Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Oh My God, Rhiad, Shackler's and to a lesser extent Better are my favorite post '96 GN'R tracks. Silkworms I feel gets so much undeserved hate, it's a really rocking tune. The direction Axl was taking the band in the late 90s/early 00s was really cool, very punky yet very industrial as well but done in a unique "Axl" kind of style. Does anyone wish we'd gotten either a more experimental CD - more songs like these and veering away from the "GN'R sound", and more aggressive songs along these lines? Axl's is at his best musically, at least for me, when he's angry.

Is this an "either or" question? Because I would gladly have wanted to hear more industrial type songs in addition to what ended up on Chinese Democracy.

In an ideal world, CD would've been released as a double album, CD I being traditional GN'R sounding songs, and the second half being utterly wild and totally experimental stuff. 30 songs like the UYIs, no covers. I would've loved to have heard the instrumental ambient stuff Axl's said he's done like "Daddy, can the Devil do Mommy and Me?"

Nope. Was fine with the amount of experimental sounding stuff on it.
One of the things I've always liked about this album was that it contained some different ideas and sounds while, for the most part, remained reminiscent
of stuff off of the Illusion records.

I disagree. I wanted to see what the guys Axl brought on board could really do when let run wild with tech. By their backgrounds alone, I really doubt Robin, Buckethead or Josh Freese, if left to just come up with material without any rubric, would have come up with anything resembling traditional UYI sounding stuff. Buckethead's solo work is awesome, the Reed/Tobias team came up with some awesome stuff - I would have loved to have seen that core lineup (Tobias/Reed/Finck/Bucket) really go wild. Part of the big thing in the Axl/Slash breakup was Axl's desire to forward the sound. Oh My God and Silkworms are representations of that. The rest of the album sans the tracks I mentioned is rather conservative.

Was silkworms really a song ?

I don't like whatever it is.

Rhiad I adore. Loved the live song I have, and I love how it ended up on the album.

Expected it to not lean so much to classic rock that it did and some of the rewrites/remakes of songs (compared to live/leaks) was underwhelming, but ok.

maybe well see a more expiremental territory in cd 2. in a way i thought that may have been kind of the plan, to depart further and further away from the old style as axls vision progressed.


rhiad is awesome. definitely one of my favorites. the chorus is just unreal.

oh my god was amazing. some of the best lyrics in a guns song.

Not really, no.

I didn't find what we got all that experimental, to be honest.  Didn't sound much like classic Guns N' Roses, but it wasn't like I was blown away about how off the beaten path it was.

I think I read either an interview of Axl, or maybe just something someone said? but anyway, it was said that the band would work on a lot of songs take them to the label and the label many times said that the songs were not that good, to keep working on it and make more.. is there any truth to this ? it was a long time ago..

The reason I ask its because I think it was around the time they were making those ''experimental songs'' and everything was supposed to be ''industrial''

at the time it suprised me because I didnt think Axl would even ask for anyone elses advice?

I always thought making music while waiting for someone else's approval was  counterproductive.

yeah, the album was done but returned.

There were a few stories like that.

The album was returned at least once.

One of the producers they brought in (think it was Roy Thomas Baker, but not 100% sure) said he only had 3 good songs out of however many were done at the time.

Nope wrong again :D
It was Bob Ezrin that told him he only had 3 good songs.

http://www.gnrevolution.com/viewtopic.php?pid=55601#p55601

according to GNR bassist Tommy Stinson, the bulk of the blame for the drawn-out process really falls on the band?s label for failing to understand what the musicians needed.

In a recent interview, Stinson claims singer and bandleader Axl Rose ?got zero f?ing help from anyone outside the band.? Yet Stinson adds that the record company ? Interscope Records, which controls the Geffen imprint that released ?Democracy? in 2008  ? did offer support: a revolving door of A&R representatives along with different producers, such as Roy Thomas Baker.


Stinson also said-

"At first we were in there a lot. We were working on the writing aspect of it, but it just kept going on. We had Jimmy Iovine intervening in a not-so-productive way, and we had other guys coming and going with nutty ideas. My summation of the whole thing is that Interscope, when they took over Geffen, really led Axl to believe that Jimmy Iovine would be involved, and would help get this record done and make it happen. But basically what he did was let it completely fall apart. Then he had this great idea to bring in [producer] Roy Thomas Baker to make it sound better. All he did was re-record everything three or four different times, trying to make it sound like something it didn't need to sound like, and spend $10 million in the process. My two cents on the whole thing is that I really think Jimmy Iovine f*cked the whole thing up."  "It was a bummer. Most of the songs that are on the record now were done 10 f*cking years ago. But all the talking heads in the mix were saying, Make 'em sound better! Make 'em sound better!' So we kept redoing this and that. And it ended up coming back down to the same f*cking songs that they were 10 years ago, except that now they were a super-dense mishmash of a bunch of instrumentation."

that is so odd, who's to say the execs didnt return those songs because of the same ol' complaint that i"t doesnt sound like GUNS N ROSES?"

I can imagine Axl all exited with a bunch of songs like Oh my god, only to give an album worth of songs to people expecting You Could Be Mine?

I thought artists had more freedom than that, that they actually released whatever they wanted. In truth, the label is responsible for US not getting much music.
WHo's to say we wouldn't have liked those songs? only to be denier by a bunch of fatass execs wanting money.

And maybe its the same reason why CD at times sounds a bit schizophrenic, trying to be artistic enough to please your own ambitions while trying to sound like You could be mine to please the label.

I remember when RON came in to add licks, he said in an interview that he was asked to record those licks to make the songs sound more like Old Guns N Roses.

Its fucked up ! :(

Using bold letters won't change the fact that you were wrong.

Also won't change the fact that Fernando said you were wrong with most things you post. :D

It depends on your point of view of Wrong.

The things he said are actually a mix of Right things.
Plus, he admitted he was not 100% sure.

if I remember correctly Axl said he didn't want to loose the old fans with a too-much-modern-sounding-album but he had some other tracks way more experimental

So, even they realize it.  :(
Its over then. We won't ever get an honest album from Axl is he is a prisoner of the label.

Some of the people at the record company have changed over the years... Jimmy Iovine isn't there anymore for example.



/jarmo

Hopefully, changes in personnel will help our cause.

Correct-

From the Kurt Loder interview 1999

Rose: No, and I don't want to be in a situation again where I have to depend on other people and have [to] start all over. So we have material that we think is too advanced for old Guns fans to hear right now and they would completely hate, because we were exploring the use of computers [along with] everybody really playing their ass off and combining that, but trying to push the envelope a bit. It's like, "Hmm, I have to push the envelope a little too far. We'll wait on that." So we got a list of things.
Loder: Are you involved in computer music yourself? Are you playing guitar now?
Rose: A little of both, a little of both.
Loder: How's your guitar playing coming along now?
Rose: It's all right. I just wanted to be good enough to be able to contribute what was needed to this main album. It took working on the majority of these things and at least the couple albums' [worth] of material to figure out what should be on the first official Guns album. I wouldn't say it's like, you know, that we recorded a double album, or that we have all of our scraps to be the second one. There is a distinct difference in sound. The second leans probably a little more to aggressive electronica with full guitars, where the first one is definitely more guitar-based.

I'm not interested in hearing industrial/electronic music from GNR. That's not why GNR became my favorite all-time band. GNR is blues based hard rock. If I want to hear  industrial music, I'll listen to Rob Zombie and Nine inch Nails.

thar


lol @ dramatic tone btw

what does ''thar'' mean? or what did you mean to say ?

That's been a real dichotomy, I think.

Do you want music that sounds like the Guns N' Roses music that made you a fan in the first place...

...or will you literally accept any old thing they put out, in whatever form?  And so long as it says "Guns N' Roses", than no worries?

I'm sort of in the middle.  I like a lot of the newer stuff, but don't think much of any of it sounds much like what made me a GNR fan 25 years ago.

And some is so far removed (Rhiad) I don't ever listen to it and don't appreciate it on any level.  I don't give a damn what name on the CD cover says.  Its just not good. 

On the other hand, 'Oh My God' doesn't sound a thing like GNR, but I have always dug it.

I think for some, the style is attached to the name. This is what it's supposed to sound like, and if it doesn't, it's not GN'R to them.

For others, there's no such limits.

Plenty of bands around that keep the first kind of fans happy by not straying too far away from what they're supposed to sound like.
Whether or not that's enough for the bands themselves, who knows.


/jarmo

Well, all bands (except AC/DC) evolve somewhat.  But there is still a base level of what to expect.

Pearl Jam will never put out a speed metal album.  I'm not going to pick up a Foo Fighters album and find free form jazz.

Yet I get the feeling that there are a lot of fans of this band that would roll with such things.  All depends on the name on the front, seems like.

I've just never been able to decide if that adaptability is more out of necessity than anything else.

Yeah, but isnt that a case of apples and oranges? Im a big fan of Rhiad, but I really don't like Silworms, Oh My God  I hated at firs now its ? OK, I wanted to like Shackler's Revenge, and some of the vocal melodies are good, but all in all I don't enjoy it.  The rest are closer to Hard Rock.

I think there are a handful of songs you can point to that don't sound a thing like the Guns N' Roses that made us fans way back when.

Oh My God
Silkworms
Chinese Democracy
Shackler's Revenge
If The World
Scraped
Rhiad & The Beduoins
Sorry
Madagascar
Prostitute

Some of these I like.  Some, I absolutely love.  Some, I think suck right out loud.

But anyone that grew up a Guns N' Roses fan and told me they didn't sound much like Guns N' Roses, I'm not going to tell them they are wrong.

I'm not going to grab the CD and say "No, no...see?  It's Guns N' Roses.  See right here where it says 'Guns N' Roses'?  So you are mistaken.  This is totally Guns N' Roses."

On paper, maybe.  To your ears?  Not so much, perhaps.

It just comes down to whether you can roll with it.

It's all a thing called tastes are subjective.

And you can love, hate, idolize or despise the songs but you don't get to determine whether they are GNR or not- that is entitled nonsense.

They are GNR songs regardless of opinions.

That's your idea of the comfort zone the band is allowed to wander within.
PJ might not make a full album of one specific type of songs, but there's a bunch of songs on several of their albums that don't sound like anything on Ten. :)
Several songs on Achtung Baby doesn't really sound like most of what U2 did before that....

The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Rolling Stones... Plenty of examples of bands that doesn't sound all the same through their careers.  :)



/jarmo

Is my problem with some here that I'm too accepting of a wider range of opinions?

I don't consider any of the following out of bounds :

- Everything that comes out under the banner Guns N' Roses is Guns N' Roses. The end.
- So long as Axl is involved, its still Guns N' Roses to me.
- Everything post 1993 is "Guns N' Roses" in name only, but I still like it
- Everything post 1993 is "Guns N' Roses" in name only, and I can tolerate it...barely, because I love Axl
- Everything post 1993 is a fucking sham and I will never accept it as Guns N' Roses

I'm cool with all of those.  I'm guessing I lose some of you as we move down that list.

However, I'll be right with anyone that says if your opinions are more towards the bottom of that list than the top, you should probably consider cashing out.

Is that fair?

You're cool with all of those? Anyway, if your opinion is some of those bottom ones, it's fair to say you're more of a fan of the old band and any fan site dedicated to all eras of the band might be wrong for your needs.

I would also think that someone who thinks things haven't' "gone swimmingly" for about 20 years would've also consider cashing out a while ago... But that's just my opinion. :D



/jarmo

I dont think he said he belongs to one of those, rather he accepts when people say that.

As for gone swimmingly, I think even Axl would admit that sometimes ''the waves they get so high"  :hihi:

Exactly.

I don't feel the need to correct, to lecture, any of that.  Those things aren't important to me.  I find such things to be wastes of time and effort.  Everyone here, at this particular site, we're all on the same team, as far as I'm concerned.

Guy tells me he's still digging what Axl's doing, but doesn't really consider it true blue Guns N' Roses, I'm not going to have a conniption fit and demand he get right with Jesus.

And like I said, I can perfectly accept a guy going with #5 on that list, because that's not something you will ever eradicate.  This band had a lot of fans once upon a time, many for whom cashed out.  But I would then ask that person why exactly he's still paying attention, since the only band he'll accept is long gone, n'er to return.  I think that is a fair question.

Personally, I'm in that #2 or # 3 wheelhouse.  I'm still onboard with whatever Axl is doing, always will be, but this band is not a straight line progression for me.  I see 2 bands, but like both.  I think I run into a lot of disagreements here because of that, and because I just don't get why it would bother you so much.  I would think the fact a guy still likes the band in whatever capacity is enough.  No blood oath required.

And just circling back to the original topic, I think wanting things to go in an even more experimental direction only splinters us further, and exacerbates the divide.

Option #4 for me in terms of Music released post 93. 

I still like the live performances post 93, and take a big interest where former classic members have performed . (i,e Duff, Izzy) etc.

I would say a guy like you is teetering.

You are still in the game, but do so hoping it will change drastically (as in, a reunion).

When even the guy above points out something like that, it says something about the other poster....




/jarmo

Do you think even he would dispute that?  I don't.

I just also don't think that's some insult or shortcoming on his part.  Doubt he does either.

I'm still purely in the game to see whether this reunion thing is going to happen.


I saw Slash in January in Sydney 2 years after i saw Axl, Both were individually excellent. My over-riding emotion walking away from both concerts was.... good shows...but Axls band just dont have that Aura... and Miles K wasnt a shade on Axl and if these 2 ever get their act together and get back on stage together, i would have to go. Individually.. i saw just how good both guys are... to see them together live would be explosive.

I am in the game because i love both performers. I would still try anything that Axl releases, because well.. its Axl.... But at this point in time, Slash has released Music closer to guns sound post 93 and i have enjoyed that stuff more then CD... thats not a shot at Axl, its just my preference.

If this Reunion doesnt happen.. and Axl gets joe blogs and whoever to do another tour.. ill buy my ticket... purely to see Axl... and ill probably re-adjust my expectations for the rest of it and hopefully enjoy it.  Im sure i will.

That opinion grates a lot on here... but it is what it is.

Makes sense to me.  If there's an offense there, I don't see it.

I think that Bumblefoots Input was not that good. So I think that they should have released the album without him.

Do you know why?

"It's not the same as the old band".

We've heard it. Imagine that.
Focus on what it is. You liked the show, it was great.
Remember that for once.  : ok:



/jarmo

No offense intended at all on my part, simply.. both guys were amazing individually and their bands didnt do a lot for me.. i want them back together, that gets people's backs up on here for some reason and by Jarmo's post above, it would seem he's not overly impressed by it.

I'm not ripping up plants here, i'm just being honest. I don't think i am in a minority of fans by any stretch as to what i am hoping happens. I can just see my opinion being lead to a response of.. well.. what are you doing here then?

Pretty sure that's where this heading.

I like a few things he did.  Like him on 'I.R.S.'

Wouldn't call it essential though.  So I see your point from that angle, with the delay to give the impression of collaboration with he and Frank.

Do you even consider that maybe if you let it past without expressing your disapproval (which is also something that doesn't need a constant refresher, for the record), there might not even be a follow up?

But by putting it up in lights, you extend its life and that can lead to a 10-15 post detour?

Correct. Something you could've posted after the first show played without the old band, repeated every years since, doesn't impress me.



/jarmo

Listen.... i get that you are trying to cause another argument here, but where in my post havent i been fair? I said Axl was amazing.. the show was good... i dont find either backing bands on Guns or Conspirators to be amazing however... I walked away and my initial thoughts were.. both these guys were unreal.. imagine seeing them together... even at this age, it would be bloody amazing.

Thats not slanderous or anything.. its just an opinion.. and an honest one without trying to cause offense, which you still find offensive???  ::)

No, I'm trying to explain to you why you start arguments. By posting the same tired things over and over again.

We don't care if it's not good enough for you or if you don't like the way the band is. Don't care.

If you haven't been able to focus on what you have, instead of what you don't, for the past few decades, you're on the wrong site. :)




/jarmo

What about the fan who saw 7 UYI shows and knows there is no way in hell a reunion will ever top those? I can't say I am all that excited about a reunion...especially if Izzy isn't involved. Would I go? Of course, but the thought of chunky Axl and chunky Slash really isn't all that appealing. If they can figure out a way to get some new music out there, I would be much more interested.

As for the OP, no. My faves on Chinese are the ones that are a bit more old school.

Yeah. Robin Finck, Buckethead and Paul Tobias were the most important guitarists (and songwriters) on CD for sure. Richard added a very awesome rhythm guitar to some of the songs.

I couldn't pick out one note Tobias played on the album. However, he obviously was a HUGE contributor to the song writing...no pun intended.  :hihi:

You're the only person who seems to have their knickers in a knot over what i posted.

No-one else found anything offensive or tired about that post except you.

Try not being so combative when you dont need to be. As i said... i'm not bagging anything out... simply responding to another poster and you've got all ancy about it for no reason at all.  ::)

Yeah, that's the band.  That's what I consider the 'Chinese Democracy' band, in my opinion.

I think its no coincidence once we got to the replacements of those replcements filling the slots, things starting looking more backwards than forwards.

I think momentum was lost to solider on and try and break new ground.

And you can tell what parts Richard played? How do you know he added "awesome rhythm guitar"?  ???

Sounds like you take yourself way too seriously. I merely offered you help regarding why you think everybody else is upset over your boring opinions.  : ok:

So, get back on topic.
And the topic isn't about how you don't like the band  as much anymore.  :P




/jarmo

Back on topic then?

Ok.... No i dont wish CD was more experimental. It was too far removed from what most people would call a proper Guns n Roses record as it is.

Happy?

So you're saying that it's already too far, how much of a difference would it make if it's a bit too far, or further than that? 
I mean, for some people either it is, or it isn't. If it isn't, does it matter how much it isn't? :D




/jarmo

If you want Axl to turn out the next album singing songs that sound like 5 seconds of summer or one direction.. then that's cool for you i guess...

It's all a matter of opinion, i'm not going to shout you down for it like you do to me.  ;)

Why not just answer the counter argument made instead of trying to ridicule it?

For people who don't consider the album GN'R, does it matter how much it doesn't sound like the old albums? Some of their minds were made up before they heard a single note.
Is there a secret number we don't know about? A scale?

0 means it sounds exactly like the previous material
100 means it sounds nothing like the previous material

What's the number which you can't exceed or these mythical people won't like it?

I happen to think it doesn't matter. If it's different, it doesn't matter how much different. Some won't like it. Hence the people who thought the Illusions weren't as good as Appetite because it didn't sound exactly the same.

Obviously you can make a case about how even AC/DC albums are different if you want. But I'm not talking about just using a different guitar amp or subtle differences. I mean new instruments, different kinds of songs, productions, sounds etc.

So on this topic. Would it have mattered to them if there were more songs like for example Shackler's Revenge on the album? I don't think so. They didn't like it. Would it matter if they liked it less?



/jarmo

I take your point on the bolded bit. But again, its just opinions mate. As you rightly point out.. some people say that UYI was over-produced... i can see where they are coming from, but i dont agree with their overall opinion. Some parts on those albums aren't needed.. but i overlook it and i love both records.

Yes, some people's minds were already made up on CD before they heard it. I think that's a natural response to a band that was so huge and when 4 out of 5 members walk away, a large part of guns n roses walked with them. The players changed and so did the sound for the most part. And yes... this has influenced a lot of peoples opinions on whether they were going to give CD a decent go or not.

But alternatively... why cant it just be as simple as having an opinion such as.. "i just dont think its that great a record". That opinion doesnt have to offend people... but it does on here.

Ill put it to you like this... it's possible for the opposite to happen.. and it most certainly does in a lot of music that gets released today.. here's an example..

Im not a huge Bruno Mars fan by any stretch... I achnowledge hes good but for the most part, i dont really go much on him. Then.. Uptown Funk was released, heard it on the radio with the Mrs and it had a catchy upbeat tune and i thought.. "well, by radio music standards today, i actually can listen to this" .... 


I mean.. i dont love the song, but i like it as far as light hearted radio music goes... so yes.. not a fan of the guy himself or his overall work, but i happen to not mind that song.

The opposite can be said of Axl post 93... I love the man himself... but not CD cause its simply not an album that does much for me....

see... all things are possible.

"Oh My God" grew on my me. I don't love it, but I do like it. I would have been curious as to what would have been  a finished product. I can't stand Rhiad. Something like "Better" where the industrial sound is subtle, I like it. Shackler's Revenge would have been a better NIN song than GNR.

You have to expand, but you also have to stick with your bread and butter. You have to know your strengths and weakness.  Strong brands do that.  Jarmo brought up the Rolling Stones. They expanded, but kept a formula that worked. The opposite of this is the WWE. WWE had a strong product in the 90s and early 00s. They started to falter  with  the XFL.  Instead of developing wrestlers, they decided to develop football, movies, politics, and a TV network. As a result, they are  struggling now with having wrestlers that can connect to the audience. They are losing ratings.     

You've never listened to the Rolling Stones, have you?

radiohead is a band that really evolved a lot over the years. they started to incorporate more of a jazz style into their music and it turned out really awesome. they were able to invent their own style instead of being stuck in the whole grunge thing that they themselves had sort of grown out of.

coldplay tried evolving too after x and y got slammed by critics for being more of the same. the result, viva la vida, was a great album, although they admittedly lost me after that with all the techno hip hop rihanna stuff. i can understand why cd isnt for everyone, but also understand jarmos point about how spammed opinions get boring to read.

i think oscars in an interesting situation. before all this reunion talk, it wouldnt have made much sense for him to stick around. what will you do if the reunion falls through, cd2 is released, and gnr tours with a new lineup? will you stick around and keep hoping for a reunion? im just curious, this is not meant as any kind of attack or anything.

I will still be a member of this forum and show an interest in what Axl does. If he releases an album with a new lineup i will give it a listen. If Axl comes back to a city near me, ill buy a ticket for sure.

Life will go on.

Obviously i have a preference for what i hope happens. Of course that doesn't rub too well with some people around here, who happen to get wound up by people like me who share a certain opinion or question anything that shouldnt be questioned.  ;) I don't think what i want to happen should mean i cant contribute to the discussion in the future if things don't pan out in the way i want. ??

some (re)got into the band in the late 90's early 20's




there, was just showing u an article. so 'itsovahforu'? :P

Of course it would have been interesting to hear what it might have been, but then again, I wouldn't want to tell a band how their album should sound. But as I said, it would be interesting to hear how far they would have been able to go with some of the stuff.

I do like Silkworms, for example ;) And some of the "rough" mixes/demos/leaks.

I dont think it was necessarily the experimental side of things that didnt quite work. I like pretty much every song on the album. I think my issue is it didnt quite work in terms of the mixture or flow of the album as a bunch of songs. You could tell some songs were 15 years old and others relatively newer. Something didnt quite work as an album. Yet all the songs are mostly great. Not a criticism just a view i and i know others have about the album as a whole.

Ok. So in essence, are you saying that you don't wish it was more experimental because it was too far off from the old GN'R's sound already, but if it was more experimental, people who think that, might still like it?
I think you got everything covered in that case.

Kinda like "It might rain, or not".  :hihi:

Also, I suspect that if people didn't know who the performer is, there might be less resistance.... A great song is a great song, no matter who performs it.



/jarmo

The album is not the least bit organic.  You can tell that within most of the songs themselves, and its really driven home when you listen to it straight through.

But that is one of those quibbles you can freely acknowledge, not try to pretend is not there, but also not have it be something that kills the album for you.

The songs do still sound good, for the most part.

When people say it wasn't Guns N Roses... it's not just the complete change in lineup.

It's also a record that the previous musicians would have never made, couldn't have made and never would have wanted to make.

Slash Duff and Izzy were not gunna come up with Rhiad or Shackler's revenge...

Personally... I like the songs that did resemble previous GNR records. Shackler's, Rhiad and some of the other tracks that pushed the envelope a little bit...not my cup of tea.

However... since Axl no longer had to contend with the old band's tastes... he really should have pushed it as far as he wanted... why not right?

To put it in gambling terms, Axl tried to hit a "middle"...he bet on both sides.

Totally agree.

And this is the sort of reasoning I use when I say I don't see how they would have much interest playing these songs live.  They aren't theirs.  And playing them is not like playing an old AC/DC tune they all grew up on.

Hey, let's play some of those songs done by the guys I tried to replace you all with.

Sure thing, buddy.  Been hoping I might get that chance.

I don't see it.

You mean unlike Reckless Life or Anything Goes?
Songs that existed and were written before the band even existed....

They didn't have a problem playing songs written by other people then.... :)

So in that hypothetical scenario, I don't think everything is always all or nothing. A song like This I Love sure would seem more likely than say Riad N' The Bedouins.
We (some of us) already saw how Duff played several of those songs live already.



/jarmo

Ha I agree.

I could see one or two CD songs in the set... but certainly not Shackler's... or Sorry !

Hopefully it happens and we get to find out for sure.

No.  That is not what I mean.

That analogy hasn't landed yet, no not entirely clear why you keep trying to run it up the flagpole as many times as you have.

You have such a love affair with false equivalency.

Having them play songs done by the people he tried to replace them with and perform under their name?  A name that established them all as worldwide superstars?  Well, its really no different then when they recorded those other songs written by other incarnations of the band before they were signed and anyone knew who the hell any of they were.

Yeah...not so much.

If you want to tell me Slash and Duff might be down to throw a CD song in a setlist, hey...maybe.  Who knows?

But, if they do, it won't have a thing to do with what happened with 'Reckless Life' in 1986.

Yeah, that's a point I agree on. 

Some songs would absolutely have a better chance than others, and some would have no shot due to drastically different styles.

It won't have a thing to do with it, maybe not.
But the point you missed was that they weren't completely alien to taking songs written and performed by others and making it their own in the past.... :)
It's not literally the same exact thing, I didn't even say that. You just get all defensive if your narrow minded point of view is challenged.

Like I said, Duff has already performed some of those songs and didn't seem to mind.

Also, if there ever was an occasion where these guys were gonna play together, and Axl wanted the band to play some of those songs, you think the best answer to that request would be "No way!"?
So you don't think they'd wanna play them because they're still bitter about it. Wouldn't you say the best way to get over some of that is to play some of those songs?  ???

When you're able to see past that, then your "no, never" seems less likely to be the only possibility.



/jarmo

Hmm, but to play TOmmy stuff is relatively easy. SLash is a great player, can get really technical and go pretty fast, but he's kind of like robin finck or dj ashba except better. However what Bumblefoot and Buckethead do technically speaking might be out of his range. That fingertappping atari sounding stuff is just not what Slash does.

Of course it would sound different.
That's not the debate.

The debate seems to be that some are convinced there would be zero chance of any of the members of the old band wanting to play any of the stuff that was recorded with people who replaced them.

I'm not so sure.
A great song is a great song.....  :)




/jarmo

I think you are too quick to overlook and dismiss some of the baggage that comes along with it.

I also think patching it up with Axl is not automatically a ringing endorsement of what he has tried to do once he bounced them out.

This is not to say I am right and you are wrong.  We are both guessing.  But I think your near complete dismissal of these factors is a bit pie in the sky.

Duff has already done it...the only problem would be Slash.

Exactly.





I didn't dismiss anything. I'm saying there's more to the picture than just "no way, never". I'd like to think that I have a somewhat open mind, I wish (not an entitled wish by the way!) that if they ever got to that point, they could let that kind of animosity go. But that's just me. I haven't been living my life hoping things were as they were over 20 years ago, ever since the last millennium ended. :)


I see that your way of thinking is rooted in the belief that he forced them out.
Then it's no wonder you can't see past anything else. Basically you're already making excuses for a hypothetical scenario with a negative outcome. What kind of blind follower are you? Joking! :hihi:


And... Did I miss your answer to what I asked earlier?
The part about whether or not you think it would be the best way to handle a hypothetical scenario where they were thinking of playing some of those songs with a "hell no"?




/jarmo

People keep saying there is little chance slash would play the Chinese democracy stuff, I would actually like to see axl sing some of the velvet revolver stuff not that I think it would ever happen but a lot of those songs I feel you could easily slide axl's vocals to it and it would sound awesome.

And anyone who likes to compare what slash has done musically to what axl has done since they parted ways yes slash has come out with a lot more stuff then axl that can't be debated. I actually liked the first couple of slash's snakepit albums but since he has had myles I really have not been impressed with that stuff again just my opinion. I would absolutely take the one album GNR has done because he expands the Guns N roses sound. From Appetite to Lies to UYI to ChiDem there has always been a progression in the sound some may not like it but I love what they put into it call me a loyalist if you want.

VR was a different band. The songs we're talking about are part of the GN'R discography.

All those songs have the same singer. So it's not exactly like say Van Halen....



/jarmo

True.. but Slash has as much to do with CD songs as Axl does with VR songs... squadoosh.

Would be cool to hear since I love VR... but I wouldn't look for it.

I really hope we get some news soon... Another year of having no idea what the next GNR lineup looks like will keep me up at night.  ;D

One is released by Guns N' Roses.
The other is not.

 :)




/jarmo

Yeah I think we all established that already.

I think its an awkward for Axl to even broach the subject, to be honest.  I think you enter into a reunion tour type of project knowing that's not a great idea.

I believe if the others were asked for their honest opinion on what he's done since they left, its a mix of resentment and lack of respect for the work.  I don't think they consider anything Axl has done terribly worthy of being considered peer caliber work under their band's banner.  I know that sort of talk steams your bean, but you asked (twice now), so I'm answering you.

The reason I don't think the Duff thing refutes that is another case of false equivalency.  Duff was filling in on an existing tour with an existing band.  He was doing Axl a favor.  That's more of a go with the flow type of deal. 

This theorized reunion tour is nothing of the sort.  Its a whole new endeavor that does not include the bulk of the band that Duff played with.  And, since this would be a starting from scratch operation, I don't see it as analogous.

In other words, I see a whole world of difference in Duff playing on 'This I Love' (just to use one song as an example) because it was a set song in the set of the tour he joined at the time.  Versus the inclusion of 'This I Love' (again, just to use as an example of a post-1993 song) in a reunion tour setlist, because that is a setlist you are putting together from scratch, for that tour.

And what the fuck does Slash or Duff really care about 'This I Love'?  Its not their song.  Its not a Guns N' Roses song, as they see it.

In closing, I will once again remind you that you asked me for these opinions.  And ask you don't freak the fuck out because you don't share them.

You asked my take.  That's my take.

I would highly doubt that's in the cards.  For the same reason that I don't think Slash or Duff gives a whit about CD tunes.

A reunion tour is to celebrate their time with the band.  Songs like 'Street Of Dreams' or 'Slither' have nothing to do with that time period.

And while I don't think anyone in the crowd would be opposed, per se, I think if you asked them if they would rather have one of those tunes in place of a classic GNR tune, the answer is a resounding no.

Yeah. I know.

I just don't share your opinion.
I think it'd be more likely to see a guitar player play songs he didn't record, than to hear Axl sing VR songs. That's all.




Why would that be awkward? For example, wasn't This I Love written in France? I'm assuming it wasn't written during the 2006 tour there. So, maybe it was in the 1990s....
Maybe it's a song they remember hearing back in the day. Who knows.

Also, it's not a song that sounds all that different to say something off the Illusions.




You're correct, I didn't ask for you to post more negativity. Something that comes natural I guess...
I just asked a simple question whether or not you think it would be the best way to proceed, in that hypothetical scenario, by blankly refusing anything.

Your opinion basically is "yes, they wouldn't do it because they're still bitter" and all I asked you if you think that's the best way to approach the matter.
You don't seem to want to answer the question and instead dance around it. You can't seem to be able to say "No, it wouldn't be nice of them to do that if that was ever asked of them to do"....


You know, I gotta give you (some) credit though. You surely paint them out to be bitter resentful people. And I'm the one who's supposedly hating the old band and the former members! Imagine that!
But here I am saying maybe they're more open minded than that, and you're arguing with me. That's funny.

Where's CherryGarcia when you need him? Will you look at that!!  :hihi:





Correct. He was filling in. But they rehearsed. He could've said "No, I prefer not to play those songs I had nothing to do with". Or like you you assume they think "Fuck no, those songs have nothing to do with GN'R and they suck!". But he chose not to.





/jarmo

Once again, these are not analogous situations.

He was a fill in mid-tour.  He was playing the role of Tommy Stinson.  Tommy Stinson was not going to say any of those things.

A reunion tour is its own endeavor with a totally different objective.  It is not Chapter VIII of the 'Chinese Democracy' tour.

Look at this from another angle.  Axl has largely ignored the UYI albums on these tours the past decade, other than the bigger singles.  Don't you think there is more of a chance some of those tunes would work their way back in if Slash and Duff came back full time?

Isn't there a better chance of them digging out a 'Bad Obsession' or a 'Double Talking Jive', songs they did, as opposed to an overwhelming desire to play 'Madagascar', something they had nothing to do with?

And, just as an aside, am I not the one giving Axl more benefit of the doubt in this conversation?  Talk about your role reversals.

I give him enough credit to realize a reunion tour with Slash and Duff is not about CD tunes.  I'm going to assume he's not going to draw a line in the sand and insist these songs be included.

Isn't that the more level headed premise?  Isn't suggesting he's going to insist those songs be included more of the same old tired "Axl The Dictator" routine?

As many of us have said, the best way to go about this is to see if the others actually say to him they'd like to play some of those songs.  There is your opening.  Yet if they don't do so, that's Axl's cue that it's probably not something they are all about.

Here's another thing.

(BTW, 3 posts in a row.  I hate myself right now.  I hate when people do this)

Are we saying we'd be disappointed if any sort of reunion your excluded material done post-1993?  Are we THAT dug in?

Or are we just spitballin'?

To answer your first line, yeah of course. I think a lot of people would hold the opinion that if Axl and friends released a new guns n roses that sounded very electronic.. a lot of people including myself would say that its not what you would expect from GNR. The album could be great... and it could be shit... For people who like Rock.. id say they might not go much on it regardless of whether it was great or not. For people who like the other stuff, if it was in fact a good album, they might love it.. and still hate the previous 5 rock albums that were released. Again.. i guess it just depends where you stand?

I am not trying to cover all bases. I just have an opinion.. its worth no more then anybody elses i guess.

As for your last point... i totally agree, a great song is a great song.. no matter what. If Axl released something so far removed  from the previous yet it was something i dug... id listen to it.

But if the option was a choice between Axl releasing another great rock song or ballad like what we've seen previously..against Axl releasing a great tehnco song that might be played at a rave party in Ibiza.. id go for the former. That's just me.

The last point i would make is this.. If Axl released something so far removed from the Guns n Roses most people identify with, and that album wasnt well recieved, Axl would cop 10 times more shit then someone who just released that same album who hadnt had the success hes had. Axl would be a victim of his own great successes.. guess thats just how it works.

I am aware that he was filling in for Tommy on a specific tour.

But, and this is a big but, even a reunion tour would be a Guns N' Roses tour.
Axl wrote those songs, he sang on them.

Yes, it's possible some UYI songs have a bigger chance of appearing on a hypothetical reunion setlist. But that's not the debate.
The thing I've said all along is that I don't think it's a blatantly obvious "NO!" if there ever was a wish for them to perform some of those songs that weren't released in the 1980s or 1990s. Not all of those songs are that different from the other songs for them to be that quickly dismissed in my opinion. :)

Also, I hope people would have more respect for the material than what you assume.
Maybe I have that wish because I personally have more respect for the material than you. I don't know.



Yes, you paint the former members as bitter resentful naysayers.
Like I already pointed out.

But in doing so, you had to put down the material, and what Axl's done, as well. Unfortunately.




I don't usually spend time being disappointed about GN'R. So, no...
You're asking the wrong person.  :D




Yeah.
That's the thing though. I don't think there's a general rule.

Like I said, if it doesn't sounds like what people expect, it's already too different. So a bit more different than that, doesn't matter to those people.

But then you have the opposite, people who don't mind. They love when they're challenged like that. Like "I didn't expect this, and it's awesome!".






That happens to anybody who goes off too much from the beaten path.




/jarmo

I'm not sure I agree with this.

The further you got away from the established GNR sound, the easier a sell it is why the band everyone knows is not on it.

And I don't think expectations are near as high.

But it's not out of the ordinary for Axl to sing songs he didn't release, right?  Seeker, Whole lotta Rosie, etc.

IMO, I think it comes down to a (gulp) compromise between Axl, Slash and Duff.  I think if Axl wants a CD song on the setlist,  it's fair for Slash and Duff to want to play a VR song.  Reason being because a reunion tour is to celebrate the careers of the guys in the reunion.  

I think it's that or nothing, they just play the back catalog that they all helped to create.  Or hey, maybe they play some new music.  I'm ok with that, too.   ;D

Amongst GNR fans who still hold a current interest like us, or the online facebook/twitter followers which is still quite a lot of people.. i think that it would ring true.

For Gen Y types who like stereosonic and taking a pinga... probably not.

I 100% think this is part of it.

Not that I don't respect it, per se.  But if it were ignored entirely, I would shrug it off.  You would not.

You mean songs from bands and artists that influenced him and the band? No, I don't think so.




Because I'm the one that whines about the setlist....  :rofl:




/jarmo

FWIW on the current argument about Slash and Duff playing CD stuff... i cant see them going for it too much but they'd probably be willing to bounce a song or 2 in there to meet half way... if Axl insists a couple of those songs are in there.. especially if it's a hybrid tour..etc

I think if there is a reunion tour, any CD stuff on the set-list would be extremely limited. In fact, i think the only song that would make it onto a set-list from that album would Cd itself. (again, just my op)

Agree.  Look, even the most recent lineup only played about 4-5 CD songs.  We're not talking a bunch here.  I would guess 2 tops, and probably from the following list (in no particular order):  TIL, TWAT, Better, CD.

I should have realized you would find enough wiggle room in the term "disappointment" to avoid having to cop to it.

So let's phrase it more "not how you'd prefer it".

Fair?

No, just EXTREMELY guarded.

You tend to come across like you think whoever you might be talking to is wearing a wire.

Hybrid lineup I see maybe 2 CD songs and a new song from CD 2......Izzy lineup straight 87-91 songs...just my 2...and of course, 10 covers! Arghhhhh.  :hihi:

So in this hypothetical scenario, you do not think it's a reasonable compromise to play both CD songs and VR songs?

To be honest, they could pick any songs from the catalog at any show and it's fine with me.
That's been my motto for quite some time. It's not really a setlist discussion to be honest. Because I wouldn't be disappointed if songs weren't performed.

But you got fans who wonder what the UYI songs would've sounded like with Steven. Now, I bet some fans would wonder how the CD songs would sound with other people as well....



No.
Not really.

It would still be a GN'R show. :)
See, I don't see that big divide that some see... It's all different chapters of the GN'R book to me.




/jarmo

In some sense a song like Fall To Pieces does have a connection to Axl as it stems from work Slash did when still in Guns N Roses.

So does some of the Snakepit songs...



/jarmo

I was thinking in terms of possible future performances by GNR. Fall To Pieces would rank way above any Snakepit stuff as far as popularity/familiarity goes.

The original Chinese Democracy was cool.

"If you beat them up they'll die"

"Then you'll dig your road back to hell"

didnt duff comment at some point that he liked cd? i think slash didnt like it so much. but as an above poster pointed out, they dont play much cd material as it is, so i dont think slash or duff would make a big deal out of playing a few cd era songs. i just cant see it being a deal breaker.

what im wondering is where the cd 2 stuff could fit in to all of this. would the cd2 tour and reunion tour have to be done seperately, i wonder? and if so, which would come first?

 if cd2 is going to come out, which i think and hope it is, then it makes more sense to me that a reunion tour would come later. to me it would make the most sense for the reunion tour to come at the end, after guns catalogue is completed. it doesnt make as much sense to me to reunite halfway and then carry on with the cd era. or maybe it just seems that way to me right now.

Question: Does anyone else wish CD had been more experimental?

I said: oF Fucking course man!!!!!! Last night i dream about it.... im gonna tell you north people. I was dreaming a stage with GnR and VR, the setlist: Songs of GNR and VR.... more people happy!!!! damn...

Well... back to reality, of fucking  course i want a experimental things!!! GNR surprise me again motherfucker!!!!!! I can wait 20 years more!!!! try me!!

i think the same applies for if a reunion doesnt happen and it turns out we see 2 new guitarists. for the people that will only settle for a reunion, they are already out the window. to them it wouldnt make much of a difference if bucket came back or what.

the people willing to roll with a non reunion scenario are basically able to roll with anything i think. i dont see anyone that has been hanging on this long giving up because two new guitarists show up. maybe a few people at most.

and at the same time, even if bucket and robin came back, i dont see that winning people over in droves. basically it seems to me that the biggest consequences will come from whether or not the reunion happens, and anything after that will not have much impact either way save for some articles and message board posts.

This all makes sense to me.

The casual or lapsed fans are only coming back for Slash and Duff. 

People like us, we'd love Bucket and/or Robin coming back.  But that is hardly news outside the diehard community.

Axl deciding against any sort of reunion, as well as deciding to solider on with 2 more randos?  Obviously the worst option of the 3.  But it won't cost him any of us.

And, let's not lose sight of the fact that ANY of the 3 options are ALL better than the prospect of not doing a god damn thing. 

Action > Inaction.  Always, always, always.

nah, one doesn't have to exclude the other. :peace:

Wow. We agree on something.





/jarmo

Don't really feel that's an opinion I've been keeping under wraps.

IMO, there's no way Steven would not talk unless he has been explicitly told (multiple times) not to say anything. 

Would that even matter?  Don't you think he'd still fuck it up?

I absolutely agree that he will throw the tantrum of alltime if this comes together without him.  But do think it will cushion the blow if Izzy is not either.

Oh yeah, there's still a very good chance he'd still fuck it up, even if he got a talk from the man.  I'm just saying for him to go radio silent speaks way more volume than say, Izzy going radio silent.  No guarantees it stays that way.  All it takes is one night out and someone with a cell phone camera...