New Dj interview at LegendaryRockInterviews.com (Sep 2014)

[D-GenerationX]

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.

Well, we are also on page 17 here.  Once the original topic is sort of talked out, the conversation does evolve a bit.

[D-GenerationX]

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. 

Yep.

Which is crazy, because every single person still posting about this band at this particular board is still a fan.  I don't see one person here that isn't still interested in what the current band is up to and whatnot.  There are no "GNR played their last gig on 7-17-93" types here.

[Ginger King]

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.

True, "new" DJ interview is kind of misleading, since it's been the same interview for many years now.

Honestly, what's the point of any fan forum if the mission is to wait and not comment on anything?

GK:  Hey D-X, what's up?

D-X:  Not much, waiting patiently and without judgment until I'm told otherwise.

GK:  Cool brah, me too.

That would make things pretty boring.

[Ginger King]

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. 

Yep.

Which is crazy, because every single person still posting about this band at this particular board is still a fan.  I don't see one person here that isn't still interested in what the current band is up to and whatnot.  There are no "GNR played their last gig on 7-17-93" types here.

Exactly, but it is convenient and fits their narrative to lump us in with those folks.

[D-GenerationX]

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.

True, "new" DJ interview is kind of misleading, since it's been the same interview for many years now.

Honestly, what's the point of any fan forum if the mission is to wait and not comment on anything?

GK:  Hey D-X, what's up?

D-X:  Not much, waiting patiently and without judgment until I'm told otherwise.

GK:  Cool brah, me too.

That would make things pretty boring.

Yeah, I've never gotten that.  There would be literally weeks, if not months, with no posts whatsoever.

I've always found it quizzical that speculation is so frowned upon.  Like we are talking behind the band's back or something, and won't they be pissed when they find out.

[D-GenerationX]

Which is crazy, because every single person still posting about this band at this particular board is still a fan.  I don't see one person here that isn't still interested in what the current band is up to and whatnot.  There are no "GNR played their last gig on 7-17-93" types here.

Exactly, but it is convenient and fits their narrative to lump us in with those folks.

The ultimate irony being that we hate those people too.

Well, maybe "hate" is a strong word, so let's say annoyed by them, just the same.

[gnrfan1797]

I think everyone's opinion is just as valid as the next. People are going to disagree and argue but when all is said n done you can't argue with the music. I'm betting my bottom dollar that when given the chance 99% of the board will go see guns when given the chance.

[JAEBALL]

I think everyone's opinion is just as valid as the next. People are going to disagree and argue but when all is said n done you can't argue with the music. I'm betting my bottom dollar that when given the chance 99% of the board will go see guns when given the chance.

Absolutely... and because of Axl and the material we are gunna have a great night every time

and if they do US/NY id give it all away for them to play at the Forest Hills Tennis Club where the Replacements and Lil Wayne/Drake just played...it was just announced the WHO are going to play here this spring...they played here back in the 60's i think

its an amazing place...and walking distance from my house..capacity is around 12k , they didnt have concerts here for about 40 years... but they are starting back up

[D-GenerationX]

I think everyone's opinion is just as valid as the next. People are going to disagree and argue but when all is said n done you can't argue with the music. I'm betting my bottom dollar that when given the chance 99% of the board will go see guns when given the chance.

Agreed.

And you can fundamentally disagree but still have a constructive conversation.  You can even have some laughs about it.  We are talking about a rock band here.  It should be lighthearted.

I just don't have much time for presenting an opinion someone dislikes and, instead of talking about that topic, they tell you to fuck off and die because you aren't real fan, and...not for noting, are probably a fat virgin living in your parent's basement grossly unhappy with life.

Seems a little over the top as a reaction to the argument that 'This I Love' is not a great song, you know?  Chillax, people.

[gnrfan1797]

I think everyone's opinion is just as valid as the next. People are going to disagree and argue but when all is said n done you can't argue with the music. I'm betting my bottom dollar that when given the chance 99% of the board will go see guns when given the chance.

Agreed.

And you can fundamentally disagree but still have a constructive conversation.  You can even have some laughs about it.  We are talking about a rock band here.  It should be lighthearted.

I just don't have much time for presenting an opinion someone dislikes and, instead of talking about that topic, they tell you to fuck off and die because you aren't real fan, and...not for noting, are probably a fat virgin living in your parent's basement grossly unhappy with life.

Seems a little over the top as a reaction to the argument that 'This I Love' is not a great song, you know?  Chillax, people.

I agree! This shouldn't be a "let's slam this guy" post. I'm assuming most of us are adults. So. And I don't know anyone personally on this board but if given chance at concert I'd buy a round of beers n have a good time.

[GeorgeSteele]

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.

Whichever reasons one puts more weight on is a matter of opinion.  My point is that if Axl abandoned the name, together with the vision that he associates with the name, and instead went the "Axl Rose Band" route, it's not just Axl's wallet that would have suffered --- fans would have paid the price as well because we'd have weaker music and weaker shows. 

And before you say anything about how little music has been released, I really doubt that would have changed if he didn't use the name.  If anything, I think it's possible we would have never seen any creative output from him ever again if he abandoned the name.

[D-GenerationX]

Whichever reasons one puts more weight on is a matter of opinion.  My point is that if Axl abandoned the name, together with the vision that he associates with the name, and instead went the "Axl Rose Band" route, it's not just Axl's wallet that would have suffered --- fans would have paid the price as well because we'd have weaker music and weaker shows. 

Weaker shows, I agree.  Because they'd be in these tiny ass places.

Weaker music, I'm not so sure.  I'm not sure what changes there.  Mainly, because I'm not all that sure these other guys really give too much of a shit about GNR legacy.  Wasn't it Tommy that said he didn't even like the band in their prime, and had to buy a used copy of AFD the day before his audition?  Not sure that paints the picute of a guy dripped in reverence.

[jarmo]

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.

It was brought up and I gave a reason. Something you have a hard time doing.

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.

No, it wasn't.

Cumberland Civic Center in Portland, ME has a capacity under 10,000. New Haven Coliseum about 11,000. Copps Coliseum 19,000 (GN'R played there in 2010 and 2011 as well). Just a few I picked randomly.

Seems like the capacity was 10,000-20,000. Not exactly hitting the Madison Square Gardens or LA Forums of the country. No dates in NYC, LA, Chicago, Toronto and so on. Just the facts.

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?

But, but.... The issue brought up was demand for the old band. I showed you that not only did they already tour in smaller markets compared to earlier in the tour and that they had to go abroad to play stadiums. This happened in 1993. Yet, the whole demand thing is only brought up in relation to the current.

I didn't start it, I just point out the facts.

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.  

The only thing I said was: 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.

I'm defensive? And get labeled all kinds of things by writing two little sentences that you get all defensive about!  
Funny.

Two sentences to remind people of something essential. Yet here we are with the "No! They're not the same!!!!" brigade out in full force. Who's defensive? The people who are quick to point out how this isn't GN'R or the ones that don't have that chip on their shoulders....


Edited to add: Your conclusion that I pay attention to what other people think couldn't be more wrong. If I cared so much, why the hell would I start a GN'R site in 1996 when the rest of the world were obsessed with cool things like alternative music and Brit pop? I really don't care if the other guy on the street likes or dislikes GN'R. I don't care if all the people at the supermarket think GN'R sucks. Or the rest of the Internet for that matter. I respond to things on a GN'R site. You know, something where I assume GN'R fans go. So if you're here, you're not "the rest of the world". Sorry.



/jarmo

[LongGoneDay]

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.

Whichever reasons one puts more weight on is a matter of opinion.  My point is that if Axl abandoned the name, together with the vision that he associates with the name, and instead went the "Axl Rose Band" route, it's not just Axl's wallet that would have suffered --- fans would have paid the price as well because we'd have weaker music and weaker shows. 

And before you say anything about how little music has been released, I really doubt that would have changed if he didn't use the name.  If anything, I think it's possible we would have never seen any creative output from him ever again if he abandoned the name.

Interesting. Curious as to why you think that?
We are obviously playing make believe here, but I would think there would be less pressure w/o the name.
He?s no doubt better off financially to have the rights, but from a creative standpoint, seems a heavy burden to live up to a name created in large part by 4, 5 since departed members.

Operating solo, or under another name he?d have the freedom to create whatever his heart desired(which I guess he did) but with no real preconceived notions or expectations from fans how it ?ought to? sound.

There is no band name in the world he could have used that would make me want to listen to Shackler?s Revenge again, but the fact that a song of that direction was released under the GN?R banner is outright offensive to some. Many fans think he?s taking liberties with the GN?R legacy that aren?t his alone to take. Technically, legally he can and does what he pleases, but it doesn?t mean all of his/GN?R?s fans have to like it.

At the same time, Oh My God is a song in a similar style that in my opinion kicks ass. It doesn?t sound like GN?R to me, but I dig the fuck out of it.
I know a lot of people that don?t. Released under another name, it?d probably just fly under their radar, but because it?s so far removed from classic GN?R?s sound, and it took 4/5?s of the band leaving for it to exist at all alienated a lot of the fan base. Is this fans taking it too seriously? Probably, but fan is short for fanatic.

Artistically speaking, I have a hard time envisioning a scenario much worse that what happened with Axl?s career post UYI.
Went from prolific to one album short of creatively barren(thus far). A solo album could have been just what the doctor ordered.
Probably would have reduced the amount of red tape, lawsuits, label pressure, fan/media backlash, headaches, and possibly could have spared everyone this very forum discussion!

[LongGoneDay]

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.

Saw this after I typed all that, guess this answers my question.

[GeorgeSteele]

Whichever reasons one puts more weight on is a matter of opinion.  My point is that if Axl abandoned the name, together with the vision that he associates with the name, and instead went the "Axl Rose Band" route, it's not just Axl's wallet that would have suffered --- fans would have paid the price as well because we'd have weaker music and weaker shows. 

And before you say anything about how little music has been released, I really doubt that would have changed if he didn't use the name.  If anything, I think it's possible we would have never seen any creative output from him ever again if he abandoned the name.

Interesting. Curious as to why you think that?
We are obviously playing make believe here, but I would think there would be less pressure w/o the name.
He?s no doubt better off financially to have the rights, but from a creative standpoint, seems a heavy burden to live up to a name created in large part by 4, 5 since departed members.

Operating solo, or under another name he?d have the freedom to create whatever his heart desired(which I guess he did) but with no real preconceived notions or expectations from fans how it ?ought to? sound.

There is no band name in the world he could have used that would make me want to listen to Shackler?s Revenge again, but the fact that a song of that direction was released under the GN?R banner is outright offensive to some. Many fans think he?s taking liberties with the GN?R legacy that aren?t his alone to take. Technically, legally he can and does what he pleases, but it doesn?t mean all of his/GN?R?s fans have to like it.

At the same time, Oh My God is a song in a similar style that in my opinion kicks ass. It doesn?t sound like GN?R to me, but I dig the fuck out of it.
I know a lot of people that don?t. Released under another name, it?d probably just fly under their radar, but because it?s so far removed from classic GN?R?s sound, and it took 4/5?s of the band leaving for it to exist at all alienated a lot of the fan base. Is this fans taking it too seriously? Probably, but fan is short for fanatic.

Artistically speaking, I have a hard time envisioning a scenario much worse that what happened with Axl?s career post UYI.
Went from prolific to one album short of creatively barren(thus far). A solo album could have been just what the doctor ordered.
Probably would have reduced the amount of red tape, lawsuits, label pressure, fan/media backlash, headaches, and possibly could have spared everyone this very forum discussion!

Perhaps a solo album would have been less pressure, but I also think Axl would have been less motivated without the legacy of the name driving him.  Same goes for the other members.  For example, I know that Stinson wasn't a fan of GNR when he joined, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't care that people think GNR were great with Duff but suck with Tommy.  For that matter, I doubt Stinson and a few others ever join if it's the Axl Rose Band and not Guns N' Roses.

Disagree with you on Shacklers, but on the point of that song and others being a departure from the traditional GNR sound --- I think Axl did the right thing by taking GNR in a different direction musically.  If he tried to find a blues-based guy who played like Slash, it would have been a very cheap imitation of the original.  There's only one Slash and I think Axl's decision to change things up was an acknowledgment of that fact.

[LongGoneDay]

Good points, GeorgeSteele. Still not convinced he made the right call, with my trusty benefit of hindsight, but interesting points nonetheless.

[Ali]

There is simply no analogy to be made, between any other band, and Axl's GN'R. Other bands either maintained a core unit (Metallica, Stones), were originally built around one member (Motorhead and Lizzy) or went to hell, to ever decreasing album and ticket sales (Iommi's Sabbath). What Axl did was truly unprecedented.

Simply not true.  One example I can easily think of is Smashing Pumpkins.  Another one would be Days of the New.  Queensryche lost their two principle songwriters on their first seven studio releases (Chris DeGarmo and Geoff Tate) and have still soldiered on.

Ali

You missed the point when I said, ''went to hell, to ever decreasing album and ticket sales''. And do their respective fan bases, the Pumpkins and Queensr?che, not also have significant majorities who deny their legitimacy to carry the name just like GN'R fans. I know there were two line-ups of the latter competing for the name in the courts. I can only imagine the forum debates were just as volatile as, that legal absurdity. Is there not also a big clamour for the Mellon Collie era Pumpkins.

Not sure what your point is then.  Smashing Pumpkins saw declining record sales even when Melissa Auf Der Maur replaced D'Arcy Wretzky, and even when Jimmy Chamberlin rejoined the band.  Now Billy Corgan has soldiered with a new lineup, just as Axl has.  Yes, there are people that disagree with Corgan's decision to continue on with Smashing Pumpkins, and those I've spoke to disagree because they do not believe the band was originally built around him solely.  I don't see how what Axl did is so unprecedented.  The exact timeline and path, and even results may be different or debateable, but the path he and GN'R have gone down is not completely unprecedented.

Ali

Maybe 'unprecedented' is too an extreme a word, but I word say, sum total, that what Axl has done is fairly rare in rock. You can pick any band and it is rare for them to continue without a certain consensual unit, a core of say, two-three members, a recognition even (despite the squabbles) that they cannot operate alone and carry the name. During all of those intense Stones feuds of the 1980s, neither Jagger nor Richards thought fit to call their solo projects, 'The Rolling Stones'. Richards would have presumably been in the Axl position because he was the one who hated solo projects and was one hundred percent devoted to The Stones whereas Jagger was running around in Lycra. The Beatles folded by default when Lennon quit. It was Wings and Plastic Ono Band, not the Beatles. Queen came up with the halfway house of 'Queen +__'' while working with Lambett and Rogers (essentially admitting that you cannot replace Fred). Kiss revolve around Simmons/Stanley. The Stones, Jagger/Richards. You see a pattern here? There is more than one member. It is consensual.  Kirk, while not a founding member, has been with Metallica since they were signed. Three/four members of Metallica have been on every Metallica album. That is a solid group right there. Who else? Roger and Pete are stretching things a bit without the Ox and Moon the Loon but I think most crowds who see the singer and main songwriter of The Who can just about accept them as a legit, if inferior, continuation of the band at its peak.

The list goes on and on and you are left with scraps to find analogies, Iommi's Sabbath and Mark XXX Purple of the 1980s. Perhaps Motorhead and Megadeth offer the best examples?

I agree, it is a rare situation.  But, I think it is a situation we'll see more and more as musicians have become more cognizant of the value of a brand name.

Ali

[D-GenerationX]

Cumberland Civic Center in Portland, ME has a capacity under 10,000. New Haven Coliseum about 11,000. Copps Coliseum 19,000 (GN'R played there in 2010 and 2011 as well). Just a few I picked randomly.

Seems like the capacity was 10,000-20,000. Not exactly hitting the Madison Square Gardens or LA Forums of the country. No dates in NYC, LA, Chicago, Toronto and so on. Just the facts.

They did not seem to hit many of the major cities, no.  Smaller cities with no pro sports teams.  You can't play buildings that aren't there.

But when they did, Boston...know where they played?  Want to guess?  C'mon, guess. 

Portland?  Sacramento?  Cities with sports teams and thus have such buildings?  Where did they play, do you think?

They played the biggest building available in that town.  Could the 2014 incarnation do the same?

But, but.... The issue brought up was demand for the old band. I showed you that not only did they already tour in smaller markets compared to earlier in the tour and that they had to go abroad to play stadiums. This happened in 1993. Yet, the whole demand thing is only brought up in relation to the current.

I didn't start it, I just point out the facts.

Yeah, and I just ended it.  Moving on.

I'm defensive? And get labeled all kinds of things by writing two little sentences that you get all defensive about!  
Funny.

Two sentences to remind people of something essential. Yet here we are with the "No! They're not the same!!!!" brigade out in full force. Who's defensive?

You.  You're defensive.  In actual fact, you derail more threads than anyone here.

I'm not saying that to be a smartass or for shock value.  I'm being 100% straight.  Look how many threads that are humming along go to hell once you saunter in to "set the record straight".

You are responsible for more multi-page detours than any other 3 people here combined.

Edited to add: Your conclusion that I pay attention to what other people think couldn't be more wrong. If I cared so much, why the hell would I start a GN'R site in 1996 when the rest of the world were obsessed with cool things like alternative music and Brit pop? I really don't care if the other guy on the street likes or dislikes GN'R. I don't care if all the people at the supermarket think GN'R sucks. Or the rest of the Internet for that matter. I respond to things on a GN'R site. You know, something where I assume GN'R fans go. So if you're here, you're not "the rest of the world". Sorry.

I don't know what you do in real life.

All I know is what you do around here, and that's get a bee in your bonnet when someone so much as points out GNR's place in the modern day world.

So, if pressed to go on the record, yeah, I would imagine you act this way in real life.  If you were out somewhere and a conversation about GNR came up, I have a hard time believing you would not immediately get a scowl on your face when you heard the inevitable way it went (this is not GNR, Axl is crazy, etc).  The only thing I'm unclear on is if you jump right in right there, or just stew and lament the overheard conversation secondhand once you have a more sympathetic ear to bend.

[D-GenerationX]

Disagree with you on Shacklers, but on the point of that song and others being a departure from the traditional GNR sound --- I think Axl did the right thing by taking GNR in a different direction musically.  If he tried to find a blues-based guy who played like Slash, it would have been a very cheap imitation of the original.  There's only one Slash and I think Axl's decision to change things up was an acknowledgment of that fact.

Spot on.

I think what doomed Snakepit for me was the very second I heard what sounded like a second rate, half ass Axl Rose on vocals.

Well, that and the material sucking pretty hard.