New Dj interview at LegendaryRockInterviews.com (Sep 2014)

[Ginger King]

@emilyGnr

You bring nothing to the discussion other than bashing others opinions that you don't agree with

And if you were bashing somebody who had more positive opinions of modern day GnR you would probably be banned , but because you defend Axl and the team you get a pass

But you still are just nasty about it

Dx and others don't insult anybody here like you just did ...it's low class

So you are low-class by addressing me and defending the "member" that goes from forum to forum daily making disparaging remarks about GNR, physician heal thyself. Pot, Kettle, black.

I am honestly tired of slogging through his negative litanies that he feels compelled to repeat day in and day out, and labelling them "discussions" is but a thin facade for his hater posts.

I saw some great shows this year, I'm enjoying the DVD/Blu-ray release and I'm looking forward to the next move with GNR. If there are shows, I will be there, when there are releases I will get them, I am optimistic and I support GNR.

No I'm not insulting you ... Just stating that you were being very insulting .. There's a big difference
Dx is never insulting to you yet you attack him by saying he needs help...just because you don't agree with his ideas or why he expresses them

And I even agree that sometimes he goes over board for no real reason other than to pass time... But that's his choice and again he's not attacking other posters

He continually reiterates the same tired arguments and habitually voices his displeasure with almost every aspect of the band , from business decisions, to bad-mouthing management, to set lists and constantly hurls insults at the band not only on this site but on several others.

I get tired of hearing the refuse and the endless repititions of his fault finding and complaining, his biased views as well as his comments aimed at others who actually support this band, and are positive.

Imagine that, a positive fan on a forum dedicated to a band, what a novel concept.  

D-X is certainly not a Guns hater, or Axl hater, or nuGuns hater, or whatever name you call people that disagree with you.  IMO he?s one of the more intelligent posters here, in terms of GnR knowledge and snarky/witty posts.  Why do you have to act all motherly and lash out because someone said something bad about your baby (and it?s not even bad so much as one person?s honest opinion about the current state of affairs). 

Newsflash:  of course all of this is our opinion, and of course we?re not all going to disagree.  If you think that the classic lineup would be playing the same venues and receive the same type of indifference from the general public, then fine.  I think you?re 100% wrong, but whatever.  Believe on.  If you think what Axl did to this band is the same thing that other people have done, super.  Again, I think you?re wrong.

But your posts add nothing, other than stating the obvious (thank you for letting us know D-X doesn?t have any input into the GnR decision making process) and labeling anyone that disagrees with you as a bitter ex-fan, trolling reunionist. 

As annoyed as you are by all the negative and complaining posts that are on here (which is really funny when you think about it) your holier-than-thou, insulting, cult-like approach is even more so. 

[D-GenerationX]

@emilyGnr

You bring nothing to the discussion other than bashing others opinions that you don't agree with

Pretty much.  I gave up on her as a serious poster a few weeks ago.

If all you can bring to the table is calling people mean names because you disagree with them, any Youtube comment thread might be more your speed.

[D-GenerationX]

And also, I like how Gen X often plays the devil's advocate (not sure if I am using this phrase correctly or not). He is generous with his opinions and it is always interesting to see him engage in debates. To me he seems to be a very dedicated and controversial forum member. He must really like GNR considering the amount of time he spends discussing their operations.

I'm just looking for a conversation with fellow fans, which we all are.

I happen to still be legitimately interested in what Axl is doing, and the only place to discuss that is here.  The other sites are fun as a diversion, but not a lot of serious conversation about the current situation.

I'm never going to popular here because I don't just wave the pom-poms.  Which is fine.  Its just not who I am.  Even though I spend every day here with guns trained on me constantly, I'm not just going to start lashing out at people like a child.  That's not a serious was to have a constructive dialogue.

[D-GenerationX]

I am honestly tired of slogging through his negative litanies that he feels compelled to repeat day in and day out, and labelling them "discussions" is but a thin facade for his hater posts.

And believe me when I tell you that every day I hope you can eventually overpower the guy with the gun to the back of your head forcing you to not just read them, but respond to them.

[D-GenerationX]

Know what gets me?  I just looked at your post history and almost every post you present your own self important opinions about D-X as if your opinion of him really matters.  One of these posts you say that he's not entitled to his own opinion, only an informed opinion.  Well, his opinion, which I often share, is as informed as its going to get given the information we have.  Of course there's speculation, but Gn'R unfortunately invites that due to lack of information and unusual way of doing business.  Perhaps the narrative is a bit tired by now, but I guess you could say the same about your constant need to belittle the opinions of someone you disagree with.  And to say that D-X has no life, well sounds like an uninformed opinion to me.  So ya know, pots and kettles and stuff. 

She's not a fan.  I think we can see that.

Well, yes and no.  She thinks I should set myself on fucking fire, but can't seem to resist responding to every single thing I post to remind me of this fact. 

She doesn't give me a lot of credit for being able to take a hint.  But I can assure her, I'm all set on that.

[D-GenerationX]

If you think Generation is critical and negative, then you really need to get out more and see what is being said on other GN'R communities. The fact of the matter is that, of all the fans who have ever supported Guns N' Roses at some stage in the past, most of them now routinely express, at best sarcastic indifference, at worst outright hostility (to Axl and newgnr). He has leaked a heck of a lot of fans, Axl, over the years and I am not simply talking about leathered up old school 'reunionistas': there was a lot of fans who were actually highly supportive of new gnr around 2002 and later, when Bucket and Robin were in, but ditched the ship for various reasons.

Generation ironically is probably the most positive and supportive fan in those places!

Its weird, I do find that.

I'm not a big extremes guy.  Here, everything is awesome!!...which is not reality.  But at some of the other spots, the sky is falling 24/7/365, which is also not very realistic.

I've been both an "Axl nuswinger" and and "Axl apologist", based on the board I'm on at the time.  And usually deemed as such by people with their minds already made up and not interested in a real conversation.

No worries.  The internet can be a snippy place.

[jarmo]

There's more things than just the name that are still the same with GN'R today, as they were in the past. People just (choose to) forget that.

Everyone leaving the damn band is not the same as Gilby replacing Izzy mid-tour.  I don't care how many times you try and run that up the flagpole.

Never said it was so don't put words in my mouth. Thanks.
Your attempt at ridiculing a simple sentence by twisting it into something extreme failed.

This "same as it ever was" narrative you push is pretty silly.  There are 2 distinct eras of this band.  Why can't we just say that? 

I said "There's more things than just the name that are still the same with GN'R today, as they were in the past.". You obviously didn't counter that with anything.

 


/jarmo

[jarmo]

i'm not even sure what people are arguing about in this thread.

Basically we have fans here who admitted that they don't consider this to be GN'R arguing with people who do.
On a GN'R fan site.... That's not solely dedicated to the old band.



/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

There's more things than just the name that are still the same with GN'R today, as they were in the past. People just (choose to) forget that.

Everyone leaving the damn band is not the same as Gilby replacing Izzy mid-tour.  I don't care how many times you try and run that up the flagpole.

Never said it was so don't put words in my mouth. Thanks.
Your attempt at ridiculing a simple sentence by twisting it into something extreme failed.

Then pick any of your strained analogies, it makes no difference.  That's just the first one that came to mind. 

The overall point is the same.  This band has 2 distinct eras.  1985-1994, and then 2001-present.

Your constant need to try and reconcile them both into one continuous timeline and draw comparisons over both eras only leads to us having the exact same fights over and over again.

And for what?  If you believe its all continuous and free flowing, so be it.  You have your reasons.  Most of the world does not and never will.  If you were going to change minds on that, it would have happened by now.

[Ginger King]

i'm not even sure what people are arguing about in this thread.

Basically we have fans here who admitted that they don't consider this to be GN'R arguing with people who do.
On a GN'R fan site.... That's not solely dedicated to the old band.



/jarmo

It?s slightly more nuanced than that.  We have people here who like the current lineup, have seem them multiple times, and have repeatedly stated the next step they would like to see for GnR would be for the current lineup to record and release new music.  I don?t recall myself, or D-X, clamoring for a reunion.  These people also believe that, despite having fun at these shows, that the current lineup is not on par, musically or creatively, with the classic lineup.  These people look at facts (i.e. no music created/released, setlists more and more the old catalogue, declining ticket sales, smaller venues) and deduce that the band is more of a touring act than a band.  But we?ll take what we can get, because we?re still Axl fans.

We then have people who think that the current lineup is as good, if not better, than the old lineup.  These people point to facts like they?ve toured the world and played 200+ shows to demonstrate their success.  They also dismiss our facts and think that, had the old lineup stayed intact, they would suffer from the same decline in venue size, ticket sales and general apathy than the current lineup.
 
These people also will instantly label anyone that questions the current state of affairs, the direction of the band, the lack of communication, etc., as a whining, complaining ingrate whose life depends on a reunion, and will insult them for believing that a band should release music.  They dogmatically believe any decision made (or not made) by the band is the right one (always), and that our opinions are invalid (especially if it conflicts with theirs) because we?re not in the decision-making room.

That?s essentially is what people are arguing about in this thread.

[D-GenerationX]

Basically we have fans here who admitted that they don't consider this to be GN'R arguing with people who do.
On a GN'R fan site.... That's not solely dedicated to the old band.

I tend to see it more that we have people here that recognize that the mindset on this board exists nowhere else.  Nowhere else would a lot of the arguments made here elicit anything but laughter.

And this is a big problem for some.  There is strong pushback over this.

Now me, personally, it depends on how literal you want to take the idea.  In my view, the band that just toured this year is Guns N' Roses because that's how they market themselves and GNR material is what they play.  In that sense, its Guns N' Roses.  Would I introduce the current band to someone that has never heard of GNR as Guns N' Roses?  No, I would not.

Once again, big problem for some.  Also strong pushback.

There seems to be a real concerted effort to try and change the minds of a world that has long rejected what you are trying to sell.  I just question why what that should matter to you so much.  If what you think makes sense to you, then that's all that matters, isn't it?

[D-GenerationX]

It?s slightly more nuanced than that.  We have people here who like the current lineup, have seem them multiple times, and have repeatedly stated the next step they would like to see for GnR would be for the current lineup to record and release new music.  I don?t recall myself, or D-X, clamoring for a reunion.  These people also believe that, despite having fun at these shows, that the current lineup is not on par, musically or creatively, with the classic lineup.  These people look at facts (i.e. no music created/released, setlists more and more the old catalogue, declining ticket sales, smaller venues) and deduce that the band is more of a touring act than a band.  But we?ll take what we can get, because we?re still Axl fans.

We then have people who think that the current lineup is as good, if not better, than the old lineup.  These people point to facts like they?ve toured the world and played 200+ shows to demonstrate their success.  They also dismiss our facts and think that, had the old lineup stayed intact, they would suffer from the same decline in venue size, ticket sales and general apathy than the current lineup.
 
These people also will instantly label anyone that questions the current state of affairs, the direction of the band, the lack of communication, etc., as a whining, complaining ingrate whose life depends on a reunion, and will insult them for believing that a band should release music.  They dogmatically believe any decision made (or not made) by the band is the right one (always), and that our opinions are invalid (especially if it conflicts with theirs) because we?re not in the decision-making room.

That?s essentially is what people are arguing about in this thread.

And really, every thread.

[JAEBALL]

It?s slightly more nuanced than that.  We have people here who like the current lineup, have seem them multiple times, and have repeatedly stated the next step they would like to see for GnR would be for the current lineup to record and release new music.  I don?t recall myself, or D-X, clamoring for a reunion.  These people also believe that, despite having fun at these shows, that the current lineup is not on par, musically or creatively, with the classic lineup.  These people look at facts (i.e. no music created/released, setlists more and more the old catalogue, declining ticket sales, smaller venues) and deduce that the band is more of a touring act than a band.  But we?ll take what we can get, because we?re still Axl fans.

We then have people who think that the current lineup is as good, if not better, than the old lineup.  These people point to facts like they?ve toured the world and played 200+ shows to demonstrate their success.  They also dismiss our facts and think that, had the old lineup stayed intact, they would suffer from the same decline in venue size, ticket sales and general apathy than the current lineup.
 
These people also will instantly label anyone that questions the current state of affairs, the direction of the band, the lack of communication, etc., as a whining, complaining ingrate whose life depends on a reunion, and will insult them for believing that a band should release music.  They dogmatically believe any decision made (or not made) by the band is the right one (always), and that our opinions are invalid (especially if it conflicts with theirs) because we?re not in the decision-making room.

That?s essentially is what people are arguing about in this thread.

And really, every thread.

the threads seem to snowball.... I know why jarmo and others get tired of this... i understand the other side of the coin... sometimes it gets pushed for no real reason... other times I feel he simply starts the same argument by making some kind of comment i.e. "the same people who said the album would never come out " or " the same people demanding more interviews or a new album " which I don't buy

the comments that bother me are simply that this is the best version in gnr's history... GNR (whatever that means to you ) and the GNR fanbase particularly the online community would just be so much better off if they didn't compare "lineups"

I dont really separate the appetite lineup vs the illusion lineup..because the same 4 guys wrote the songs on all three records...

so since then in 1994 its been 20 years...6 guitar players, 5 drummers and 13 songs... its a hard sell

[jarmo]

The overall point is the same.  This band has 2 distinct eras.  1985-1994, and then 2001-present.

Makes no difference to me if you divide the band's history into a million eras!
That's not an issue at all. You keep bringing this up, I never said a damn thing about it!  

I know you can divide the band's history into eras until the cows come home. So what?

Your constant need to try and reconcile them both into one continuous timeline and draw comparisons over both eras only leads to us having the exact same fights over and over again.

But it is a continuous timeline. I think that's what causes you all this grief. You can't accept that the history of Guns N' Roses keeps going. You and your eras...

And for what?  If you believe its all continuous and free flowing, so be it.  You have your reasons.  Most of the world does not and never will.  If you were going to change minds on that, it would have happened by now.

Once again, most of the world is something I pay little or no attention to on a Guns N' Roses FAN site.

Most band's or artist's careers can be divided into eras. Nothing to do with who left or anything. People seem to use this as some kind of excuse/reason and make it seem GN'R specific. It's not. People just like to do this. "I like the Achtung Baby era U2 better than the current".... And so on.

It seems to me that people like yourself, who don't accept this band as GN'R, have some kind of need to put labels on things to distance it from "your" band. "New GN'R", "Axl's band" or whatever. It's almost like you're afraid of getting it mixed up with your band!

"It's not the same!!!! I don't like this band, I love the old! Don't mix them up! Don't make fun of me!!!!".  

It?s slightly more nuanced than that.  We have people here who like the current lineup, have seem them multiple times, and have repeatedly stated the next step they would like to see for GnR would be for the current lineup to record and release new music.  I don?t recall myself, or D-X, clamoring for a reunion.  These people also believe that, despite having fun at these shows, that the current lineup is not on par, musically or creatively, with the classic lineup.  These people look at facts (i.e. no music created/released, setlists more and more the old catalogue, declining ticket sales, smaller venues) and deduce that the band is more of a touring act than a band.  But we?ll take what we can get, because we?re still Axl fans.

We then have people who think that the current lineup is as good, if not better, than the old lineup.  These people point to facts like they?ve toured the world and played 200+ shows to demonstrate their success.  They also dismiss our facts and think that, had the old lineup stayed intact, they would suffer from the same decline in venue size, ticket sales and general apathy than the current lineup.

You forgot to add to the first group: People who have a difficult time giving the current band any credit because they don't think it's GN'R and who also have a view of the past that's not always as factual as they seem to think.

I point out that the band played 200+ shows, so I take it you're taking a dig at me? I think it's a fun little fact that seems to get overlooked by people. It's kinda interesting how this band played more shows together than the Use Your Illusion tour combined...

Also, what's this "if the old band stayed intact" thing? The Skin N' Bones tour was basically GN'R playing smaller venues and/or markets in the USA wasn't it? They went abroad to play the stadiums in 1993. There was no demand? I thought that only applied to the current band.... 

So you see, the people who make that kind of assumptions might have a reason. They might remember. Oh, and this is not some kind of attack on younger fans, just a friendly reminder before I get attacked again. 


Do you know what the "issue" is? At the core, it's that people look back at the past and think of it as something amazing. Nothing wrong with that. But at the same time, it's easy to forget the other side. Everything wasn't as perfect as you remember. Or maybe you don't remember (depending on if you were born or a fan at the time). Then that's compared to something you've already told yourself there's no way you can like/enjoy too much because it's not the same as your idea of the perfect past....

Some of us don't have these "problems", we've enjoyed the ride ever since we became fans. 



/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

I dont really separate the appetite lineup vs the illusion lineup..because the same 4 guys wrote the songs on all three records...

so since then in 1994 its been 20 years...6 guitar players, 5 drummers and 13 songs... its a hard sell

The only commonalities I see in the 1985-1994 era and 2001-present era are the presence Axl Rose and use of the name Guns N' Roses.

So I tend to dismiss the "I just think its interesting..." type stuff that tries to compare something today to something that happened in 1992.  Its 2 completely different bands that just happen to legally use the same name for (admittedly very wise) business purposes.

If you want to compare Ron leaving to when Bucket or Robin left, fine.  But comparing it Steven or Izzy?  I don't see it.  I see that as you just trying to further push the "its always been this way" narrative that seems to be pushed to make this all seem normal.

[GeorgeSteele]

The only commonalities I see in the 1985-1994 era and 2001-present era are the presence Axl Rose and use of the name Guns N' Roses.

So I tend to dismiss the "I just think its interesting..." type stuff that tries to compare something today to something that happened in 1992.  Its 2 completely different bands that just happen to legally use the same name for (admittedly very wise) business purposes.

Business reasons of course, but you don't see the artistic reasons for doing so?  I think CD was an excellent album partly because they band knew they had a legacy to live up to when making the album.  Whether or not it succeeded in doing so (and whether or not you like CD) is not the point, but the fact that it was trying to do so made the album much better than it otherwise would have been.  Same goes for the live shows, the guys put more pressure on themselves to bring it because they want to maintain the greatness that the band name is associated with.

[D-GenerationX]

But it is a continuous timeline. I think that's what causes you all this grief. You can't accept that the history of Guns N' Roses keeps going. You and your eras...

More like me and my real world.  I'd move out, but I'm locked into the lease.

Once again, most of the world is something I pay little or no attention to on a Guns N' Roses FAN site.

I used to think this when I didn't actually post here had only heard about you and your whole deal.

Now that I've been here a year, I got news for you.  You care.  You care a whole bunch of lot.  You get very defensive, likeyou are doing....  

Most band's or artist's careers can be divided into eras. Nothing to do with who left or anything. People seem to use this as some kind of excuse/reason and make it seem GN'R specific. It's not. People just like to do this. "I like the Achtung Baby era U2 better than the current".... And so on.

It seems to me that people like yourself, who don't accept this band as GN'R, have some kind of need to put labels on things to distance it from "your" band. "New GN'R", "Axl's band" or whatever. It's almost like you're afraid of getting it mixed up with your band!

"It's not the same!!!! I don't like this band, I love the old! Don't mix them up! Don't make fun of me!!!!".  

...like you are doing right here.

You forgot to add to the first group: People who have a difficult time giving the current band any credit because they don't think it's GN'R and who also have a view of the past that's not always as factual as they seem to think.

Once again, very defensive.

I point out that the band played 200+ shows, so I take it you're taking a dig at me? I think it's a fun little fact that seems to get overlooked by people. It's kinda interesting how this band played more shows together than the Use Your Illusion tour combined...

How?  How is it all interesting?

The only time this is even relevant is if you are asked the question "hey, which line-up played more shows".  But no one ever asks that.  You often introduce this point when it has little if anything to do with the question.  Sort of like you are doing right now.

Also, what's this "if the old band stayed intact" thing? The Skin N' Bones tour was basically GN'R playing smaller venues and/or markets in the USA wasn't it? They went abroad to play the stadiums in 1993. There was no demand? I thought that only applied to the current band.... 

No.  It was in 20,000 seat arenas the current band would be anywhere from extremely hard pressed to flat out incapable of replicating.

Now, if your argument that it was a step down from the football stadiums they did the previous summer, I will concede that take on it.  Of course, when was the current band ever able to fill a football stadium here?  Shit, even book such a tour here?

Do you know what the "issue" is? At the core, it's that people look back at the past and think of it as something amazing. Nothing wrong with that. But at the same time, it's easy to forget the other side. Everything wasn't as perfect as you remember. Or maybe you don't remember (depending on if you were born or a fan at the time). Then that's compared to something you've already told yourself there's no way you can like/enjoy too much because it's not the same as your idea of the perfect past....

The memory cheats.  The memory absolutely cheats.

Yet while it may cheat, but it doesn't rob you blind.  The band today does not have but a fraction of the impact, demand, or general acceptance that the old band did.  That's just how it is.  Its not some crime to point that out.  Nor is it wrong to push back a bit on anyone trying to argue that very, very, very easily proven premise.

In other words, to be blunt...you bring a lot of this on yourself with some of your stances.  No one would even be making these comparisons to days gone by if you didn't keep trying to compare the two.  

[IKnowWhereIAM]

Why does every topic on here eventually end up in the same tired old argument? I see "new" and figure someone is sharing insight on DJ's interview, and it is the same old stuff that every topic degenerates into.  I hope Axl has new music...I like/respect his art...I hope DJ is right, and will wait patiently to see what they come up with.

[Ginger King]

I point out that the band played 200+ shows, so I take it you're taking a dig at me? I think it's a fun little fact that seems to get overlooked by people. It's kinda interesting how this band played more shows together than the Use Your Illusion tour combined...



/jarmo

No, I'm not taking a dig at you at all...I know they have played 200+ shows.  In fact, I have called them the most stable lineup in the history of Guns.  What I find hard to reconcile is that, for a band that has played 200+ shows, they cannot find the time/desire/need to make new music.  200+ shows...all around the world...not one thing created by this lineup.

I (and I think some others here too) find that odd.  Other people do not find that odd, and are quick to either (a) point out excuses (albums don't sell anymore, it's the record company's fault, other bands have spent just as long, etc.) and (b) beat the "you're not entitled to new music you worthless non-fan" drum. 

[D-GenerationX]

Business reasons of course, but you don't see the artistic reasons for doing so?  I think CD was an excellent album partly because they band knew they had a legacy to live up to when making the album.  Whether or not it succeeded in doing so (and whether or not you like CD) is not the point, but the fact that it was trying to do so made the album much better than it otherwise would have been.  Same goes for the live shows, the guys put more pressure on themselves to bring it because they want to maintain the greatness that the band name is associated with.

I see more business reasons than artistic reasons.  And business reasons I agree with 100%, by the way.

"The Axl Rose Band" has a way tougher time getting booked than "Guns N Roses".  Brands are huge in this business.  Its why every band that breaks up fights to the death for rights to their name.  The winner of those battles have a way easier time of it than the ones that can't use it.