Goodbye Ron (???)

[jarmo]

If you want to tell me that some other band wouldn't be opposed to the brand awareness that Guns N' Roses still has, I'd obviously agree.

That was also built 25 years ago.  No one is looking at how things have been run since 2000 with any sort of envy or desire to emulate.  The band from 2000 onwards started on third base and is still trying to get that run home.

If I was you, I'd stay away from baseball analogies. Remember last time you did?

I think you're mistaken. GN'R's being doing things their way since day one. So in that regard, nothing has really changed. I think many bands would love to have that kind of freedom. I know that you don't see it as freedom, for you it's an inconvenience or annoyance that frustrates you to no end.

No one? Did you make a poll?
Why are you even "worrying" about that so called home run? There is no home run for you. Everybody knows it.



Fans who are pining for an update. Are you sure? I've asked it earlier. You want an update on whether or not one person is in the band? That alone is ok? Nothing else? Or are you hoping this update would force the band to make an update with an update about another topic while updating you on the original topic regarding the status of the band member?



/jarmo
 

[D-GenerationX]

I think you're mistaken. GN'R's being doing things their way since day one. So in that regard, nothing has really changed. I think many bands would love to have that kind of freedom. I know that you don't see it as freedom, for you it's an inconvenience or annoyance that frustrates you to no end.
 

No, YOU are an inconvenience and annoyance that frustrates me to no end.

(I'm 70% kidding)

Everything the band has done the past 10 years is done on the back of the classic material made by its most famous line-up 25 years ago.  If you can't see that, I'm sure not going to bring you around.  But you might have to ask yourself what, if anything, you wouldn't believe at that point.

[jarmo]

Everything the band has done the past 10 years is done on the back of the classic material made by its most famous line-up 25 years ago.  If you can't see that, I'm sure not going to bring you around.  But you might have to ask yourself what, if anything, you wouldn't believe at that point.

You keep saying nobody would like to have GN'R's career. Then you start backpedaling and saying stuff about the old band.
Present band or old band. They have a connection whether you like it or not. If you don't think anybody wants to have the present, then you are saying they don't want the past. It's connected.

You don't like to give credit to the current band or management. We know that.

Oddly enough, you choose to focus on the positives alone. Nowhere did you even entertain the thought that doing what GN'R has done hasn't always been easy. Would most bands want to have GN'R's career? Yes. Would they like to have smart ass fans questioning their every movie while pining for something they can't have? Not necessarily. You yourself are one of the negative aspects of doing what GN'R has done. You and your "its not GN'R" attitude. And not every big band that had a huge albums 20 years ago are on GN'R's level.

The attention the former members get today is because of the GN'R connection as well. But I don't see that being a big issue for you..... Or you'd be pointing it out in the other sections. 



/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

You keep saying nobody would like to have GN'R's career.

Incorrect. 

What I said today, yesterday, last month, last year, and forever and ever is that the band since 2000 has been a mismanaged mess.  Some management personnel better than others, but in the time period discussed, they are a big ol' manual of what NOT to do.

You don't like to give credit to the current band or management. We know that.

I suppose I lack your motivation to see this as all one free flowing continuous narrative.  You have your reasons.  I don't share them.

I see this as a very segmented operation over the past 25 plus years, with clear lines of demarcation when things changed and were no longer the same.

You may be all in with this whole "same as it ever was" routine, but I will never join you on the matter.  Because its not.

Nowhere did you even entertain the thought that doing what GN'R has done hasn't always been easy.

What I have consistently said is that they have not made it easy on themselves, and in many cases, actively frustrated their chances of success.

That's backed up over years of track record.  Is what it is.  All you can do is hope things improve.

[pilferk]

I suppose I lack your motivation to see this as all one free flowing continuous narrative.  You have your reasons.  I don't share them.

I see this as a very segmented operation over the past 25 plus years, with clear lines of demarcation when things changed and were no longer the same.

You may be all in with this whole "same as it ever was" routine, but I will never join you on the matter.  Because its not.

Fair enough.  But you're going to part company with a LOT of people on this...not just jarmo.

GnR is GnR is GnR.  Yes, there have been different parts of their life/genesis...but each begets the next, as it were.  The very EXPECTATIONS you're basing some of your opinions on are based on their early days.  You can't consider in one breath and ignore in the next, as it suits you.

And I wonder if you really do view things as you describe, above. If you REALLY viewed all their "segments" as entirely different incarnations......I suspect many of our conversations would be very different, actually.

A man who was a choir boy, then a criminal, and finally a philanthropist is still living one life.....and each phase of that life led to the next.

[Ginger King]

In fairness.... We all discuss Ron at nauseum because he is the most vocal player... but there have been rumors about Frank and Tommy departing also... and that nobody is contracted to play anymore.

Tommy is even more plausible because of how he chose to play with The Replacements... and we all know there is a verrrrry suitable substitute for him ready to come back full throttle.

The touring band could be very different come the next show despite who appears on the album if its released at the same time.

You're right.  Is the Ron situation a one off or is it the tip of the iceberg?  That's why it would be nice to know who the current members are.  We're fed this message here that all's well, yet they can't even tell us who's in the band.  I find those two viewpoints to be opposites, in a sense.  

Now perhaps they don't want to announce a departure without announcing a replacement.  That makes some sense.  But then, clearly, all cannot be well.

[pilferk]

You're right.  Is the Ron situation a one off or is it the tip of the iceberg?  That's why it would be nice to know who the current members are.  We're fed this message here that all's well, yet they can't even tell us who's in the band.  I find those two viewpoints to be opposites, in a sense.  

Now perhaps they don't want to announce a departure without announcing a replacement.  That makes some sense.  But then, clearly, all cannot be well.

I reject the notion that a departure means doom and gloom, or that something's "not well". 

Yes, it would be sad...because I liked Ron, both musically and personally.  So I'd like him to stick around.

But if he left just because he wanted to pursue a solo career, or wanted to try something new......why does that mean things aren't well?  It just means things have changed. And while I know NOBODY likes change....I'm not sure why it's instantly "bad".

Things could be just fine...and Ron could have decided to leave...all at the same time.  Or things could be horrifically bad, and Ron could be staying.  Just sayin'

[jarmo]

What I said today, yesterday, last month, last year, and forever and ever is that the band since 2000 has been a mismanaged mess.  Some management personnel better than others, but in the time period discussed, they are a big ol' manual of what NOT to do.

So using your logic, that must be thanks to the old band..... Isn't that what you said?  

So in your opinion, you should not headline festivals, play shows all over the world and release an album when you think it's done? Ok.... And you seriously think nobody else would want that?
I think many would love all that. They might not want to fight the fights GN'R has had to fight, but they'd want the perks.

Funny how you keep throwing this shit around and when things have been good, you still keep posting this "fact" over and over again. 2014 was way better than 2005! 2012 was better than 2000. Etc.
Every year since 2006 has had something. Yet you whine like it's been horrible.

I suppose I lack your motivation to see this as all one free flowing continuous narrative.  You have your reasons.  I don't share them.

You don't, because you don't think it's GN'R!

I see this as a very segmented operation over the past 25 plus years, with clear lines of demarcation when things changed and were no longer the same.

Same book, different chapters.




/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

And I wonder if you really do view things as you describe, above. If you REALLY viewed all their "segments" as entirely different incarnations......I suspect many of our conversations would be very different, actually.

1987-1990 : original band (at least original as 99.9% of the world knew them)

1991-1994 : UYI band

1995-2000 : lost time

2001-2002 : GNR 2.0

2003-2005 : lost time

2006-2015 : GNR 3.0

I just don't see a hell of lot in common with the UYI years and say, present day.  Why?  Because he retained the name?  That's a business move.  The right one, but still just a purely business move.  There isn't much connection with 'Bad Obsession' and 'Shackler's Revenge', even if I dig both tunes (which I very much do).

And that breakdown is if you really wanted to go into detail.  To most people, there are only 2 categories :

1987-1994 : Guns N' Roses

1995-2015 : "Guns N' Roses"

[D-GenerationX]

So in your opinion, you should not headline festivals, play shows all over the world and release an album when you think it's done? Ok.... And you seriously think nobody else would want that?
I think many would love all that. They might not want to fight the fights GN'R has had to fight, but they'd want the perks.

I never said any of this, so I can't comment.  If you want to do both parts of the conversation, you don't need me.

Funny how you keep throwing this shit around and when things have been good, you still keep posting this "fact" over and over again. 2014 was way better than 2005! 2012 was better than 2000. Etc.

I think things have been better lately.  And I see optimism for the first time in some time.  Think the next year or two is big in terms of band viability.

[Princess Leia]

In fairness.... We all discuss Ron at nauseum because he is the most vocal player... but there have been rumors about Frank and Tommy departing also... and that nobody is contracted to play anymore.

Tommy is even more plausible because of how he chose to play with The Replacements... and we all know there is a verrrrry suitable substitute for him ready to come back full throttle.

The touring band could be very different come the next show despite who appears on the album if its released at the same time.

You're right.  Is the Ron situation a one off or is it the tip of the iceberg?  That's why it would be nice to know who the current members are.  We're fed this message here that all's well, yet they can't even tell us who's in the band.  I find those two viewpoints to be opposites, in a sense.  

Now perhaps they don't want to announce a departure without announcing a replacement.  That makes some sense.  But then, clearly, all cannot be well.

The Ron situation is neither a one off nor the tip of the iceberg. It is the same patron we have seen since Steven Adler left. Everyone for one reason or another is gone. Axl clearly doesn?t care about who is in or out. Why should we?

As for Tommy, anything is posible in this band, nothing would surprised me. However don?t dream about Duff as a permanent member. Duff is in good terms with Axl and that?s great news. He may join the band for a show here and there but nothing more unless for some miracle a reunion happens.

[jarmo]

I never said any of this, so I can't comment.  If you want to do both parts of the conversation, you don't need me.

You started this whole thing by posting some ridiculous generalization nobody made to begin with. Don't post shit if you don't want a discussion about it.

I think things have been better lately. 

How is that possible if everything has been "mismanaged" since 2000?
Why is it that we have to force these kinds of statements out of you?

Axl clearly doesn´t care about who is in or out.

Excuse me?
Do you have a quote for this?

So because he doesn't force people to stay when they want to leave, he doesn't care?

He's been open about Brain still being involved with GN'R. He clearly didn't rule out Robin being in the band back in 2008. Yet you make that observation?



/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

As for Tommy, anything is posible in this band, nothing would surprised me. However don?t dream about Duff as a permanent member. Duff is in good terms with Axl and that?s great news. He may join the band for a show here and there but nothing more unless for some miracle a reunion happens.

I agree with you, wholeheartedly.  Never sure what to make of people that talk like that be a real possibility.

The fact he's back on good terms is a win.  Probably should leave it there.

[rebelhipi]

I really dont hope that Tommy leaves i think hes the soul of the modern version of guns n roses

[D-GenerationX]

How is that possible if everything has been "mismanaged" since 2000?
Why is it that we have to force these kinds of statements out of you?

As I said earlier (side note :we really need to get you hooked on phonics, bud....jesus christ) some of the management personnel has been better than others.

But its all been bad.  So if you want to say TB was better than Azoff who was better than Merck, I could see that rationale.  But its all been pretty slapdash.

In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king.  

[pilferk]

And I wonder if you really do view things as you describe, above. If you REALLY viewed all their "segments" as entirely different incarnations......I suspect many of our conversations would be very different, actually.

1987-1990 : original band (at least original as 99.9% of the world knew them)

1991-1994 : UYI band

1995-2000 : lost time

2001-2002 : GNR 2.0

2003-2005 : lost time

2006-2015 : GNR 3.0

I just don't see a hell of lot in common with the UYI years and say, present day.  Why?  Because he retained the name?  That's a business move.  The right one, but still just a purely business move.  There isn't much connection with 'Bad Obsession' and 'Shackler's Revenge', even if I dig both tunes (which I very much do).

And that breakdown is if you really wanted to go into detail.  To most people, there are only 2 categories :

1987-1994 : Guns N' Roses

1995-2015 : "Guns N' Roses"

I don't see much in common with the philanthropist and the criminal, either.  Doesn't mean they weren't chapters from the same "life". GnR is GnR is GnR.  

They're the same, because they're the same.  You're making a Ship of Theseus argument....it's a long standing philosophical debate....but then you make points that directly contradict it.  Form conclusions that can only be based on the previous incarnations, and apply them to this one. Make comparisons based on previous performance...which isn't valid if they really are different entities. It's like comparing the Beach Boys to the Beatles...which is pointless.  If you REALLY viewed them as completely different...that's a logical fallacy waiting to happen.

You can't have it both ways.  You just can't.

[D-GenerationX]

I don't see much in common with the philanthropist and the criminal, either.  Doesn't mean they weren't chapters from the same "life". GnR is GnR is GnR.  

I see what you are going for here, but wouldn't it be more accurate to say Axl is Axl? 

Is Axl the band?

[pilferk]

I don't see much in common with the philanthropist and the criminal, either.  Doesn't mean they weren't chapters from the same "life". GnR is GnR is GnR.  

I see what you are going for here, but wouldn't it be more accurate to say Axl is Axl? 

Is Axl the band?

He's part of the band. He happens to be the only original part...but that's largely irrelevant.  Again, Ship of Theseus.

But the band is an entity unto itself, too.  And an entity with various parts that have changed over time.

Still GnR.

[Princess Leia]

I never said any of this, so I can't comment.  If you want to do both parts of the conversation, you don't need me.

You started this whole thing by posting some ridiculous generalization nobody made to begin with. Don't post shit if you don't want a discussion about it.

I think things have been better lately. 

How is that possible if everything has been "mismanaged" since 2000?
Why is it that we have to force these kinds of statements out of you?

Axl clearly doesn?t care about who is in or out.

Excuse me?
Do you have a quote for this?

So because he doesn't force people to stay when they want to leave, he doesn't care?

He's been open about Brain still being involved with GN'R. He clearly didn't rule out Robin being in the band back in 2008. Yet you make that observation?



/jarmo

Brain? Robin? Don?t make me laugh. Axl let Izzy and Slash go. These 2 guys were the heart and soul of GN?R along side Axl. If he didn?t care about those 2 leaving he doesn?t care about anyone.

[sky dog]

Leia, he cared about Izzy and Slash leaving very much.......

not that anyone cares but there are two period's of Gnr to me..
87-91 (Izzy departure)
92-2015 (Axl era)