New Dj interview at LegendaryRockInterviews.com (Sep 2014)

[mortismurphy]

Would Jarmo run HTGTH if Slash and Duff had obtained the name in 1996 and Axl was now a solo artist - would Slash and Duff be defended on here with the same amount of passion as, Axl is defended by certain members? My point is it is an entirely subjective stance to make. Someone who thinks, ''it is not GN'R without Slash'' is perfectly entitled to hold that view. He was their guitarist, who co-wrote Jungle and Sweet Child and numerous other classics, after all.

I have actually heard people make the same argument in situations where the band have lost one member. Guns lost 4/5 of the classic band and 2/3 of the replacements/additional members. That is, six/eight members from the 1985-1993 era. Yet I have heard protests from various fan bases when one member leaves or is sacked. ''It is not The Who without Moonie'' is a valid argument as he was the beating heart, the engine room, of that band. Similarly, Floyd started as Barrett's band so if you preferred that style, the Piper At The Gates of Dawn era, you are naturally going to associate Syd with the name 'Pink Floyd' regardless of Floyd going on to much bigger and (arguably) better things. Kiss still have their two principal songwriters/band leaders there (analogous to Axl and Izzy) yet it is a known fact that a large section of the Kiss Army are repelled by Tommy and Eric assuming Ace and Peter's make-up. Yet apparently Guns's fan base should be unaffected by six/eight members leaving and, ''be positive''. Absurd.

[ice cream sand pig]

OK, you didn't like the arrangement, sounded like Phantom of the Opera, fair enough. I hope I can hear that alternate version you speak of on the remix album someday.

Wasn't silkworms Axl's girlfriend's favorite song? Of all the music she's probably been able to hear from the vault, she chose that one? I'm glad she didn't decide the track listing! My fiancee showed that song to me long after CD had been released and I immediately said "This is not GNR. There must be some kind of mistake?". Boy was I wrong!

Murphy, no one's saying you have to like it. Take it or leave it, this is what you get. I think the only reason people don't want to hear it around here is because they've heard it so many times over the years. How many ways can the same complaint be made over and over again until someone gets sick of it?

Sure, you could argue that if the same complaint is always being made then something should be done about it. No one here really has the power to do anything about it though, whether or not they would want to.

[D-GenerationX]

Would Jarmo run HTGTH if Slash and Duff had obtained the name in 1996 and Axl was now a solo artist - would Slash and Duff be defended on here with the same amount of passion as, Axl is defended by certain members? My point is it is an entirely subjective stance to make. Someone who thinks, ''it is not GN'R without Slash'' is perfectly entitled to hold that view. He was their guitarist, who co-wrote Jungle and Sweet Child and numerous other classics, after all.

I have actually heard people make the same argument in situations where the band have lost one member. Guns lost 4/5 of the classic band and 2/3 of the replacements/additional members. That is, six/eight members from the 1985-1993 era. Yet I have heard protests from various fan bases when one member leaves or is sacked. ''It is not The Who without Moonie'' is a valid argument as he was the beating heart, the engine room, of that band. Similarly, Floyd started as Barrett's band so if you preferred that style, the Piper At The Gates of Dawn era, you are naturally going to associate Syd with the name 'Pink Floyd' regardless of Floyd going on to much bigger and (arguably) better things. Kiss still have their two principal songwriters/band leaders there (analogous to Axl and Izzy) yet it is a known fact that a large section of the Kiss Army are repelled by Tommy and Eric assuming Ace and Peter's make-up. Yet apparently Guns's fan base should be unaffected by six/eight members leaving and, ''be positive''. Absurd.

Great post.  Agreed all around.

Its really an unprecedented situation.  Not one guy taking over and keeping a name.  But certainly someone trying it with not only a band that was this big, but pretty much in their prime.

You go see those old Motown bands now, its not really the Four Tops.  Its like one of the original guys (and maybe not even the main guy) and a bunch of other dudes just doing the hits you know.  But they are just a nostalgia casino act.  They aren't still viable artists.  

Axl tried to do this as a viable artist in his prime.  Tall order.

[D-GenerationX]

Murphy, no one's saying you have to like it. Take it or leave it, this is what you get. I think the only reason people don't want to hear it around here is because they've heard it so many times over the years. How many ways can the same complaint be made over and over again until someone gets sick of it?

Its a two way street.  Much of that "hating" is in response to some of lectures presented, often pretty sketchy ones.

Trying to say nothing is out of the ordinary because, hey, Izzy left in the middle of a tour, so what's the problem?  There's going to be pushback on that.

I'm all for rolling with what we got.  I find reunion topics laughable wastes of time, and don't give a good god damn Axl continues to use the name.  He should.  The others were fools to give it up.

But keep it within reason.  Don't go so overboard trying to put a good spin on the current state of affairs with these arguments of false equivalency.

This is one fucked up situation.  You should be able to be alright with it anyway, but still free to say it out loud.  Is that complaining?  Or is that just being minimally observant?

[ice cream sand pig]

Really though, complaining that certain members aren't in the band anymore some twenty years after the fact? What's the point? It's old news. Please, observe some other aspect already. Maybe that's where the other side is coming from.

[D-GenerationX]

Really though, complaining that certain members aren't in the band anymore some twenty years after the fact? What's the point? It's old news. Please, observe some other aspect already. Maybe that's where the other side is coming from.

I don't even mean the old guys.

I'm talking about guys like Bucket, Robin, and Brain being gone.  Those guys were driving factors behind a lot of the new material that Axl is trying to hang his hat on.

He's basically on version 3 of his band, not version 2.  And version 3, they've never really done anything as a band.  Version 3 plays the work of versions 1 & 2 live.  There is no creative undertaking.   You'd hear less of this talk if those 3 were still around, I think.  It would have less of a hired hand mercenary feel that we've had for the past few years.  It would seem more like a cohesive, actual band.

And its tough to present that argument and be told that I probably didn't have a problem with Izzy leaving in in the middle of the UYI tour, so I should shut up.  Huh?  Is that even applicable?

And does any of this mean I hate DJ Ashba or Ron?  Shit no.  I'm beating the drums louder than anyone that the current guys should be able to produce something as a band for us to see what they can do.

[mortismurphy]

redneckrudy, just how prevalent are debates upon whether or not it is GN'R, when it is done in a serious manner (which I think has been the case up until now)? I have seen examples of this over the years - of course: on other music forums; metal sludge; youtube comments. I have to admit that, ''it is not gnr'', seems to be the majority view for most fans of rock music who are not specific gnr fans. Most casuals who are not quite casual enough to not know who Slash is, hold this view. There are of course some uber casuals who barely know who Axl is and just go to the shows because they like the mega hits. But returning to the argument at hand, the problem is, usually this debate ends in trolling and the argument never progresses much beyond, ''Axl sucks balls without slash. They are fake gnr. Axl is fat'' (I am paraphrasing here just in case the censorship operation gets interested). I do not see many serious debates about the subject, whereby people attempt to compare Guns's situation without trolling.

Is it an argument worth pursuing? Well it is mildly interesting footnote in the history of rock. There are no other news stories on the horizon, are they? We may as well? What do you talk about for lack of news? Make endless 'top 10 lists'? Although saying that, I do agree that it will not change anything. I too find reunion discussions pointless. But the debates about the legitimacy of Axl's new band - also the debates about the contract - I find mildly interesting (as someone who grew up with it all) in a slightly geeky rock fan way. I like a lot of different bands and I sometimes find it interesting comparing their careers.

[14 Yrs Of Silence]

I think we all wish we were talking about some concrete news instead of wondering what could have been.  I'm well beyond reunion hopes as well, and want to see them move forward with new material, as we all do. But I think its actually nice that while we're waiting for that to happen, there's some civil discussion here, something thats become rare on these forums. 

My passion for GN'R is a bit OCD as this point, and perhaps its their mystery that keeps me interested in things beyond the songs themselves, but damn, once we do get some solid information about the next album through to experiencing it and hearing it live, I'll be as supportive as it gets. 

While we wait its fair to discuss the history of the band and opine on different things.  I wouldn't say that people are complaining at this point so much really just discussing your views, which can either be positive, negative, but usually a mix of both. 

I agree that some who purely complain or take pot shots or just look to get a laugh or rise out of someone are trolls and best left to the side.  In that regard, my mantra has been, as taught by my 4 year old son, "you get what you get and you don't get upset".

[D-GenerationX]

I think we all wish we were talking about some concrete news instead of wondering what could have been.  I'm well beyond reunion hopes as well, and want to see them move forward with new material, as we all do. But I think its actually nice that while we're waiting for that to happen, there's some civil discussion here, something thats become rare on these forums. 

While we wait its fair to discuss the history of the band and opine on different things.  I wouldn't say that people are complaining at this point so much really just discussing your views, which can either be positive, negative, but usually a mix of both. 

Yep, yep.

I come here to talk about Guns N' Roses.  Honestly, who would be interested in any of this minutiae other than us?

[GNR2014]

Isn't every topic a dead horse at this point?

[D-GenerationX]

Isn't every topic a dead horse at this point?

Pretty much.  You sort of have to manufacture conversation, at least somewhat.

You can always speculate on future plans, of course.  Sadly, the only answer that seems to play is to sit in the corner and wait patiently.  Even a rather harmless "hey, maybe they could do this..." is treated like a declaration of war with no place on a "fan forum".  Because do you work in the music business?  Why do you think you have all the answers?  Are you an expert?  Do you think the band gives a shit about your stupid suggestions?

That sort of thing.

[JAEBALL]

Isn't every topic a dead horse at this point?

Well yeah... unless they are on tour... and there are no shows to analyze or whatever...

The drama of GNR and the lack of new material from Axl over the past two decades tends to steer the conversation in a circle.

[GNR2014]

Isn't every topic a dead horse at this point?

Well yeah... unless they are on tour... and there are no shows to analyze or whatever...

The drama of GNR and the lack of new material from Axl over the past two decades tends to steer the conversation in a circle.

Isn't it frowned upon to discuss shows unless you attended them?

[D-GenerationX]

Isn't every topic a dead horse at this point?

Well yeah... unless they are on tour... and there are no shows to analyze or whatever...

The drama of GNR and the lack of new material from Axl over the past two decades tends to steer the conversation in a circle.

Isn't it frowned upon to discuss shows unless you attended them?

Seems to depend on what you want to say about it.

I've never seen anyone chided for lauding a show they didn't attend, for example.  The accuracy of Youtube videos also tends to skyrocket if you like what you see.

[jarmo]

Is this the "How many Dead Horse topics can fit in one thread?" thread? 




/jarmo

[Sosso]

Is this the "How many Dead Horse topics can fit in one thread?" thread? 




/jarmo

No it's about a new album coming out in 20xx

[D-GenerationX]

Following this band is like waiting to be rescued from Gilligan's Island.  You have to do something to pass the time.

And I don't think we're getting the Harlem Globetrotters while we wait.

[GeorgeSteele]

Following this band is like waiting to be rescued from Gilligan's Island.  You have to do something to pass the time.

And I don't think we're getting the Harlem Globetrotters while we wait.

That was a great episode.

[jarmo]

Is this the "How many Dead Horse topics can fit in one thread?" thread? 




/jarmo

No it's about a new album coming out in 20xx

Sounds familiar. Didn't we do that one in 200x something?


/jarmo

[ice cream sand pig]

OK, I gotta admit that Gilligan's Island analogy was pretty funny. Yeah this topic is a giant bloated dead horse but I can't complain, I still dig it. Glad to be able to wait through this with the rest of you and always happy to read what each and every one of you have to say regardless of if I agree with it or not. Gotta love this here port of monkeys!