Here Today... Gone To Hell!

My thoughts on the future of Guns N' Roses

Yes, kids, the band is still around and are doing quite well. Each time they tour and do shows in the UK which are often, they are sold out. Now, before some of the readers start scratching their heads wondering why Guns N? Roses is still relevant and worth talking about, let me just say first that it is because there are music aficionados like myself who did not believe the band had ?died? after the then only other original member, Slash, decided to leave the band way back in 1996. To the Rock historians, you guys certainly know what I am talking about here. Even with the departure of Slash from the band, Axl Rose took it upon himself to make sure that no matter what Guns N? Roses would go on with himself at the helm, of course.

During those challenged-filled years for Axl Rose to keep Guns N? Roses alive, it was a revolving door of talented and underrated musicians filling in the vacant slots left behind by the classic line-up consisting of Slash, Duff Mckagan, Izzy Stradlin and Matt Sorum. Personally, of all the past members who have joined Axl Rose in that extensive alumni list after the classic line-up, it was the strange but uber technically talented Buckethead who was my favorite.

For those unaware of who I am referring to, Buckethead is a virtuoso guitarist who has amassed a sizable cult following since the late 90?s. He always wears a KFC bucket over his head, hence his moniker; also, he dons a yellow raincoat and a white Michael Myers-like mask to conceal his true identity. All of these are all part of his onstage persona but once you hear and see him play, you could get past all the eccentricities and would realize why Axl Rose recruited him in the first place and why Buckethead became a favorite of many long time fans of Guns N? Roses.

Now, speaking of guitarists who have become part of the long history of Guns N? Roses, after getting to read the confirmed reports just recently have it that long time guitarist DJ Ashba has called it quits and will no longer be in the band. This time again the future of the band is in question. In my opinion, though, as long as Axl Rose manages to get out of his self?-isolation every now and then to tour and perform, then I can say that the band Guns N? Roses?his band, actually since he intellectually owns the property rights to the name and everything else directly connected to the band, Guns N? Roses will continue to exist because of that. Plus, it is a virtual guarantee that Axl Rose will have no problem at all in finding a suitable replacement for DJ Ashba.

When I think of it, I find it rather amazing how long Axl Rose has managed to keep getting all these musicians?excellent ones at that in their own rights?to fill in the void and vacancies, such as would be the case for DJ Ashba.

What grabs my attention even more is that to this very day, Axl Rose is the only remaining original member and he managed magnificently to survive all the ?drama? and turmoil that have beset Guns N? Roses.

As a kid who was just a few years short from entering my teens, I still remember that even then in the late 90?s?in 1998 to be exact?fans and music aficionados had pondered and wondered how Guns N? Roses could ever go on with only Axl Rose remaining?

I would learn the answer to that puzzling question years later. You just have to leave it to Axl Rose to cut through all the ?red tape? and to battle the seemingly never-ending legal issues revolving around the Guns N? Roses name because to his credit and with firm resolve intact, Axl Rose kept fighting on for his band to continue, release new music, and tour.

Not a lot of people know this, especially the uninformed, that most of the original ex-members of Guns N? Roses did not want their own former frontman Axl Rose to succeed in keeping the band alive and kicking without them. And yet, when the former members themselves formed their own bands?a perfect example of this was Velvet Revolver?they would regularly throw in a few classic staples from their Guns N? Roses days in their set list when they would hold concerts and perform in the big music festivals.

So, why then, of all people, could Axl Rose not sing any of those classics of which he was the original singer?! I say this, since it is the distinctive and unmistakable voice of Axl Rose that always has reverberated with me?and every other fan, I?ll bet?each time I hear any Guns N? Roses tracks being played, then Axl Rose has all the right to sing their classics!

To this day, each time I go online and search for the latest uploaded live performances of Guns N? Roses, I can?t but help smile to know that one of my childhood Rock N? Roll heroes, Axl Rose, is still around.

For those who have persistently bashed the man comparing how he would sing the classics now and how Axl Rose used to sing them then more than 20 years ago, that is stupid talk for a bunch of ?keyboard warriors? who I bet cannot even sing and hold those high notes which Axl Rose can still do fairly well given his age now. Whether you like him or not is beside the point. The man is a legitimate Rock Star; he is one of the greatest vocalists of all time and he definitely belongs in a league of his own. Even today, no one can truly match his mystic, stage presence and just the way he is an artist! Truly, it goes without saying that Axl Rose has definitely become part of Rock N? Roll folklore!

Whatever the future holds for Axl Rose and his band, Guns N? Roses, one thing is certain. No one, but no one, and nothing else can erase what Axl Rose has accomplished and achieved. If ever a book would be made that chronicles everything about Rock N? Roll history, a chapter would not be enough on this legendary band.

We don?t know what the future holds.

But nothing can erase the past.


Read more: http://entertainment.inquirer.net/175640/my-thoughts-on-the-future-of-guns-n-roses#ixzz3hm2FrOgK
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

Very Good  :smoking:

Philippine Daily Inquirer

By: Joseph R. Atilano, August 4th, 2015 12:01 AM


Yes, kids, the band is still around and are doing quite well. Each time they tour and do shows in the UK which are often, they are sold out.

Now, before some of the readers start scratching their heads wondering why Guns N? Roses is still relevant and worth talking about, let me just say first that it is because there are music aficionados like myself who did not believe the band had ?died? after the then only other original member, Slash, decided to leave the band way back in 1996.

To the Rock historians, you guys certainly know what I am talking about here. Even with the departure of Slash from the band, Axl Rose took it upon himself to make sure that no matter what Guns N? Roses would go on with himself at the helm, of course.

During those challenged-filled years for Axl Rose to keep Guns N? Roses alive, it was a revolving door of talented and underrated musicians filling in the vacant slots left behind by the classic line-up consisting of Slash, Duff Mckagan, Izzy Stradlin and Matt Sorum. Personally, of all the past members who have joined Axl Rose in that extensive alumni list after the classic line-up, it was the strange but uber technically talented Buckethead who was my favorite.


For those unaware of who I am referring to, Buckethead is a virtuoso guitarist who has amassed a sizable cult following since the late 90?s. He always wears a KFC bucket over his head, hence his moniker; also, he dons a yellow raincoat and a white Michael Myers-like mask to conceal his true identity.

All of these are all part of his onstage persona but once you hear and see him play, you could get past all the eccentricities and would realize why Axl Rose recruited him in the first place and why Buckethead became a favorite of many long time fans of Guns N? Roses.

 
Now, speaking of guitarists who have become part of the long history of Guns N? Roses, after getting to read the confirmed reports just recently have it that long time guitarist DJ Ashba has called it quits and will no longer be in the band. This time again the future of the band is in question.

 In my opinion, though, as long as Axl Rose manages to get out of his self?-isolation every now and then to tour and perform, then I can say that the band Guns N? Roses?his band, actually since he intellectually owns the property rights to the name and everything else directly connected to the band, Guns N? Roses will continue to exist because of that. Plus, it is a virtual guarantee that Axl Rose will have no problem at all in finding a suitable replacement for DJ Ashba.
When I think of it, I find it rather amazing how long Axl Rose has managed to keep getting all these musicians?excellent ones at that in their own rights?to fill in the void and vacancies, such as would be the case for DJ Ashba.

What grabs my attention even more is that to this very day, Axl Rose is the only remaining original member and he managed magnificently to survive all the ?drama? and turmoil that have beset Guns N? Roses.

As a kid who was just a few years short from entering my teens, I still remember that even then in the late 90?s?in 1998 to be exact?fans and music aficionados had pondered and wondered how Guns N? Roses could ever go on with only Axl Rose remaining?

I would learn the answer to that puzzling question years later. You just have to leave it to Axl Rose to cut through all the ?red tape? and to battle the seemingly never-ending legal issues revolving around the Guns N? Roses name because to his credit and with firm resolve intact, Axl Rose kept fighting on for his band to continue, release new music, and tour.

Not a lot of people know this, especially the uninformed, that most of the original ex-members of Guns N? Roses did not want their own former frontman Axl Rose to succeed in keeping the band alive and kicking without them. And yet, when the former members themselves formed their own bands?a perfect example of this was Velvet Revolver?they would regularly throw in a few classic staples from their Guns N? Roses days in their set list when they would hold concerts and perform in the big music festivals.

So, why then, of all people, could Axl Rose not sing any of those classics of which he was the original singer?! I say this, since it is the distinctive and unmistakable voice of Axl Rose that always has reverberated with me?and every other fan, I?ll bet?each time I hear any Guns N? Roses tracks being played, then Axl Rose has all the right to sing their classics!

To this day, each time I go online and search for the latest uploaded live performances of Guns N? Roses, I can?t but help smile to know that one of my childhood Rock N? Roll heroes, Axl Rose, is still around.

For those who have persistently bashed the man comparing how he would sing the classics now and how Axl Rose used to sing them then more than 20 years ago, that is stupid talk for a bunch of ?keyboard warriors? who I bet cannot even sing and hold those high notes which Axl Rose can still do fairly well given his age now. Whether you like him or not is beside the point.

The man is a legitimate Rock Star; he is one of the greatest vocalists of all time and he definitely belongs in a league of his own. Even today, no one can truly match his mystic, stage presence and just the way he is an artist! Truly, it goes without saying that Axl Rose has definitely become part of Rock N? Roll folklore!

Whatever the future holds for Axl Rose and his band, Guns N? Roses, one thing is certain. No one, but no one, and nothing else can erase what Axl Rose has accomplished and achieved. If ever a book would be made that chronicles everything about Rock N? Roll history, a chapter would not be enough on this legendary band.

We don?t know what the future holds.
But nothing can erase the past.


Read more: http://entertainment.inquirer.net/175640/my-thoughts-on-the-future-of-guns-n-roses#ixzz3hwdpxRGH
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

I posted this a couple of days ago. Good article.

What does one have to do with the other?  Of course there was a rivalry between VR and GNR after how everything went down.  I don't think anyone ever said that Axl Rose can't sing those songs.  I wonder which member of this forum the writer is.

Sorry, someone sent this to me today. I thought it was a article worth sharing.

It is an error compounded with an error.

This was the only part I rolled my eyes at.

So, let me get this straight.  If I hear a concert where Axl sounds...let's keep this holy and leave it at "dodgy", I can go sell that shit up the fucking pike if I cannot get onstage myself and do a better job?

People can make that argument with a straight face?

Now, if you are in the camp that feels we should applaud Axl when he sounds great...and if he sounds bad, just all look at our shoes and say nothing, fine.  I mean, I obviously think that's a preposterous premise, but we all know we have people like that among us.

But as dumb as I may find that mindset to be, my god, even that is better than "well, let's see you do better, smartguy."

He says guns tour and sell out shows in the UK quite often?

Quite often?   

When was there last show in the uK?

There last show in the United States was over a year ago...    I wouldn't call that quite often    And I think there last UK show was well before that one

They came here in 2012. The show I attended was not a sell out. I would estimate 80-90% full.

That doesn't sound quite often to me

"My Thoughts On The Future of Guns N' Roses"

... (Insert some of Axl's past accomplishments & personal opinions on former guitarists) ...

"We don't know what the future holds."


 :o

It would be like me saying guns n roses tours Canada quite often

No they don't.   They have had a couple of tours over the span of many years.  And have also played a couple of one off shows over a span of many years.    All I think we're successful.    But they don't even come close to touring quite often.  

Wish they did however!

I saw this article earlier this week and wondered why the article mentions Sorum rather than Adler as part of the "classic" lineup.   ???  Not that I hate Sorum, but it seemed out of context to throw Sorum into the mix as the "classic" drummer, rather than Adler. Otherwise, some good points in the article.

Well said.

Poorly written

Lots of fluff N' brown nose-ing..The real tragedy with the recent departures is the loss of what appeared as a band that gelled...

People who like to point out the old "it wasn't sold out" routine. Maybe sometimes they could compare how many shows are on a tour leg in a specific country before typing that?
2012, eight shows in the UK. Maybe it would've been better to play two or three so mortismurphy could have been all excited about the sold out tour.....




/jarmo

You are too eager to leap to this band's defense. I was merely pointing out that the show I was out was not sold out. Simple fact.

That article is riddled with so many errors by the way that it can be dismissed completely.

I think people point it out when an article incorrectly states that they were sold out.  Kind of like when that article incorrectly noted Frank and Pittman were former members of GnR...

You are too eager to find reasons to whine! :D

Did you ever think the writer was speaking in more general terms or maybe the show(s) he went to looked sold out to him? No?
Free thinking!




/jarmo

Oh my god, Jarmo, calm down! Your band are not under threat! I was merely replying to an inquiry by Bacon. I mean I even said that my show was ''80-90% sold'' which is a fairly good return by most people's estimates. You are fanatical!

Its his responses to stuff like this why I said yesterday that Jarmo is best described as an "advocate".

Jarmo is always at Defcon 1.  Constant state of readiness to strike back at all threats, real or perceived.

I have Reagan's ''Star Wars'' in mind.

I'm laughing at you and your silliness, and your response is for me to calm down.... Funny. :)



/jarmo

Jarmo, you are many things, but calm is not among them.  At least, when it comes to certain folks around here.

Are you sitting next to me at the moment?

If not, how would you know? :)


/jarmo

Because I can read?

Doesn't mean you know how I feel at any particular moment.

Since I can read too, I think you're a sad individual.

Fair? :D



/jarmo

Not really.  Just a pissy, irrelevant dig.

I do not claim to know how you feel.  I comment on how your stuff reads and how it comes across, because that's the only version of you I see.

Getting back to the original point, "calm" is not a word I would use to describe your online presentation of yourself.

And speaking to a larger general point about dealing with the people on message boards for lo these many years, there is absolutely an inverse proportion between the times a person says how calm and breezy they are and to how much that's actually true.

Come on, Jarmo.  Are you really saying that sold out means either (a) all tickets were sold and the venue was a maximum capacity or (b) it looked that way to people?

The writer of the article clearly could have done research to determine if, in fact, shows were sold out (that?s not really hard to figure out) or characterize it such that it ?felt? sold out to him (e.g. looked like near capacity crowds, etc.). 

Sorry, but you cannot add subjectivity to whether all tickets to a concert have been sold.  The writer brought this on himself by his inaccurate reporting?but then again you?re not surprised that the media gets it wrong, right?  : ok:

Depends how you see it, reading posts like yours year after year without losing it, could be considered calm. :)




Same logic: So since you keep going on about your friends in your posts, is it safe to assume they're only a result of your imagination?




I was half joking, half serious.
You see, this particular person is a proud objective honest person, in his own words.
Yet, he can't seem to see why somebody might label a show sold out.

It's called perception, as far as I know. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

For some, if they see three empty chairs at a show, it's not sold out. Like you said, others look at what's around them and it appears sold out to them.




/jarmo

I think a far more accurate picture of your demand can be gleaned by the size of venues you are booking.

Not necessarily the amount of tickets sold in that venue.

Motley Crue are on their last tour, they've booked arenas in the UK. Four dates. One festival date in all of South America.

And yet, GN'R gets pretty much labeled as failures for not selling out all tickets for their eight shows in the UK or their nine in Brazil....


/jarmo

I think its hard to "sell out" come of those places in South America that are huge.  Its not realistic.

I also think the mindest that South America has become the GNR homebase is a little overdone.  And as a result, they are held to a pretty high standard.

However, the Crue has come through here twice on this tour.  Playing venues that GNR could not fill, even doing a "buy one, get one" ticket promotion.  We can't just pretend that's not going on. 

Well you cannot very well accuse me of that since my original post which you jumped upon was merely a citation of the base fact that the UK show I was at was 80-90% sold. Why must you create all of these complex webs of apology and explanation in order to buttress the band from (perceived) failure? Can you not just accept the fact that they did not sell out? You can still do quite well and not reach your maximum. 90%, the upper end of my figure, is a fairly respectable statistic. I could have lied and said 60%, which could be interpreted as a 'failure', but I did not.

You take your own posts way too seriously.

I already explained to you why it might seem to the writer that the tour was more successful than you like to admit or think.
But no, you're not buying it. It's the usual "I saw it wasn't sold out so this is wrong". You're the "$1.99 the week after its release" guy after all.




A more fair comparison would be them touring in November or December instead of high summer.
Anyway, they seem to be doing quite well on all those last tour legs across the US.

On a global scale, not even the last tour ever banner is helping them play more shows across the countries than GN'R does on a "regular" tour. That was the point.

Instead of people jumping in here and saying GN'R didn't do well and focusing on their show not being 100% sold out, why not just give them some credit for once? :)




/jarmo

Were they ever a big draw over there?  I honestly don't know.



I'm with you that dwelling on a show not being 100% sold out does somewhat miss the point.

But I very much doubt you are with me when I say that the fact they are playing much smaller venues and fewer total venues (small or not) speaks to the lack of demand for modern day GNR in this country.

So, like a lot of your posts, you want people to make concessions on certain points that rub you the wrong way, yet you are not willing to make similar concession in an area you'd rather we just not address at all.  That's why people give you a hard time on some of this stuff.

Give a little, get a little, you know?

The article is riddled with errors. Rather than trying to imagine some 'reason' why this writer saw 'sold out' shows, I merely saw his mistake as a symptom of a poorly written article. There really was no agenda by my comment of, ''the show I attended was not a sell out. I would estimate 80-90% full'', Jarmo. It was a reply to information Bacon required on GN'R's UK touring. You have created an argument out of something that was thoroughly innocuous and now look quite silly for it.



Have done so - twice,

No, I don't buy your negative outlook.

The band has played shows in the USA every year on their tours between 2010 and 2014.
So instead of one US tour in 2011, you got multiple over the years.

I'm surprised you didn't think about this already.


Mortis, there's some irony in you pointing out errors in an article considering how difficult it was to convince you that you were wrong. :D


/jarmo

There is not rationality or reasoning with you, is there? Kids playground politics. That is all it is, kids playground politics.

This coming from the guy who had to chime in on a positive article about GN'R and point out that the shows weren't 100% sold out.... Funny.



/jarmo

So go post on an exciting and innovative AC/DC forum if you don't like the politics here.

I've heard they are down a few original members and a drummer too though, so it's not really AC/DC. :hihi:

Do you lack that much confidence in your band that a mere statement of fact in an innocuous conversation which had nothing to do with you anyhow, makes you go into full on red alert Defcon 4 mode? Can GN'R not exist and survive, selling at only 90%? What a low opinion you have of their resilience and ability to survive. GN'R are actually physically unable to not sell out. You do not even allow this band to have a slightly under par 'day at the office'.


Are you implying that I have stated that GN'R are not GN'R because they are ''down a few original members''? I would not want a new album if that was so. Please find this statement that I have made.

Kindergarten 'na na nanana' politics.

No, I don't. Are you so concerned about your so called objectivity that you had to jump in and point out the little error the writer had made in a positive article about GN'R?

Of course you are.
The only things worth commenting on for you were those!

It had nothing to do with me? Well, since you're free to point out the errors of others, why can't I?
Mainly your errors and failure at free thinking.

You focus on the wrong things. Move on and go troll an AC/DC site. I'm sure there's things you can't be happy about in that universe as well.  : ok:



/jarmo

Optimists see: A glass half full.

Pessimists see: A glass half empty.

Chronic complainers see: A glass that is slightly chipped holding water that isn't cold enough, probably because it's tap water when I asked for bottled water and wait, there's a smudge on the rim, too, which means the glass wasn't cleaned properly and now I'll probably end up with some kind of virus. Why do these things always happen to me?!  :crying:

But I merely saw it as an error of poor journalism, not of GN'R.

I repeat, please tell me where I have denied that this is gnr because of band defections.

Do you enjoy making things up? Delusionary much?

I clearly said AC/DC is down a few original members and a drummer, so It wasn't really AC/DC.

Go troll their forum and whine  :crying:

That joke/insult would only make sense if I had at some point in the past implied that gn'r are 'not gn'r because they lack original members'. Since I have never made that remark, it raises the point why you would make that joke in the first place?

You clearly need to reread my post.

I said nothing about any supposed joke, nor did I mention GNR- I stated that AC/DC were down a few original members and a drummer and suggested you go whine on an AC/DC forum about that.

You have perception and assumption issues  :hihi:

Why would I moan about that? The line-up they have still possesses Angus and two musicians who are virtually honourary originals on account of their longevity (Cliff Williams, 1977-; Brian, 1980-). And Chris Slade is a familiar face.

Super! Go to an AC/DC forum and amaze them with this speshull knowledge.   ::)

You can also comment on their amazing diversity.

Hurry!

Toddler politics.

Here's a link, they are accepting mewling quim memberships now, you will fit right in mortis  :-*

http://www.acdcfans.net/forum/

Yes I get that. And it was the only thing you commented on. Nothing regarding whether or not you agree (yeah right) or disagree.
Why the need to be such a Debbie Downer?



/jarmo

We just fundamentally disagree on some (what I consider) rather basic points regarding their current status in their home country.

- 2010, they played 1 show in the United States.  1 show.  At it was at the annual motorcycle rally in Sturgis, North Dakota.  Does this support an argument for high demand?

- 2012 (first half) they played a 15 date club tour.  This was not done out of the goodness of their hearts.  No one willingly plays a smaller place when bigger places can be filled.  Even as absurdly small as some of these places will, they were not filled.  This is a situation where anything less than 100% capacity in a major city is a red flag.

- 2012 (second half) they played a 12 date tour Las Vegas.  A one city residency in maybe the top vacation town in the country.  Bigger than clubs, but smaller than arenas.  Not filled to capacity.  Troubling in a destination type city, and a city pretty open about papering the house and giving away free tickets.  Not filling that up is a red flag.

- 2014 has them playing an awards show and a festival, which are not relevant for attendance arguments.  They also played 1 casino in PA, and then another 9 date residency stint in Las Vegas.  Same type situation.  Destination spot, willingness of the venues to paper the house, still not full.  Not a great sign.

Now, if there is a silver lining here, you could argue that since it had been so long since any new product was out, there weren't full blown tours.  I'd agree.

If you want to tell me we will get a better picture of theire current level of demand once we see the places they book on the next proper tour after a new album, I'd agree.

But if given all this, you are going to tell me there is high demand in the U.S. for this version of Guns N' Roses, I would disagree.  I would disagree strenuously.  None of the above supports a premise they could fill up big spots on the regular in this country with this line-up.

Yet a band like Motley Crue (remember, this all started talking about Motley Crue) can do just that, and have been for 2 years.  I do not consider Motley Crue GNR's peer in terms of material or talent, but they are peers in terms of age and age of their respective fanbases.

We can't just stick our heads in the sand and ignore all this.  Well...YOU can, and have, but I'm not going to join you.

It is only you who have a problem with GN'R only selling 80-90% of the tickets so you are the one with this negative perception. I have reiterated twice that I do not see that performance as poor in the slightest and have even praised the performance but you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge this. It was a reply to a query by Bacon about the UK tour.  I wouldn't have bothered posting if I had not attended that particular tour and consequentially had the knowledge required by Bacon. As for the article itself, I got as far as ''the then only other original member, Slash, decided to leave the band way back in 1996'', realised it was a poorly written piece and consequentially only skimmed the rest. My initial post concerning the article was actually this,


It was not the mention of the UK tour. That basically sums up what my thoughts were on the initial reading of the article. Really Jarmo, you have shown yourself every bit the fanatical zealot devoid of intellectual reasoning abilities over this completely innocuous post.

Wrong, they also had those acoustic gigs in NYC right after Canada.

If you want to disregard those facts, fine. They spent the rest of 2010 on tour in Canada, South America, Europe, Australia and the Middle East. It was quite a busy year.





And you still choose to disregard the fact that it was basically only weeks after the arena tour ended. They basically went back to some of the places they had just visited on the arena tour.

Why would you do that? You tell me why you'd book shows in NYC (for example) again, instead of playing all NYC shows in November 2011?
Instead of you thinking "Wow, GN'R is coming back to my area so soon!", you go with "they played smaller places so there's no demand". Funny how your mind works...



Once again, a year after the last arena tour, same year as the club shows.

Several bands do not tour the US as much or as often.



I think they booked those because they could. They don't just get asked back to the Hard Rock so soon because they are nice people over at the casino....




Maybe not among you and your friends.
I think they could do arenas again.

Hell even Metallica is avoiding touring the USA and not to mention AC/DC only playing a few select shows there. Not that this matters to you....



They tour in the summer. And it's their last tour.
This is the same band that did a co-headlining tour with KISS a few years ago. And now you're telling me they're more popular? Is it because of their current radio hits? Oh wait...




I'll be happy to stick my head in the sand. I think it sounds better than where your head is stuck. ;)
Don't get offended, it's a joke!

I apologize in advance!  :peace:





I have a problem with you and numbers. I don't trust that combination. Sorry. :D



Great!




I couldn't care less. :)




/jarmo

If you doubt the truthfulness of my observation, then ask yourself why I selected an approx figure of 80-90%? If I wanted to lie and skewer the figures because of alleged bias I would have probably said 60-70% or just said something like, ''the arena was only half full''.

But we were discussing demand level in their home country of the United States.  

If anyone is disregarding facts here, its you.  As its a pretty established fact that one of these places are in the United States.




We are talking major American cities here, Jarmo.  And this is one of the biggest names in rock.

If you are telling me not being able to find 3,000 people some of the more populated cities in the country to fill up a club to see Guns N' Roses is no big deal, you do that.  But its not a credible argument and suggests that you are a man that is simply unable, or rather just unwilling to address any sort of bad news.



LOLZ

I'm not offended, just bored by it.  Childish stuff like this just exposes you as a non-serious person incapable of having a serious discussion.

It's unfortunate.  Not a surprise, but unfortunate nonetheless.

I never asked about if the UK shows were sold out.   I was asking when the last time guns played the UK.  Mortis you answered that, thanks.  But then you had to add in your little part about how full the venue was.  That was unsolicited

At least nobody is trying to defend guns for touring often hahaha

It pertained to what you asked for though. And did you perceive it at the time as this ''big bias lie to make gnr look poor'' which Jarmo has made it out to be?

If anything, that article goes pretty heavy the other way.  Its more of valentine than a rough critique, no?

As I said I just skimmed it. I found it unreadable to be honest.

Well, it could have been written by someone here.  Labeling it anything all that critical is the alltime stretch.

I didn't honestly think anything was wrong with your 80-90 percent comment. 

If we are accepting the fact that Slash was an original member, where does that leave Duff who joined earlier and left one year later?

People get crazy with those designations, I think.

Like when the semantic police try and run names like Ole Beich, Rob Gardner, or even Tracii Guns up the flagpole to try and explain away band turnover recently.

I think realistically you have to consider the 5 guys that hit the big time in 1988 the originals in the eyes of the public.

Mort, I found you!  Still waiting for your answer?

I don't see it that way.  The Seattle Mariners were an expansion team in 1977.  They really didn't become relevant however until 1995 when Lou Pinella turned them into a playoff team with Ken Griffey JR., Randy Johnson, Edgar Martinez, Jay Buhner, and ARod.  So is the 1977 team not original?  Is Griffey one of the originals just because they "became relevant" during his time?

Be careful using phrases such as "half full". Somebody might think you've lost your honest objectivity!




Haven't we done this before as well?
Didn't we establish that this is the same country where GN'R were playing arenas in 1993 (with most of the original band as you might recall) while they were still headlining stadiums in Europe....
So how's that for demand?

I'm disregarding facts? I just told you that in 2010 they had more than one show in the USA. No matter how much you wish for it not to be true, it's in fact true. They played surprise acoustic gigs in NYC.  You might not count those for obvious reasons but claiming they only played one gig in the USA in 2010 is, wrong.




I guess since it's Friday, it's time to disco around the question.
There's no bad news. You're making it up.

There's no demand? We've been through this bullshit already. With you. Multiple times.
A band with little demand don't get asked to headline festivals. Yes, even in your "home town country" of USA.

So, why didn't they just book all those shows in 2011? Why did they bother to go out on another US tour so soon after? Especially since there didn't seem to be any demand for the band? Eagerly awaiting your expertise answer. :)




Funny.

For a guy who's so all about busting balls and whatnot. But once I make a silly joke at your expense, it's childish. :D

But whatever Mr Deja Vu-X. Every discussion is the same. You can't take in information and use it. You just repeat what you "know". Free thinking... Riiight.

What's next? The lack of promotion for CD "discussion"?


/jarmo

But the Mariners played baseball in 1977.  Show me the album that the "original" members of GnR released, or the tour they went on?  Your analogy falls flat.

Obviously, not really apples to apples here.

The 1977 Mariners may have sucked, as did the teams for the next 20 or so years, but they were established.  They were part of a league and played all the games just like any team in the league.

But as it pertains to this band, the much heralded Rob Gardner era was never really a thing.

If a person told me they considered the 5 guys on AFD the original band, I would not correct them.  Could I?  Technically, yes.  But I suspect they'd roll their eyes at me, and it would be hard to find fault with them doing so.

'Would'. Subjunctive mood Jarmo.


The original line up of GN'R was together for approximately two months. 1977-1995 is a period encompassing eighteen years. I'm not an expert on American sports but was that period really completely absent of any kind of success or attainment? Was there not players who played in 1994 who were also playing in 1996?.


I cannot remember the question. Was it the usual ''why are you here? Go away'' HTGTH shtick?

And this is a big game changer, this big revelation?  My omission of some surprise acoustic gig fundamentally changes the argument being made?

No.  It does not.  



We disagree.

A major American city, and you can't find 3,000 to show up to see one of the biggest names in rock.

Oh, but don't worry...this is no sort of barometer of how they might do filling arenas all over the country.

That makes zero sense.



I make jokes all the time.  As a throwaway line, while I'm making an actual point.

You use "jokes" in place of making an actual point.  Your "jokes" aren't a complement to a legit point, its a outright substitution for even making a legit point.

You're a non-serious person often incapable of having a serious discussion.  That's not my problem, and I've sort of lost interest trying to hold you hand through it either.  

I'll stick to some of these other folks that seem to be able get their shit together on their own.  Better use of my time.

Yeah, just curious on why your here if you don't like the way GNR does things?  Honest question

An album announcement would instantly change that. My main criticism of the band is their lack of new material. I do not have much hope left now but you never know - Axl might decide to release the Chinese leftovers?   

He's here because he's a fan of the band.  We're all here because we are fans of the band's music.

It's our fault the operational side is run pretty shabbily?  Not really.  I suppose it could be argued its our fault we point it out sometimes when others wish we'd just look at our shoes and never utter a critical word.  But do you really need to be protected from such things?  Is it our saying it that makes it real for you?

Let me ask you this question.  Do you think fans of other rock bands on par with GNR spend near this much time taking about their management?  I doubt that, highly.

Band managers are like refs in sports.  The only time they get brought up is when then mess up, and the best compliment you can pay them is when you say you never have to mention them at all.  Because they just do their job and do it well.

So a band isn't considered a "band" until they set foot on a stage or put an album out?  Not saying your wrong....Im honestly unsure?  I think there has to be something said for the "name" Guns N Roses being brought to the table.  Guns N Roses did in fact exist before the appetite crew.  But does it not count because they didn't produce anything yet?  Because just because the Mariners were "playing baseball" in 1977 doesn't mean they produced anything?  In baseball, you HAVE to to play.  In music, you don't HAVE to put out an album every year.  

Did you enjoy Chinese?  If not, you may be disappointed. 

It just proves your old "facts don't matter to me because I know better" routine.





Is this Philadelphia by any chance?
I mean, if it is. Then that city really must be the barometer on which all things are measured.

What? Riots aren't a common occurrence in other cities? But it happened in Philadelphia...





The jokes are jokes. Not part of some bigger picture. If you start making some comments about my head being stuck in sand, you just set it up nicely for me to respond. Logic.


Yeah, you go ahead. Play with the kids who don't actually try to make you think for once. :)
Who let's you disregard facts and forget that you don't have answers to uncomfortable questions such as "why book a tour weeks after finishing the previous one in the same markets if there's so little demand?".

I'm all about serious discussions. I don't run away crying because I need to be right all the time.



/jarmo

Last word.

You really are the serious discussion participant of the month. Congrats.




What does it say about a person when an album is that important to them? They can't seem to enjoy a band without it....
Maybe one of our experts can weigh in....




/jarmo

You can point it out all you want, but it is what it is.  GNR has lost fans over the years because of things they have done or how they have handled things.  But I don't worry about it.  Would I like more music, of course.  But what is coming on here and bringing up what I believe to be the bands flaws (on a daily basis) really gonna do about it?  I've made comments on here in the past that aren't in support of GNR, but then I move on.  And that's the point.  I don't think anyone is saying you shouldn't say anything negative or something that doesn't support the band.  What they are saying, is why does it have to be repeated over and over and over.  Because it gets to a point where if you bitch that much....then why are you here?  

I really don't know what fans of other rock bands do nor do I care.

I posted all sorts of serious discussion points.  You responded with a bunch on nonsense, twice in a row.  I'm bored with it.  After 3 years, I'm just bored with it.

That led me to believe we were now simply engaged in a battle to see who could get the last word.  Guess this post puts me back in the lead on that front. 

It will also be my exit from this pointless exercise.  Do what you want.

Conversations evolve.  Points are made, counterpoints are made, topics shift.

Are you arguing that if something comes up, the topic shifts a bit, but then gets back to the original point...we should just stop talking to one another?

If someone comes into a thread 7 pages in, should they just get a bunch of posts from people telling them that their response can be found back on page 2?

Which part was nonsense? All the parts with facts you want to disregard and the questions you don't want to answer?

It's fine to admit that you don't want to answer questions. Or say "I don't know". It's completely normal.
You seem to not be able to do this so you try to insult me by saying I post nonsense. Or you just ignore it and act like nothing.

This is your tactic to always being right.

I admit, I made one silly joke after you set me up for an open goal. Couldn't resist. I assumed a big man like yourself would have some kind of thick skin. But we can't always be right!

By the way, aren't you one of the guys who kept making comments about how it's not serious, it's only a rock band? :)


/jarmo

I thought it was overall good but a bit of a mixed bag. There are masterpieces on there (TWAT, Better) and turds on there (Scraped, If the World, This I Love). Most of the songs fall between the two extremes . TWAT, Better, IRS, The Blues and Madagascar are my favourites. I also would add Oh My God to that list of Grade A material.

Does that differ from the old albums?




/jarmo

When people ask me, I say the same 3 things :

- Its good, not great
- There are a few standout tracks that stand up with anything the real band ever did
- If you choose to give it a spin, prepare yourself that it sounds very little like the GNR you know

I would put 'There Was A Time' in an alltime top 10 list.  I think songs like 'IRS' and 'Street Of Dreams' aren't all that much different than band most people know.

I think the most interesting song is absolutely 'Prostitute'.  I love the song, think its very well done.  But I don't think it sounds a thing like Guns N' Roses.  So you are sort of put in a weird spot where you know its one of the strongest tracks on the album, but you am unlikely to recommend it because you can already see faces being made and people just finding it too different.

The overall tone and sound absolutely are.

For instance, I never gave anyone UYI I or UYI II, yet had to give them a bunch of qualifiers about how its not going to sound like GNR and to just please give it a chance.

You absolutely have to do that with CD.  So, its different in that sense.

Illusion is a spotty release (Shotgun Blues, My World). I would say Appetite is pretty flawless except perhaps Anything Goes.

In other words, nothing's perfect.... ;)



/jarmo

If they had used You Could Be Mine instead of Anything Goes Appetite would be absolute perfection.

Also if Illusion had been one album it could have been a masterpiece. I would have put out songs like Get In The Ring and Shotgun Blues as b-sides.

Eh, I don't know.

That song is a perfect example of why I'd take Matt over Steven, 10 times out of 10.

Is Steven nailing the drums in that one?

I prefer Steven and apparently the song was written during post-production for Appetite so it is theoretically possible that a Steven version of YCBM could have been included on Appetite.

But then you would have less music!

Wasn't more better?



/jarmo

Maybe you just don't reply to everything because we know what your response will be.  I think it's a bit of you responding the way you do, that gets topics out of hand or off subject.  Listen, you and mort can respond however you like.  I'm just saying we've all heard it too many times.  We all know how you guys feel.  

Not really if they stuck them out as b-sides like Oasis.

Well 5-6 songs that you like, makes a pretty good album in my opinion.  It's really hard to make an album that is viewed as great from start to finish.  You can't please everyone.  When I read your posts on here, I feel as though you are holding GNR to the Appetite standard?  An album that was almost flawless.  Are you holding out thinking Axl can recapture that?  I think that is highly unlikely for many reasons.  I've said this before to you on here, but maybe your expectations are extremely too high?  I'm not sure you will ever be fully pleased.  Especially with a band that doesn't release music the way you would want.    

An album with 5-6 songs of the calibre of the ones I have mentioned would be extremely welcome. ''Appetite standard''? That ship is gone. It was the right five guys in the right time with hunger in their bellies.

I'd say a band isn't a band until it's at least solid.  The late Ole Beich played exactly ONE show under the GNR name before Duff replaced him.  Tracii and Rob played a few, but Tracii stopped showing up as he obviously became bored and/or scared with things.  Rob Gardner was scared shitless of the Hell Tour and quit.  That lineup didn't write songs together, nor did they record anything together.  They weren't a solid unit by any stretch, nor did they define the name Guns N Roses.

So no, I wouldn't exactly call the "original" lineup of Guns N Roses a "band", in the true sense of the word.  I wouldn't consider the "original" GNR a band any more than I'd consider any fans who could've jumped on the stage and jammed with them to be part of the band.

I agree. 

I would say you can't judge them as a band until they write, record an release something so we can judge their merits.

Its why I always said the Axl-DJ-Richard-Ron-Tommy-Dizzy-Chris-Frank incarnation were never a real band.  They were just a live band that played songs other people wrote for Axl to sing live.

We never really got an indication what that group of 7 people might do creatively.  All we knew is that they could play a passable 'Nightrain'.

If.

They also might have kept them unreleased....


/jarmo

I really really like CD

But

With the old albums there were the hits everyone seemed to like (wttj,paradise,don't cry,estranged,patience).  Then there was the b side tracks that some people dug but some people really didn't like

With CD you have the hits like above (twat, better).  But then there a couple of b-sides that just nobody likes     

I think that is the difference

Well we are dealing with hypothetical scenarios and hindsight. Assuming it is a stark choice between the material making the album or being axed, if you were to ask me whether I would take the Illusions as it is today or as a reformed one album, I would choose the former option. It is what it is. But if I was sitting in Mike Clink's seat in 1991 I would have to insist on material like Get In The Ring and Shotgun Blues as b-sides.

It is the exact same argument with The White Album really.

But it is the reason why Illusions - and Democracy also - will never be considered truly great by rock historians in the way that Appetite is. Appetite in actual fact can sit alongside the very best of the rock genre, alongside Sticky Fingers, In Rock, Highway to Hell, Are You Experienced?.

I think guns made the right choice when it came to the illusions albums

Damn individually they sold tens of millions

Each album had singles that could push sales individually

Releasing two albums at the same time was a very cool thing

Of coarse anyone could take all the best songs

It's called a greatest hits album!   Doesn't take much skill to release that

I wouldn't say nobody likes what you consider the supposed b-sides, it seems to be a very polarizing album and I've found different groups like different songs.

Yet it's ironic that a person who's so concerned about, and whose opinion is so invested in, the amount of music released, would rather have less music than what we got.

If you had 15 songs less released, imagine how annoyed you'd be now!



/jarmo

I have the same experience.

Chinese Democracy is quite different from most albums as the diversity of opinions about is so vast.

Are you incapable of reading posts?

Exactly, and the tone is more introspective and refective with some songs, this seems to bother the people that gravitate to mindless, feel- good, party music.

First off, the article was written very poorly! The research was shoddy and the article was not written well enough.

The second point that I would like to make is that CD was good, but not great. It just doesn't hold up to the test of time. There are good standouts like "There was a Time" and "Better", but stuff like "Rhiad" and "Scraped" are TERRIBLE songs. I would even say that the studio version of "This I Love" sounds bad except for the guitar work on that song.

 

I disagree, I happen to like scraped a lot and TIL too. You are free to dislike but it does in no way mean they are terrible.

I think CD is indeed great, and that it will be more appreciated as time goes by.

Use Your Illusions is my favorite album from anyone ever.

I couldnt pick which one i like more. I see it more as one album, just you have part1 and part2. Kinda like a football match you have the first half, then you have the second, its still one match.

Just my opinion

But compared to all the other guns albums. CD is the one were a majority of people do not like a few songs on the album   Where as with the other albums, even with the most unpopular songs, there are still a lot of people that like the songs

I feel the songs I do like on CD made it a great album though

There are just a couple of terds on it

I don't think GNR ever played the Philippines. It's a shame because they probably have a lot of fans there.

You're saying you want the albums the way they are but you'd like certain songs as B-sides. I other words, you want to eat the cake and have it too.
I guess this makes sense to you.  :P

Anyway, glad we managed to sort out the fact that no album is perfect to you. Maybe the next one will be?!!  :D



/jarmo

It is interesting the way fans like us still look at music in terms of "albums" and "b-sides", but couldn't it be said that all songs released today are just songs?  The grouping together of songs is irrelevant now with the way digital music services have taken over.  When I grew up and had only "Use Your Illusion 2" in my walkman then I was  forced to listen to only those songs in a specific order.  Today if someone doesn't want to listen to "Shotgun Blues" for example,  they don't even need to skip over it, they just don't even put it on their playlist.  So "albums" as we knew them really don't exist anymore.  An "album" is pretty much just a folder name with a date for the fans reference when they are looking up songs.  How many fans today just look up the song titles and don't even read what "album" it was originally on.  Pretty crazy.

You obviously have difficulties with comprehension. I said that if I was Mike Clink sitting in a producers chair in 1991 I would have tried to persuade the band to put Get in the Ring and Bad Apples out as a b-side. Since I'm neither Mike Clink nor am I in the year 1991, I hardly think that applies to my own feelings today with the albums as they are now, nearly twenty-five years old. As I said, we are dealing with hypothetical post-dated scenarios here, hindsight. 


I can think of quite a few albums which are 'perfect'. Hendrix's three Experience albums are perfect. Sticky Fingers is perfect.

IF things were all rainbows and fluffy clouds, maybe you wouldn't have to come here and whine. IF.

Whatever you think of other bands' albums is irrelevant.

Now, IF you understood who this site as for, then that would truly be something special....



/jarmo

I knew before you played your hand that you had an ulterior rhetorical motive for pursuing this discussion. I theorised that it was not just a polite largely inconsequential discussion on the old GN'R albums and their various good points and shortcomings. I had not quite worked out the direction you were heading but I certainly knew the toddler politics would reveal themselves eventually.

Albums are still around, its just easier to get around them with spotify playlists, youtube ect.
I still listen to albums start to finish. never using streaming sites.

It depends on how you want your music.

Which goes to prove that albums sales are no barometer to how well received the thing truly is.  There are plenty of listened to albums that have not seen my money, yet I've loved 'em.  I just have no need in owning a copy. The accepted range of +/- 3-5 million CD sales reflect a healthy interest, there is little proof of how many listened to taker there have been, at a guess, I'd say a ratio of 3 or 4 to one listens v purchases feels about right 

Of course you can still do it that way, but technology has made it where that is not the only way.  The main change is you used to have to buy the album to get a certain song, now most people (myself included) bypass that option and just hunt the songs down that they want.  The idea of an album is just that, it's an idea, it's not really a real thing anymore if you think about it.  Everything is just out there and can be streamed a thousand different ways.  It's only an album of you choose to listen to it that way.

I only mentioned this because someone mentioned how the Illusions could have been a perfect album if it was one album, but they no longer need to be listened to or even purchased as two albums anymore.  It's just a collection of 30 songs that happened to come out in the same day.  Kids and new fans today don't care about sequencing or anything like that.  If they want Civil War to come after November Rain ion their  iPhone that is what is going to happen.  They aren't going to care that the picture on their phone changed from red and yellow to blue and purple.

I know bands that put out Bsides on spotify and iTunes all the time, they aren't really considered Bsides, they are just the latest song by that band.

Chinese Democracy is a perfect example of this.  Album streams didn't count towards sales back in 2008 like they do now.  The record probably would have topped he chart with all those MySpace streams it had.

There was no motive. I don't feel like spending that much energy on you, thinking and planning ahead. Waste of time in my opinion.

You're like a bad clown. Somewhat amusing, but forgettable.  :)

But it's ironic that you don't consider any GN'R album "perfect". Yet more proof about what you lack compared to many others who post here. Not saying people need to think every GN'R album is perfect, but for most people GN'R is special, or they wouldn't come to a fan site to begin with.
 



Correct. Streams didn't count, and yet we have "fans" labeling it a failure and claiming it was on sale for $1.99 the week after its release....




/jarmo

Plus a lot of new releases do a massive price drop promotion after their initial release

I hope We see New music. Gnr have always toured th?ir New music before the album comes out. I agr?e w?th regards to album sequencing as mentioned above but there are a good number of fans that like an album in hand...me included. It will be interesting to see If or how gnr will release th?ir music and what format. I did not agr?e w?th everything Bumblefoot said However i do like the idea of releasing for example six singles over say 6 touring cycles over a period of 18-24 months. The album could be released towards the end of the tour. Take a 6 month break and repeat again w?th the next gnr album. I can always remember Axl saying that h? wanted to release three albums and tour for a real long Time. Maybe the last tour of the final album could be the last and Then just do residencies...ie Vegas..the joint..and use that format for touring the world....r?sidence in san Paulo, Vegas, London, Mexico city, New york, Sydney, Tokyo. Mumbai, Moscow...and play venues holding 3-5000. People. Some could be done as 9-12 dates like Vegas or just 3-6 dates...

Th?se are my possible thoughts of gnr in the future, bottom Line i just Want to the band and Axl happy. All have work ?d. So hard in getting chinese out and tourins many venues and countries. It is hard work..but i hope everything happens organically and everyone lives are good and healthy...

Yes there was. Everyone else here was merely discussing the original GN'R discography. Even with the person called Damnthehaters, who disagrees me on most things and I am quite sure would like to see the back of me, we had a fair exchange of views on Democracy. Under normal circumstances, if I did not feel you possessed the mind of a toddler, I would have assumed you were merely inquiring about my opinions on that subject and wanted a discussion on the respective merits of Appetite, Illusion and CD. But,


A rhetorical ulterior motive.

Ironically I do not think you are actually that interested in 'Guns N' Roses conversations' on here. You have no interest in them whatsoever. I never see you discussing Appetite or Illusion - or even CD that much - as separate from an argument (which you have usually instigated). Everything you post basically falls into two categories.

A/ It is either uninteresting advertising (''whoop I doo da, jee whiz, there is a new Crue v GNR poll on Blabbermouth'') or

B/ Ultra defensive replies to perceived slights against Axl/Nugnr.

I have never once seen you post something which does not fall into these two categories!


Bit unfair really as Appetite would make my top ten list of my own personal favourite rock albums. It would probably make my numero uno in fact if you further restricted that list to the genre of ''hard rock''.


I was not aware that there was some criteria of human achievement one would need to fulfill in order to post here. What an odd philosophy? I cannot even get my head around that comment and all those other odd comments you make about requiring 'positivity', and needing to see some evidence of 'positive' thinking. The fact you cannot mention the fact that GN'R undersold by 10% in one given venue in one given country says it all really.


I would say GN'R were very special but I see no reason to state why since I am clearly dealing with a two year old.

He only even talks to a handful of us, really.  All the people he allegedly cannot stand.

You are the man, in that regard, by the way.  This?  What you have been going through, you and him?  That used to be my deal.  I was the you before you.

But, you know the drill.  A newer, cuter model comes along...and the eyes wander.

Before I even get started I would like to make the disclaimer that Jarmo and I have disagreed in the past on various things so understand that I am not blowing smoke here.  Not my style.  Without further adieu:

I see nothing wrong with Jarmo mentioning those two acoustic club shows in 2010 here in the US.  Not only did they happen, but he's just doing the same thing others here did already.  They nitpicked at some facts from the article so he nitpicked back.  Fair is fair after all.

As for GNR playing stadiums in other countries vs. here in the US: for whatever reason (and I'm not convinced anyone really knows for sure) hard rock and heavy metal are much more popular in other countries.  The popularity of that type of music seems to wax and wane here in the US, but it never seems to get old in the rest of the world.  Secondly, I think it is unfair to compare Motely and GNR here.  The version of Motley currently touring has all the "popular" (whatever term you want to use) members.  I am not slagging the current line-up of Guns.  I think they are super talented, the shows have been great, they are all really nice, etc.  But are you really telling me that if Axl, Slash, Izzy, Duff and Steven (or even the UYI lineup for that matter) toured the US they wouldn't be able to sell out stadiums/arenas?  Please. 

On another topic, I think it's hard to judge whether a venue is sold-out or not by appearance alone.  With some of the "recent" tragedies (fires, trampling, etc.) in this country involving oversold venues, many venues are not allowed to sell to full capacity anymore.  As for stadiums/arenas, sometimes they appear that they weren't sold out.  For example some places don't sell seats behind the stage.  I think you would have to know how many tickets were allotted and how many were sold to determine sell-out status.  Am I saying this is what happened with GNR?  I have no idea, but it's certainly a possibility.  As a fan of GNR I want them to sell-out because I think it makes them happy and it makes them (and the crew) money, which they need for their families and all that.  As for smaller venues I am all for that. 

As for Vegas, I wish (as a fan; I'm sure the band wouldn't be a fan of this) they were handing out tickets on the street for GNR!

The empty aisles in front and touts offloading tickets for 1/3 the price are probably good indicators that a venue has not sold out, combined with a more than passing acquaintance of that arena when it is at full capacity. I actually got offered free tickets by somebody who was working at the venue; unfortunately this was after I had purchased the tickets!


Oh, stop with the jealousy. You make me blush. He still ultimately has eyes only for you. I'm merely the 'Acca Dacca $1.99' man.

I asked a question, and expected an answer. If that's an ulterior motive, then we're all guilty of it.
Ironically there was nothing surprising about your answers.



Maybe it says more about you than me...
In other words, you really have no clue.




Cool, so maybe you can go and hang out in Dead Horse and talk about how great that album is? :)





Of course you can't understand the simple concept that I've explained to you multiple times that a fan site is aimed at fans. Not people who love Appetite. :)

Maybe I was at the show you keep posting your facts about. But looking back, three years ago, it's not exactly the first thing that comes to my mind! You on the other hand....







You're still talking about me but you're not interested in discussions. I mean, you get upset when things aren't serious enough and then the next minute you tell us all how this isn't serious, it's only a rock band.

You're quite selective aren't you. One minute you want a serious discussion but only on your terms and as long as you can be right. When that changes, you start telling us how you're not interested in it anymore and you run away.




Telling this to certain people only gets you the "but GN'R played clubs" response.
Yes they did, weeks after finishing the arena tour that probably just visited the same cities.



It's not really an issue of how many tickets were sold. The comment arose from the fact that a certain poster just had to nitpick on the fact that the original article said that GN'R always sells good when they tour in the UK. He used the phrase sell out. The poster couldn't take it and had to chime in that "nooo, the show I went to wasn't sold out!".





/jarmo

I think we have all exhausted the use of superlatives aimed at Appetite Jarmo. But how is loving Appetite above everything else, exclusive from being a 'fan'? That is a new one! 'Because my favourite GN'R album is Appetite, I am not considered a 'fan'!' Never heard that one before! (I think GN'R''s fanbase has just taken a 90% reduction!).

Mortis, agree with you....Hendrix's 3 studio albums a pretty damn close to perfect. However, I would take out Noel Redding's songs...Little Miss Strange and She's So Fine....Sticky is 100% perfect.

Nice spin there!

There's a lot of casual rock fans, who necessarily wouldn't call themselves GN'R fans, who love that album.
They even go to the shows and don't post about them not being sold out! ;)  :hihi:




/jarmo

I like She's So Fine. Little Miss Strange is a bit average maybe but it is pleasurable enough. Noel has the English rock sound which is very different from where Hendrix's sound comes from. The idea was for Mitch to get a song also. Jimi wanted their contributions. He wanted the Experience to be thought of as a proper a band and not merely a solo vehicle.

I actually really like the psychedelic bizarre bits on those albums like EXP.


Still do not get how I'm not supposed to be a 'fan' because my favourite album is Appetite? This requires some explanation!

I already explained it.

Instead of spinning what I said, just re-read it. Slowly. Hopefully you'll understand it, eventually.



/jarmo

Alright, let's go through your statement then,


Firstly, why are they ('GN'R fans' and ''people who love Appetite'') exclusive of one and another? I think I can safely say that most GN'R fans are also fans of Appetite. I also wouldn't be surprised if Appetite for Destruction was the preferred album if you polled enough members of the GN'R fanbase. At no point then am I at odds with a sizable portion of the GN'R fanbase by preferring Appetite, despite your best efforts to label me as such. Secondly, why have you suddenly concluded that I am solely a fan of Appetite and not the remainder of Guns N' Roses' discography? To prefer one album does not mean you are not a fan of the other albums! A preference for Sticky Fingers by a Stones' fan does not mean he/she dislikes Exile or Beggars Banquet!

My favourite period of guns was 2002.  Mb I should be in the dead horse section as well

I do think any fan can have a favorite period of this band and still be a BIG/HUGE fan of the band overall

Not every fan has to like every moment for what itmis.  I don't think everyone's in the bands past is special.   I don't think every time frame brings us something different/special/or unpredictable

Can anyone honestly say 2015 has been a good year for the band?   This is one time period I am looking forward to forgetting

You don't understand the part in the post following where I explained for you that there are general rock fans who love said album but they wouldn't label themselves GN'R fans, and definitely not visit fan sites to whine about the band.

Which part is unclear?  ???

GN'R fans (who might even love AFD).
People who love AFD.

This site is for the first group of people.

I'm sure you're just having a piss here. Since you constantly point out how smart you are.....

We've already established that you don't exactly exemplify the kind of GN'R fan that this site is aimed for. There's no need for you to apologize for this. :)
You just happen to be pretty negative and all your hope is invested in an album, that you may or may not enjoy, but you need to hear.


Why are you here? :D



/jarmo

That is true but it is a moot point since it was established early on that I was a bigger fan than that (for reasons I am certainly not going to list for you). I have bands like that myself, where I like one or two albums and might even see them live but do not have the interest to visit their fan sites.


Isn't that the same for every eagerly expected album? Also I do not 'need' to hear it.

Well you gave the impression that you're all about the quantity of material, so it seems like you need it in order to possibly feel some kind of positive emotions relating to GN'R, in the future.




/jarmo

Agreed.  I don't know about stadiums, but suggesting the real band could not sell out arenas is pretty laughable.

Honestly, I can only think of one reason we see pushback on that idea.  It's because the current band doesn't have a hope in hell of doing that.  And if you don't want to deal with that reality, you start setting up situations as if no one could ever possibly do that.  Like is fucking mission impossible.

U2 is playing 4-6 nights in arenas in the same city.  But the classic line-up of GNR can't even do one?  Get real.

Motley Crue was brought up for one single reason. They are touring now. They are on their last tour so to compare them to GN'R is pointless.

But, we've had certain people time and time again point out how there's no demand for GN'R.

I disagree. I've explained why I disagree. I've brought up several points that gives a picture of the USA as a touring market for hard rock / metal bands. All of this has been ignored and the "there's no demand for GN'R" routine is just repeated. By people claiming to be interested in discussions.

So once again, several hard rock bands tour in the summer, different packages and do good business. Sometimes it's "the last tour" or "playing the same show you saw in the 80s" tour.

GN'R played an arena tour in October-December, followed early the following year by smaller shows. Then being asked to headline festivals and doing a residency twice, and this is used as evidence of there not being a demand for GN'R.

Festivals don't book headliners because they wanna be nice. The Joint doesn't book two residencies so they can not sell tickets.


But it goes along with the mentality that something is always wrong that certain people seem to possess. Unfortunately.
 


/jarmo

I think there are serious questions about domestic demand for this line-up.

The scope of the next real tour will tell the tale conclusively.  As I often say, we can't both be right.

Oh is this the part part where I bring up all my "live music is dead in the United States " stuff hahAha

I will save us all from that

Too bad you guys couldn't save us all from the "I know you are, but what am I" routine.

There is the problem with what you keep repeating.
You keep saying it's about GN'R even though I've posted numerous times about other hard rock / metal bands and how well they are doing in the USA. For some strange reason, you keep ignoring this.

It's not a GN'R specific thing. It's not about GN'R only. AC/DC is playing more stadium shows in Canada than they do in the USA. Australia will have more stadium shows by them than the USA. Now somebody will chime in about how they are saving the other shows for later....

Metallica are only doing one offs and festivals, no proper arena tour in years. These are popular bands in that genre.

I wish you would find the will to take that info in and think.

I'm not saying GN'R can or can't play certain venue sizes in the USA. Why? Because I don't know when the next tour is, how it's promoted, the timing or anything else about it.

The fact that they played smaller venues around some festival dates doesn't really say that much. To me it says that they wanted to play a few more gigs instead of just playing a festival here and there, without carrying a huge arena production with them.





/jarmo

I don't really think this is about the lineup, no. this is PURELY about actually releasing stuff and promoting it. any lineup this band had was enough to create fantastic music - and in the end everything failed just because the music got shelved.

I think you might be able to sell that.  How the past few years were nothing really official and organized.

OK, fine.

But if, god willing, another album comes out, there will be a more organized official tour.  And, at that point, the places they book are going to be the final word on the matter.

- U2 is playing arenas 
- Van Halen is playing arenas
- Foo Fighters are playing arenas 
- Smashing Pumpkins/Marilyn Manson are playing arenas
- Motley Crue are playing arenas
- Aerosmith are playing arenas
- Pearl Jam are playing arenas

Gun to my head, I would have to say that any next GNR tour will not be an arena tour.

The difference between us is that, if that occurs, I will say I was wrong.  You, on the other hand, will have a laundry list of reasons that it doesn't mean anything.  That playing 3,000 seat shitholes here and there is actually a great example of how popular and in demand they are around here.

It will strain credibility to the breaking point.

There's no final word until the final tour.
Things change. Sometimes during the same tour.

Does it bother you that GN'R only played stadiums in the USA in 1992 with Metallica but were playing them outside the USA since 1991?
Be careful when you use the "no demand" phrase because it might reflect more on your country than the band itself... But don't ask me, ask Baconman. He'll tell you!  :hihi:





I don't know what to say.... Honestly. U2? Their situation is that similar to GN'R's?


Ok, I see. you're listing bands who play arenas that aren't even remotely in the same situation GN'R is in.

SP/MM? A package tour? Yet on his own Manson played clubs...
So if GN'R tours with Aerosmith, Foo Fighters and Smashing Pumpkins in stadiums you'll say GN'R is playing stadiums? :D






Haha. Again with the "I'll admit I was wrong".
I do remember you doing that once, after almost having been verbally arm wrestled to admit it. ;)





Around here? The galaxy known as PA?

Why didn't GN'R play in PA in 1993? No demand?

Also, why did you ignore the point about bands who play less shows in the USA? What's your take on AC/DC for example? You just chose to ignore it for some reason... Weird.
In addition, your "Gun to my head, I would have to say that any next GNR tour will not be an arena tour." prediction is kinda lame. You make a general statement like that so you don't have to take a big risk. One fucking club date on that tour and you'll be there with your "I told you so!".





/jarmo

Wow. Article seems a touch flawed to my eyes.

First, it?s hard to make the argument that Guns N? Roses is relevant today.
Worth talking about? Of course. But when people talk about Guns N? Roses, it?s typically about the long dead incarnation from 20+ years ago.
I don?t think there are many discussions outside of HTGTH regarding today?s lineup, whatever that happens to be.

It?s tough to paint Axl as a GN?R surviver, when his actions and inactions played large roles in other?s decisions to leave in the first place.
He owns the name, and the name prints money, so keeping it active, even if active to some resembles life support, is hardly some noble gesture.

How is it amazing that Axl can fill voids and vacancies? It?s a job, and a job that probably pays pretty well. It would be more amazing if someone didn?t apply for that gig, but whereas people apply to clean toilets, adding this to Axl's list of accomplishments seems a bit of a stretch.

What is Axl fighting, exactly? What is he continuing? Where?s this new music the writer speaks of? That singular album from 2008? The album(s) in the ?Vault??
Touring is how bands make money these days, and its the only thing Guns N? Roses does on a semi consistent basis.
It?s a tough sell to file tours built on the backs of decade old albums, recorded by long since dissolved lineups under the accomplishment column.

The difference between Velvet Revolver playing a Guns N? Roses song and Axl playing a Guns N? Roses song, is that Velvet Revolver isn?t charging GN?R ticket prices to see a bunch of people no one has ever heard of cover Guns N? Roses songs.

Yes, it?s true that "nothing can erase what Axl Rose has accomplished and achieved" but then again, no one is trying to.
People would like to see him accomplish, and achieve more. That?s what makes them fans. The fact that he hasn?t leads to some fans frustration.
That doesn?t make one a ?keyboard warrior?, or mean they think they can sing and hold high notes like Axl Rose.

They are. Axl's in the band.

There's nobody else like him. For some fans, this is a negative thing. They seem to have forgotten that they became fans of the band that Axl was also in.

But anyway, that doesn't change the fact that he still is relevant. Originals are always relevant.


Regarding the erasing what he has achieved. I get that point. The negativity can be the focus for some. So when you think like that, or read shit like it, it's easy to forget what has been achieved.



/jarmo

Stadiums are very hard here.  These days, its either a country bill with 2 or 3 acts on it, or Taylor Swift.  Roll call is short for stadium acts in the U.S.

I know its far more common for bands that were only ever arena acts here to play stadiums abroad.  I think at least part of that reason is that in some of these countries, they might only be playing one city.  Maybe a handful.  Here, we have 50 states.  You don't really need to travel to catch them.  So you take a band like Aeroomith that was never a stadium act here, even in the late 80s/early 90s when they were huge.  But they played stadiums elsewhere.

Honestly?  No.

There are not the same on just about any level, but I highly doubt you want to pick that scab unless you want to seriously bum yourself out.

But they are a huge rock act, one of the biggest names in the genre.  In that sense, theoretically, they are like Guns N' Roses.

They seem to be doing OK.

They are major rock acts that tour arenas without a problem.  Yes, yes, despite your well researched theory why that can't possibly be done.

And those are just the ones off the top of my head that have come through lately.  Its not a complete list by any means.

The United States Of America.  Their home country.  And, you know, the very topic we are discussing.



Dunno.  We didn't get a show in 1992 either though.  December 17, 1991 is the last show they played here.

There was that other one since then, but...well, you know.

Well you said it yourself.
Axl Rose, not Guns N? Roses.

If Guns N? Roses is relevant today, it?s due to the legacy Axl helped create with Slash, Izzy, Duff and Steven long ago.

It?s not because of Frank, Fortus, Tommy etc.
I?d be absolutely shocked if I was able to walk outside my office and find anyone within a 5 mile radius that could name another member of today?s GN?R.

Chinese Democracy was one of the most anticipated albums ever, yet I haven?t heard a track from it on the radio since it dropped in 2008.
Guns N? Roses could be relevant today. But out of sight, or in this case ear shot, out of mind.

Unfortunately there hasn?t been a whole lot to be positive about when speaking of Axl?s career post UYI.
Unless we are willing to grasp at straws like the author of this thread?s article.

Axl?s achievements are well documented. His legacy was cemented long ago.
He will always be mentioned among rock?s great frontmen. Rightfully so.

The negativity stems from what many fans deem to be years upon years of wasted potential.

You cling to that example like grim death. 

Speaking on strict numbers, you have your one example you repeat over and over again.  I have a list of examples that refute your theory.

Give me the list over the one convenient example we focus on and drown out the countless others that hurt the argument.

Oh, stop it already.

25 arenas and 1 club does not make it a club tour.  No more so than 20 "up close and personal" venues and 1 arena makes that an arena tour.

Tours tend to book similar places all across the country.  It won't take a fucking diagram and a slide rule to deduce the overall scope of the tour.

Great post.

And the way the rest of the world sees the situation.  We like to pretend otherwise around here, but I'm not sure who we think we are fooling.

Correct.

Which was the whole argument we had here about the hall of fame.  No one thing he has done post 1994 had anything to do with GNR getting into the hall of fame.

Even if we were STILL waiting for 'Chinese Democracy', what bearing did that have?  Would the HOF have said "well, we think they are in...but I need to hear this new album first, the one with all the people no one has ever heard of."

Be serious.  Axl could have been abducted by aliens on 12/31/94 and still gotten in.  Nothing he has done since matters one iota to the GNR legacy in the eyes of the many.

Yes, sometimes a band might play one stadium show per country. But then again, AC/DC is doing six in the USA and eight in Canada.





U2 has been going since the early 1980s with the same line up. The only negative press regarding them is when they gave away an album for free to Apple users or when Bono talks too much.  :hihi:





Like I said, Marilyn Manson plays clubs on his own. Obviously he has a problem touring arenas without a second act on the bill...

There goes your whole theory. You slap two acts on a bill and they can "play arenas without a problem". What of GN'R did the same?




Haha. How does all those acts refute my theory? Because U2 plays arenas, it means Metallica can too but they choose not to tour, only do one offs and tour overseas?

I posted about it before and you ignored it all along. You're still ignoring it. Instead of answering why, you post a list of other bands who are popular.




They played in PA with Metallica in 1992. So yeah, there apparently was no demand for GN'R round there in 1993. ;)




And there you go trying to erase what he's done since....  :P

If the band had ended in 1996, would you be here today? Talking about that clip from that show from 1987 on Youtube maybe? Or whether or not UYI should've been one album...
I kinda doubt it.

Axl Rose and Guns N' Roses are closely connected to each other. Can't have one without the other.

So GN'R are relevant because he's in the band. Common sense really.

People who claim to hate him and GN'R still spend a lot of time talking about him and GN'R.




Because you can't always get what you want.





It's a GUNS N' ROSES fan site for .... sake!

People come here because they don't care what you the rest of the world thinks.


/jarmo

Let's say CD2 happens and a new tour in support. Whatever the make up of the tour there will be complicated webs of explanation to make it look positive. Axl could be playing seedy pubs next year but multiple reasons will be provided explaining why this is not an example of downsizing. Whatever happens, there will be spin doctoring that would embarrass a politician.

Oh, now we are talking about Pittsburgh?

A city I neither live in, nor are within 6-7 hours of?

He could. So what?

Is this better? No "pointless touring" so far in 2015. Aren't you excited?



So there was no demand for a Metallica/GN'R co headlining tour in Philadelphia... Even worse! :hihi:

By the way, my post said PA. The state. Maybe it's confusing because you assume it's all about Philadelphia.... :)




/jarmo

It's "up close and personal", bub.

GNR's people must have been realtors in another life.  Its not small, its "cozy".  Its not in disrepair, its "a handyman special".  Its not right under an airport's flight path, its "transportation adjacent".

Well I'm no longer cringing at the flying piano and gnr themed casino chips. That is a positive to come from all this.

I'm happy for you.

I'm also sure you're one of the few to see it that way. Judging by some of the posts and comments around the Internet....





/jarmo

Here's the difference.

If there was a GNR/Metallica show in 1992, it would have sold just fine.  If there was a 1992 show at the Spectrum, it would have sold out.

If there was a Guns N' Roses show in 2015 at the Wells Fargo Center (the modern day Spectrum), the place is unlikely to be even half full.  It seats about 20,000 for sporting events.  This would be the case just about everywhere except *maybe* NYC or LA.

So if you want to have a serious discussion about demand for GNR, 1992 vs. 2015...you must just be some sort of glutton for punishment.

But hey, man.  AC/DC...so, yeah.

So you're saying they booked shows in other markets in the USA in 1993 because the demand was so strong in places they didn't play that year?
They played cities like Portland, ME and Fargo, ND. Skipped cities like L.A., Philadelphia (again) and New York City.

On one hand you're quick to point out that the UCAP tour was booked due to lack of demand, on the other hand you claim shows could've been booked and weren't in 1993.

You make no sense.


Simple question: Why didn't the band play in Philadelphia in 1992 or 1993 if the demand was so huge? Why tour mostly in secondary markets? I'm sure you know.

Personally I don't care. A GN'R show is a GN'R show. And I know sometimes promoters want to book gigs in other cities. Might have to do with a suitable venue, or the city wanting to host a show etc etc.
But I'm not the one throwing around the demand phrase to the left and right here.



/jarmo

Well, yes.  Putting things in nonsensical terms like that, I would agree it makes little sense.

It does appear that the 1993 U.S. tour was in more off the beaten path type spots.  Likely due to the fact they had already been through a lot of towns multiple times.

Guess what?  Still booked arenas.  Still sold them out.  No "up close and personal" shows, know what I mean?

The UCAP tour was booked because they could not fill bigger places.  Correct.  It was not done out of the goodness of their hearts.  That's foolishness.

Some of the same arenas GN'R played in 2011! Imagine that.

And no, they didn't book clubs a few weeks after. Instead they went abroad and played stadiums..... :)

Does it sound familiar?

---

Please answer me this: Why would you book club shows a few weeks after an arena tour instead of playing multiple nights in those cities during the real tour?
In your own words, explain why the UCAP tour was booked. I'm really curious.
If there's too many questions in this post, just focus on this part. The UCAP tour and your theories/reasons for it happening at that time instead of maybe in 2013, 2014 or whatever.

Are you aware that there's a difference between an arena tour and playing smaller venues?

Thanks!



/jarmo

Looks like this was added after the fact.

Why didn't they?  Don't know.  Pretty decent rock town, as a rule.  Sold out the Spectrum in June 1991, then twice in December 1991.

Couldn't tell you why we got passed over in 1992 or 1993, but it certainly wasn't lack of demand.  I think that's a flawed premise.

If there were shows here in 1992 or 1993, they would have been in commensurate venues to the rest of the legs of those tours.

Could be many reasons. I'm only using your favorite term since I can do what you do. Play the game and assume. Without knowing shit!
Yes, it's that simple.


Regarding your other favorite topic, UCAP. More questions while I await for theory on that tour.... Sorry!

Is it possible there was time between the North American arena tour and the European summer tour, and instead of doing nothing they booked a club tour? Is it possible it's easier to organize something like that since the shows are smaller and also several were in the same cities? And since the shows are smaller, you can announce them closer to the actual show dates?

Is any of this possible in your expert opinion?

I have no idea, just thinking freely. Because if I was booking a tour, I wouldn't book a tour in the same cities after a tour of the same cities just finished! I mean, unless it was just something that came up and it's better than not playing any shows... But that can't be the case. They just decided to book shows in cities with no demand. Because it makes sense, right?




/jarmo

The UCAP tour was booked in the venues they were booked in because the band could not fill larger venues in those same cities.

Multiple nights?  Are you high?  They weren't filling the places up in 2011 for one night.  Multiple nights?

I actually think its more of a concern there wasn't even a UCAP type deal in 2013 or 2014, to be honest.  One city residency is all they felt they could swing.

In summation, UCAP is the future.  The days of filling arenas are over for this band, absent Axl making that phone call he's been avoiding for 20 years.

Dude, you gotta stop going back and adding shit.  Get your thoughts organized before you post the first time.

Here's what makes sense.  By 2014, you haven't been around in a while.  Sticking to a safe one city residency in a vacation town speaks to what you feel you are capable of.

I see absolutely zero argument there was a bigger more nationwide tour there for the taking in 2013 or 2014, and it wasn't booked...um, I don't know.....just because.

Silly.

Seriously, when all is said and done I would love to see a pic of DX and Jarmo enjoying a beer together.  :beer:

We're the original odd couple!

Next time he's in PA you got to make it happen. The internet would explode.

I've seen a pic of him with MSL, and all that guy did was extort the god damn band.

I can't be worse than him.  (right?)

Do you have a source for this info? :D



This begs the question: Why would a band go back so soon to cities where there allegedly wasn't demand the first time? Like I said, and you didn't understand, if you want to play Philly and Camden, why do it the way GN'R did? Why not book the shows to happen the same week?

I only said that to prove a point you didn't get.




Maybe in Philly.





That particular post, I didn't add anything....



Still waiting for a real explanation on why the tour was booked that way.
Could you explain the logic in booking a second round of shows in cities with no demand so close to the first shows? Please explain!

I mean, the old "they booked it because there was no demand" isn't what I'm after! If there's no demand, wouldn't you just wait until later?

To be honest, this game is fun and all. But I just don't think you're capable of thinking freely here. They probably wanted a fun easy tour while they had some downtime. You don't need a huge production to play those smaller places. It's more a last minute pack your suitcase and go kinda trip, instead of a planned family getaway.

But you couldn't admit this possibility because it goes against what you want to be true.




That was a bit awkward. He jumped out of the blue and asked for a pic...  :hihi:




/jarmo

I forgot to add that the UCAP shows were announced weeks before the shows happened.
For example, the Philadelphia show was announced a week before it happened.

Do you think this would have any effect on ticket sales when people can't make plans far in advance? Maybe you didn't even go?


All this kinda shows how this tour was more a spur of the moment thing than a real serious arena tour... But that's just how I see it.



/jarmo

Yeah, I'd agree with this.

The show in Atlanta had about 10,000 at Phillips or around there, then they do the UCAP at The Tabernacle soon thereafter. Both great shows. The Tabernacle is right next to Phillips and it just so happened that Radiohead was playing in Phillips that night. I could have done both shows in one night. Radiohead fans were spilling out around 11pm....walking right past the venue. Multiple conversations as I am a fan of both. One guy says, "Axl Rose is about to come on?" I said, "Yeah...in a little while!"  :hihi:

He scalped a ticket and went in....saw him inside right after Jungle and he was like "holy shit!"....one of my favorite rock stories.

It's a shame that guns has lost Ron, I was never a big fan of DJ.  I hope Axl puts out the second half of CD by the end of 2016. It's going to be hard to get the chemistry back that the new guns had the last 6 years. Hopefully Axl will release a statement soon...

That is cool.

Right place, right time.

Tickets at the IZOD in the Meadowlands for the 2011 show were not sold out. The area that I was sitting in had a quite a lot of empty seats, which were also cheap. Back in the day, that would have easily sold out.

The Camden show, obviously, they closed up the back as no one was going to sit on the lawn in November.

I honestly don't know how many it seats when they do that.  But it was full.  We were packed in tight.

Drawing from all of South Jersey and Philly, I would certainly hope so.

I don't get DX and Jarmos argument? 

DX, are you basically saying that GNR doesn't sell as well as they used to?  Ummm, no kidding.   ??? 
But, are you also saying that's why they booked UCPT?   I don't agree with that.  Bands play bigger and smaller venues all the time.  They also play big and small markets as well.  Even when bands are extremely popular, they can play smaller venues and smaller markets. Sometimes, it's about reaching as many people as you can.  If you continuesly play the same markets, millions of people won't be able to see you.  Not everyone can drive long distances to go to a show.   

Basically, I tend to think tours like UCAP and the one town residencies are done more out of necessity than some romantic notion they just want to give fans a different experience.

Jarmo does not agree with me.

Frankly, even though we were at odds on this one, I thought today was one of our better conversations.  I thought good points were made by both sides.

But what I keep coming back to, and this annoys Jarmo for some reason, I don't think we can really say one way or another until we see that next tour and where they are playing on the regular.  I tend to think, if there ever even is another nationwide tour here in the U.S., it will be in smaller places.  I think the arena days are probably over.

I think we all agree that the demand for GnR is less than what it was back in the heyday because?well, because that?s incredibly obvious.  Where people disagree (I think) is the reason for the decrease in interest. 

The reason for the decrease is either (a) consistent with the decrease in demand for other rock bands, (b) the result of Axl being the only original member and only releasing one album in 20+ years, or (c) something else. 

Sounds like Jarmo believes the smaller venues and attendance are because of choice (a), while D-X and others (including me) think it?s both (a) and, to a larger extent, (b).  Guns n Roses is now really only seen as Axl Rose?s band?and while that?s enough to keep some people going, the drop off in interest is, IMO, because it?s only him?and he hasn?t done that much in terms of releasing new music.  When people see Guns now, they see Axl, guitarists they don?t bother learning who they are because, once you do, they?re probably no longer in the band, and a small amount of new material.  People see wasted opportunity?particularly because they know how special Axl is as a performer/writer, and can?t understand how someone with that much talent has only managed to release one album in 20+ years.  After getting sole control of Guns, he hasn?t done much to move the meter, and that?s why the interest is lacking.  Or rock is dead.  That sounds better, especially to the Axl faithful. 

I just don't know how you can really argue that people are forming any sort of connection with these guys.

Its not universal or anything, but look how many people shrug their shoulder at losing 2 of 3 guitarists in under a year. 

It's a pretty healthy number.

That's a great live music story!

I believe it's a result of both things you mentioned..(a and b), but more so the lack of material to stay relevant and not as much about Axl being the only original member.  Members come and go with SO many bands and I think the music is what's more important.  I think a lot of your comments are views from the die hard fan....or a true rock n roll fan and are a little far fetched.  Seeing only Axl, wasted opportunity, how special Axl was, etc.....I don't believe most see it that way.  And when I say MOST, I'm referring to what I would call an average music listener.  When you look at the grand scheme of things, there are very few people who know what's going on with GNR, and even fewer who care! And it's not just GNR.  The average music listener probably couldn't tell you much about any band for that matter.  I can point to any of my friends and tell you that they don't view GNR like that.  Some of them might know certain people aren't in the band, but they don't care.  I would say that when most people attend a GNR show, they aren't going into it thinking it's only "Axl's band".  I would argue that most people are going in and coming out saying they saw Guns N Roses.  In 20 years from now, if someone says they saw GNR in 2006, the majority of the response will be "cool".  The majority won't be, "but it was only Axl Rose who wasted so much talent and only put out 1 album after 1993."  Those are comments from people on fan sites. 

Think about it.  I went to a Culture Club concert the other night.  Few years back I went to a Little River Band concert.  I have no idea if the original band members are still in the Culture Club besides Boy George.  And I DO know that Little River Band has had more lineup changes than Guns N Roses, and they don't have their lead singer.  But for the most part, neither concert had people talking about anything other than "the songs". 

So yes, GNR has lost popularity over the years...but I think it has more to do with not putting out music as opposed to lineup changes.  If they would have put out 5 albums with some good music out over the last 20 years as opposed to 1, they would be much better off.  Of course, there would always be those who lost interest after the band changed, but those are few really.  And with new music, would come new fans.  Most just care about music. 

Just like the story shared by skydog above.  The guy (probably the average music listener), had no idea Guns N Roses was playing. He bought a ticket, went in, and (I think) enjoyed it.  I doubt he was saying "but this is just Axls band".

The original posters claims the 2012 UCAP shows were booked in those venues because that's what the demand was.

I pointed out why I disagree and why I think they booked those shows, multiple times.

GN'R has  history of playing smaller club gigs, and it's not because they can't play in a bigger venue.
Nowhere did I claim GN'R today, or rock music in general, is as popular as in say 1991.




/jarmo

Totally agree.

You would always have people that cashed out after the others were replaced.  But I also think Axl would be a little better off if had released a few albums with the new line-up by now.

Not putzing around for 15 years on 15 songs.

The lack of output, I think, exacerbates the issue of Axl being the only original member.  In other words, had he consistently (shit, or even occasionally) put out music, people wouldn?t care as much that he?s the last man standing.  But when you?re the last man standing and you infrequently put out music, then there goes the benefit of the doubt.

With all due respect to Culture Club and Little River Band, even at the height of their respective popularities, they were never even close to GnR?s status.  That?s why the revolving door of musicians isn?t that much of an issue for them.  No one gives a shit if the Cleveland Browns get rid of their quarterback?but if the Patriots cut Brady?then they better succeed with his replacement or else they're going to be subject to a lot of ridicule and second guessing.

Yes, some truth to this.  However, I used those bands as examples because I personally saw their shows.  You could use a bunch of bands as examples where they may have lineup changes, but it doesn't really affect them.  It's about the music.

I convinced 10 of my friends who didn?t get the chance to catch classic Guns live, to check out the 2006 incarnation in Worcester.
My brother and I had caught them recently at the Hammerstein, and were pretty blown away by how great Axl sounded.

Some of my friends were more impressed than others. One thought it was great, one left during the encore, but most were at least entertained.
But if you asked any of them today if they have ever seen Guns N? Roses live, they would tell you ?no?.
They saw Axl Rose and a whole bunch of people they didn?t recognize playing GN?R songs.

As we get older, this is what happens.
Although few bands take it to the extreme Axl has, turnover in personnel is more common than not in rock bands.
We only get so many years to catch bands in their prime, and with their core lineups in tact.

I?ve seen Alice In Chains a few times since 2006, but I never got the chance to see Alice In Chains.
I?ve seen the New York Dolls a couple times since 2004, but Arthur Kane, Johnny Thunders, Billy Murcia, and Jerry Nolan were all dead and buried by then, so I never got the chance to see the New York Dolls.

People go, because they want to hear the songs they love live, or catch the members, and sometimes the singular member that does remain.
So, yes, the music is what?s most important, but the name of the band means something to people.

There will always be some fans that put one specific member of a band on a pedestal, and build them up and convince themselves that one member is and was always "the band".
Most people see them for what they are. A group of people contributing their ideas and talent to create music together. Those players aren?t as disposable to some fans as they are to others.

It doesn't mean people won?t enjoy seeing later incarnations live for what they are. People buy tickets to have a good time.
Most know the deal going in. But seeing Lynyrd Skynyrd in ?73 is a lot different than seeing them in 2015, and I think most people recognize this.

And I agree with this as well like I posted in my response above.  Just because a band does small shows, doesn't mean it's because they HAVE to.  GNR isnt selling like they used to, but they could still go to Philly for example and bring in much more than 2,000 like at the Electric Factory.  They didn't HAVE to play the Electric Factory.  They could have played a bigger venue and more than likely brought in 8-12k.  

[/quote]

I convinced 10 of my friends who didn?t get the chance to catch classic Guns live, to check out the 2006 incarnation in Worcester.
My brother and I had caught them recently at the Hammerstein, and were pretty blown away by how great Axl sounded.

Some of my friends were more impressed than others. One thought it was great, one left during the encore, but most were at least entertained.
But if you asked any of them today if they have ever seen Guns N? Roses live, they would tell you ?no?.
They saw Axl Rose and a whole bunch of people they didn?t recognize playing GN?R songs.

As we get older, this is what happens.
Although few bands take it to the extreme Axl has, turnover in personnel is more common than not in rock bands.
We only get so many years to catch bands in their prime, and with their core lineups in tact.

I?ve seen Alice In Chains a few times since 2006, but I never got the chance to see Alice In Chains.
I?ve seen the New York Dolls a couple times since 2004, but Arthur Kane, Johnny Thunders, Billy Murcia, and Jerry Nolan were all dead and buried by then, so I never got the chance to see the New York Dolls.

People go, because they want to hear the songs they love live, or catch the members, and sometimes the singular member that does remain.
So, yes, the music is what?s most important, but the name of the band means something to people.

There will always be some fans that put one specific member of a band on a pedestal, and build them up and convince themselves that one member is and was always "the band".
Most people see them for what they are. A group of people contributing their ideas and talent to create music together. Those players aren?t as disposable to some fans as they are to others.

It doesn't mean people won?t enjoy seeing later incarnations live for what they are. People buy tickets to have a good time.
Most know the deal going in. But seeing Lynyrd Skynyrd in ?73 is a lot different than seeing them in 2015, and I think most people recognize this.
[/quote]

Ok, you and some of your friends are those people I'm NOT talking about.  You said it yourself in the bold statement above...you are a group of people who view it as "classic" guns n roses.  I believe there are more people out there that just view them as guns n roses, regardless of who's in the band.  Your one of the few people I'm talking about, that when your 70 years old and telling your grand children that you saw guns n roses in 2006, who you follow it up with..."but it wasn't the classic lineup, it was just the lead singer".  I would argue that MOST people out there will just say that they saw guns n roses. 

Yep.  Shit, even *I* do that.

People know they are my favorite band.  Then they ask me if I have ever seen them live.  I use the Chris Farley air quotes and told them I saw "Guns N' Roses".

I have yet to have anyone not understand what I meant by it, nor feel the need to correct me in some way. 

I have never been critical of Axl using the name Guns N roses... might not have been my personal preference, but it's his right and I'm glad to have had the Guns N Roses concerts that I have been able to attend.

Guns N Roses broke up a long time ago... that sucked.. but that's life... They were unable to continue together for a variety of different reasons.

Then Axl formed a completely new band called guns N roses... they made an album which I really like. Unfortunately that band didn't stay together for long either, and we have gotten a few different versions of the touring band over the years to play the songs.

I'm able to separate the different bands... same name...different bands... what's so hard ?

Now... two more guitar players are gone... so barring the miraculous return of certain players... a very different band will once again use the name Guns N Roses , and Axl will sings his songs... and we will all be there.. because we all love the guy as a performer/entertainer.

What else is there to break down for the 3700th time?

I think the point is that there wouldn't be such a clear separation between classic lineup and others if there was more output during the last 20+ years.  You wouldn't need the air quotes when saying you saw Guns n Roses in 2014.

Hmm...maybe.  I think that's your high end, that figure.

Problem is, at least hear, we don't really have a venue that size.  We have a few that can seat a few thousand.  But you get over that, you have to go Wells Fargo, which is 20,000.  No shot they are filling that, and then you'd have to hang a shitload of black curtains over unsold seats.

The point I have been making, is that this is not specific to my town.  That's going to be the case in just about any 20,000 seat arena, thus making it unlikely those sorts of venues would be the goto move when it comes time to schedule.

Clear Channel lost a fortune in 2002 because they booked these basketball/hockey arenas that weren't close to being full.  I think that is the case now, as well.

Exactly.

You didn't need the air quotes for "Van Halen" with Sammy.  Because that incarnation put out enough stuff to establish their own legacy.

This new incarnation of GNR has never done that.  Thankfully, they are starting to finally look very seriously at what they are doing in that regard.

That show was announced one week in advance. You don't really announce arena shows with such short notice. It was also just weeks/months since the band was in the same area playing arenas.

Not that this matters to some...



/jarmo

I said it then, and I still say it now.

Took tremendous courage on Axl's part to come back here.  This town is loaded with hooligans, and he was in a small enough place you could peg him easily.

Also have to give him credit for at least making a pass at an explanation for 2002.  Even took some of the blame, which is like seeing a blue moon. 

Have to give the man credit for stepping up.

I have to say when ever I had tickets I always felt somewhat odd and phony saying 'I'm going to see Guns N' Roses', or ''I have Guns N' Roses' tickets. I would pause before saying that name: 'Guns N' Roses'. It never flowed easily.

Most of my friends and acquaintances talk about them like a mutual friend or family member that died.

"Still listening to Guns N' Roses?"

"Yep."

"Just such a shame.  Such a shame what happened there."

If someone casual said, ''have you ever seen Guns N' Roses?'', you know they mean the band featuring Axl and Slash, which wrote Sweet Child O' Mine and November Rain. I am always embarrassed when I explain that I've seen a version of the band that does not meet those requirements. Either they are not aware that Axl continued the band with a different bunch of guys (they are usually completely confused and a bit angry by that - ''how could Axl do that?'') or they say, ''oh - did he ever get Chinese Democracy out (lol)?'' or ''oh yeh, Axl now plays with a guy with a KFC bucket on his head!''.

/jarmo

Not saying this about your family or friends

But most people are useless in general

I couldn't care less what the unwashed masses opinion is on guns n roses

There are a lot of mouth breathers   People that can't stand to the right on escaladers and people that always think there check bag will be there first off.   So they have to stand right at the front!!!   

Out there!

It's very easy to say this band is not guns n roses

Just like its easy to go threw a drive threw fast food place for dinner

It actually takes effort to follow a band   Just like cooking a meal

Next time your friends or family comment on guns n roses.  Call them a stiff   From TheBaconman

Ah, but what if they agreed with you?

If you were attempting to defend the new band to casuals it would be easier with some sort of reference point. There are no songs the people could have theoretically heard. There is only one album and that did not resonate. The new band do not have a Heaven and Hell, Burn or 5150.

Without going into much detail here, I can say you are wrong my friend.  :)

After reading this entire thread, I have to vote that Jarmo has the best post of the thread on page 3. 

Great discussion nonetheless. 

It was a good article, yes obviously had its errors and the reason for the board is to discuss such errors.  I mean, but the "quotes" is a bit overboard.  I get it, but it's over the top.  #imo

Thanks!  :D



/jarmo

OK, well...with all due respect, what does this add to the proceedings?  What am I, or anyone really, supposed to do with this?

Don't get me wrong.  I'm sure you have things you can't talk about.  But I'd then think it a fair question to ask why you even wade into the discussion.

To a partisan, uber pro-GNR fan, your answer is just fine.  To them, they don't want these things discussed to begin with.  The "why" is a very distant second, if its present at all.

But to the people that can talk about the band in something other than emotional terms, I'm sure they'd be very interested in any light that might be shed.

You don't even say what you are referring to.  Their demand in Philly?  Their demand at other places?  The 2002 tour? 

You can't unlock doors you aren't prepared to walk through, Fernando.

He's a man of few words.

To borrow from a  a familiar concept, he doesn't "owe us" any answers.  And if he can't talk, he can't talk.  That's just how it is.

But by virtue of those circumstances, throwing that line out is a consequence free statement, is it not?

It would be nice to know what you are 'wrong' about. Could it be the venue in your area which seats 20,000? Does he believe GN'R can still fill that out? Who knows?

I think management is in a no-win situation.
Would it be nice to know what GN?Rs plans going forward are? If they even plan to go forward?
Of course, but Guns, and to be more specific, Axl, has been through countless different managers.
They come and go through the GN?R turnstiles along with the countless ex-band members with very little, if anything other than a paycheck to show for it.

GN?Rs dwindling fan base is interested in hearing from Axl, as he is all that remains from the band that recorded the GN?R songs people chant to hear.

No one really cares what management says one way or the other, because at the end of the day, it all comes down to Axl.
Very few people outside of HTGTH know who Frank or Richard are, so their predictions carry very little, if any weight.
Management is in roughly the same weight class.

This particular management has their own unique problem being so close to their artist.

That has both upsides and downsides.

Again, wrong.  Though your opinion describes your thoughts on the matter. 

I can dissect everything you are wrong about, then you would put up an argument on why you think you are right about whatever I say you are wrong about, then other people will eventually join and start a huge argument; where it'll all end with the likelihood of someone losing their shit.

You are wrong about most of the things you said in all of your posts in this thread.  Your opinions are not fact, yet you carry them as such.  I am not looking to challenge what you know, because what you know is not factual.  It does make a great read though.

Yes murph, I am a man of a few words.  I suppose the forum life is not a life for me.

Hahahahaha. THIS.

Hey Fernando, random question: As far as negotiating the next album's release goes, is that something you spearhead as the Manager, possibly along with your mom/Beta?  Or do you guys leave all the negotiating/planning to Axl?

I know back in the day it was on Merck & later Azoff to handle those arrangements, however poorly, but have always been curious as to who handles the label communications now that you guys are managing. Thanks!

Your prerogative, of course.  No one can force you to do anything you don't want to do.

But its going to determine how seriously we are supposed to take you when you chime in, that's all.  That's the part you have to make peace with.

If you are going to saunter in mid-conversation and say that something is totally wrong, you can't believe how wrong it is...but you can't/won't/aren't allowed to elaborate....than I'm not sure I, or anyone else, is supposed to really be all that stung by it.  There is nothing behind it.

On balance, I am not nearly as hard on you or your team as a lot of GNR fans are.  I tend to be in the camp that you have an extremely talented, but also fairly uncooperative artist.  And you aren't freakin' miracle workers.  A lot of times, you are left holding the bag.  I think its unfair to go too, too crazy giving you and the team grief on that point.

But in terms of attempting to correcting the record, you are only really accomplishing anything it you actually correct it.  What you have done with these past 2 posts does not meet that standard.  I suppose, in theory, I or anyone else is supposed to cower when you say stuff like that because you are on the inside.  I can't speak for others, but that's not my deal.  I am under no illusion that you are far, far, far more plugged in than I, or any other fan ever will be.  That is not in dispute.

However, I'm a seeing is believing is guy.  I'm not much of a "take my word for it" guy.  And I have even less time for the concept when I'm going to be told I have something wrong, but you can't support why.  I should just take your word for it.  Sorry, brah.  Doesn't cut it with me.

No hard feelings though. 

The "I could say a lot but I don't want too, or don't want to stoop to your levels" post is just as bad as these guys "hey look at me repeating myself, but I am a huge fan, but the band stinks" posts

My whole argument is not that he should be forced to talk out of school.  I'm just some yo-yo on the internet.  If he can't do into detail, he can't go into detail.

But if those are his rules, why even chime in?  What's being accomplished?

If I were making a scientific argument regarding the theory of the universe, and was using Hawkings work as a basis for that argument....and Hawking chimed in and told me I was wrong, but refused to elaborate......I'm pretty sure most folks would take that seriously.

No matter how much I tried to obfuscate with the fact he refused to elaborate so he shouldn't be taken seriously. NO matter how loudly I proclaimed that, regardless of his chops, he still had to "prove it to me".

Not for nothing DX, but....Fernando's gravitas and experience in the specifics that we're armchair-ing about sort of lends weight to his words that another, random, forum denizen isn't going to have.

I'm sure my post will be followed by a glib joke about Fernando not being Stephen Hawking, or questioning his gravitas because of the perception of the management team, etc.  And you're all welcome to that.

But to try to dismiss his words, given his body of knowledge and first hand experience with the topic, simply because he can't/won't/shouldn't elaborate or engage at a deeper level seems misguided.....

I agree.

But if you are going to make the decision to say nothing publicly that support your claims, why chime in?

Wouldn't it make more sense to sit around with others also in the inner circle and call up some of the posts they feel are offbase and just have a laugh with each other about it?

The rest of that inner circle has the context that supports why its so offbase.  None of us do.

Hawkings was a great deadline pick up for the Jays!

Let's go Jays!

Hahahaha.  That team looks like a monster now.

Ben Revere was my Dad's favorite current Phillies player.  He was crushed by that trade.

team brazil > stephen hawking

 ;)

If they can get ol' Axl to finally put out the next friggin album (gulp) soon, I'd say they accomplished the equivalent of discovering The Big Bang Theory.

The sky is purple.

No it's not

Prove it.

I'm not really in a position to do that, right this second, but....I can tell you, for sure, the sky is not purple.

Sometimes factually correcting someone's mistake/inaccuracy is enough of a reason to weigh in, without the need to provide further specificity.  That, to me, is pretty much what he's done.

And when you're discussing stuff like attendance, reasoning, and financials of tours he was involved in planning and executing....I think simply saying "Those assumptions are not correct" is enough to do that.

And when you're talking about CC in 2002.....I can at least weigh in a bit on that: I'm pretty sure (like 99.9%) CC didn't lose their shirts on the '02 tour, up to the point of cancellation.  They MIGHT have lost money on the Midwest leg, given what was projected for ticket sales.....but even that wasn't a sure thing.  That comes from reading some of the legal filings that are "out there" and talking with someone I knew, at the time, in promotions at CC (who is now working for TM). 

What gets me, though, is this:

People (and I'm pointing no fingers) bitch about a lack of contact with management.

When we finally DO get some contact (however brief it might ultimately be), people bitch because we have contact....but they can't really say too much.

You really can't have it all.  That's not the way this industry....and heck, not the way MOST industries...work.

Man is older than dirt and still getting people out.

Think I could convince Mo to come out of retirement?

pops is welcome to join the jays band wagon.   Nows the time

This country was waiting for a new guns album and a new tour.  

But we are settling for the best baseball team in the world!

Let's go jays!

Kind of a reach here as color is a widely established and universal fact of life.  We can all see the sky is not purple.

What's going on here, to try and salvage this strained analogy, is that I am being told the sky is not purple...only I'm not allowed to have a look and see.

Just trust him.  It ain't purple.  And if I can't accept things on those terms, I'm being unreasonable.

I honestly thought I had a chance to make the jays roster at the start of the year.   Now not so much.  

I could still be a first base coach.    I would be at that

I think I could make Oaklands starting roster.  But I would turn down there offer

I think Axl would be a Jays fan!    He gets it

He would probably write a song about the Jays

Would be something like this

Let's go Jays!   Let's do it baby!

I never said word one about anything he has said.  But if you are going to puff out your chest, at that point, its time for a conversation.

A lot of our fanbase gives them a hard time.  I'm not one of them, however.

Sure, but the guy who's telling you is an expert on the subject.

And the reason you can't see is because...you literally CAN'T see.

So to expound he would basically have to relay a lifetime of experience, knowledge, and an ability TO see....in order to explain.

I'm not trying to make you out to be an unintelligent heathen, here.  But the fact is....he's in a much better position to not only know this stuff, but to understand it.  Because he's lived it.  And surely you can see why this might not be the place to conduct a master class in Band Management.

I have this happen to me, at work, constantly.  I work amongst clinical folks with very little tech savy/understanding.  I often have to tell them their conception is wrong, or that they're doing something wrong, or that what they're asking for...as simple as it seems in their brain...is technologically much more difficult or impossible.

And, mostly, I ask them to trust me....because that's my line of expertise.  And elaborating is a) going to take far more time than they want to spend 2) likely be far more technical that they will have an ability to understand without, essentially, a corporate decision support master class and 3) going to take away time I really need to be focusing forward on productive solutions (like theirs).

And I'm sure many of them feel the same way you do about this.  But, at the end of the day, I have 20 years of experience in the field.  They don't. I'm nationally published and recognized in my field (Not to boast).  Who would you find more compelling, regardless of whether I took the time to spend 2 or 3 hours crafting a detailed explanation?

Maybe he chimes in to let it be known that you just don't always know what your talking about.    ;)

Note bolded part, above, in original quote.

Dude...please.

So he shakes his head disapprovingly at me, and I shrug my shoulders at him.

Getting way back to the very first point that started all this : what are we accomplishing here?

For you? Maybe nothing.

For those following along? Context.

Nope, sorry....I wrote it cause I meant it.

I  VERY SPECIFICALLY added that part to make it obvious I wasn't singling you out in that bit.

And those two groups of folks don't HAVE to be the same population to put Management in a lose-lose situation.

Perhaps I just have a higher bar.  It happens.

I'll probably start to see things in a different light when someone other than the usual brigade of people that think I need to shut the fuck up (no matter what I'm saying) support the premise this was a meaningful exchange, these past few pages.

I'm certainly open to that outcome.

Exactly!  To DX, he will just continue to go on claiming things like their fact

You can have the highest bar you want to have. You can set it impossibly/unattainably high, if you want (and I'm not saying you are, here).  But then..you're also the one who's having their assumptions corrected by the expert...so it could be less about bars, and more about ego.  Just sayin'

For the record, I don't think (and haven't ever thought) you should shut the fuck up.

I find the use of the "repeat" button...and not just for you, but for many, many, many topics around here....to be tiresome.  It's why I lurk, and post a lot less in the main topic forum than I used to.

But this? This sorta hit home.  Because we all play armchair QB here, in regards to GnR, a LOT.  There is a LOT of "what if" that we play (me included).  

So when someone who actually is in a position to know comes in, and says "That's incorrect".....I think that's where the armchair ends...when you're talking to Peyton Manning (or, hell, even Eli).

That's not to say they can't make a mistakes....they can.  But I'm going to lend a lot more credence to them than my own (or any other armchair QBs) musings...even if they don't want to elaborate.

I never claim anything as fact.  That's your strawman.  Well, not just you, but anyone that trots that out there.

I talk about how things look based on what I can see.  From what I can glean by what is available to me.

My detractors seem to be united by the idea that if I can't say anything nice, I shouldn't say anything at all.  Which would be great...if we were all 8 years old.

Here's the context for you, he's actually in the business and works with the artist you're a fan of.

Obviously he will know things you won't have a clue about. Why not just make peace with this fact? It's not that weird of a concept.
Everybody can't know everything about everything.

You're not as right as you want to be about GN'R. Sorry.
That's life.




/jarmo

Not all of them.

But there is an alternate, equally valid, POV. And you are just as dismissive of IT, many times.  So........

And...you say it right there.  You're not claiming they're "facts".  They're interpretations based on your perceptions.

Given that....isn't is viable for someone who DOES have the facts to alert you to misconceptions/misinterpretations/false assumptions?

That may have been too strong a term.  Because you are right, you don't treat me like that.  Some do, but I would not put you in their number.

Perhaps a better way to put it would "...the usual brigade of people who lament that I can't just fall in line."  Just about any disagreement I have can be traced back to that disconnect.  

I often come away from a day of posting here thinking a silent nod is the only acceptable response, according to some.  I think a lot of my "whining" is simply a case of "wait...does that sound a little off to anyone else?"

Which I consider innocuous.  But I tend to get pushback that suggest that even daring to ask that question is totally inappropriate.

When he posts things like GN'R books certain venues only because that being the demand. He never says it's his opinion. It's presented as a fact and he will argue about it.



/jarmo

Even if I am only giving opinions, I always, always, always, always give rationale to explain why I think what I do.  Doesn't mean I'm right, but I feel you have to be able to support a pemise or theory you pout out there.

In Fernando's case, he's not giving me his opinion.  He's speaking from a position of fact.  But without anything to support it, I don't know how seriously I have to take it.

If I'm guilty of anything, its giving you FAR too much credit to be able to separate the two, it appears.

Again, I don't think you should "fall in line", either. But an OPEN MIND might be nice, sometimes (and yes, you can lament that you aren't always presented with them, on the opposition, either).

I think you have a valid POV.  I think the near constant rescitation, though, makes it lose something in translation, at times.  

And...I sort of wish you were open to, and willing to accept, the alternatives. Not, necessarily, that they are the more likely to have happened, but at least their validity.  But se la vie.

But none of that is really pertinent to THIS discussion.  I just want to make sure MY position is clear.

 

No, I gotcha.  We're all good, pilfek.

I see what you are saying.

I don't think he's arguing Fernando doesn't know what he's talking about.  I believe his point is, coming in saying you're wrong without saying what is right doesn't advance things.

It's not about me, it's about hoe you're wrong. :)

Maybe you're wrong again...


/jarmo

Yes.

Because he is in a position to know the facts. We aren't.  And his position also carries with it an understable restriction on information sharing.

You take it seriously (or not) because of who he is, what he does, how long he's been doing it, and what his resume says.  Or at least more seriously than random folks like us playing armchair QB.  Thus, gravitas.

You can certainly take the anti-establishment position that "they" all lie, that "they" all are fountains of misinformation, I guess.

But...you can't really argue that he, inherently, KNOWS more about this topic than we do.  We surmise.  We assume.  We conjecture.

You said what I said earlier, with a different accent....  :hihi:



/jarmo

No, I get that.

And I"m saying: It does.  To a point.

It doesn't give us information.  But it corrects factual mistakes or incorrect assumptions.  You don't, necessarily, need information to get that. And it, in turn, advances the conversation because we now sorta know what ISN'T true.

You might want might want more info.  It would add more context.

But it's abcense doesn't stall things.

Exactly.

I don't think anything was accomplished by him throwing that out there in the fashion he did.  That's all I was saying.

Not that's he's wrong.  Not that I'm right.  But rather that the conversation was not moved forward by any of this. 

True.

Keep in mind though, he never even said what he was correcting.  Demand in Philly, demand overall, the 2002 tour.  What was he even talking about?

Compare his vague answer to something along these lines :

"I can't get into the 2002 tour because there is litigation involved there.  But I can tell you that we did look at bigger venues in 2012, and actually had offers to do a leg of the tour in them.  But we thought it made more sense for us to keep it simple and do the smaller venues at that time."

In 2 sentences he has established :

- I am incorrect about their level of demand
- I am incorrect about their not attempting to look at bigger venues

Right?

Oh I very much agree... Mucho props to them if it happens.

As far as Fernando coming in and telling DX that he is wrong... Fernando might very well be telling the truth and DX may very well be wrong about everything... but if he doesn't say why or what or how or when... well he really left it on a tee for DX to swing away.

I don't agree with the comparison to an expert like Hawking or any other guy in the know about a field. Fernando obviously has a vested interest in squashing any negative notion about his client's affairs.

As for DX, he is obviously stating his opinions, the readers here should understand by now that they are not fact, even if he states them in a way which comes off like it.

100% correct.

In fairness, I only ever get that "this guy thinks he knows everything" routine from a handful of folks, the truly overemotional.

I always point to pilferk.  We disagree on everything, and never have an uncivil conversation.  But, to be honest, if he was coming at me with that tired "why are you here" type crap, that would not be the case.

Jarmo just indirectly indicted himself up the page, frankly.  He trying to make the case he just said the same thing as pilferk, but "in a different accent".  Yeah, it was a different something, alright.  But it wasn't an accent.

Yeah, because these two really differ a whole lot:







Pretty much the same thing.

Except I didn't sugarcoat it to your liking... I don't like to generalize and put everybody in the same boat with you. I know there are fans out there who don't work with the band and so on, but they can think freely without coming up with mostly negative facts theories....

Sorry again.  :)


Aren't you one of those who seem to question my credibility over and over again? And now yours is in question.... :)





/jarmo

anyone have any concrete news of the current situation of guns n roses ? Where you're going Axl ?

Nobody knows.

''You (DGX) are wrong about most of the things you said in all of your posts in this thread''. Here is the specific quotation Fernando replied to (so presumably this is what he disagreed with most),


So are we right in saying that Fernando believes,

- GN'R can play Wells Fargo, 20,000 capacity?

- GN'R can play any 20,000 capacity arena? (Correct me if I am wrong but this was focused on North America?)

- that the 2002 arena tour was a sell out?

- That Clear Channel did not lose a fortune on the 2002 tour?

Guns N? Roses guitarist DJ Ashba?s recent resignation has left a void in the current lineup, but drummer Frank Ferrer says there are no hard feelings ? and he promises Ashba?s departure won?t impact the group?s future plans.

Ferrer shared the news during his appearance on the Geoff Lenox Show yesterday, admitting that even though there doesn?t seem to have been much direct contact between Axl Rose and the other members of GNR, everything is fine; as he put it, ?we?re still forging ahead.? ?It?s not really news,? he added. ?It?s, like, there?s a plan in place, and it?s happening, so that?s all I can say.?


Read More: Guns N' Roses Drummer Says the Band Is Still 'Forging Ahead' | http://ultimateclassicrock.com/guns-n-roses-2015-update/?trackback=tsmclip

 :beer:

?It?s, like, there?s a plan in place, and it?s happening, so that?s all I can say.?

New album?  :yes:

Sorry for not giving you more of an explanation in my post to you.  Although, something tells me; had I given you some of the points or all of the points in which proves you to be wrong, you would somehow come up with something else to maybe prove you to be "less" wrong. Who knows.  But I do apologize. 

Also, the GNR questions on what's happening next; I have said news will be coming. 

Maybe this is something, shit maybe it's more ammunition for the selected few to feed from it.  But we are working in rebuilding our current so-called webstore into something that fits GNR's brand.  Should be done here soon, a week or two I would imagine.  Just got our first mockup of the store a few hours ago.

As I said in my initial post, ... someone will lose their shit.

I hope there is a new album for sale in this store!

And some hats!   I like hats! Haha

Could someone please use some Foucault and make a discourse analyze of this thread? Or bring in Bruno LaTour. This has become science in action!  :hihi:

Well thats exciting.

In regards to merch... is there any plans to release shirts from previous era... there is some great designs from the old days that are very difficult to get.. would love to see some old school ones come back out?

then get in a Back to the Future movie..... ::)

Nobody is 'losing their shit' over anything. If it is a well stocked store which serves the fan base with a variety of well produced products, I am sure most 'fans' will look at the new webpage and welcome it - I really do not understand how you perceive the fanbase in such a negative light!

It's no worries.  In no way do you owe me an apology.

I was just raising a question.  I do that a lot.  Ask Jarmo.

(actually...don't)

 ::)

right

Sometimes Bacon, you are very funny.

Moaning mortis you are a prime example why some of the supposed "fans" are viewed as somewhat less enthusiastic at best, and bitter butthurt whiners at worst.

Doubt if the new store will have AC/DC merchandise so you may not be interested, but it will give you another reason to cry  :crying:

(Great news about the new store, I'm having a Jets jersey made with GNR on the back  : ok: )

Baconman is great, one of my favorite people here  :peace:

Thanks for the update.



Yeah, don't ask me. You might get answers you don't like and questions you want to ignore.  As usual.... :P




/jarmo

Wow talk about double butthurt. GNR fan and a JETS fan....I kid, I kid.  :P

You've not said 'toxicity' or 'self entitlement issues' in awhile. I'm disappointed in you!

It's been a rough couple of weeks already for the Jets, now the starting quarterback will miss several weeks because of an injury sustained in a locker room fight.  :p

Am looking forward to the new GNR store, great news  :peace:

I'm also a Jets fan. That's why I can joke about it.

Since you read everything and have stated that you take ideas, I'd like to recommend that GN'R t-shirt designs begin to include things that aren't prototypical heavy metal designs (I.e., black t shirts with skulls).  I appreciate a more minimalist approach, lighter colors, and simpler designs that speak to the evoluation of GN'R  :peace:

Small world  : ok:

Eddie Trunk did a quick Twitter Q&A yesterday and was asked what he thought about the future of GNR. He said that he had heard a lot of interesting things, but you never know with Guns. Take that FWIW.

Yes, we have discussed and we are working in putting something together that revisits all of GNR's tour merch, and/or merch in which was created at one point or another; find its history and make it available in some form.   

A lot of people hear a lot of things.  Let's see what we can put together.

Oh man.. you love a good bs story, eh?  How do we go from there to here?  I don't see anyone in a negative light.  If you have said and or done things in which I disagree with; it's my choice to ignore you or tell you how I feel.  With that said, with the TENS OF THOUSANDS of fans I have met, face to face, hand shake, hugs, pictures, etc... can vouch that I have and will always do all that is within my power to make he/she happy.  So, your insinuation of me mistreating fans or any particular "fanbase" is wrong. 

Thanks for taking the time to answer that question. It's very much appreciated.
Excited to see what you guys do with it, looking forward to spending some $$$ on the site  :D