van Halen are doing that plus much more.  VH is playing about 40 shows (all in the U.S.) and Crue is all over the place.  I'm assuming these bands are closer to Guns on the rock spectrum than Ed Sheeran.   :hihi:

Do you see "up close and personal" tours in their futures?

I do not.

No.  You play what the market dictates.  Spin it however you want, but it is what it is.

Yeah, I know, I know.  But...I was going for a wry implication, there, too...along with a little Off topic levity.

What you, and I, and most people would think an insurmountable hurdle, or crazy bit of self-destructive procrastination......isn't for everyone.

I don't know if it is for Axl and the band.....I don't count Axl out of anything, ever.  He's too unpredictable, and has offered up too many surprises (of both types), in the past.

He's exactly the type to rise, like a phoenix, from the ashes....or...not.

If they felt like it...sure.

Both have played smaller venue gigs, in the recent past.

The point being: We've seen ONE GnR "up close an personal" tour.  ONE does not a trend, make.

You think it was 'cause they had to.  Fair enough.

There is equal evidence to say it's 'cause that's what they felt like doing.

Both ways can be profitable. Both ways can be fun.  Bands of all shapes and sizes have done it both ways. (wink wink nudge nudge).

I'm interested to see how that works out for both bands, in terms of sales and profitability.

If they both do well, maybe it's a good sign for things to come.

I can still find pairs of good seats (13th row, center for one show, fifth row center for another) for VH, for shows 2 weeks away, in a 20k seat arena.

Crue looks in better shape, early....so that's something.  The whole "Final Tour" thing might work wonders for them. We'll see!

Metallica losing money on their tour LAST YEAR was a kick in the teeth, for me.  I didn't think that would/could EVER happen.  AC/DC doing, what...10 U.S. dates? was another.  If you look at most other acts that we'd consider "rock", who have toured the past 3 years....the results are relatively glum (with, maybe, the possible exception of Bon Jovi).

You're seeing really big acts pivot on how they tour, now.  Not all of them...but the one's that aren't are hit and miss (with a lot more misses than hits).

Very much agreed.

As I said earlier, the next U.S. tour tells the tale, I should think.

Whether UCAP was a lark...or the new reality.

I agree with that middle bit.

But the market effects EVERYONE.  Not JUST GnR. And vice versa.

I'm not saying GnR are Metallica and AC/DC.   I'm saying "If Metallica and AC/DC are feeling the effects, EVERYONE is feeling the effects".

And you apply them all the way down "the list".

Neither band will be doing UCAP tours in club type venues.

Not sure why you keep coming back to them, as if that's in their futures.

If you want to tell me that Metallica can't fill the EnormoDome anymore, fine.  Not really sure what that has to do with GNR playing to 2 or 3,000 people.

Read what I wrote, again.  You want to turn this into a discussion that it's not.

I'm not saying they will be forced to....like I know you think GnR was "forced to", last time.  I mean, both bands could, if they wanted.  Both have done strings of small venue shows before, for one reason or another. It would NOT shock me to see, for example, AC/DC do some historic theaters in the UK come winter time (provided they can get their personel situation sorted to their satisfaction).

I'm saying if THOSE TWO BANDS, who, up until the past couple of years I would have told you were UNTOUCHABLE in the U.S., in terms of ticket sales, are feeling the effects of rock's inability to sell tickets...then everyone else down the pecking list will, too.  THOSE TWO BANDS are the giant, money printing, monolithic entities that have, for decades, pretty much been bulletproof when it comes to live music.

If AC/DC's management and promoters...who, FYI, are amongst THE BEST in the business....told them they would be better doing 10-ish dates in the US, and spending more time in Canada and EU and Oz.....that tells you what they think of the current scene in the US: It's not profitable to do big, 40 show, arena tours touching every city from coast to coast.

Metallica lost money on their tour, LAST YEAR.  And you can't point to any of the factors, other than sheer public interest/economic factors, that people point at when talking about GnR's attendance.  They had new material, they've been in the public eye, they have a relatively stable line up, etc, etc, etc.  They just couldn't sell enough tickets, per venue, to make money.

My point was, is, and will be: If those guys are feeling the effects of the market and the way it's swung heavily toward live POP, TOP 40, acts (cause Taylor Swift, Katy Perry, and their ilk are selling tickets like gangbusters, at prices that make me cringe), then EVERYONE is, to some extent.  You can see it in the Billboard tour numbers that come out.   No matter where you think GnR is down that line....they're going to feel the effects, too.

And, when "judging" their popularity based on their touring options, their ticket sales, or their decisions about where/when/how to tour....you need to view it through that lens.  I don't think anyone, here, thinks it's still 1992.

Now someone, somewhere, somehow, will bemoan that people are always making excuses for GnR.  Whatever.  The above is REALITY.  There is ample evidence to support it.  The only truly "bulletproof" rock act currently active might be Bon Jovi.  We'll get to see, when the numbers come in, if the Stones still are (god, I hope they are). Hell, even they only did 14 dates, in the states.  I chalk that up to endurance, though, more than market...but who knows.

I sometimes, half jokingly, wonder if a reunited Beatles could do 40 shows in the US and sell them all out. It's ALMOST that kinda bad for live rock music, right now. ALMOST.

When was the last time Metallica toured the US properly? There's your answer.
Remember when they tried to run a festival and it ended up costing them?



/jarmo

Only bullet proof rock act is Bon Jovi???  Really.  How about Pearl Jam??  Every show is sold out, probably even more than Bon Jovi.

And much better music and show

They both are.

Pearl Jam and Bon Jovi fill basketball/hockey arenas nationwide, every time out.  No problem.

And I'm pretty sure they would both qualify as a rock bands.

Wonder what their secret is?  Maybe pick their brains.

MAYBE. Note my qualifier, too...my whole diatribe is really only related to the U.S.

They did 12 dates in the US (aside from the Bridge School benefit), in 2014.

Granted, they did 23 in 2013.

In that context, they probably are, because I think that's the new reality. Big acts can do 20-ish shows. Smaller can do 10 to 15.

But, I don't know, right now.  I honestly don't.  Maybe.  But I don't see them doing any 30 city US tours any time soon, either.  I just don't.

And I agree on the quality of the music and show, from Pearl Jam.  Saw them in Oct, 2013.  REALLY good show.  FYI: you can read "Bon Jovi", every time I type it, with sarcasm and disgust.  I'm not a fan...

I think Bon Jovi's an easy answer: Their appeal to a very broad demographic.  Have you ever been to a Bon Jovi show? I have (protesting the entire way).

I'd say MOST rock concerts I go to, with some exceptions (Green Day, for instance) skews VERY strongly toward males.  Would you all say that's pretty fair?

With Bon Jovi, I'd say the audience is most definitely much more mixed.  In fact, I'd say that the females were almost certainly in the majority, by a fair bit.

It's also a pretty milquetoast, safe, version of a rock and roll show.  It's like a Disney version of a rock band....I'd take my kids to one of those shows.