Goodbye Ron (???)

[jarmo]

That's absurd.  In fact everything else you just posted is as well.

Whatever you say.
I hope you manage to prove me wrong. 



/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

They aren't giving updates because they don't give a shit.

I don't mean they don't give a shit about their fans, per se.  I mean they give precisely zero fucks about having to reach out and communicate.  And for all the "OMG, this is how its always been" people, you can most certainly add this to that list.  This is most definitely how its always been.

But we can't just say that, for some reason.  Because some are so hypersensitive, they find insult and declarations of war in every little god damn thing.

If they don't want to talk, they don't want to talk.  That's life. 

But leave it there.  Enough with how its "makes sense if you think about it".  And for the love of god, enough with trying put a positive spin on everything.  Not everything needs to spun into outright nobility.  Some things with this band just occur, and don't need to be assigned a positive or negative grade.

They aren't talking because they don't care to.  End of story.

[Ginger King]

Rock music is dead, period.
The last time popular music was flooded with talented rock bands was the prime years of GN?R, Metallica, Nirvana, SG, AIC, STP, Megadeth, Pantera, RHCP etc, etc, etc.
Then came bands of far less talent, some with none apparent, like Limp Bizkit, Korn, LP and hard to believe, but it actually got far worse from there.
Now everything is pop. Nickleback would have been boo?d out of your local watering whole in the early nineties. Hopefully taken out back and shot.

The world today has gone crazy, but people will always flock to see the few true rock bands that remain.
The Stones look like they could die at any moment, but will be able to print money on tour until that happens.
Aerosmith still brings em out in droves.

If classic Guns had stayed together, and alive, they certainly would too.
Axl is a legendary frontman, but Guns N? Roses without Slash, Duff, Izzy, Steven or Matt isn?t going to be the draw that Aerosmith with Tyler/Perry, Stones with Jagger/Richards continues to be, and rightfully so.

I think the ?rock is dead? argument is a bit overplayed, and used as an excuse reason for inactivity.  Here is an interesting article that explains how rock, in fact, is quite alive.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/2014-year-rock-roll-article-1.2126036

[pilferk]

I think the ?rock is dead? argument is a bit overplayed, and used as an excuse reason for inactivity.  Here is an interesting article that explains how rock, in fact, is quite alive.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/2014-year-rock-roll-article-1.2126036

Yeah, the problem is...what they consider Rock.  Do you consider Lourde and Ed Sheeran rock?  I don't.  That's the kind of stuff they are lumping in to "contemporary" rock...it's why I couched some of my comments by pointing out I was speaking about what most of us here would consider "traditional" rock.

I don't think rock is dead..but I do think what you and I and most of the folks posting here would consider rock is not in the best of shape.  In fact, it's in SUCH bad shape that the genre definition is being changed to sort of prop it up.

[jarmo]

They aren't talking because they don't care to.  End of story.

As usual, the people with eyes keep them closed because things doesn't agree with what their minds come up with.
"I'm interested in discussions, as long as it doesn't mean I have to reconsider my opinion that I've made up long before the discussion would take place." 

It makes sense, but you don't want it to make sense. It makes sense for you that there's no update because that's how you see the band's management. Stop trying to fool people.





/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

Yeah, the problem is...what they consider Rock.  Do you consider Lourde and Ed Sheeran rock?  I don't.  That's the kind of stuff they are lumping in to "contemporary" rock...it's why I couched some of my comments by pointing out I was speaking about what most of us here would consider "traditional" rock.

I don't think rock is dead..but I do think what you and I and most of the folks posting here would consider rock is not in the best of shape.  In fact, it's in SUCH bad shape that the genre definition is being changed to sort of prop it up.

All solid points and hard to argue with.  That last one, in particular.

[LongGoneDay]

Rock music is dead, period.
The last time popular music was flooded with talented rock bands was the prime years of GN?R, Metallica, Nirvana, SG, AIC, STP, Megadeth, Pantera, RHCP etc, etc, etc.
Then came bands of far less talent, some with none apparent, like Limp Bizkit, Korn, LP and hard to believe, but it actually got far worse from there.
Now everything is pop. Nickleback would have been boo?d out of your local watering whole in the early nineties. Hopefully taken out back and shot.

The world today has gone crazy, but people will always flock to see the few true rock bands that remain.
The Stones look like they could die at any moment, but will be able to print money on tour until that happens.
Aerosmith still brings em out in droves.

If classic Guns had stayed together, and alive, they certainly would too.
Axl is a legendary frontman, but Guns N? Roses without Slash, Duff, Izzy, Steven or Matt isn?t going to be the draw that Aerosmith with Tyler/Perry, Stones with Jagger/Richards continues to be, and rightfully so.

I think the ?rock is dead? argument is a bit overplayed, and used as an excuse reason for inactivity.  Here is an interesting article that explains how rock, in fact, is quite alive.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/2014-year-rock-roll-article-1.2126036

I think that article pretty much backs up what I was attempting to say.
As far as new bands go, popular rock music is deader than shit.
Most of those bands listed in the article are dinosaurs, but they created timeless music, whereas the music being played today is forgettable by next week(sooner the better in my opinion).
People will always be interested in Zep albums because they?re fucking great. Fans of AC/DC will pay to see them live because they love their music, even if not their latest.
The fact that rock fans are starved of any new bands worthy of being in the same discussion as Floyd, Zep etc doesn?t hurt the dinosaur acts ability to move tickets either.

[D-GenerationX]

It makes sense, but you don't want it to make sense. It makes sense for you that there's no update because that's how you see the band's management. Stop trying to fool people.

Fool people?  I just said that very thing, outright.  

But when you are always looking for a fight, you can always find one.  That's basically your life story around here.  Everything is a fight because that's how you like it, for whatever reason.

[pilferk]

I think that article pretty much backs up what I was attempting to say.
As far as new bands go, popular rock music is deader than shit.
Most of those bands listed in the article are dinosaurs, but they created timeless music, whereas the music being played today is forgettable by next week(sooner the better in my opinion).
People will always be interested in Zep albums because they?re fucking great. Fans of AC/DC will pay to see them live because they love their music, even if not their latest.
The fact that rock fans are starved of any new bands worthy of being in the same discussion as Floyd, Zep etc doesn?t hurt the dinosaur acts ability to move tickets either.

Add to that the fact they point out something else in that article: Back catalog purchases (60% of the "rock" sales) are ALBUM purchases.  Contemporary rock sales? Track by track.  That's going to cause some discrepancy, too.

Edit: To clarify that....you'll have 1 person buying 12 tracks in one swoop...on the contemp side, it might take 12 people to buy that same number from a contemporary "rock" artist.

[jarmo]

Fool people?  I just said that very thing, outright.  

But when you are always looking for a fight, you can always find one.  That's basically your life story around here.  Everything is a fight because that's how you like it, for whatever reason.

Yes, you're trying to fool people into believing the myth that you're some kind of objective free thinking fan. It's pure comedy. Your bias is apparent.

You have zero interest in discussing anything that goes against your beliefs. You've made up your mind along time ago. Nothing can change that.
you don't like management and instead of looking at things from another perspective, your conclusion is that they don't put out updates because that's the kind of people they are. It all fits that little idea in your head.

Zero interest in a real discussion.

I think that article pretty much backs up what I was attempting to say.
As far as new bands go, popular rock music is deader than shit.
Most of those bands listed in the article are dinosaurs, but they created timeless music, whereas the music being played today is forgettable by next week(sooner the better in my opinion).
People will always be interested in Zep albums because they?re fucking great. Fans of AC/DC will pay to see them live because they love their music, even if not their latest.
The fact that rock fans are starved of any new bands worthy of being in the same discussion as Floyd, Zep etc doesn?t hurt the dinosaur acts ability to move tickets either.

Just like we bought old albums when we got into music, new generations will do the same.
It's safe to say every day somebody new discovers Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, the Beatles and so on.





/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

Yes, you're trying to fool people into believing the myth that you're some kind of objective free thinking fan. It's pure comedy. Your bias is apparent.

You have zero interest in discussing anything that goes against your beliefs. You've made up your mind along time ago. Nothing can change that.
you don't like management and instead of looking at things from another perspective, your conclusion is that they don't put out updates because that's the kind of people they are. It all fits that little idea in your head.

Zero interest in a real discussion.

Ever notice I can always seem to have these real discussions with everyone here other than you?  Coincedence?

This isn't just me, either.  Run a post search on yourself.  Its nothing but fights with everyone you talk to.  Coincedence?

The only people you ever respond to are people you vehemently disagree with, and the only way you ever come at them is with both fists up.  Its little wonder you seem to spend all your time fightiung.  You invite it.  You can find the perceived slight in literally anything, and all you want to do is argue. 

I invite anyone to run a search on you that doubts this even a little bit.

Yes, I mix it up with you.  I also joke with others.  And sometimes, its just a matter of fact conversation with no emotion either way.  I know more than one way to post.

You can't claim such diversity.  Your antagonistic attacks could fill a hard drive, and your taking it light posts can't fill a tweet.

[jarmo]

Poor you, you don't like that I pointed out your silly post about how you're NOT interested in hearing possible reasons or plausible explanations for something you don't like!




/jarmo

[mortismurphy]

No, to use your term, it's a spin.
You're quick to spin things for AC/DC and other bands. Not for GN'R.

Imagine if you managed to have the same positive attitude for GN'R. But no.




/jarmo

I am not 'spinning' anything. I am simply looking at the itinerary and making a (educated) guess of future legs. I might be wrong. I might be right. I think you need to look up the definition of 'spin'. 'Spinning' would indicate that I have interpreted some sort of AC/DC news, to make AC/DC appear superior than they actually are. Now I do not know what will happen here. Merely the passing of time could potentially prove me wrong here so If my guess of a future European leg turns out to be wrong (which could happen), it is not going to be very good spin, is it? Spin has to interpret something (DC) which is relatively de facto, not my own hypothetical theory/guess work!

[mortismurphy]

We're not going to rehash this.

If YOU'D like to rehash it, review the last discussion.  Nobody else is interested.

You are best taking this up with Jarmo as he includes a reference to the '$1.99' thing, about every third reply (to me). I have no interest in rehashing it whatsoever. At the time, it reached an argumentative stalemate of, 'I remember what I saw' (me), 'no you are lying' (Jarmo and you no doubt). In my opinion, there is really no way that such a discussion can progress. So Jarmo is your man if you do not wish to see it discussed again.

[D-GenerationX]

Poor you, you don't like that I pointed out your silly post about how you're NOT interested in hearing possible reasons or plausible explanations for something you don't like!

I only reject your militant pro-management spin out of hand very rarely, when its just really over the top and shaky.  Most times, I will say that its possible what you are saying is correct, but also possible it could be what "the other side" is saying.  You don't like this.

For someone actually claiming to be interested in these diverse conversations, does that mean that you might accept "the other side"s take?  When does this happen?

In this case, yes, it could be they aren't talking because they have some big plan.  Or they don't have the plan in place yet.  All possible.

But, also possible they just don't care to talk.  That's a possibility too.  Its not an attack on management.  That's in your persecution complex filled head.

[jarmo]

It was a joke about your comment about the time when CD was "new"!
There was even a   smiley after it!

One guy keeps pointing out that I'm too serious and the other takes my jokes seriously.


And yes, I wish you'd use those same magical powers you have to paint AC/DC in a nicer positive light on GN'R. Here's hoping!

In this case, yes, it could be they aren't talking because they have some big plan.  Or they don't have the plan in place yet.  All possible.

But, also possible they just don't care to talk.  That's a possibility too.  Its not an attack on management.  That's in your persecution complex filled head.

#1, #2: Yes, possible.
#3: That would mean they don't care about the issue enough to talk. Which I find hard to believe. It makes sense to people with negative POVs though.





/jarmo

[pilferk]

You are best taking this up with Jarmo as he includes a reference to the '$1.99' thing, about every third reply (to me). I have no interest in rehashing it whatsoever. At the time, it reached an argumentative stalemate of, 'I remember what I saw' (me), 'no you are lying' (Jarmo and you no doubt). In my opinion, there is really no way that such a discussion can progress. So Jarmo is your man if you do not wish to see it discussed again.

He's using it as a verified example of your memory not being accurate.

And, you demonstrate that above, again.

I've never said you were lying. I'm not going to comment WHY you're wrong...you could be mistaken, you could have seen an abhorent pricing error, or a number of other things (including lying).  

It did not reach an "argumentative stalemate" of he said/he said.

I've presented evidence that directly, and pretty much totally, refutes your memory.  There was no discount by Best Buy. Their own flyers, and company policy, show that. Categorically.

You've presented your memory.

Printed, documentation available on the web, from the company doing the pricing seems much more compelling, no? To pretty much any reasonable person?

So, you're right: There's no way the conversation can progress...which is why we're not going to rehash it.  You were demonstrably wrong.  You can cling to your memory all you want, but you can't object when the incident is brought up to call your posts into question. It's context. Jarmo is going to continue to (rightfully) bring it up as an example of you having faulty or incorrect recollections, absent any evidence to the contrary.

[D-GenerationX]

In this case, yes, it could be they aren't talking because they have some big plan.  Or they don't have the plan in place yet.  All possible.

But, also possible they just don't care to talk.  That's a possibility too.  Its not an attack on management.  That's in your persecution complex filled head.

#1, #2: Yes, possible.
#3: That would mean they don't care about the issue enough to talk. Which I find hard to believe. It makes sense to people with negative POVs though.

Not exactly what I'm saying though.

I'm saying they don't care to talk right now and if those pesky fans on the internet don't like it, well, that's too bad.

Don't you tell us this fairly often when the topic of the lack of communication comes up?  Well, this time, I'm right with you.

[Ginger King]

I think the ?rock is dead? argument is a bit overplayed, and used as an excuse reason for inactivity.  Here is an interesting article that explains how rock, in fact, is quite alive.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/2014-year-rock-roll-article-1.2126036

Yeah, the problem is...what they consider Rock.  Do you consider Lourde and Ed Sheeran rock?  I don't.  That's the kind of stuff they are lumping in to "contemporary" rock...it's why I couched some of my comments by pointing out I was speaking about what most of us here would consider "traditional" rock.

I don't think rock is dead..but I do think what you and I and most of the folks posting here would consider rock is not in the best of shape.  In fact, it's in SUCH bad shape that the genre definition is being changed to sort of prop it up.

Yeah, you raise some good points.  But if AC/DC (a band I think we all can agree qualifies as traditional rock) is playing at the Grammys (and releasing new music), then it?s clearly not in such dire straits as some believe, or at the very least it?s not an impediment for some traditional rock bands to release music?but GnR isn?t like other traditional rock bands [cue dog chasing tail].  

My point is that the disintegration of rock is used as a way to validate the lack of productivity, or the lack of any released productivity (as I do believe this music exists), from Guns.  IMO, it has very little to do with releasing new music.  Axl has shown a progression of creating music that is not traditional rock?yet he can?t release it because traditional rock doesn?t sell well anymore?  Doesn?t make sense to me.

[Tongue-like-a-razor]

Does anybody know what Ron is up to these days..?