New Dj interview at LegendaryRockInterviews.com (Sep 2014)

[D-GenerationX]

I agree with GypsySoul.  Most casual fans don't know or care about the individual members within a group.  I've always like The Cure, have their greatest hits CD, but as a casual fan, it was years before I knew that their singer's name is Robert Smith and to this day I could not name one other member of that band, past or present.  That's not arguing that Ron is more well known than Slash or that Slash is not one of the most high profile guitarists of the past 25+ years.  Only means that there are a LOT of fans who don't know either individually, but still like Guns N' Roses. 

Which Guns N' Roses though?

Or are you one of those folks that contend so long as the same name has been used continuously, its all just one continuous organization, just with some personnel changes?

[Ginger King]

I agree with GypsySoul.  Most casual fans don't know or care about the individual members within a group.  I've always like The Cure, have their greatest hits CD, but as a casual fan, it was years before I knew that their singer's name is Robert Smith and to this day I could not name one other member of that band, past or present.  That's not arguing that Ron is more well known than Slash or that Slash is not one of the most high profile guitarists of the past 25+ years.  Only means that there are a LOT of fans who don't know either individually, but still like Guns N' Roses. 

Comparing GnR to the Cure is not really an apples to apples comparison.  If I were to compare them to another band, I?d say they are more like the Beatles.  Both bands (in their respective primes) had transcendent-like appeal, completely dominated their peers, and were on top of the world.

Now, most people would probably guess John, Paul, and Ringo (maybe not George) as members of the Beatles.  Same with original recipe Guns?most will get Axl, Slash, Izzy and/or Duff.  Now, ask people who were in Wings, and you?re likely to get just Paul.  That?s kind of what nuGuns is.  Outside of forum-land, not many people know Richard, Bumble, DJ, etc.  They know Axl.

I think folks here are failing to recognize or appreciate the juggernaut that the AFD/UYI band was. 

[jarmo]

I think folks here are failing to recognize or appreciate the juggernaut that the AFD/UYI band was. 

Not likely. Some of us were around.

Some of us also know most casual rock fans don't pay a lot of attention to who's in what band and who wrote what song. They like a song or two, or a couple. They might know the chorus. They might remember getting drunk to a specific song at a specific time and so on.
Doesn't mean they can name people in those bands...


People forget, people have attention spans....
Maybe you're doing the "opposite" of what you're accusing others of....


/jarmo

[Ginger King]

I think folks here are failing to recognize or appreciate the juggernaut that the AFD/UYI band was. 

Not likely. Some of us were around.

Some of us also know most casual rock fans don't pay a lot of attention to who's in what band and who wrote what song. They like a song or two, or a couple. They might know the chorus. They might remember getting drunk to a specific song at a specific time and so on.
Doesn't mean they can name people in those bands...


People forget, people have attention spans....
Maybe you're doing the "opposite" of what you're accusing others of....


/jarmo

That's true for 99% of bands...but Guns n Roses (like the Beatles, Zepplin) are in the 1%. 

[JAEBALL]

I think comparing GNR to the beatles is pushing it.... but comparing them to Zeppelin, Stones AC DC, Aerosmith is all fair

Duff and Izzy might not be household names... but they are better known than the narrative here that it doesn't matter who is in the band other than Axl and people just like the songs that they like....

thats...... off...

[D-GenerationX]

I think folks here are failing to recognize or appreciate the juggernaut that the AFD/UYI band was. 

I've wondered this myself.

But, even as a guy that lived through it, I tend to not be a fan of chiding other people that didn't.  Always comes across as big timing them, in my view.  Or condescending, I guess you'd say.

That said, its valid.  This was the biggest rock band on the planet for 4 solid years.

[D-GenerationX]

I think comparing GNR to the beatles is pushing it.... but comparing them to Zeppelin, Stones AC DC, Aerosmith is all fair

Duff and Izzy might not be household names... but they are better known than the narrative here that it doesn't matter who is in the band other than Axl and people just like the songs that they like....

thats...... off...

I agree, Beatles is pushing it.  Stones, U2...these are better comparisons, I think.

As for our band here, I have yet to see someone introduce one of those arguments that was not HIGHLY emotionally invested in getting people to see it that way.  No one that goes down that road is content to let people disagree with it.  No agreeing to disagree.  Opinions must be changed and "taunts" have to be "put" in "quotes".

[GeorgeSteele]

I agree with GypsySoul.  Most casual fans don't know or care about the individual members within a group.  I've always like The Cure, have their greatest hits CD, but as a casual fan, it was years before I knew that their singer's name is Robert Smith and to this day I could not name one other member of that band, past or present.  That's not arguing that Ron is more well known than Slash or that Slash is not one of the most high profile guitarists of the past 25+ years.  Only means that there are a LOT of fans who don't know either individually, but still like Guns N' Roses. 

Which Guns N' Roses though?

Or are you one of those folks that contend so long as the same name has been used continuously, its all just one continuous organization, just with some personnel changes?

Completely different issues.  I don't deny there is a difference between the band that exists now and the classic lineup, but that has nothing to do with whether or not someone can name who the rhythm guitarist was in 1988, or who wrote It's So Easy (if they even know the song).

[GeorgeSteele]

I think comparing GNR to the beatles is pushing it.... but comparing them to Zeppelin, Stones AC DC, Aerosmith is all fair

Duff and Izzy might not be household names... but they are better known than the narrative here that it doesn't matter who is in the band other than Axl and people just like the songs that they like....

thats...... off...

I agree, Beatles is pushing it.  Stones, U2...these are better comparisons, I think.

As for our band here, I have yet to see someone introduce one of those arguments that was not HIGHLY emotionally invested in getting people to see it that way.  No one that goes down that road is content to let people disagree with it.  No agreeing to disagree.  Opinions must be changed and "taunts" have to be "put" in "quotes".

I won't speak for anyone else, but I can assure you I am happy with you going on seeing it however you want.  If I disagree with you, that doesn't mean I want you to agree with me.

As for U2 and the Stones, I would argue the same.  For Stones, most know Jagger, some Richards, few know the rest.  Same with U2, who are still extremely popular.  Just for kicks, I just asked a co-worker, 'do you like U2?'  She said yes, she LOVES them.  When I asked her to name the band members and what instruments they play, she could only name Bono.

[D-GenerationX]

I agree with GypsySoul.  Most casual fans don't know or care about the individual members within a group.  I've always like The Cure, have their greatest hits CD, but as a casual fan, it was years before I knew that their singer's name is Robert Smith and to this day I could not name one other member of that band, past or present.  That's not arguing that Ron is more well known than Slash or that Slash is not one of the most high profile guitarists of the past 25+ years.  Only means that there are a LOT of fans who don't know either individually, but still like Guns N' Roses. 

Which Guns N' Roses though?

Or are you one of those folks that contend so long as the same name has been used continuously, its all just one continuous organization, just with some personnel changes?

Completely different issues.  I don't deny there is a difference between the band that exists now and the classic lineup, but that has nothing to do with whether or not someone can name who the rhythm guitarist was in 1988, or who wrote It's So Easy (if they even know the song).

Fair.

[Ginger King]

I think comparing GNR to the beatles is pushing it.... but comparing them to Zeppelin, Stones AC DC, Aerosmith is all fair

Duff and Izzy might not be household names... but they are better known than the narrative here that it doesn't matter who is in the band other than Axl and people just like the songs that they like....

thats...... off...

I agree, Beatles is pushing it.  Stones, U2...these are better comparisons, I think.

As for our band here, I have yet to see someone introduce one of those arguments that was not HIGHLY emotionally invested in getting people to see it that way.  No one that goes down that road is content to let people disagree with it.  No agreeing to disagree.  Opinions must be changed and "taunts" have to be "put" in "quotes".

Ok Beatles may be pushing it...but, for anyone that lived through the UYI tour, to me I haven't seen a band that held the candle that long.  They toured essentially non-stop for 2+ years, and it seemed like every day their moves were being chronicled.  Perhaps it was due to there just being one music station to watch.  

Someone (maybe D-X) made a comparison to Mike Tyson, in terms of meteoric rise to greatness and an unchallenged reign (albeit a short one).  I really like that analogy too.

Point is:  it cheapens the importance/contribution of the original group by saying it doesn't matter who (besides Axl) is in GnR.  If that were true, the current lineup would be as successful as the old.  They can certainly play the songs, but I don't think anyone could argue they're as successful.  And let's not get into the semantics of what defines "success."

[D-GenerationX]

I won't speak for anyone else, but I can assure you I am happy with you going on seeing it however you want.  If I disagree with you, that doesn't mean I want you to agree with me.

I would phrase it like this.

I don't begrudge anyone having some of the opinions we hear at this board, even though I don't agree with them.

But, I would also say that you would be laughed out of any room in real life you tried to run some of this stuff up the flagpole, because very few of what is said at this board has any application with the people at large.  Roll their eyes at you at best, outright mock you at worst.  And if you fought me on that, yeah, I'd probably go a few rounds with you on it because I don't find that real world.

But anyone that says these things are their opinion, and they don't care what people would say...no worries.  Tell me that anyone outside of the 20 people here share it?  Eh...not so much.  That's fantasyland.

As for U2 and the Stones, I would argue the same.  For Stones, most know Jagger, some Richards, few know the rest.  Same with U2, who are still extremely popular.  Just for kicks, I just asked a co-worker, 'do you like U2?'  She said yes, she LOVES them.  When I asked her to name the band members and what instruments they play, she could only name Bono.

Well, your only hope would be The Edge.  You'd have to be a fan to know the other two.

But, being a lifelong wrestling fan, perhaps I am just a sucker for people with "The" as a first name.

[D-GenerationX]

Point is:  it cheapens the importance/contribution of the original group by saying it doesn't matter who (besides Axl) is in GnR.  If that were true, the current lineup would be as successful as the old.  They can certainly play the songs, but I don't think anyone could argue they're as successful.  And let's not get into the semantics of what defines "success."

Agree 100%. 

We saw the total lack of impact that an album with Axl and none of the originals had on the world at large.  Its right there in front of us and cannot be disputed.  No one cared.

And to touch on your semantics point, spot on.  This is where you typically are told about sales figures.  But then you are sort of back to that old joke someone once made about some boy band.  If all these people own it, how come I don't know any of them?  Or if it made all this impact, why do you never hear any CD song on the radio, or have anyone be able to name you a song off it?

Saying so long as we have Axl we are good, is a stretch.  Even though he is by far my favorite member of any incarnation of the band, and always will be.  He's been my favorite artist since I was 12 years old, and likely will be until God calls me.

[GeorgeSteele]

I won't speak for anyone else, but I can assure you I am happy with you going on seeing it however you want.  If I disagree with you, that doesn't mean I want you to agree with me.

I would phrase it like this.

I don't begrudge anyone having some of the opinions we hear at this board, even though I don't agree with them.

But, I would also say that you would be laughed out of any room in real life you tried to run some of this stuff up the flagpole, because very few of what is said at this board has any application with the people at large.  Roll their eyes at you at best, outright mock you at worst.  And if you fought me on that, yeah, I'd probably go a few rounds with you on it because I don't find that real world.

But anyone that says these things are their opinion, and they don't care what people would say...no worries.  Tell me that anyone outside of the 20 people here share it?  Eh...not so much.  That's fantasyland.

What opinions are fantasy?  We're currently discussing what a 'core' member is and, related to that, to what extent many fans know who any members are at all.  What specific opinion on that is so far out there to you and why?

[D-GenerationX]

What opinions are fantasy?  We're currently discussing what a 'core' member is and, related to that, to what extent many fans know who any members are at all.  What specific opinion on that is so far out there to you and why?

- that anyone besides we lifers considers this band Guns N' Roses or ever will
- that 'Chinese Democracy' made any sort of impact on the marketplace at large
- that the total lack of productivity is at all explicable or rational
- that the whole world is out to get Axl, who just can't get a break

You know, all the things we talk about around here.  We have our semantic debates and its fine as a lark amongst fellow fans like us still in this game, but you have to realize these are punchline topics to the world at large.

We sort of live in an alternate universe following this band, don't you think?

[GeorgeSteele]

What opinions are fantasy?  We're currently discussing what a 'core' member is and, related to that, to what extent many fans know who any members are at all.  What specific opinion on that is so far out there to you and why?

- that anyone besides we lifers considers this band Guns N' Roses or ever will
- that 'Chinese Democracy' made any sort of impact on the marketplace at large
- that the total lack of productivity is at all explicable or rational
- that the whole world is out to get Axl, who just can't get a break

You know, all the things we talk about around here.  We have our semantic debates and its fine as a lark amongst fellow fans like us still in this game, but you have to realize these are punchline topics to the world at large.

We sort of live in an alternate universe following this band, don't you think?

- that anyone besides we lifers considers this band Guns N' Roses or ever will

Few people besides lifers feel strongly one way or the other.  To everyone else, if the ticket or album cover says Guns N' Roses, then it's Guns N' Roses.

- that 'Chinese Democracy' made any sort of impact on the marketplace at large

I missed where anyone said that.

- that the total lack of productivity is at all explicable or rational

Most accounts suggest that there is a good amount of unreleased material.  That's not unproductive.  Getting it out has been a problem, but we just don't know enough to know why it hasn't.  Plenty of speculation has been tossed out there on why or why not, either take or leave it.

- that the whole world is out to get Axl, who just can't get a break

Again, I didn't notice anyone say this either.

[D-GenerationX]

Yeah, that whole post would pretty much be case in point.

[sandman]

Complete this sentence....

Axl and _________.

I say 75% of the world's population would get it right.

[GnR-NOW]

Most fans need the band to produce a hit single or AFD style successful album to consider them GNR. I mean Van Halen had hits with two different league singers, so I guess that makes it alright for them

[D-GenerationX]

Most fans need the band to produce a hit single or AFD style successful album to consider them GNR. I mean Van Halen had hits with two different league singers, so I guess that makes it alright for them

Ask yourself one question. 

If this is true :

Few people besides lifers feel strongly one way or the other.  To everyone else, if the ticket or album cover says Guns N' Roses, then it's Guns N' Roses.

...why are they playing to 65-75% capacity places in other countries, and 3-4,000 seat venues here in the States if "its Guns N' Roses".

Does that make sense?

Yes, *we* like it.  The diehards.  We're a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the big picture.