Axl's "Dive in and find the monkey" comment

[Booker Floyd]

I don't think that's true.

Duff was still in the band after Slash left so I guess he was interested in it a bit....

That may or may not be true, but Axls own statements (from the "OMG" press release) suggest that its not.  It appears that Duff was with Slash, and despite leaving later, didnt seem to interact with Axl very much after Slashs departure anyway. 

Another thing youve failed to observe is that while you keep referencing U2s great leap with Achtung Baby, GNR had basically already done it with the UYIs.  Not much on those two albums sounds like it came from AFD.  Theres softer ballads, sound effects, country tunes, banjos, synths, pianos, classical guitar, etc.  So making the great leap is no longer the issue, its going into a direction (industrial or electronic) with which most of the band was uncomfortable.

[Booker Floyd]

Younggunner and ppbebe make the most sense in this thread...by far! ?

 

Then why dont you effectively counter my posts, Axl4Prez?  Its better than playing thread critic.

[ppbebe]

Younggunner and ppbebe make the most sense in this thread...by far! 

 

Then why dont you effectively counter my posts, Axl4Prez?  Its better than playing thread critic.

Wow, Thanks a lot Axl4Prez! 

Booker (n falcon) is a powerful adversary.

[ppbebe]

Learning  the up-to- date technology from scratch while keeping the clock work?

Why would he have to learn it?  Would he be producing the album?  Adding sound effects and such?

To enable the monkey to make more varied  and complicated sounds? Perhaps for the same reason the current members know how to use the computer. apparently To the requirement Slash answered that he didn't want to work that hard.
The Source? I quoted an article regarding this matter a few pages back. In case you're too lazy to look it up, I repost it here.

oR, Maybe Jarmo's example does apply to GN'R this time? 

To consider the person who doesn't want to work as hard as you as lazier than you, is not wrong, innit?
Apparently Slash was not such an energetic learner as Axl.
In The following Axl reports that Slash said he didn't work that hard?

According to Rose, part of the delay in building the new model of Guns N Roses has been "educating myself" about the technology that's come to define rock in the nineties: "It's like from scratch, learning how to work with something and not wanting it just to be something you did on a computer." At least one of his former band mates didn't really want any part of that process - "Slash told me, 'I don't want to work that hard,' " Rose recalls.
-Axl Speaks     Rolling Stone, January 2000
http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/articles/showarticle.php?articleid=30

Again, if someone says he doesn't want to work "that hard', those who're highly motivated to work 'that hard' may well tell him "come on, don't be lazy!". Don't you think so?

he wanted to make a straight rock 'n' roll album without masturbating on whistles, noises, MLK quotes etc.

Which sounds more wanky to you, either autogamy or allogamy / either the inbred or the crossbred?
I guess taking up something new from scratch is not easy for grownups. Especially when their successful past ensures that they can manage more than all right without improving themselves further, by making the best of what they've already got.
The Process with that would take hell lots of time and pains than reproducing that 'straight' whatever. As the line of Chinese Democracy says "Cause it would take a lot more time than you got for masturbation"

[Falcon]

That's ignorance. It would be true if you compare b-level Sunset bands with an a-level band like U2, but that's just gratuitous. I would be hard pressed to find many bands that went through more artistic changes and reinvented themselves more than Motley Crue.

Hardly..

Beyond their reunion tour, just where is the Crue creatively on the radar these days? ?

On top of that, did they have any success post grunge? "Generation Swine" might have been the most feeble attempt at reinvention and pandering to then current trends we've ever seen.

[POPmetal]

That's ignorance. It would be true if you compare b-level Sunset bands with an a-level band like U2, but that's just gratuitous. I would be hard pressed to find many bands that went through more artistic changes and reinvented themselves more than Motley Crue.

Hardly..

Beyond their reunion tour, just where is the Crue creatively on the radar these days? ?

On top of that, did they have any success post grunge? "Generation Swine" might have been the most feeble attempt at reinvention and pandering to then current trends we've ever seen.

They reinvented themselves between Shout At The Devil and Theater Of Pain from heavy metal to glam. Again for Girls Girls Girls to more bluesy driven hard rock. Then they did a pop metal album with Dr Feelgood. In 94 they did what can best be described as an alternative heavy metal album, going back to their heavy metal roots but blending in grunge influences. Then they completely went off the map with Generation Swine. It had some industrial influence, but it was so radical that it didn't even fit any genre. Hardly an attempt to 'pander to any trend.'? Remember, we were talking about 'artist change' and 'reinventing yourself,' not about success, so it doesn't matter whether they've had "success post grunge." The point is that: REM's catalog, for example (I use them only because they are the first thing that pops into most people's heads when you say 80's college rock), doesn't have two albums that are as radically different from each other as Theater Of Pain and Generation Swine. I'm not necessarily knocking anyone, but it's simply wrong to say that the Sunset Strip scene lacked change and diversity.

And again, if you want to talk about a scene which "created a major pidgeonhole, stereotyping bands leaving diversity by the wayside" just look at college rock today. Gavin DeGraw, anyone? John Mayer, anyone? Jason Mraz, anyone?

[Booker Floyd]

To enable the monkey to make more varied? and complicated sounds?

The monkey? ?

"Varied and complicated sounds" (such as...?) is work for the producer, engineer and Axl as the resident "varied and complicated sound" enthusiast. ?I dont see why that would necessiate any extra work from anybody else in the band.

Perhaps for the same reason the current members know how to use the computer apparently

On what did you base this?

To the requirement Slash answered that he didn't want to work that hard.

It still doesnt make sense. ?Even if Slash sold himself out artistically and agreed to assist in making GNR Axls industrial experiment, I dont see what extra work is required of him. ?To ask him to do what is essentially production work is not only ridiculous, but very unlikely to have ever happened. ?So dont just give a blanket "He could have used more sounds," try giving specifics...What was the actual "hard work" Slash didnt want to do? ?

The Source? I quoted an article regarding this matter a few pages back. In case you're too lazy to look it up, I repost it here.

I didnt ask for a source, because its not very relevant. ?I know thats Axls allegation, and even if its true, Id still like to hear an explanation of what it means. ?Who knows the context in which it was said? ?But common sense tells me that Slashs main issue wasnt the work involved in achieving an industrial sound, but rather having no desire to even have such a sound. ?So if he didnt want that sound in the first place, which I think we can all agree on, then the "work" involved in getting that sound is not relevant at all. ?Understand? ?Its really very simple.

Again, if someone says he doesn't want to work "that hard', those who're highly motivated to work 'that hard' may well tell him "come on, don't be lazy!". Don't you think so?

See the above paragraph. ?Im leery of Axls allegation 1.) Because of the logic reasons I outlined above and 2.) Other goofy statements Axl has made in regards to this issue such as being mainly interested in making a Slash record and Slash supposedly scrapping anything that "worked." ?If somebody can make any sense out of that, Id love to hear it, because to me it seems Axls saying that Slash would come up with really great riffs and then stop and say "No, too good. ?This works too well, we cant use it." ?

So if youre going to abandon common sense and logic just to hang on to one vague, unsubstantiated quote from Axl, feel free (I certainly wouldnt be surprised). ?But I just cant take that argument seriously.

[jameslofton29]

Booker, you make your points very well. But like you said, people dont seem to understand logic. Its so funny how people will defend Axl's contradictions to their last breath.

[Booker Floyd]

And again, if you want to talk about a scene which "created a major pidgeonhole, stereotyping bands leaving diversity by the wayside" just look at college rock today. Gavin DeGraw, anyone? John Mayer, anyone? Jason Mraz, anyone?

"College rock?"

From where did you derive the definition of this genre, and how did you come to the conclusion that John Mayer, Gavin DeGraw and Jason Mraz are included? ?

Such adherence to labels is silly to begin with, but youre just using bogus examples to prove a point.

[POPmetal]

And again, if you want to talk about a scene which "created a major pidgeonhole, stereotyping bands leaving diversity by the wayside" just look at college rock today. Gavin DeGraw, anyone? John Mayer, anyone? Jason Mraz, anyone?

"College rock?"

From where did you derive the definition of this genre, and how did you come to the conclusion that John Mayer, Gavin DeGraw and Jason Mraz are included? ?

Such adherence to labels is silly to begin with, but youre just using bogus examples to prove a point.

Well, personally, I don't like labels either. But it's hard to ignore them when certain people like to use them to stigmatize certain bands and exalt others.

As for how I define it, I define it from experience. I graduated from college last year and whether I like it or not, I had to listen to a lot of it. They are not bogus examples, you just haven't kept up with it.

[Booker Floyd]

As for how I define it, I define it from experience. I graduated from college last year and weather I like it or not, I had to listen to a lot of it. They are not bogus examples, you just haven't kept up with it.

You can hear all kinds of music at college, whether it be college radio, dormitories, or cars in the parking lot.  It doesnt necessarily make it "college (genre)."

From AllMusic.com:

"Essentially, college rock is the (largely) alternative music that dominated college radio playlists from the rise of alternative rock (circa 1983-84) through the '80s. Most college rock was born in the confluence of new wave, post-punk, and early alternative rock...College rock's heyday essentially ended with Nirvana's breakthrough in 1991, which opened mainstream ears to the more accessible side of alternative rock; as college radio playlists began to resemble commercial alternative radio, the more experimental branches of alternative and indie rock were driven even further underground."

The "college rock" of today is indie-style rock and "emo" I suppose, such as Bright Eyes.  Jason Mraz, Gavin DeGraw, and John Mayer are fairly standard mainstream pop singer/songwriters, listened to mostly by females.  Calling them college rock at all, let alone using them as the representitives of the genre, is off-the-mark to say the least.

[Falcon]

I'm not necessarily knocking anyone, but it's simply wrong to say that the Sunset Strip scene lacked change and diversity.

I get where you're coming from although I don't think the subtle changes made by the Crue over the years got them any acceptance by any audience outside of the realm they already appealed to from the get go. ?

In essence, I don't think we'll hear of The Crue charaterized as any type of musical chameleons any time soon.

Bringing this back to GNR, I can't recall any band that emerged from the Sunset Strip scene of the mid eighties that were ever allowed any radical creative license that actually benefitted their existence.

[POPmetal]

As for how I define it, I define it from experience. I graduated from college last year and weather I like it or not, I had to listen to a lot of it. They are not bogus examples, you just haven't kept up with it.

You can hear all kinds of music at college, whether it be college radio, dormitories, or cars in the parking lot.? It doesnt necessarily make it "college (genre)."

From AllMusic.com:

"Essentially, college rock is the (largely) alternative music that dominated college radio playlists from the rise of alternative rock (circa 1983-84) through the '80s. Most college rock was born in the confluence of new wave, post-punk, and early alternative rock...College rock's heyday essentially ended with Nirvana's breakthrough in 1991, which opened mainstream ears to the more accessible side of alternative rock; as college radio playlists began to resemble commercial alternative radio, the more experimental branches of alternative and indie rock were driven even further underground."

The "college rock" of today is indie-style rock and "emo" I suppose, such as Bright Eyes.? Jason Mraz, Gavin DeGraw, and John Mayer are fairly standard mainstream pop singer/songwriters, listened to mostly by females.? Calling them college rock at all, let alone using them as the representitives of the genre, is off-the-mark to say the least.

Even if you use indy and emo bands, my point still stands. But Throughout the late 90s, mainstream pop singer songwriters and bands, such as Hootie and the Blowfish, Dave Matthews Band, etc. have generally been considered college rock. The three I mentioned are merely the latest reincarnation of those. Allmusic needs to updated the definition to account for the changes since grunge. Yes, you can hear all kinds of music at college. I've heard Whitesnake and Queen played a lot too, but no one calls them college rock. Yet, they do call Dave Matthews and Jason Mraz college rock. You and the people at allmusic need to go back to school ?

[POPmetal]

I'm not necessarily knocking anyone, but it's simply wrong to say that the Sunset Strip scene lacked change and diversity.

I get where you're coming from although I don't think the subtle changes made by the Crue over the years got them any acceptance by any audience outside of the realm they already appealed to from the get go. ?

In essence, I don't think we'll hear of The Crue charaterized as any type of musical chameleons any time soon.

Bringing this back to GNR, I can't recall any band that emerged from the Sunset Strip scene of the mid eighties that were ever allowed any radical creative license that actually benefitted their existence.

All of that goes back to popularity and what others think. Fact is, Motley or any Sunset Strip band is never going to be thought much of by people outside the realm of music they appealed to from the get go. That's because others will never even get a chance of hearing Motley without the attached "hair" or "Sunset Strip" etc. stereotypes. All the critics have tastes similar to yours and the industry is run by people like you, and your lot simply does not like that type of band. Motley Crue will be spit upon and stigmatized by your ilk you no matter what they do. It doesn't mean they are not creative.

[Falcon]

All of that goes back to popularity and what others think. Fact is, Motley or any Sunset Strip band is never going to be thought much of by people outside the realm of music they appealed to from the get go. That's because others will never even get a chance of hearing Motley without the attached "hair" or "Sunset Strip" etc. stereotypes. All the critics have tastes similar to yours and the industry is run by people like you, and your lot simply does not like that type of band. Motley Crue will be spit upon and stigmatized by your ilk you no matter what they do. It doesn't mean they are not creative.

I never said they weren't creative, just merely a product of the scene they emerged from.? Nothing more, nothing less.

Not only taking things a bit personal, but making them that way as well I can see..

Oh well..

Anyway, I suspect the microscope GNR will be under when and if CD is released will dwarf that of any other band that had it's heyday on The Strip in the 80's..

 

[dr. light]

jimmy page playing industrial music?mmmm...i dont think so....slash playing industrial music?mmmm i dont think so....
guns n roses could have evolve in a positive way musically without that industrial thing...look at led zeppelin and you?ll see what evolve means...so maybe slas wanted to evolve in a diferent way and that doesn?t make him lazy...he had another vision, so he quits, maybe the monkey is some kind of the evolution slash wanted in guns.
anyway, listening to what we heard from the now legendary "chinese democracy", axl is not doing something that sounds like the best rock album ever, he is not even close to that and maybe thats why he hasnt release the album yet, i dont give a fuck if he doesn t realese the album in the next 15 years as far as it?s the best rock album ever.

[jarmo]

Another thing youve failed to observe is that while you keep referencing U2s great leap with Achtung Baby, GNR had basically already done it with the UYIs.? Not much on those two albums sounds like it came from AFD.? Theres softer ballads, sound effects, country tunes, banjos, synths, pianos, classical guitar, etc.? So making the great leap is no longer the issue, its going into a direction (industrial or electronic) with which most of the band was uncomfortable.

I think the leap from AFD to UYI wasn't as big as the one U2 did. It still sounded a lot like GN'R, just a GN'R with more money to spend on recording. GN'R Lies had acoustic tracks, something that you can't hear on AFD, but I wouldn't call that evolving either.

It's true that the UYI albums sound different, but I wouldn't compare it to the evolving U2 did.




/jarmo

[Booker Floyd]

It still sounded a lot like GN'R, just a GN'R with more money to spend on recording.

I think thats understating things.  Its a lot more than just more money.  More money affords better production and recording values, but it has little to do with the genuine experimenting they did on those records, stylistically and instrumentally. 

GN'R Lies had acoustic tracks, something that you can't hear on AFD, but I wouldn't call that evolving either.

Thats not a good analogy, because simply going acoustic isnt very "experimental."  But Ill list the examples I gave earlier: acoustic guitars, horns, tamboourines, choirs, sound effects, synthesizers, harmonicas, saxophones, organs, pianos, banjos, sitars, keyboards, clavinets, and a wide array of different guitars, such as Dobros and slides.  Stylistically, Ill again list some examples: psychedelia, piano ballads, semi-acoustic ballads, songs 7-10 minutes long, a full-blown country song, and..."My World."  Not to mention the different styles used by each member, and Axls lyrics and subject matter.  Compare that to AFD, which contained minimal synth and virtually nothing else beside guitars, bass, and drums.  If that isnt an "evolution," then Im not sure what you guys are expecting...I dont see how going industrial or whatever trumps all of that as true evolution.

[jarmo]

But many of those long songs existed for years before being released. Some existed even before AFD was recorded.

"My World", now there's something different.......



/jarmo

[jabba2]

My World is certainly different, but I dont know if i would be able to enjoy a whole record like that. Would have been an amazing solo project for Axl to pursue, that would have added to his own reputation as a mucision without involvement from the group. GNR had its own image and fan base. They were too important to the rock genre to just change on a whim. Backlash was inevitable.