Where do we go now

[damnthehaters]

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

So if the band, management or record company doesnt go after anyone, then it's ok?  Lol.  So tell me jarmo, how will we know in the future if it's ok to steal some GNR songs before they come after us??

[damnthehaters]

It's a shame that we've only had 1 album of new material over a 22yr period.  And no jarmo, I'm not saying Axl or GNR "owes" me anything.  I'm saying its a shame.   And from what I'm reading, this is the vibe I'm getting from comments.  That's it, nobody needs to make excuses.  1 album in 22years......sucks

[AXLGNR123]

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

Changes like what? Bandmember's leaving because Axl's unwillingness to release Chinese Democracy?

And only in the GN'R fandom can wanting new music be label "self-entitled." Of how weren't not "owed" anything. I guarantee you, other bands out there aren't spewing the same bullshit, they encourage fans to want new music, they want their fans to enjoy their new music. Bands like Bon Jovi, Springsteen, KISS, Aerosmith, Rush, Pearl Jam, and multiple other's all release music on a timely basis and so because they know their fans want it. They don't say stuff like 'live doesn't owe you your own personal ending," instead they release press releases, singles, and full albums to their fans. DVD, live CD's, there's so much more that other bands do that Axl/GN'R don't do and it's a shame. Because were not self-entitled to new music, we as FANS want new music. And there's absolutely NOTHING wrong with that. And we know there's more music in the vault, we know Atlas Shrugged was going to beo n Chinese Democracy but it didn't make it. We all know that one of Axl's best friend's Sebastian Bach said there was going to be a trilogy of albums that would end LAST YEAR. So, were stuck with false promises and misguided communication's between GN'R and us. Unfortunately, GN'R see's their fans wanting new music as us being in the wrong. When, in fact, it should be a positive for Axl/GNR.

[sky dog]

The Replacements only released 2 new songs in 22 years...Gnr 15! 

You guys got to check out clips of Tommy and The Replacements in Denver last night....holy shit. They dressed up as Cowgirls and had pink skirts on....then, rocked their balls off. Classic.

[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

So if the band, management or record company doesnt go after anyone, then it's ok?  Lol.  So tell me jarmo, how will we know in the future if it's ok to steal some GNR songs before they come after us??

I'll put it differently for you: It's pretty safe to say future leaks are gonna be handled the way leaks have been handled since 2003.

Not everything has stayed the same since the 1990s.

When, in fact, it should be a positive for Axl/GNR.

There's the key. It should be. I've said it many times, nothing wrong with wanting to hear new music. The problem is when people feel like they need it, like they are owed it. That's when the positive is pretty much over shadowed by the negative and things just becomes a bunch of whining.




/jarmo

[Axlspants]

It's hard for most of us not to listen to stuff when it leaks, only because we are desperate to hear these songs. I'm sure that not many fans feel like we are 'owed' anything, I'm certainly not coming from that place, I just want to hear more music from my favorite band. If it doesn't come though, that's cool, nothing I can do about it. In the meantime I'll get on with my life and occasionally pass my humble opinion on this site and read others opinions.

I don't know the hold up with new music, it might be the label, Axl, management etc. I just hope they sort it out soon. I love Chinese Democracy, for me personally its one of my very favorite albums so its only natural that I would want more music to enjoy.

[D-GenerationX]

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.

Very well said.

Very few of the diehard Axl people want to touch this.  I can't imagine what parallel universe you have to be coming from to defend his actions on that.  Work all this time, have it finally come out, they you run off and pout for a year.  What the hell sense does that make?

I'm amazed the others in the band didn't riot.  They put in all this time and all this wait for the eventual payoff.  Axl never gave them a chance to see it through.  Pretty shitty.

[jarmo]

I don't know the hold up with new music, it might be the label, Axl, management etc. I just hope they sort it out soon. I love Chinese Democracy, for me personally its one of my very favorite albums so its only natural that I would want more music to enjoy.

Of course. I feel the same way.

But as you said, we don't know what's going on. And when you don't know, how are you to say this or that should be done? Or in some cases, what needs to be done.

Very few of the diehard Axl people want to touch this.  I can't imagine what parallel universe you have to be coming from to defend his actions on that.  Work all this time, have it finally come out, they you run off and pout for a year.  What the hell sense does that make?

Didn't you ask me what other artist would do something like that and I told you David Bowie. Did you see that or ignore it?

The answer to your question is: It's his choice! Not yours.
You saw his explanation, but it seems like you don't care. For whatever reason, I guess it wasn't "good enough" reason for you.





/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

The answer to your question is: It's his choice! Not yours.

What the hell does this even mean?  You say shit like this all the time.

We are fans having a conversation, Jarmo.  None of us are under the impression we are fulltime members of the band.  So things happen, and we comment.  This went well.  This could have been handled better.  This was a mess.  They are all just conversations between people, like you would talk about any common interest.

In your world, if someone didn't care for the ending of the movie, should they just shut the fuck up because they don't work for the studio?  Or they weren't the director?  Does that make sense?

Not everything is a slight, a dig, or a demand delivered at the point of a gun.  But you sure take everything that way.

[LongGoneDay]

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?




 

That's a tough question, and one I couldn't answer either way with any real conviction.
Do I think Axl should have walked away from music? Of course not. Should he have moved on from GN'R?
To borrow a line from the man himself, definitely maybe. My stance has changed a few times over the years, and I can find positives & negatives in both scenarios, so I truly don't believe the answer to be black and white.

Why and how could it possibly take as long as it did to release a single record? Was the Guns N' Roses name itself the biggest obstacle in the way of Axl releasing new music?  Could he have been more productive on his own? If so I think you could certainly make the case he would have been better off w/o the name and the road blocks that come along with it.

Regardless of who's to blame, given the luxury of hindsight, I can't say he made the right call.

[D-GenerationX]

Axl would have been a fool to lose the name.  Just as the other 2 are fools for signing it away.

Names are everything in this business.  Its how he was still able to headline festivals when the new album was still just a rumor.  But 'Guns N' Roses' looks good on the marquee.

[jarmo]

The answer to your question is: It's his choice! Not yours.

What the hell does this even mean?  You say shit like this all the time.

It means: You ask stuff like "why would he do that?" or "how can you defend that?". There's your answer. The "defense" is that it's his choice. Just like hopefully most of us have choices we can make in our own lives. Simple as that.

If you believe that Axl should be able to make his own decisions on how he wants to promote his music, then what other "defense" do you need?

In your world, if someone didn't care for the ending of the movie, should they just shut the fuck up because they don't work for the studio?  Or they weren't the director?  Does that make sense?

It's not about liking the ending of the movie, it's about them not liking the director or actors not doing enough interviews to promote the movie!
It just going on and on about it without any regard to the reasons for their decisions.



It doesn't matter to me if you think Axl should be on Oprah. It's fine, your opinion. But maybe I'll point out to you that he might not want to do it because it's simply not his kind of show to be on. That's all. Instead, you're just going on and on about how much it sucks and how stupid it's that he's not on Oprah.

Yes, I'm just using an analogy here, not saying you really want him to appear on Oprah....


Once again, I sound like a broken record here, Bowie released an album. He's not out there doing interviews or touring. It's not only Axl. It just seems like sometimes artists make decisions and you don't agree with them. But the music's still there for you to enjoy.  It doesn't make the music worse because they're not talking about it as much as you wish.





/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

It means: You ask stuff like "why would he do that?" or "how can you defend that?". There's your answer. The "defense" is that it's his choice. Just like hopefully most of us have choices we can make in our own lives. Simple as that.

If you believe that Axl should be able to make his own decisions on how he wants to promote his music, then what other "defense" do you need?

Then why have this board?  Why have any board, on any topic?  If the answer to every questions is "Axl knows best", what are we really doing here? 

Why do you seem to get so offended when some of us just shoot the shit about the goings on?  Where is that wrong?

We're not kidnapping him and duct taping him to a chair and forcing him to bow to our demands like DeNiro did to Jerry Lewis in 'The King Of Comedy' here.  We're just talking.

[LongGoneDay]

Axl would have been a fool to lose the name.  Just as the other 2 are fools for signing it away.

Names are everything in this business.  Its how he was still able to headline festivals when the new album was still just a rumor.  But 'Guns N' Roses' looks good on the marquee.

Sure, but do those positives outweigh the negatives? Was it worth it?
That's my point. Cases can be made both ways.

Owning the rights to the name, and recording/touring behind it exclusively(with exception of Baz's Angel Down) aren't one in the same.

[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?




 

That's a tough question, and one I couldn't answer either way with any real conviction.
Do I think Axl should have walked away from music? Of course not. Should he have moved on from GN'R?
To borrow a line from the man himself, definitely maybe. My stance has changed a few times over the years, and I can find positives & negatives in both scenarios, so I truly don't believe the answer to be black and white.

Why and how could it possibly take as long as it did to release a single record? Was the Guns N' Roses name itself the biggest obstacle in the way of Axl releasing new music?  Could he have been more productive on his own? If so I think you could certainly make the case he would have been better off w/o the name and the road blocks that come along with it.

Regardless of who's to blame, given the luxury of hindsight, I can't say he made the right call.

My opinion about why CD took so long to be released is because Axl wanted to change it and "perfect" it on numerous occasions. I think you're right to a certain extent about doing it on his own. Having the "freedom" to make the album sound just as he wanted left him with constantly second guessing himself therefor changing the sound/tracklist/mix which took a lot of time, in my opinion.

I don't think it would be the easiest of tasks to have that much control over something, knowing you will be judged extensively the minute it's heard. All the hype around the record would have made it more difficult too; trying to get the album to match the reputation.



 

[jarmo]

Then why have this board?  Why have any board, on any topic?  If the answer to every questions is "Axl knows best", what are we really doing here? 

Ah, the same old "why can't I say what I want without anybody questioning me?" question....

So you want to be able question everything Axl does but nobody should be allowed to ask you why you say so? If you believe in what you say, what's the problem if somebody asks you about it?


I'm not exactly counting on anybody understanding or agreeing completely with what I've said here. I'm not that naive. I don't think everybody will be happy with Axl saying "I've been asking for a marketing plan for over five years and still haven't got anything.". I don't think it'll change anything for some fans.
You can have a hundred reasons for why something didn't go as some fans hoped and none of them will matter if the outcome isn't what they wanted.

But! That doesn't mean that I'll stop pointing it out.

 




/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

Sure, but do those positives outweigh the negatives? Was it worth it?
That's my point. Cases can be made both ways.

I agree.

But ultimately, I think he was right to keep it.  The label was certainly never giving $14 million to "untitled Axl Rose" project.  That alone made it a good move.

[sofine11]

Sure, but do those positives outweigh the negatives? Was it worth it?
That's my point. Cases can be made both ways.

I agree.

But ultimately, I think he was right to keep it.  The label was certainly never giving $14 million to "untitled Axl Rose" project.  That alone made it a good move.

Agreed.  I've never had a problem with Axl keeping the GNR name.  When you think about the how things went down with the old lineup fallig apart, Robin was in the band while Matt & Duff were still there, when Matt was fired, in came Josh Freese, and when Duff left, in came Tommy.  He never really had a choice but to keep the band called Guns N' Roses.

[jarmo]

The band didn't just end on one specific day.
Nobody seems to take that into account when they say things like "GN'R only released one album in 15 years while Metallica released soooo many".





/jarmo

[AXLGNR123]

Of course Axl kept the name, it's what allows him to play big festivals like Rock In Rio and have people pay $100 for tickets. It also allows him to tour exclusively behind the old material with a completely new band who have fuck all to do with the old material that was made famous 2 decades ago.