New Dj interview at LegendaryRockInterviews.com (Sep 2014)

[D-GenerationX]

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?

Oh, I have a few theories. 

But they sure ain't gonna play around here, so I don't bother.  I'm not here to needlessly antagonize the management.

I'm actually a team player.

[ice cream sand pig]

I think Jarmo makes great arguments. Overall I think everyone tends to make good points and it's interesting to read as long as everything remains civil and personal attacks aren't made because they ultimately only serve to distract from the meat of the discussion. 

Well DX, if you have reasons yet can't discuss them I think your point is kind of moot. It's just making a claim without having anything to back it up. I'm not gonna harp on about it though. I'm sure you have your reasons to think that, just like I have my reasons to think that Axl likes making music consciously and intentionally, as outside of time as is possible. 

[LongGoneDay]

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

If you reread my initial reply, I didn?t state that the key is to produce(though this isn?t that foreign of a concept for bands not named GN?R).
I stated that their ?way? produced tangible results, which is in stark contrast to GN?R of today.

So did GN?R?s philosophy change? or does it more realistically boil down to the personnel?
Former members have produced at a prolific rate when held up to GN?R of today.
You may not be a fan of their output, but to say it?s not up to the current GN?R standard is subjective to say the least.

Personally I don?t think anything Axl and the alumni have produced since their split holds a candle to what they created together, but I can appreciate at least some of each members post UYI output.
That?s another story.

I?d be more likely to agree with your statement if you had said Axl?s way.
He certainly seems to be doing things his way now. Not sure it?s working.

[D-GenerationX]

I think Jarmo makes great arguments. Overall I think everyone tends to make good points and it's interesting to read as long as everything remains civil and personal attacks aren't made because they ultimately only serve to distract from the meat of the discussion. 

Well DX, if you have reasons yet can't discuss them I think your point is kind of moot. It's just making a claim without having anything to back it up.

It just would not be a productive conversation for this particular board. 

I may butt some heads here a bit with a very small minority of folks over certain things. But I'm not here to throw Molotov cocktails and just watch the world burn for the hell of it. 

There are other boards more geared to that sort of discussion, and I respect that.

[jarmo]

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

 

Of course you would.
It still doesn't change the fact that people have lives.

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.

Are you serious?

You can't think of any reasons why somebody would put their music career on hold?

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.

No, my opinion is that the artist can decide how long he or she wants to spend on their art. If they want to share it with the world, it's their choice.

It's very simple.

I'm grateful to have a bunch of amazing music to listen to. It makes me feel good. A great song or album, listening to it is something I enjoy doing.
I don't treat any of the artists I listen to as a fast food employee, expecting to get fed on time and getting the same familiar meal every time.

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.

What's not fun is when you lie and post it as a fact.

So did GN?R?s philosophy change? or does it more realistically boil down to the personnel?
Former members have produced at a prolific rate when held up to GN?R of today.
You may not be a fan of their output, but to say it?s not up to the current GN?R standard is subjective to say the least.

I don't think GN'R's philosophy has changed. Some things haven't changed at all.

There's probably less "demands" if you release something with a different name then under an established band's name. People expect certain things. Sometimes artists/bands care about this, sometimes not.





/jarmo

[ice cream sand pig]

In regards to DX's fear and lack of ambition theory: Fair enough. I definitely don't agree with it though. I think, as I said before, the music is what will last forever. It's important that it's done exactly the way Axl wants it to be done because it will be surging through stereo speakers for long after he's dead. The man aint getting any younger and he already left his mark on the world. If he wants to add to that mark he has every right to be extremely careful about how he does it.

I saw this after I posted, and I agree with it very much:

Jarmo "No, my opinion is that the artist can decide how long he or she wants to spend on their art. If they want to share it with the world, it's their choice."

[JAEBALL]

In regards to DX's fear and lack of ambition theory: Fair enough. I definitely don't agree with it though. I think, as I said before, the music is what will last forever. It's important that it's done exactly the way Axl wants it to be done because it will be surging through stereo speakers for long after he's dead. The man aint getting any younger and he already left his mark on the world. If he wants to add to that mark he has every right to be extremely careful about how he does it.

I saw this after I posted, and I agree with it very much:

Jarmo "No, my opinion is that the artist can decide how long he or she wants to spend on their art. If they want to share it with the world, it's their choice."

In GNR land nothing is that simple or as black and white as somebody wants you to think it is...

I agree 100 percent that it's Axls choice to do what he wants with his songs....

but if it comes out in 5 years and all the songs are featuring Robin Finck... then don't sell the band as Guns N Roses... or at  least be objective about it... it is what it is...an Axl Rose record...and when they tour DJ Ashba will play the songs and it will say GNR on the ticket ..so ALI will be 100 percent right about that 

that covers everything in this never ending circular discussion right? 

[D-GenerationX]

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.

What's not fun is when you lie and post it as a fact.

Just as an aside, you do notice when you "correct the record", that once you leave, we go right back to the discussion we were having, right?

You say your little peace, we deal with that, and then its back to normal.  Its been this way for just about the entire year I've posted here on the regular.

[D-GenerationX]

In regards to DX's fear and lack of ambition theory: Fair enough. I definitely don't agree with it though. I think, as I said before, the music is what will last forever. It's important that it's done exactly the way Axl wants it to be done because it will be surging through stereo speakers for long after he's dead. The man aint getting any younger and he already left his mark on the world. If he wants to add to that mark he has every right to be extremely careful about how he does it.

I saw this after I posted, and I agree with it very much:

Jarmo "No, my opinion is that the artist can decide how long he or she wants to spend on their art. If they want to share it with the world, it's their choice."

In GNR land nothing is that simple or as black and white as somebody wants you to think it is...

I agree 100 percent that it's Axls choice to do what he wants with his songs....

but if it comes out in 5 years and all the songs are featuring Robin Finck... then don't sell the band as Guns N Roses... or at  least be objective about it... it is what it is...an Axl Rose record...and when they tour DJ Ashba will play the songs and it will say GNR on the ticket ..so ALI will be 100 percent right about that 

that covers everything in this never ending circular discussion right? 

Well, you missed that they don't owe we entitled motherfuckers anything, but other than that, spot on.

[jarmo]

but if it comes out in 5 years and all the songs are featuring Robin Finck... then don't sell the band as Guns N Roses... or at  least be objective about it... it is what it is...an Axl Rose record...and when they tour DJ Ashba will play the songs and it will say GNR on the ticket

Was it a problem for you when Izzy played on the album and Gilby played his parts on tour?

Do you think the tour should've ended on August 31st, 1991 in London, which was Izzy's last show, and then the band released a new album with Gilby before continuing the tour?




/jarmo

[ice cream sand pig]

Jaeball, I think Axl works hard to hold the material up to GNR standards. He could have easily gone his own way and done solo records. He said something about how they would basically be epic instrumental albums if he would have done that. That's not what were getting here. I think certain songs on CD nailed the GNR sound. You mention we should be objective about things but objectively speaking, this band is GNR. That is a courtroom fact. You could say it's only a technicality but technically speaking, objectively speaking, it's GNR. I also think in terms of the GNR standard of workmanship it is GNR. Axl is doing his best to keep the band alive. I really thank him for that. I don't want epic instrumental albums. I want more GNR.

In regards to Jarmo's post above, I think it's a good point that you shouldn't expect the whole operation to be shut down just because certain individuals decide they want out. I also don't think that just because that happens the band should be forced to rush out a new release.

I feel like Jarmo made some excellent points a few posts back and they are just being ignored because it is convenient to ignore them.

[LongGoneDay]

but if it comes out in 5 years and all the songs are featuring Robin Finck... then don't sell the band as Guns N Roses... or at  least be objective about it... it is what it is...an Axl Rose record...and when they tour DJ Ashba will play the songs and it will say GNR on the ticket

Was it a problem for you when Izzy played on the album and Gilby played his parts on tour?

Do you think the tour should've ended on August 31st, 1991 in London, which was Izzy's last show, and then the band released a new album with Gilby before continuing the tour?




/jarmo

To answer your question(to Jaeball), I'm glad the tour didn't end on 8/31/91.

However, with the benefit of hindsight, I do think Izzy leaving was a blow they never recovered from.
This isn?t to say I didn?t enjoy the fuck out of the Spaghetti Incident, UYI tour, and '06 Hammerstein shows.
But from a creative standpoint, losing Izzy was losing the glue holding everything together.

On their own, I don?t think any one member from the classic lineup is an exceptionally strong songsmith, but together they could hold their own with anybody.

[ice cream sand pig]

You're glad it didn't end. I'm glad too. Things have to keep moving forward. It doesn't make any sense to call it quits because this guy or that guy wants out.

[Ginger King]

but if it comes out in 5 years and all the songs are featuring Robin Finck... then don't sell the band as Guns N Roses... or at  least be objective about it... it is what it is...an Axl Rose record...and when they tour DJ Ashba will play the songs and it will say GNR on the ticket

Was it a problem for you when Izzy played on the album and Gilby played his parts on tour?

Do you think the tour should've ended on August 31st, 1991 in London, which was Izzy's last show, and then the band released a new album with Gilby before continuing the tour?




/jarmo

Comparing the UYI lineup to today?s lineup is illogical.

Izzy and Steven being replace by Gilby and Matt is not the same as Slash, Duff, Gilby, Matt, Robin, Bucket, Brain, Josh, and Paul being replaced by Richard, Bumble, DJ, Tommy, Frank and Chris.

During the entirety of the UYI tour, you had 3/5 of the classic lineup.  Now, 1/8 is the classic lineup.  It just isn?t the same.  That?s why the prevailing sentiment (in all other places of the world except this forum) is that this isn?t truly GnR.  If it were, people wouldn?t have to defend it by noting that it?s ?a courtroom fact? that it is GnR.  When you have to resort to ?legally speaking it is GnR? you?re really trying hard to believe it.  Legally speaking, OJ didn?t kill Nicole?

[D-GenerationX]

Hahahaha.

True.

[Ali]

So Ali, where are we on clarifying we are in the extreme minority.  Agreed?

Minority as to what exactly?  Can you clarify?

Ali

I always feel these conversation eventually wind up with having to clarify that we all agree we are in the pretty extreme minority, in terms of still being able to roll with all this.  We aren't denying that, are we?  If people don't want to join us in that, so be it.  I still put 'There Was A Time' in my top 10 GNR songs, whether I'm a voice in the wilderness or not. 

But sometimes, I think we need to sort of reaffirm our overall standing in the grand scheme.

The minority as far as being able to roll with the lineup changes?  Sure.  I don't deny that.  But, that doesn't really change what I said before.  It only enhances it, actually.  The subjectivity comes in to whether or not you choose to roll with the lineup change and like GN'R as it is now.

Ali

[Ali]

Well their were actually two versions from LA Guns at the same time. Why not the same with GN'R?

Why not?

Axl has sole, indisputable claim to ownership of the GN'R name.

It's that simple.

Ali

Ali, it isn't that simple considering what went on in the band. I disagree. It is subjective.

Whether or not Axl has sole, indisputable claim to ownership of the GN'R name?

No, that is pretty clearly not subjective at all.

Ali

[Ali]

Ali, it is not that simple. De jure, you are correct. Legalistically, in terms of copyright law and marketing, this is 'Guns N' Roses' (although it is interesting that Axl had to dissolve the old band in order to form a new one with the same name - but that is a separate argument). Fans however are not fans because of litigation. Their love of a musician and music is usually a subjective experience, comprising of a series of factors, one being, band personal.

I don't disagree with that at all.

But, again, that goes back to my point about what is and what is not subjective.  Your love of a musician or group of musicians, like GN'R, is subjective.  Whether or not the current lineup is Guns N' Roses is not subjective.  At least, not as far as the public is concerned.

Ali

[Ali]

Well their were actually two versions from LA Guns at the same time. Why not the same with GN'R?

Why not?

Axl has sole, indisputable claim to ownership of the GN'R name.

It's that simple.

Ali

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.  They are not relevant, musically speaking, and, despite playing 200+ shows around the world, have yet to write/record/release one song.  To me, that?s not really carrying the torch of Guns n Roses.

I agree with what you said is the real question, and but I think a better question is, "do you like Guns N' Roses as it is now?".  That, and that alone, is the subjective part.  I disagree that it is the same as, "Is the Guns N' Roses?"

Ali

[D-GenerationX]

I agree with what you said is the real question, and but I think a better question is, "do you like Guns N' Roses as it is now?".  That, and that alone, is the subjective part.  I disagree that it is the same as, "Is the Guns N' Roses?"

Who outside this board hears that out?

Do you think if you broke it down for someone out there in the world just as you have here, they accept that and see the error of their ways?