Goodbye Ron (???)

[mortismurphy]

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.

Then I am sorry but if Jarmo continues to bring it up, I will continue to reply. I will, not, be either accused of lying or, not having seen something I distinctly remember seeing.

[Ginger King]

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

Read pages 1-91 of this thread.

[JAEBALL]

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

The beauty of Google........  

He just put out a solo record.. two of the songs on it, he originally intended for Guns N Roses... apparently they were not well received by the big guy in charge.

He also doesn't like being asked about Guns N Roses or Scott Weiland  

[mortismurphy]

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!

But I have not painted ACDC in a 'nicer positive light' in the slightest!! I merely made a guess which could turn out to be right or wrong.

[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.

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.

To be clear, I don't think it impacts (much) the ability to release music. I mean, it might impact sales, and the release dates offered to them by their label, and other business factors.  I don't think it's a primary reason anyone doesn't release albums.

I think it impacts their ability to sell tickets on a US tour, in certain parts of the country especially.

[Tongue-like-a-razor]

I was being sarcastic. It seems to me that this thread has gone totally off-topic. I mean, the main theme here is whether Ron has left the band or not, right? So why are you haggling over the decline of rock and poor ticket sales in this thread?

[JAEBALL]

I was being sarcastic. It seems to me that this thread has gone totally off-topic. I mean, the main theme here is whether Ron has left the band or not, right? So why are you haggling over the decline of rock and poor ticket sales in this thread?

Well... usually around here... it all spills in to one main thread... the title of the thread or the topic at hand really doesn't matter. One post leads to another and another and so on.

[pilferk]

Then I am sorry but if Jarmo continues to bring it up, I will continue to reply. I will, not, be either accused of lying or, not having seen something I distinctly remember seeing.

Go for it.  

But you asked why.  You now know why (again).

Because that thing you distinctly remember seeing you either didn't, or it didn't mean what you thought it did, at the time.  For whatever reason.

In either case, you're wrong. There was no "discount shortly after release". It's that simple.  And he's going to continue to point out that you cling to that "wrongness" in the face of VERY compelling evidence to the contrary. You're doing it again here.

Just like you guys bring up many of the things he's posted/his general tone/etc....because you think it's valid context.

[pilferk]

I was being sarcastic. It seems to me that this thread has gone totally off-topic. I mean, the main theme here is whether Ron has left the band or not, right? So why are you haggling over the decline of rock and poor ticket sales in this thread?

Tangents....


and bygones....

[draguns]

Interesting new article about GNR and what a former manager said. I'm not buying it.

[jarmo]

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.

And what's the reason for "not caring" to talk?

But I have not painted ACDC in a 'nicer positive light' in the slightest!! I merely made a guess which could turn out to be right or wrong.

Yes you have. You're not saying "they only had so many shows because there's no demand for more!". Which I assume you'd do if it was GN'R.
Instead it's "Oh, they got only few shows now because they'll do the rest later".


I wish you'd be using this same logic with GN'R!




/jarmo

[pilferk]

Interesting new article about GNR and what a former manager said. I'm not buying it.

The Michael Jackson one? I thought about starting a thread on it but...I'm with you. Don't buy it.

[JAEBALL]

Interesting new article about GNR and what a former manager said. I'm not buying it.

The Michael Jackson one? I thought about starting a thread on it but...I'm with you. Don't buy it.

That guy is a dbag...and definitely near the very top of the list on who is responsible for escalating tensions between band members.

[D-GenerationX]

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.

And what's the reason for "not caring" to talk?

Really not much different than you are saying.  Nothing happening right now, no reason to talk.

Would be nice if they did, but if they don't feel compelled to, not much you can do about it.

The "not caring" part of this would be more about how they don't particularly care how this all looks or that people would like some clarification.  If they cared about that stuff, they'd talk.  But they don't, so they don't.

[mortismurphy]

But I have not painted ACDC in a 'nicer positive light' in the slightest!! I merely made a guess which could turn out to be right or wrong.

Yes you have. You're not saying "they only had so many shows because there's no demand for more!". Which I assume you'd do if it was GN'R.
Instead it's "Oh, they got only few shows now because they'll do the rest later".


I wish you'd be using this same logic with GN'R!

Because there are no compelling reason to believe there is a 'lack of demand'. DC could easily extend their two UK dates to four-five and sell those dates out. You are going to look incredibly silly if DC do add subsequent legs, Jarmo.

[D-GenerationX]

Interesting new article about GNR and what a former manager said. I'm not buying it.

The Michael Jackson one? I thought about starting a thread on it but...I'm with you. Don't buy it.

Seems pretty random.  I don't really buy it either.

[jarmo]

The "not caring" part of this would be more about how they don't particularly care how this all looks or that people would like some clarification.  If they cared about that stuff, they'd talk.  But they don't, so they don't.

I think they care, but you have to look at it from both sides. If we do this, then that's gonna happen. What's the pros and cons there? Ok, so what if you do that, then what? And so on.

It's been pointed out multiple times, as you know, that if you only say "he quit". People will indeed stop "worrying" about that, but then they'll worry about the next thing....

So it's not about "not caring". It's about caring enough to not say something until you know the deal and/or have a solution in place.

But who knows? Maybe there'll be an update at some piont and we'll see how it all plays out then.  

Because there are no compelling reason to believe there is a 'lack of demand'. DC could easily extend their two UK dates to four-five and sell those dates out. You are going to look incredibly silly if DC do add subsequent legs, Jarmo.

UK? how about the US?
I'm not saying either way. I have no idea how popular they are.
I just see a person having trouble saying anything negative about a band, and the band this site is about, he can't say anything good about unless asked multiple times to do so. It's all very ironic and weird.



/jarmo

[pilferk]

Because there are no compelling reason to believe there is a 'lack of demand'. DC could easily extend their two UK dates to four-five and sell those dates out. You are going to look incredibly silly if DC do add subsequent legs, Jarmo.

How so?

I don't see him saying they shouldn't, or couldn't.

I see him looking at the different way YOU interpret the information.

In one case, it's about "possibly planning for a second leg".  In other words, you're giving them the benefit of the doubt, and the speculation you're engaging in is largely "positive".

On the other hand, with GnR, the speculation has largely been of the type "they have fewer shows because they can't sell more tickets".  I'd say that speculation has largely a "negative" spin.

YOU are going to argue they are both reality...I'm sure....so therefore that's why the difference.

But it's notable that it seems to be a "prevailing wind" in many of your posts....pretty much every other band you are able to "explain away" or "justify" a much more positive outlook, while the same tactics/pov is not applied to GnR.   I don't know if it's relevant or not (I'll leave that to you and jarmo to hash out). But it's hard to deny that it's there.

[mortismurphy]

The "not caring" part of this would be more about how they don't particularly care how this all looks or that people would like some clarification.  If they cared about that stuff, they'd talk.  But they don't, so they don't.

I think they care, but you have to look at it from both sides. If we do this, then that's gonna happen. What's the pros and cons there? Ok, so what if you do that, then what? And so on.

It's been pointed out multiple times, as you know, that if you only say "he quit". People will indeed stop "worrying" about that, but then they'll worry about the next thing....

So it's not about "not caring". It's about caring enough to not say something until you know the deal and/or have a solution in place.

But who knows? Maybe there'll be an update at some piont and we'll see how it all plays out then.  

Because there are no compelling reason to believe there is a 'lack of demand'. DC could easily extend their two UK dates to four-five and sell those dates out. You are going to look incredibly silly if DC do add subsequent legs, Jarmo.

UK? how about the US?
I'm not saying either way. I have no idea how popular they are.
I just see a person having trouble saying anything negative about a band, and the band this site is about, he can't say anything good about unless asked multiple times to do so. It's all very ironic and weird.



/jarmo

Well then it is all based on an erroneous reading of me. I interpret every move a band does on an item by item basis. I do expect more US dates but if that is truly it, I would be a bit disappointed if I was an American who did not live near a concert. And no I do not believe it is about, a lack of demand. I am a bit disappointed with their UK dates but, as I said, I am holding out for subsequent legs. Equally, if DC put out a stinky album, I am not going to pretend otherwise. You however believe fans should without hesitation worship and fully support everything a band does, so it is only natural you are not going to see my logic here.

[mortismurphy]

Because there are no compelling reason to believe there is a 'lack of demand'. DC could easily extend their two UK dates to four-five and sell those dates out. You are going to look incredibly silly if DC do add subsequent legs, Jarmo.

How so?

I don't see him saying they shouldn't, or couldn't.

I see him looking at the different way YOU interpret the information.

In one case, it's about "possibly planning for a second leg".  In other words, you're giving them the benefit of the doubt, and the speculation you're engaging in is largely "positive".

On the other hand, with GnR, the speculation has largely been of the type "they have fewer shows because they can't sell more tickets".  I'd say that speculation has largely a "negative" spin.

YOU are going to argue they are both reality...I'm sure....so therefore that's why the difference.

But it's notable that it seems to be a "prevailing wind" in many of your posts....pretty much every other band you are able to "explain away" or "justify" a much more positive outlook, while the same tactics/pov is not applied to GnR.   I don't know if it's relevant or not (I'll leave that to you and jarmo to hash out). But it's hard to deny that it's there.

What I said to Jarmo equally applies to this. You both have a thoroughly erroneous preconceived belief on how I see rock bands.