New Dj interview at LegendaryRockInterviews.com (Sep 2014)

[jarmo]

Doing things your way and staying true to yourself is exactly what GN'R was always about.

Now, I understand that this might be another thing you don't "agree with" in the world of GN'R. But, as they say, this isn't Burger King. 



/jarmo

[LongGoneDay]

Doing things your way and staying true to yourself is exactly what GN'R was always about.

Now, I understand that this might be another thing you don't "agree with" in the world of GN'R. But, as they say, this isn't Burger King. 



/jarmo

Guns N? Roses ?way? used to produce a lot of tangible results.
Today, and for the better part of the last 2 decades, the way of Guns N? Roses produces just short of nothing.
Meanwhile, former members still manage to produce on a consistent basis.

I see very few similarities between current, and classic GN?R.
Their ways of doing things are polar opposites, which should be surprising to no one paying attention, because they are the ways of two groups of people sharing the same band name and not much else.

[D-GenerationX]

It?s a bit too simplistic to say ?well the name?s on the ticket so it is Guns and Roses.?  Yes, we all know they have the legal right to the name.

The real question then, is whether you accept this as being Guns n Roses (essentially that?s the same as ?is this Guns n Roses? but whatever).  The answer isn?t simple.  The current entity that is Guns n Roses is a shell of its former self. 

This is what I was getting at with Ali yesterday.

If I am guilty of anything around here, its a weird fascination with the bunker mentality.  The sort of living in the bubble / alternate universe mindset we often see.

I highly question the legitimacy of any argument that only plays to true believers.  Think of it like a political rally.  You stand up there and throw out your pre-approved red meat talking points, and everyone claps and nods.  But once you leave those friendly confines and present that same argument to the real world, you are laughed out of the room.

Technically, in a letter of the law sense, Ali's arguments stand up.  And that is not to say Ali is wrong in the legalese sense.

But I was looking for some sort of admission that those arguments, like a lot that are made here daily, only play here.  Forget only playing with GNR fans, forget only playing with online GNR fans.  They only play with online GNR fans at this particular board.  And once you are down to the subset of the subset, you pretty much better never leave this room.  You will never be taken seriously.

[D-GenerationX]

I see very few similarities between current, and classic GN?R.
Their ways of doing things are polar opposites, which should be surprising to no one paying attention, because they are the ways of two groups of people sharing the same band name and not much else.

Yep.

Like a college sports team separated by 6 or more years time.  Drawing similarities is silly, because those guys all graduated and moved on.  The new guys still wear the same jersey, but that is just about all they have in common.  Its 2 totally different collections of people.

[JAEBALL]

Doing things your way and staying true to yourself is exactly what GN'R was always about.

Now, I understand that this might be another thing you don't "agree with" in the world of GN'R. But, as they say, this isn't Burger King. 



/jarmo

I would argue that doing things ur own way and not giving a fuck is the way AXL has always done things....and we all admire that aspect of him...

[mortismurphy]

Was playing Vegas really Rose's true in intention of what he wanted when he was 'true to himself' in, say, 2001. I would suggest, Burger King is a fitting analogy for this band.

[LongGoneDay]

Was playing Vegas really Rose's true in intention of what he wanted when he was 'true to himself' in, say, 2001. I would suggest, Burger King is a fitting analogy for this band.

I?m not so sure. I did the math. If it were food we were waiting on GN?R for instead of music, we each could have have starved to death 156.4 times during the making of Chinese Democracy.

[D-GenerationX]

Was playing Vegas really Rose's true in intention of what he wanted when he was 'true to himself' in, say, 2001. I would suggest, Burger King is a fitting analogy for this band.

Legit question, I think.

I see no real plausible argument that if you could go back in time to Axl circa 1998 and tell him how it all went over the past 15 years and have him say "yeah, pretty much what I'm going for and glad to hear it works out."

Now I understand that circumstances change and you have to adapt.  Way of the world.  But I have to shake my head at the pontificating and waxing poetic about "Axl's vision".  You think THIS was Axl's vision?   

[Sosso]

Was playing Vegas really Rose's true in intention of what he wanted when he was 'true to himself' in, say, 2001. I would suggest, Burger King is a fitting analogy for this band.

Legit question, I think.

I see no real plausible argument that if you could go back in time to Axl circa 1998 and tell him how it all went over the past 15 years and have him say "yeah, pretty much what I'm going for and glad to hear it works out."

Now I understand that circumstances change and you have to adapt.  Way of the world.  But I have to shake my head at the pontificating and waxing poetic about "Axl's vision".  You think THIS was Axl's vision?   

You could do the same thing in 1985 or 1994 or 2004. Things are changing and not always in a positive way.

[D-GenerationX]

Was playing Vegas really Rose's true in intention of what he wanted when he was 'true to himself' in, say, 2001. I would suggest, Burger King is a fitting analogy for this band.

Legit question, I think.

I see no real plausible argument that if you could go back in time to Axl circa 1998 and tell him how it all went over the past 15 years and have him say "yeah, pretty much what I'm going for and glad to hear it works out."

Now I understand that circumstances change and you have to adapt.  Way of the world.  But I have to shake my head at the pontificating and waxing poetic about "Axl's vision".  You think THIS was Axl's vision?   

You could do the same thing in 1985 or 1994 or 2004. Things are changing and not always in a positive way.

You don't think when they were coming up in the 80s they had any other goal than to be a big time rock band? 

If you told him in 1985 how the next 10 years were going to go, he'd be relieved and likely excited.

If you told him in 1998 how the next 15 would go, I have a hard time accepting that he'd be as similarly onboard.

[GeorgeSteele]

I see very few similarities between current, and classic GN?R.
Their ways of doing things are polar opposites, which should be surprising to no one paying attention, because they are the ways of two groups of people sharing the same band name and not much else.

Yep.

Like a college sports team separated by 6 or more years time.  Drawing similarities is silly, because those guys all graduated and moved on.  The new guys still wear the same jersey, but that is just about all they have in common.  Its 2 totally different collections of people.

Should all those teams keep changing their names?  

[D-GenerationX]

I see very few similarities between current, and classic GN?R.
Their ways of doing things are polar opposites, which should be surprising to no one paying attention, because they are the ways of two groups of people sharing the same band name and not much else.

Yep.

Like a college sports team separated by 6 or more years time.  Drawing similarities is silly, because those guys all graduated and moved on.  The new guys still wear the same jersey, but that is just about all they have in common.  Its 2 totally different collections of people.

Should all those teams keep changing their names?  

No.

But nor should fans try and claim that one roster from 2004 is the same as the roster in 2014.  Its a whole new set of people.

[jarmo]

Guns N’ Roses “way” used to produce a lot of tangible results.
Today, and for the better part of the last 2 decades, the way of Guns N’ Roses produces just short of nothing.
Meanwhile, former members still manage to produce on a consistent basis.

Ah, so the key to be like GN'R is to "produce". Doesn't matter what it is.
Got it.

Maybe the difference is that former members can produce as much as they like because they don't think about producing things that are up to the GN'R standard....

I see very few similarities between current, and classic GN’R.
Their ways of doing things are polar opposites, which should be surprising to no one paying attention, because they are the ways of two groups of people sharing the same band name and not much else.

The one person who was there since day one, and had ideas where the band should go, is still there with the same dedication to his art.
Unfortunately for us, some of you don't appreciate that because it doesn't "work for you". It's your convenience that's the priority. Not the artist's integrity or art.



/jarmo

[GeorgeSteele]

I see very few similarities between current, and classic GN?R.
Their ways of doing things are polar opposites, which should be surprising to no one paying attention, because they are the ways of two groups of people sharing the same band name and not much else.

Yep.

Like a college sports team separated by 6 or more years time.  Drawing similarities is silly, because those guys all graduated and moved on.  The new guys still wear the same jersey, but that is just about all they have in common.  Its 2 totally different collections of people.

Should all those teams keep changing their names?  

No.

But nor should fans try and claim that one roster from 2004 is the same as the roster in 2014.  Its a whole new set of people.

OK, I don't think anyone disagrees with that... in the case of this band, has anyone argued that the members now are not different than what they were in 2004 or 1994?  Maybe there are still a few casual fans living under a rock who think Slash is still in the band.

[D-GenerationX]

Maybe the difference is that former members can produce as much as they like because they don't think about producing things that are up to the GN'R standard....

Yeah, that must be it.

Actually, why stop at former members?  Using this rationale, the entire music industry releases stuff that doesn't meet GNR standards, because it doesn't take 8-10 years.

[jarmo]

Maybe the difference is that former members can produce as much as they like because they don't think about producing things that are up to the GN'R standard....

Yeah, that must be it.

Actually, why stop at former members?  Using this rationale, the entire music industry releases stuff that doesn't meet GNR standards, because it doesn't take 8-10 years.

The entire music industry is in a state where people think their coffee is worth more than music....
U2 force fed their album to the masses so somebody would listen.

Maybe they should learns something from GN'R....


Also, why can't you be more like everybody else? You know, humble, and maybe even likeable? If GN'R is supposed to be more like the "rest of the music industry", why can't you be more like the rest of humanity?   




/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

The entire music industry is in a state where people think their coffee is worth more than music....
U2 force fed their album to the masses so somebody would listen.

Maybe they should learns something from GN'R....

U2's idea wasn't bad, really.  But I think some of the reaction means no one else will try it.  It was a decent rationale though.

But rock music is not wine, Jarmo.  It doesn't need to be aged in a cellar, nor see its value escalate when you do it.  Going an eon between releases has more to do with self doubt and lack of ambition than it does trying to make sure its gestated a certain amount of time.

In fact, you could make the argument you actually hurt yourself doing that, because you stuff sounds dated by the time you finally get it out.  Look how many people said a song like 'Shackler's' would have been more viable earlier in the decade.

Also, why can't you be more like everybody else? You know, humble, and maybe even likeable? If GN'R is supposed to be more like the "rest of the music industry", why can't you be more like the rest of humanity?   

I seem to do alright here.  Conversations only grind to a halt once you show up.

[jarmo]

Going an eon between releases has more to do with self doubt and lack of ambition than it does trying to make sure its gestated a certain amount of time.

No, it doesn't mean that at all.
Sometimes people take a break. Simple as that.

Some artists just walk away from it all. Then come back later. It happens.
It's life.

Sometimes artists finish albums and still don't release them. They start over.

All these things happen.

In fact, you could make the argument you actually hurt yourself doing that, because you stuff sounds dated by the time you finally get it out.  Look how many people said a song like 'Shackler's' would have been more viable earlier in the decade.

Great music is timeless. Sometimes the only way you can "date" a song is by the production on it.

I seem to do alright here.  Conversations only grind to a halt once you show up.

Yeah, it's not fun to have to explain yourself.....


/jarmo

[ice cream sand pig]

DX "Going an eon between releases has more to do with self doubt and lack of ambition than it does trying to make sure its gestated a certain amount of time."

So I was wondering, how do you know that?

Jarmo "The one person who was there since day one, and had ideas where the band should go, is still there with the same dedication to his art.
Unfortunately for us, some of you don't appreciate that because it doesn't "work for you". It's your convenience that's the priority. Not the artist's integrity or art."

BINGO!

[D-GenerationX]

Going an eon between releases has more to do with self doubt and lack of ambition than it does trying to make sure its gestated a certain amount of time.

No, it doesn't mean that at all.
Sometimes people take a break. Simple as that.

Some artists just walk away from it all. Then come back later. It happens.
It's life.

Sometimes artists finish albums and still don't release them. They start over.

All these things happen.

Firstly, I would argue that self doubt and lack of ambition could be the reason for any of that.  

I damn sure don't see a strong counteragument that people confident in what they are doing and raring to go walk away for...well, that's just it.  There is no reason for it.

But more to the point, I am pushing back against this talking point that things "aren't ready" and will somehow improve over time if they are left to sit.  

When you record a song, that's it.  Its done.  Letting it sit in your home studio for 5 years does not appreciate its value.  Axl and others have told us these songs are done.  Whether you release them next month or a year from now, reactions will not change.  People will either dig them or not.

No one will ever say that they didn't like that song, but perhaps if they hadn't heard it for 3 more years, they'd have a different opinion."  The material is what it is.  

I seem to do alright here.  Conversations only grind to a halt once you show up.

Yeah, it's not fun to have to explain yourself.....

No, what's not fun is having to get derailed for 2 pages of misdirection when you saunter in and don't like where something is going.

I think of it like me and the others here being stuck in Saturday detention but making the best of it and having some laughs.  Then the teacher comes back (you) and we have to sort of go through the motions until you leave again and we can get back to having fun.

You are Mr. Vernon.