GNR albums and Warrant

[GypsySoul]

"rapidly deteriorating abilities of fabled frontman" = shitting

And yes someone who went to the latest Vegas residency has a more valid opinion on the current status of the band than someone who saw the concerts in 2006 (or whenever in the past).  The Vegas shows is the most recent information on how GNR is currently "working".  If I asked about buying your car, I would want to test drive it today versus 6 years ago.  And showing me pictures of it 6 years ago or video of it running then isn't going to change my mind about test driving it today before purchase.

I do not agree.

I don't agree either.
 
Attending those shows didn't give anyone there any more insight or answers as to the "current status" of the band than the rest of us.

IMO, it was from Axl's recent statements that it appears the "current status" is that GNR is moving forward to release new material.

The questions surrounding Bumblefoot's status started way before the Vegas shows and his recent lack of information to the fans plus all his previous public statements only goes to show how in HIS mind GNR is currently not "working" for him.

Everyone seems to agree that the 2014 residency shows were absolutely awesome, both in person and on youtube, but to say the opinions of anyone who ever attended a GNR show prior to this residency is somehow invalid is just silly.
 

[Ja5oN]

I think you guys/gals are being ridiculous.
If you went to the Vegas shows, you saw a band operating differently (my opinion BETTER) than years previous.  Hell you might even have got to see Duff's interaction with the band.
And if you walked around the casino and talked to the band.....then definitely you have a more informed perspective than people sitting at home.

In 2012, Ron was at the show early and I must have chatted with him for 20 minutes (hell he even got on the phone with my brothers girlfreind for a bit).
I got his take (firsthand) on DVD delays, the removal of Madagascar from the set, his immediate plans, etc.
At that point in time, I bet I had a more valid opinion about that stuff than 90% of the people on here.  Now time has passed and things have changed....but whoever has had that most recent contact would have the most valid opinion versus an internet philosopher any day.

Arguing otherwise, is just arguing....   

[D-GenerationX]

And yes, I have seen the current lineup multiple times (was not able to get to Vegas this year).  Why do you have to be at the shows to have an opinion?  Are people's opinions on the band less valid, or if they're not spending money on tickets they shouldn't get to comment?  I always confused by that one.

I've also yet to see the validity of a Youtube clip questioned if he sounds good.

Take 'Prostitute' from last June.  Was anyone saying that you can't go by what you hear?  Of course not.  It was "epic" and "killer".

Didn't hear too many people praising the clip being asked to produce a ticket stub.

[mortismurphy]

All those excellent youtube clips from 2006 have to be disregarded as, we were not present for the majority of them. In fact, why not question the Ritz 88 if you were not there - after all, we are still just watching it on a television screen? Let's also cast doubts on the brilliance of Hendrix at Monterrey, The Who Woodstock etc. In fact, let's doubt every live performance ever unless, present.

[Ja5oN]

WOW....are you gonna tell me you have as valid an opinion on woodstock from watching video of the WHO versus someone who attended and maybe spoke with the band?

Is that really what you are arguing....

there's no sense in continuing this, if you want to sit on the computer and talk about things, there's absolutely no problem with that, but if you want to take the next step and know more.....go to the show and talk with the band

[D-GenerationX]

Look, let's just say what it is.

Disregarding anything critical said after viewing something online and saying if you weren't there then you don't know is a defense mechanism, simple as that.  The first few shows back in March, he did not sound good.  But rather than talk about that, we get bogged down in the misdirection that if you weren't there, you can't trust your eyes and ears.

And again, who the hell ever goes down that road when the clips are good?  The clips from Vegas were very solid.  Suddenly, that unreliable Youtube got real reliable.

[GypsySoul]

And again, who the hell ever goes down that road when the clips are good?  The clips from Vegas were very solid.  Suddenly, that unreliable Youtube got real reliable.

IMO, this logic is just as ridiculous as Ja5oN's.

There's really no debate about those shows or the reliability of a youtube opinion because everyone is in agreement that those shows were awesome.  From all accounts ... the people who attended the shows and those that watched clips online ... the 2014 Vegas residency was top notch all the way around so you have the youtube point of view with conformation from those in attendance.

The debate brought up earlier in this thread is about whether a positive opinion by someone who attended a show is more reliable than a negative opinion by someone who watched it online.

IMO, there is no debate about only those in attendance at the 2014 residency shows can have an opinion on the band's current status because no one, even probably the band members themselves, knows that.  To insinuate that because you were there that gives you some special insight to the current status of the band is, again, ridiculous.

[Ginger King]

Look, let's just say what it is.

Disregarding anything critical said after viewing something online and saying if you weren't there then you don't know is a defense mechanism, simple as that.  The first few shows back in March, he did not sound good.  But rather than talk about that, we get bogged down in the misdirection that if you weren't there, you can't trust your eyes and ears.

And again, who the hell ever goes down that road when the clips are good?  The clips from Vegas were very solid.  Suddenly, that unreliable Youtube got real reliable.

This.  You can't say trust cellphone quality videos and pro-shot videos when they sound good but disregard when they sound bad (and chide people for relying on them in the first place and ask for their ticket stub).  

[GypsySoul]

Look, let's just say what it is.

Disregarding anything critical said after viewing something online and saying if you weren't there then you don't know is a defense mechanism, simple as that.  The first few shows back in March, he did not sound good.  But rather than talk about that, we get bogged down in the misdirection that if you weren't there, you can't trust your eyes and ears.

And again, who the hell ever goes down that road when the clips are good?  The clips from Vegas were very solid.  Suddenly, that unreliable Youtube got real reliable.

This.  You can't say trust cellphone quality videos and pro-shot videos when they sound good but disregard when they sound bad (and chide people for relying on them in the first place and ask for their ticket stub).  

No.  This.

There's really no debate about those shows or the reliability of a youtube opinion because everyone is in agreement that those shows were awesome.  From all accounts ... the people who attended the shows and those that watched clips online ... the 2014 Vegas residency was top notch all the way around so you have the youtube point of view with conformation from those in attendance.

[Ginger King]

And again, who the hell ever goes down that road when the clips are good?  The clips from Vegas were very solid.  Suddenly, that unreliable Youtube got real reliable.

IMO, this logic is just as ridiculous as Ja5oN's.

There's really no debate about those shows or the reliability of a youtube opinion because everyone is in agreement that those shows were awesome.  From all accounts ... the people who attended the shows and those that watched clips online ... the 2014 Vegas residency was top notch all the way around so you have the youtube point of view with conformation from those in attendance.

The debate brought up earlier in this thread is about whether a positive opinion by someone who attended a show is more reliable than a negative opinion by someone who watched it online.

IMO, there is no debate about only those in attendance at the 2014 residency shows can have an opinion on the band's current status because no one, even probably the band members themselves, knows that.  To insinuate that because you were there that gives you some special insight to the current status of the band is, again, ridiculous.

I agree...but oftentimes here the response to "man, I heard some clips of the show and they didn't sound that good" is met with (a) you can't trust youtube clips; followed by (b) if you really cared about the band you would've bought a ticket; followed by (c) suck it internet warrior, you have no right to talk about the band, the crowd had fun.

Can't the simple answer be that maybe, just maybe, they didn't sound that good on that particular night?  Calling into question the authenticity of the video and integrity of the poster is just a defensive response to guard against any criticism.  

[GypsySoul]

I agree...but oftentimes here the response to "man, I heard some clips of the show and they didn't sound that good" is met with (a) you can't trust youtube clips; followed by (b) if you really cared about the band you would've bought a ticket; followed by (c) suck it internet warrior, you have no right to talk about the band, the crowd had fun.

Can't the simple answer be that maybe, just maybe, they didn't sound that good on that particular night?  Calling into question the authenticity of the video and integrity of the poster is just a defensive response to guard against any criticism.  

Of course the band as a whole or an individual member or even the tech handing off the guitar can/will have an off night.  They're LIVE performances so you're never going to get studio quality of any aspect of any show.

That being said, if someone who watched something on youtube posts a negative opinion of something in a show and someone who was in attendance (or even another youtube watcher) posts a positive or different opinion about that same thing and... this is important... gives their reasoning why they disagree with the negative opinion, then most of us would probably give more credence to the one who attended the show.

[mortismurphy]

WOW....are you gonna tell me you have as valid an opinion on woodstock from watching video of the WHO versus someone who attended and maybe spoke with the band?

Is that really what you are arguing....

there's no sense in continuing this, if you want to sit on the computer and talk about things, there's absolutely no problem with that, but if you want to take the next step and know more.....go to the show and talk with the band

But you are missing my point. Your argument works both ways. You say that phone-camera/Youtube technology is an unreliable witness: my point is, your argument can be used to discredit so called, 'excellent' clips, just as much as so called, 'bad' clips. Why did the phone technology of 2006 throw forward a multitude of clips of Axl in fine voice, whereas, the phone technology of 2014 produces clips of Axl in terrible form?

[D-GenerationX]

The debate brought up earlier in this thread is about whether a positive opinion by someone who attended a show is more reliable than a negative opinion by someone who watched it online.

I see it more as common sense.

If it sounds good, it sounds good.  If it doesn't, it doesn't.  And twisting yourself into a pretzel talking about Youtube, cell phones, acoustics of the building, etc, is just a way to avoid saying 7 simple words "yeah, he doesn't sound too good here."

[D-GenerationX]

WOW....are you gonna tell me you have as valid an opinion on woodstock from watching video of the WHO versus someone who attended and maybe spoke with the band?

Is that really what you are arguing....

there's no sense in continuing this, if you want to sit on the computer and talk about things, there's absolutely no problem with that, but if you want to take the next step and know more.....go to the show and talk with the band

But you are missing my point. Your argument works both ways. You say that phone-camera/Youtube technology is an unreliable witness: my point is, your argument can be used to discredit so called, 'excellent' clips, just as much as so called, 'bad' clips. Why did the phone technology of 2006 throw forward a multitude of clips of Axl in fine voice, whereas, the phone technology of 2014 produces clips of Axl in terrible form?

Exactly right.

But you also have to recognize that we had soundboard recordings from 2011 that were deemed unreliable.  Can't be trusted. 

Or how it was different when someone was there just 2 days prior and he was excellent.  We are just unlucky that the night the concert was put on the radio, that was the night he struggled.  Well, if you can even trust that radio broadcast.  That radio station probably has their own nefarious agenda, the pricks.

[GypsySoul]

The debate brought up earlier in this thread is about whether a positive opinion by someone who attended a show is more reliable than a negative opinion by someone who watched it online.

I see it more as common sense.

If it sounds good, it sounds good.  If it doesn't, it doesn't.  And twisting yourself into a pretzel talking about Youtube, cell phones, acoustics of the building, etc, is just a way to avoid saying 7 simple words "yeah, he doesn't sound too good here."

The problem with that is some people go out of the way to point out something negative and completely ignore anything positive.  I believe you'll remember a certain 9-ish minute youtube clip of NR where at something like the 8 minute 50 second mark of the show Axl's voice cracked/hit a wrong note/sounded off/whatever.  Some people's focus was ONLY on that one bad 10 seconds part at the end of the song making it sound like the entire performance was bad.

[D-GenerationX]

The problem with that is some people go out of the way to point out something negative and completely ignore anything positive.  I believe you'll remember a certain 9-ish minute youtube clip of NR where at something like the 8 minute 50 second mark of the show Axl's voice cracked/hit a wrong note/sounded off/whatever.  Some people's focus was ONLY on that one bad 10 seconds part at the end of the song making it sound like the entire performance was bad.

But, bottom line...did it sound good?  No, clearly not.

And saying so doesn't mean you are saying that you bet everyone in that building is sorry they bought a ticket and you are sure is just having a terrible time.  You are simply remarking that, no, he doesn't sound so hot on that particular song of that particular show.

Doesn't mean he can't come back the next night and kill it.  Or hell, the next song. 

No one is going to pull your fan card for expressing an obvious opinion.  Face it, who other than the hardest of hardcore is searching the internet ASAP to see these clips?

[GypsySoul]

The problem with that is some people go out of the way to point out something negative and completely ignore anything positive.  I believe you'll remember a certain 9-ish minute youtube clip of NR where at something like the 8 minute 50 second mark of the show Axl's voice cracked/hit a wrong note/sounded off/whatever.  Some people's focus was ONLY on that one bad 10 seconds part at the end of the song making it sound like the entire performance was bad.

But, bottom line...did it sound good?  No, clearly not.

And saying so doesn't mean you are saying that you bet everyone in that building is sorry they bought a ticket and you are sure is just having a terrible time.  You are simply remarking that, no, he doesn't sound so hot on that particular song of that particular show.

Doesn't mean he can't come back the next night and kill it.  Or hell, the next song. 

No one is going to pull your fan card for expressing an obvious opinion.  Face it, who other than the hardest of hardcore is searching the internet ASAP to see these clips?

The rest of the song sounded great with the exception of the one snag at the very end of the song.  How is it that you dismiss 95% of that song performance?  How fair a critique is that?  It's a LIVE performance NOT a studio cut.

[D-GenerationX]

The rest of the song sounded great with the exception of the one snag at the very end of the song.  How is it that you dismiss 95% of that song performance?  How fair a critique is that?  It's a LIVE performance NOT a studio cut.

OK, then compare it to other live versions of that song.  Of which we have hundreds, literally hundreds.  Up to par with what we've come to know?  Not really.

I just called up that version of 'Prostitute' from June.  Its truly incredible.  He sounds amazing.

Now...suppose they try it again the next time they are on the road, and it goes poorly.  Then what?  We all look at our shoes?  We remind people how good it sounded that time in June 2014?  We tell people that they are just a bunch of fucking ingrates, and how come we can't talk about the version of 'It's So Easy' from 45 minutes prior in the same show?

None of that has any relevance. 

Axl sounded great in that clip from June 2014.  He sounded bad on the 2 versions from December 2009.  There is no correlation.  One sounds good, two did not.  End of story.

[GypsySoul]

Now...suppose they try it again the next time they are on the road, and it goes poorly.  Then what?  We all look at our shoes?  We remind people how good it sounded that time in June 2014?  We tell people that they are just a bunch of fucking ingrates, and how come we can't talk about the version of 'It's So Easy' from 45 minutes prior in the same show?

Yes.  Let's talk about the version of 'It's So Easy' from 45 minutes prior in the same show.

But that's not going to happen because some people only want to focus on what didn't go good in the show.

Let's just dismiss everything else that was good so the real superior fans can dissect every nuance of the show to prove to the rest of us how bad this band can be on any given night/performance.   

[D-GenerationX]

Now...suppose they try it again the next time they are on the road, and it goes poorly.  Then what?  We all look at our shoes?  We remind people how good it sounded that time in June 2014?  We tell people that they are just a bunch of fucking ingrates, and how come we can't talk about the version of 'It's So Easy' from 45 minutes prior in the same show?

Yes.  Let's talk about the version of 'It's So Easy' from 45 minutes prior in the same show.

But that's not going to happen because some people only want to focus on what didn't go good in the show.

Let's just dismiss everything else that was good so the real superior fans can dissect every nuance of the show to prove to the rest of us how bad this band can be on any given night/performance.

Or...flipside, don't freak the fuck out like a overprotective stage mother when someone is critical about a clip of a rock band on the internet.

So, you know...two schools.

He's not watching us.  You realize this, right?  He's not coming down from above to smite me for my insolence, nor to reward you for your "loyalty".  He doesn't know we exist.