Where do we go now

[D-GenerationX]

This is the problem with some fans. Trying to justify stealing from the band because they're upset that things don't go their way. None of them paid a single cent for the album they're "waiting" for. Nobody invested in it. They chose to invest time and energy on posting about how angry/upset/sad/disappointed they are, but that still doesn't give them any right to do what they do.

If somebody ever took something of yours from you without your consent, how would you feel and would you be so understanding if their defense was "but I wanted this for years!"? Or "it's a compliment, it only means I'm interested in your work!"....

This is all a sweet little lecture, but here's the rub.

As already stated in this thread, hardcore nerds like us seeking out leaks are still buying the album.  Just like I did at my local Best Buy, the day it came out.  I didn't steal anything from anyone.  They still got my $14.99, or whatever the hell they charged at Best Buy on 11/23/08.

Here's a tip, try letting go of that notion that just because you liked the previous album(s) by a band or an artist, that you're "owed" more music.

Yeah, and here's one in return.  Try going to some other band's forum and compare their experience to ours and see how that goes.  You'll be laughed off the god damn internet.

I guess, in a way, I admire your slavish devotion and attempts to quash all dissent and criticism, but I can't believe for one second its lost on you that you are doing so for a band that gives you nothing to work with.  There must be times (thought you'd never say it publically, I realize) you have to do some of these verbal smackdowns towards we problem children through gritted teeth.  You're only human.  There is no earthly way you think everything they do is right as rain and no one with a dissenting opinion ever had a point.

[D-GenerationX]

See, but I don't think it's that personal with 99% of the people who'd download a song that leaks.  I don't think anyone's out to hurt the band, or is overcome with feelings of entitlement when they listen to a leak.  It's literally as simple as "Oh, a Guns N' Roses song.  I love Guns N' Roses!" ::CLICK::

Obviously.

We are lifelong fans of this man.  I've been a fan since sixth grade when WTTJ was a new video.  The notion I'd download a leak because my intention is to hurt the band is ludicrous.

[sofine11]

This is the problem with some fans. Trying to justify stealing from the band because they're upset that things don't go their way. None of them paid a single cent for the album they're "waiting" for. Nobody invested in it. They chose to invest time and energy on posting about how angry/upset/sad/disappointed they are, but that still doesn't give them any right to do what they do.

If somebody ever took something of yours from you without your consent, how would you feel and would you be so understanding if their defense was "but I wanted this for years!"? Or "it's a compliment, it only means I'm interested in your work!"....

This is all a sweet little lecture, but here's the rub.

As already stated in this thread, hardcore nerds like us seeking out leaks are still buying the album.  Just like I did at my local Best Buy, the day it came out.  I didn't steal anything from anyone.  They still got my $14.99, or whatever the hell they charged at Best Buy on 11/23/08.

Here's a tip, try letting go of that notion that just because you liked the previous album(s) by a band or an artist, that you're "owed" more music.

Yeah, and here's one in return.  Try going to some other band's forum and compare their experience to ours and see how that goes.  You'll be laughed off the god damn internet. 

Agreed. Jarmo recently compared GNR to Metallica, who's fans also got their last album in 2008.  Well, they also got Load in '96, Reload in '97, Garage Inc in '99 & Saint Anger in '03.  If they had to wait 17 years for Death Magnetic, with no real promotion or videos following it, something tells me they'd be a tad irrate as well, and perhaps a little less patient with the goings on of the band.

Guns is an island in of itself, and their fans have to work with what they get, when they get it, however it comes.

[Ali]

Whoever would say something ridiculous like that can't really blame the band for not scrapping an entire album because tracks leaked and people chose to listen to them before the album's release!

Totally agree.

But, you could also make the argument that maybe if band didn't drag their ass for years at time, it could cut down on the leaks.  Typically, leaks get out there from frustrated fans who often figure that they might never get out any other way.  Or maybe as a way to prove something actually IS happening.  2003-05 was, in my view, the darkest time in GNR history.  And after all that wondering if anything would ever happen, the leaks were almost a life vest for many fans ready to jump ship for good.

I'll agree that those who choose to listen to leaks can't then complain they were already used to the songs by the time they came out, years later.  That's legit.  What's also legit is that someone in the band might one day stumble upon the logical conclusion that all the inactivity and waiting makes fans restless.  I get that leaks are frustrating, but ultimately, the band itself controls the reason that fans have to resort to listening to them.

No offense, but your statement about leaks being "typically" from "frustrated fans who often figure that they might never get out any other way" is a suspect argument.  There are numerous examples of leaks occurring even when album releases by artists were not that far apart.

Britney Spears' 2007 album blackout was leaked.  Her previous album came out in 2003.  U2's 2004 album How to Dismantle An Atomic Bomb leaked even though their previous album came in 2000.  Eminem's Encore leaked before it came out in 2004, even though The Eminem Show came out in 2002.

I don't think it is quite "typical" for frustrated fans who see no hope for an artist to release an album to be the source or reason for album leaks.

Regardless, while "we" all may buy the album regardless of whether or not there is leaked version available for free, that does not necessarily mean that a more casual fan, who may have opted to buy the album otherwise, wouldn't instead download a leaked version available.

So, I think the issue of impact of album leaks goes beyond the more fervent online portion of a fanbase.  

Ali

[jarmo]

This is all a sweet little lecture, but here's the rub.

As already stated in this thread, hardcore nerds like us seeking out leaks are still buying the album.  Just like I did at my local Best Buy, the day it came out.  I didn't steal anything from anyone.  They still got my $14.99, or whatever the hell they charged at Best Buy on 11/23/08.

So because that's true for you, it must be true for everybody. So it's ok?

What do you call it if you take something that's not yours from somebody without their consent? Even if you promise to pay later....
If it's a physical object instead of a file on the Internet, what is the act of taking something that's not yours and not paying for it called?

Yeah, and here's one in return.  Try going to some other band's forum and compare their experience to ours and see how that goes.  You'll be laughed off the god damn internet.

I don't care.
I still don't buy the sense of entitlement some fans have. You love the music somebody creates, you pay for it to have a copy in your car, the musician makes money on selling the songs on albums and/or concert tickets where people experience the artist perform those songs. And then you're owed more music? Makes no sense to me.

I don't feel owed by anybody who becomes successful at something and makes money on it.

I guess, in a way, I admire your slavish devotion and attempts to quash all dissent and criticism, but I can't believe for one second its lost on you that you are doing so for a band that gives you nothing to work with.

Nope. Not at all. It's all about attitudes, points of view and so on.
For example, I can't imagine how frustrating it must be to wake up every day and feel upset that somebody who you feel owes you music doesn't deliver it to you. I can't relate to that because it's not my point of view.

For me, it's about what I have instead of what I don't. It's about what the show is, instead of what it isn't.

I wouldn't go see the Rolling Stones with the attitude that "it's not the same as it was in the 1960s".

There must be times (thought you'd never say it publically, I realize) you have to do some of these verbal smackdowns towards we problem children through gritted teeth.  You're only human.  There is no earthly way you think everything they do is right as rain and no one with a dissenting opinion ever had a point.

No. Once again, it's about how you see things.

I would love if GN'R released a new album... Yesterday! But the fact that they didn't doesn't make me angry/frustrated at them.
Is it because I'm not a fan or because I don't care? Not at all.
Is it because I don't feel like Axl owes me X amount of new songs in Y amount of time for my loyalty? Most likely!

He's one talented guy, we all know that, but it's not up to me to decide how he spends his days. He's not a robot, it's his life. I don't demand that he goes and spends X amount of hours in a studio to record Y number of songs to be released before (insert date).

At the end of the day, all that matters is that he does what he thinks is right and is happy doing it. I don't care about the rest. I would rather have any of the artists I enjoy listening to doing that, than releasing music just to keep the quota up. And if that means they don't release albums every 5 years, then so be it.





/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

Britney Spears' 2007 album blackout was leaked.  Her previous album came out in 2003.  U2's 2004 album How to Dismantle An Atomic Bomb leaked even though their previous album came in 2000.  Eminem's Encore leaked before it came out in 2004, even though The Eminem Show came out in 2002.

These aren't exactly the best analogies though.

You are talking about an entire finished product album leaking a week or so before it officially comes out.  That's a breakdown in security and someone in the supply chain with sticky fingers.  And sometimes, it has lead to official releases being pushed up a few days so as not to affect sales.

These were leaks that came out in May 2006 and then the album drops in November 2008.  We all heard the leaks and we all heard the finished products.  Minimal differences, with the exception of 'Catcher In the Rye'.  Can you honestly say the versions we wound up getting on the album needed 2 more years of work?

None of this is to justify leaks or people that post them, but can you, as an artist, really waste over 2 more solid years like that?  If your argument is going to be that people should not listen to them, why in the holy hell would you give them over 2 more years to do so?  They knew people were listening to them.  Some made the radio.  Some charted for christ's sake. 

These other artists you are talking about at least tried to be proactive and limit damage.  Did Axl?  Was the best course of action to do nothing about it for 28 months?  And then throw up your hands and say "man, those leaks sure fucked us."  Is that credible?

Leaks are going to leak, fans are going to gobble them up, and that is the way of the world.  I'm sure its frustrating to an artist.  But at what point to you tackle the problem head on and try and deal with it?  Or do you just throw up your hands and cry foul?   

[Ali]

Britney Spears' 2007 album blackout was leaked.  Her previous album came out in 2003.  U2's 2004 album How to Dismantle An Atomic Bomb leaked even though their previous album came in 2000.  Eminem's Encore leaked before it came out in 2004, even though The Eminem Show came out in 2002.

These aren't exactly the best analogies though.

You are talking about an entire finished product album leaking a week or so before it officially comes out.  That's a breakdown in security and someone in the supply chain with sticky fingers.  And sometimes, it has lead to official releases being pushed up a few days so as not to affect sales.

These were leaks that came out in May 2006 and then the album drops in November 2008.  We all heard the leaks and we all heard the finished products.  Minimal differences, with the exception of 'Catcher In the Rye'.  Can you honestly say the versions we wound up getting on the album needed 2 more years of work?

None of this is to justify leaks or people that post them, but can you, as an artist, really waste over 2 more solid years like that?  If your argument is going to be that people should not listen to them, why in the holy hell would you give them over 2 more years to do so?  They knew people were listening to them.  Some made the radio.  Some charted for christ's sake. 

These other artists you are talking about at least tried to be proactive and limit damage.  Did Axl?  Was the best course of action to do nothing about it for 28 months?  And then throw up your hands and say "man, those leaks sure fucked us."  Is that credible?

Leaks are going to leak, fans are going to gobble them up, and that is the way of the world.  I'm sure its frustrating to an artist.  But at what point to you tackle the problem head on and try and deal with it?  Or do you just throw up your hands and cry foul?   

How are they not the best analogies?  You claimed, "leaks get out there from frustrated fans who often figure that they might never get out any other way".  I'm giving distinct examples of how there were several instances when albums leaked from artists who had released albums 4 years or less before the time the leaked album leaked and/or were scheduled to come out.  Albums leak in instances other than what you described.  The leaking of an album is not some kind of act of desperation done on behalf of poor, suffering fans in all instances.  You're romanticizing the leaking of an album.  But, it's not always so romantic and noble.  I don't know if it ever is for the person responsible for the leaks.  I believe Skwerl did what he did solely to drive up traffic to his site.  But, we can disagree on that.

As far as why wait two more years after the 2006 leaks to release the album, there may be circumstances far beyond our knowledge that played a role.  There could be other reasons that we were told about - like the desire to incorporate BBF and Frank into the album.  Was that last point necessary?  Maybe not to us.  But, maybe to Axl since Frank and BBF were part of the band and have continued to be since 2006.

As far as "tackling the problem head on", I assume you mean releasing the music officially.  That would be ideal for the fans, sure.  But, is it ideal for the band?  I have no idea. 

Does our desire to hear new music outweigh the artist's desire to release music in the form they see fit at the time they see fit?  I don't know.  I know it's not my art in play. 

But, I do know that, honestly, I would like to hear new music as soon as possible and I prefer that over tours or DVDs.  But, that being said, I won't pass up a chance to see said tour or purchase said DVD without hesitation.

Ali

[Dead N' Bloated]

GN'R has always been a band surrounded by uncertainty. The UYI tour was plagued with "no-shows", riots, hiring and firing/quitting. Honestly, it seems much more stable today than it did 20 years ago.

Even the original lineup copped shit when they released Lies because it wasn't a "true" album. Then the UYI lineup copped shit when they released TSI because it was a covers record. This lineup copped shit when CD was released too. As much as GN'R has always been a very "big name" band, they have constantly been given-up-on for as long as I can remember but somehow still maintain a huge fan base and a bunch of die hards like a lot of us here.

The fact that a band who has been around for as long as Guns has have only released 4 "true" records but still have very strong ticket sales and a massive amount of interest from the average fan is just incredible.

GN'R is GN'R and have always been GN'R. Honestly, aside from a few faces, not a lot has changed in the 20 something years I have been a fan and I for one am ok with that.

Actually, the one change that I have noticed, which has been great for me, is the frequency of Australian tours. Before 2007, Guns had only been here twice (1988 and 1993). Since 2007, GN'R have toured here on 3 separate occasions in the past 6 years, after a 14 year absence..... And I think they will be back again within the next 2 years... and in support of a new album.



 

Okay, this isn't an attack on you by any means. It's a popular saying here for sure, but I truly don't understand what I consider to be a throw away line that's been adopted here.
The ol' "GN'R is GN'R and has always been GN'R". What the hell does that even mean? haha

More stable than 1993? Sure, that was arguably the least stable period of early Guns, because they were splintered and on the verge of disbanding.
Even still they managed to release an album and match the production of all lineups to follow combined as far as official releases go.
The 6 years prior may not be what you would consider stable, but it was very productive. Maybe you're not talking about that period.

They managed to become one of, if not the biggest bands in the world.
Something they couldn't be mistaken for today.

There has always technically been a band with the name Guns N' Roses since it's inception, so technically the saying is not wrong, but virtually nothing about today's incarnation resembles that of the band inducted into the HOF. I mean, it's about as stark a contrast as you could hope to find. Today's lineup doesn't exactly resemble the Bucket/Finck era either. This isn't a negative, it's just reality.

It's been more than a "few" new faces over the years. Maybe not a whole lot has changed besides the personnel since '93, but is that really a good thing?
I love live music as much as the next guy, but myself I'll take the production of '87-'93 over the "stability", and I use that term very loosely, of later incarnations.

It means it's still the same machine with the same attitude it's always been.

Over the past 7 years there has been a bunch of tours, an album, interviews, fan club (as bad as it may be). There has been very few cancelled shows, no no-shows and recently the shows have been starting early/on time (not that that really matters to me. I don't mind the late starts.). That all seems pretty stable to me.

The productivity has definitely slowed over the years, and I'd be stupid to say it isn't slower than other bands from their era, but I am ok with it.

Bands lose members. It happens. But it doesn't mean the band should stop because a guitar player leaves or a drummer is sacked. You continue on at the best of your ability; and considering Axl has basically had to do this by himself is pretty impressive.

I'm not going to get into the whole "Axl vs Slash" thing, but I will ask you this; do you think Axl should have called it quits when Slash and Duff left?




 

[One.In.A.Million]

There's been an increase in people saying that the fans should be happy because GN'R are doing "something". Come on, we all support current Guns N' Roses and want them to succeed. But it's not a bad thing that some fans question why things are taking so long, or fans thinking that the band may have done it another way etc. How someone can sit there and say "people pick on GN'R all the time, they are just like every other band", is beyond me because it's obvious that this group have had alot more issues compared to other bands. I've just come to the conclusion that some people won't let it be known that they have any criticism of the band and Axl whatsoever. Whether it's a public front I don't know, but it's hard to believe that subconsciously they can't see the same flaws as us.  The fact is that those same people will be still here defending GN'R if a new album still hasn't materialised for another 10 years, so I give up.

[jarmo]

Aren't you just questioning things you don't probably even understand or can't relate to?

Are you in a band? Do you write songs? Are you signed to a major record label? Are you in charge of a multimillion dollar company (which essentially is that a successful band is)?

I've just come to the conclusion that some people won't let it be known that they have any criticism of the band and Axl whatsoever. Whether it's a public front I don't know, but it's hard to believe that subconsciously they can't see the same flaws as us. 

"Flaws as us"?

What is a "flaw"? That they let your favorite guitar player Robin leave? That they don't release albums according to the schedule you think is appropriate?
What you consider a flaw, some of us just think is part of the course. Some of us have accepted GN'R as it is. We don't build up imaginary GN'R scenarios in our minds and get upset when it doesn't materialize.

Does that means we wouldn't love new music? Not at all.

What exactly do you like about the band? All these "flaws" that you see, there must be something that makes it worth it....
Personally, I love their music. The music I have. Not feeling frustrated about the music I don't have. I also love seeing them perform those songs live in concert. I love those songs on the records, so why shouldn't I love to see the perform those songs live?

I also love the fact that Axl is Axl and you can't find anybody like him out there. Some of you seem to really dislike that part and consider it a "flaw".




/jarmo

[pilferk]

Aren't you just questioning things you don't probably even understand or can't relate to?

Are you in a band? Do you write songs? Are you signed to a major record label? Are you in charge of a multimillion dollar company (which essentially is that a successful band is)?


 

I think all that is true...and I think the part people ignor, or fail to understand the most, is the interaction with the label.

For example, it was mentioned that after the leaks, gnr should have just released the album at that point.

People need to realize that is not realistic. If the album is not on the labels release schedule...and all that means and entails...they a re not going to approve release. Even if the artist really wants it released. 

That can mean the label doesn't feel it's ready, isn't ready to commit dollars to promo and distribution, doesn't want to use one of its release slots on it, or a thousand other tHings that have little or nothing to do wit the artist wanting to get it out, or the artists feelings about how ready the material is, or how opportune the window would be.

Without having any clue about what was going on behind the scenes....comments like "they should have just released the album and not waited 2 more years" sort of ring hollow. At least to me.

[jarmo]

In addition, there's different kinds of leaks.

You have the "the album is done, pressed onto cds and ready to be shipped to be sold" leaks that happen to almost all releases. In this case, it's groups of people competing who will be the first one to get a specific album out. Same thing with movies, video games and so on.

Then you have the leaks of, in many cases, unfinished material. GN'R isn't the only band this has happened not. It happened to U2 back in 1990-1991 when somebody stole tapes of what the band was working on and released it. More recently, Lana Del Rey had songs leaked that somebody somehow got access to. Possibly accessed her computer and stole the songs that way.

I just don't buy the concept that since you're gonna buy the album later, it's ok for others to steal tracks from artists. I'm talking about the second kind of leaks here. The first one is a different matter. You can always justify your own actions with the excuse that you'll buy the album, but you can't guarantee the same holds true for everybody who downloads any kind of leaks. So how can you claim it does no harm?

Even if everybody buys the album, what right does somebody else have to steal and release other peoples' work? I get the whole Robin Hood mentality, I get the starving analogies. We're not talking about some things that are essential to survive here. It's not air, water or food. It's songs that somebody else wrote, recorded and created. Somebody paid to make that happen as well.

But then somebody comes along, takes it and puts it out there, even if it's not done, because some GN'R fans deserve to hear it? They need it? Their loyalty demands it. They are owed that. Really?

Some are quick to see "flaws" with the band but don't see any kind of flaws with their way of thinking?

I'm sorry, I don't buy it.




/jarmo

[will (uk)]

FTR, I agree on all points Jarmo made re: GNR releasing stuff when they're ready. I know Axl owes me nothing, and happy to report that my life will be no less fulfilled if Axl chose to never release another song

Please don't try to justify stealing for the band. Thank you.  

At the end of the day, it's not your work of art, it's not your choice when to release it for the public.

And it's not like these songs were recorded last year and set to come out in November.  These are songs that were recorded '98-07 with still no release in sight.  To resist that temptation, you'd have to be of the mindset that "Oh, Axl will get around to releasing it one of these years. I'll abstain."  Who thinks that way?

I do.

This however, in my opinion, is inconsistent from HTGTH.

HTGTH has a section specifically dedicated to fans stealing from GNR (as does Mygnr, Evo etc). What's the difference between stealing Crash Diet and stealing Down/BITW/Gone etc? Or can you honestly say that you've never listened to Unwanted Illusions?

[jarmo]

The difference is that I haven't seen the band, management or record company go after people regarding those old songs. The way they've gone after people playing leaks on the radio or posting them on their website.



/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

I'm not going to get into the whole "Axl vs Slash" thing, but I will ask you this; do you think Axl should have called it quits when Slash and Duff left?

Yeah, I'm with you.

Even if you are unhappy they broke up, isn't Axl with a new band better than no Axl, ever?  I never understood people that would prefer the latter there.

[norway]

HTGTH is a very relevant search universally for generic people seeking gnr-stuff. Obviously we can't openly discuss leaks here. Universal's enforcers would kick Jarmo straight out of the universe...and then some!

Personally I would love for gnr to release bootlegs of CD outakes and unreleased versions. A company has their intrest tho. Motley Crue placed old demos and unreleased stuff on new release, which probably made unauthorised sharing of it a legal clusterfuck.

Just posted to add a diferent perspective. Imho the intelectual property of gnr online could be handled/managed better.

In general, I think muting/cease and desist-orders on official stuff eventually works against bands. Especially if it is fair use.

[GnR-NOW]

I just the record company has a problem with Axl, I think they don't like it not being the AFD line up, and don't like releasing new work from the current band. I don't think Axl is the problem.

[AXLGNR123]

I just the record company has a problem with Axl, I think they don't like it not being the AFD line up, and don't like releasing new work from the current band. I don't think Axl is the problem.

I do.

They gave him 14 million dollars to record an album, it took years to finally come out, than when it did come out he went MIA and didn't promote it at all. The record company may not want to give Axl more money and time to record another album, because that'll just give him time to tinker and add more and more layers of stuff to already done songs. It's is possible that the record company won't release a new album unless it's with the AFD line-up, but that's also Axl's fault. Chinese Democracy sold WAY below expectations with no promotion from Axl. If he actually promoted the album, than the record company may have more trust in him.

And if the record company have a chance to make money off of a new GN'R album, than we would get one. It's easy to blame everyone else besides Axl for everything that goes wrong, but Universal already worked with Axl for years and probably don't want to go through the same shit again.

[One.In.A.Million]

Bringing up Robin Finck everytime I have a criticism of GN'R is not very smart jarmo, kind of childish to be honest. You like to make people look foolish, by telling them "your" truths. The fact is that not everyone shares you opinion, not everyone see's things your way... and that's all I was basically saying in my post. And yes, not releasing an album of original materal in 17 years could be considered a "flaw" by thousands of fans, doesn't mean they don't love GN'R. It's not rocket science, or is it a big conspiracy to "get Axl". It's just some people's opinions.

[jarmo]

Bringing up Robin Finck everytime I have a criticism of GN'R is not very smart jarmo, kind of childish to be honest. You like to make people look foolish, by telling them "your" truths. The fact is that not everyone shares you opinion, not everyone see's things your way... and that's all I was basically saying in my post. And yes, not releasing an album of original materal in 17 years could be considered a "flaw" by thousands of fans, doesn't mean they don't love GN'R. It's not rocket science, or is it a big conspiracy to "get Axl". It's just some people's opinions.

Childish? It's a valid point to bring up when people who see all kinds of "flaws" post about them. I'm sorry if I suspect that the fact that your favorite member quit the band might not make you the most "objective" poster around. You can attack me for whatever you want, but it goes both ways.

If you seriously consider the creative output of somebody else a flaw, what have you done that makes you the right person to criticize? All I know is that I can't write a single song. So how can I complain and criticize others for not writing/recording as many songs as I wish they would? I don't think writing songs or doing something creative is the same as working at McDonald's for example. Or working at an assembly line.

Maybe some songwriters can crank out song after song and have somebody do quality control at the end of the assembly line. GN'R doesn't seem to operate that way.

As I said, it's kinda amusing seeing people comment on what the band should do when they don't have the slightest idea of what goes on in being in a band at the level GN'R is.

It's like me telling Kimi R?ikk?nen how to drive a Formula 1 car. 

It's easy to blame everyone else besides Axl for everything that goes wrong, but Universal already worked with Axl for years and probably don't want to go through the same shit again.

The band probably doesn't wanna go through the same shit with the label again either.

Imagine hearing for years how you need to finish the album, when you did, they just forgot about it...



Edited to add: All this talk about "but that band released  sooooo many albums in the same time GN'R released one". And how many of those bands had to deal with the changes that GN'R had to deal with?




/jarmo