New Dj interview at LegendaryRockInterviews.com (Sep 2014)

[D-GenerationX]

I think AFD/UYI era GN?Rs greatest enemy were easily themselves. They were the only real obstacle in the way of attaining/maintaining Rolling Stones caliber status.
Not grunge, not numetal, hop hop etc. They were kings during the last great era of music, and would probably continue to be so today. No one carried the torch. Popular music today is watered down pop bullshit with no heart. Not everyone is fooled so easily. There would always be room for a band like GN?R. Foo Fighters and Green Day were in a lower tier than GN?R, Metallica, Nirvana etc but have maintained their massive popularity, in my opinion, thanks in part to the simple fact they managed to stay together.

Who?s to say they?d even be breathing today had they tried, but if they were, they?d still be huge.
The reason they aren't is because Axl is a once in a lifetime frontman, who lost his once in a lifetime band and chemistry.
The name is a band aid on a bullet wound.

Well said.

The name is a double edged sword.  Totally makes sense for business reasons.  "Guns N' Roses" still headlines festivals without a new album in 10-15 years.  "The Axl Rose Band" is on a side stage at 4PM.

But, downside is that the name has its own baggage, such as expectations and disappointment when you keep the name but change literally everything else (look, sound, personnel).

[JAEBALL]

I think AFD/UYI era GN?Rs greatest enemy were easily themselves. They were the only real obstacle in the way of attaining/maintaining Rolling Stones caliber status.
Not grunge, not numetal, hop hop etc. They were kings during the last great era of music, and would probably continue to be so today. No one carried the torch. Popular music today is watered down pop bullshit with no heart. Not everyone is fooled so easily. There would always be room for a band like GN?R. Foo Fighters and Green Day were in a lower tier than GN?R, Metallica, Nirvana etc but have maintained their massive popularity, in my opinion, thanks in part to the simple fact they managed to stay together.

Who?s to say they?d even be breathing today had they tried, but if they were, they?d still be huge.
The reason they aren't is because Axl is a once in a lifetime frontman, who lost his once in a lifetime band and chemistry.
The name is a band aid on a bullet wound.

I stood up and clapped after reading this.

[D-GenerationX]

Been a lot of good posts the past few pages.

We are all fans, but let's just be honest about stuff.

[Ali]

I think AFD/UYI era GN?Rs greatest enemy were easily themselves. They were the only real obstacle in the way of attaining/maintaining Rolling Stones caliber status.
Not grunge, not numetal, hop hop etc. They were kings during the last great era of music, and would probably continue to be so today. No one carried the torch. Popular music today is watered down pop bullshit with no heart. Not everyone is fooled so easily. There would always be room for a band like GN?R. Foo Fighters and Green Day were in a lower tier than GN?R, Metallica, Nirvana etc but have maintained their massive popularity, in my opinion, thanks in part to the simple fact they managed to stay together.

Who?s to say they?d even be breathing today had they tried, but if they were, they?d still be huge.
The reason they aren't is because Axl is a once in a lifetime frontman, who lost his once in a lifetime band and chemistry.
The name is a band aid on a bullet wound.

Interesting.  I remember quite a few people I knew turning away from hard rock bands like GN'R in favor of bands like Nirvana and Pearl Jam.  Now, I didn't agree with that, and personally could appreciate all of the bands, but I did feel at the time like there was a backlash against GN'R.

But, the point is I see a lot of people assuming that any decline in attendance in the US (and to a lesser extent, the rest of the world) due to the change in the band lineup.  I think that is a component, probably a large component.  However, many bands I like have seen (Queensryche, Megadeth, The Cult, and others) have had ebb and flows to their career.  GN'R could have seen that to some extent had the old lineup stayed together in some fashion.  The sales of The Spaghetti Incident and Live Era MAY have been indicative of a decline in commercial popularity. 

We'll never know for sure, though.

Ali

[D-GenerationX]

Not sure I'd put Queensryche, Megadeth, or The Cult on a level with GNR.

And I love me some Megadeth.  But even touring behind some of their more popular releases, they were still opening.

[draguns]

Ali, I think the original lineup would have been successful in the late 90s into the 2000s. I remember here in the NJ/NYC area Q104.3 had the  GNR version of "Hair of the Dog" as their theme song when they first started as an alternative rock station before turning to classic rock. This was around 96/97. They would have survived if they kept it together. As someone else said they were their own worst enemies. 

[Limulus]

releasing really great(!!) songs which touch fans and the general public wayyyy more (than weak CD did) + good promotion + strong live shows (that means strong voice, too!) might be the best way to succeed more in case of the band name, tickets + album sales etc.

AFD-reunion, with proper promotion, would mean sold out stadium tours worldwide, regardless CD era or any new songs. that could or even should be considered as fact. It just comes down to Axl again not willing to do so. That means no Rolling Stones lifestyle for his lifetime though aswell.

[mortismurphy]

You have to predict a lot here, but I believe an original GN'R, well a band with any resemblance to the 1987-93 era, would have always outsold New guns simply because, so many fans deserted the ship when Axl appropriated the name, when Slash left. Would they have had a mid-90s downturn in sales as the grunge-nu metal movement gathered momentum? Probably, but I could see them retaining Metallica like levels of success, assuming they continued to release albums. Whether they would have aspired to The Stones's legacy, that is speculation (The Stones have a much bigger discography with many masterpieces - GN'R only really has Appetite). They had the raw ingredients there to do it, certainly.

[reayj2003]

The current line up tour and pack arenas in Europe, Australia, South America etc. There Vegas residencys do fantastic business. Metallica have said that touring the states is not as feesable financialy..so it's not just Guns N'Roses.

Would a tour with the old band sell better- yes but who cares. Why is this topic a reunion discussion??

Did the rock n roll hall of fame not end this??

[D-GenerationX]

Why is this topic a reunion discussion??

Did the rock n roll hall of fame not end this??

I'm not sure it is a reunion discussion though.

I don't see anyone the past few pages calling for a reunion.  In fact, the people on the past few pages (myself very much included) are all fans of the current band.  We also all beat the drum pretty loudly for a new album.

What I think you are seeing is some pushback against some of the sillier arguments being made about the old band.  Which seem to be done rather transparently as a way to build up the current band, or put the best spin on the current situation, which sadly, is what it is.

[jarmo]

Yes, GNR were among the biggest, if not the biggest band, in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

That's still no guarantee people know the band members today.
U2 was brought up. They were also huge. They might not sell records like they used to but they have kept themselves in the spotlight for decades. Does it mean people can name anyone besides Bono? Not necessarily. And do people know Bono because he sings One? Not necessarily. Do people know Bono because they know him as "the guy who's trying to save the world"? Maybe....


By the way, my comments about some of us being around back then was in no way any kind of attack on anybody. I've said it before, this board is for every GN'R fan, no matter when you were born. We all share the same interest for GN'R. Anyone who claims my comments meant something else is just looking for the wrong things to have something to whine about.

The comment was merely a reminder that you should never assume you know who's reading what your post.




/jarmo

[GeorgeSteele]

Why is this topic a reunion discussion??

Did the rock n roll hall of fame not end this??

I'm not sure it is a reunion discussion though.

I don't see anyone the past few pages calling for a reunion.  In fact, the people on the past few pages (myself very much included) are all fans of the current band.  We also all beat the drum pretty loudly for a new album.

What I think you are seeing is some pushback against some of the sillier arguments being made about the old band.  Which seem to be done rather transparently as a way to build up the current band, or put the best spin on the current situation, which sadly, is what it is.

What's silly is the notion that everyone in the world, except some board members here, thinks the current band 'isn't Guns N' Roses' because Slash, Izzy and Duff are not in the band, when so many fans of the band around the world don't know and never knew specific members.  That is not to build up the current band or to knock the classic lineup, that's just reality.  That's also not to say that a huge chunk of fans didn't jump ship when the classic lineup broke up.   Sure they did, but to say that 99.7% of the world thinks this isn't Guns N' Roses is wacky. 

[D-GenerationX]

What's silly is the notion that everyone in the world, except some board members here, thinks the current band 'isn't Guns N' Roses' because Slash, Izzy and Duff are not in the band, when so many fans of the band around the world don't know and never knew specific members.  That is not to build up the current band or to knock the classic lineup, that's just reality.  That's also not to say that a huge chunk of fans didn't jump ship when the classic lineup broke up.   Sure they did, but to say that 99.7% of the world thinks this isn't Guns N' Roses is wacky.

But that is so easily refuted by the near total lack of demand or impact the current band has.  Classic GNR never hurt for either.

If all these people still truly considered this current band GNR, they wouldn't be playing 3,000 seat spots, in one city.  Why are no new songs known outside these forums?  Because no one but us cares.  If you called up your local radio station and asked for a block of GNR, would even one song from CD be in there?  Or even considered?

This is exactly what I'm talking about.  Why is it so hard for you to accept the reality that people don't consider this GNR?  Is it that hard to say out loud?  Where's the harm in accepting reality?  Does it make you feel like some bad fan to admit what's obvious to all?

The typical answer is that *you* see them that way, and that's all you care about.  I'm not disputing that stance.  But all available evidence suggests you are in the extreme minority.

[GeorgeSteele]

What's silly is the notion that everyone in the world, except some board members here, thinks the current band 'isn't Guns N' Roses' because Slash, Izzy and Duff are not in the band, when so many fans of the band around the world don't know and never knew specific members.  That is not to build up the current band or to knock the classic lineup, that's just reality.  That's also not to say that a huge chunk of fans didn't jump ship when the classic lineup broke up.   Sure they did, but to say that 99.7% of the world thinks this isn't Guns N' Roses is wacky.

But that is so easily refuted by the near total lack of demand or impact the current band has.  Classic GNR never hurt for either.

If all these people still truly considered this current band GNR, they wouldn't be playing 3,000 seat spots, in one city.  Why are no new songs known outside these forums?  Because no one but us cares.  If you called up your local radio station and asked for a block of GNR, would even one song from CD be in there?  Or even considered?

This is exactly what I'm talking about.  Why is it so hard for you to accept the reality that people don't consider this GNR?  Is it that hard to say out loud?  Where's the harm in accepting reality?  Does it make you feel like some bad fan to admit what's obvious to all?

The typical answer is that *you* see them that way, and that's all you care about.  I'm not disputing that stance.  But all available evidence suggests you are in the extreme minority.

Total lack of demand?  What?  The band has had 2 US tours since releasing CD plus the international tours plus the residencies.  There was no demand for those?  In recent years, I have gone to shows at MSG and Jersey, both having well more than 3000 people.  CD sold millions worldwide. No demand?  Are you seriously arguing that all those people going to shows and buying the album are only current band die-hards who follow tweets about what Axl eats for breakfast.  Really? 

People don't consider this band Guns N' Roses.  Very easy for me to say that.  However, not even close to 99.7% of 'people' feel that way, given that not even close to 99.7% know the band that well.  Why is it so hard for you to accept that reality? Does it make you feel like some bad fan of the classic lineup to admit what's obvious to all?

[D-GenerationX]

Look, I'm not trying to be an asshole here.

But this is like talking to a campaign manager who's guy is 25 points down in every conceivable poll a week out from the election, yet keeps assuring me that all is well.

If I can produce easily verifiable evidence that completely refutes your stance, and all you can do is shrug and tell me "nuh-uh", it would appear that we are at an impasse on this one.

It happens.  We move on.

EDIT : were we at the same show in 2011?  Camden?  Or were you at the Meadowlands?

[jarmo]

I agree with GeorgeSteele. 200+ shows since December 2009 without any demand? Right...
And around 80 in the US alone.

I guess the popular belief among some is that all these people going to the shows know who were in the band, know the history, and still goes hoping to catch those guys at the shows....Since there's "no demand" for GN'R, they must be going to see the old band. They've educated themselves and memorized the names of who was in the band in the 1980s, but somehow didn't read any of the press about those guys leaving. Must be the case since there's "no demand" for current GN'R. 


Or maybe they don't pay attention to who was or is in the band as long as they have a great fucking time..... Which they always will at a GN'R show.


Amazing how difficult it's sometimes to give credit where it's due. But if someone does it, it's to "disrespect the old band" in order to built up the current band. What a load of bs.



/jarmo

[Ja5oN]

"Or maybe they don't pay attention to who was or is in the band as long as they have a great fucking time..... Which they always will at a GN'R show."

 

That is the point of a concert .... right?

[jarmo]

Yeah. I'd say the majority of people attending shows go to hear their favorite songs and have a good time.

Do they have a preference on who plays what instrument? Not necessarily. When that's a major condition for someone to attend a show, I assume they'll just stay home.

It's like if you want to see a specific player in a team and he's been traded to some other team, you won't see him at the next home game. Unless it's against his new team.


Is there a demand for bands who have changed members to reunite? Yes. Does it mean there's no demand for those bands unless they do so? No.




/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

Is there a demand for bands who have changed members to reunite? Yes. Does it mean there's no demand for those bands unless they do so? No.

There is incredibly less demand and the band has little relevance outside their already existing fan clubs who ask no questions.

When you are papering the house in a 3,000 seat venue, you ain't on top of the world looking down on creation, no matter how many times you say that's the case.

I'm sorry for you.  Not sorry for me.

[JAEBALL]

Yeah. I'd say the majority of people attending shows go to hear their favorite songs and have a good time.

Do they have a preference on who plays what instrument? Not necessarily. When that's a major condition for someone to attend a show, I assume they'll just stay home.

It's like if you want to see a specific player in a team and he's been traded to some other team, you won't see him at the next home game. Unless it's against his new team.


Is there a demand for bands who have changed members to reunite? Yes. Does it mean there's no demand for those bands unless they do so? No.




/jarmo

Unfortunately tho when a sports star turns 50 .. he cant play anymore ... these guys can still play, but for alllll the reasons we know they don't...

I agree A LOT of people will go see Axl play and not care who is in the band because they love the songs.

I am one of them...but I'd also prefer to see the people who created the song...play them... no crime in admitting that. It shouldn't be viewed as disrespect to the guys playing the parts now. And its not just a Slash, Izzy or Duff thing... I would also much rather prefer to see Bucket and or Robin on the Chinese material.