New Dj interview at LegendaryRockInterviews.com (Sep 2014)

[ice cream sand pig]

I know you asked for Ali, but I felt free to post my own thoughts on the subject as well.

According to those people's opinions it is not GNR, and according to legal documents it is GNR. It's just a matter of debating over semantics really.

When one says this is not GNR, that person likely has the opinion that another form of GNR besides the current incarnation is the real deal.

So that leads me to be curious about what one might base this opinion off of. What was it that qualified what they see as the real GNR to be considered the real GNR?

Is it an all or nothing thing where if even one original member leaves it is no longer the real band? A situation where every guy in the original group made up an equal percentage of GNR and once you fall below one hundred percent it is no longer GNR? Or do certain members carry a heavier percentage than others and as long as you maintain the percentage above a certain amount then it is still legitimately GNR?

Does whether or not this band is GNR to you depend on the sound of the band? The public image of the band? The number of albums the band has released? The amount of touring they have done? The existence of a legal document? The presence of specific members in the band? There are just so many different aspects. What makes GNR GNR?

I have no qualms with them having the name, and if they didn't I would still follow them. To me it doesn't matter either way, I don't give two shits about the name. Interesting to see how people feel about it though.

[jazjme]

I absolutely agree with you redneck..  Been reading along time , been HTGTH many times. Pun intended! I find it interesting what thoughts are about the band, and to me its GUNS N ROSES. I've long decided to not be bothered with those who argue otherwise , or claim to be authorities on how things should be or operate in bands. As a fan since the beginning, and been to 25 + GNR shows since 1987, I feel the same connection with the  most recent music as well as the old. Perhaps I'm not as concerned with alot of the discussions nowadays as I have met hung outwith and and had real human conversations with everyone of the members of the band at one point or another in my life. And I get the greatest excitement of actually meeting up with fans I have met thru the yrs via this forum, and others, even ran a site myself some yrs back. Jarmo is an awesome dude..always a pleasure to see again at shows, along with many others. Truth is some of the band didn't even think it was going to go on as it has, and even they are grateful and have all intentions always to do the best and put out the best material(I'm taking about the guys who chose to fill the shoes of others) . But they all are as every bit Guns N Rose and anyone from Izzy to Slash etc. They all made their choices along the way, they live with themselves and are quite content. As a fan so am I. I Just look forward to new music and shows and when it comes, I'm there again, and if its more shows first and I can do shows again here in NYC, or go to Vegas again fuck yes I will. 

[D-GenerationX]

Only speaking for my own previous comments.  My point had nothing to do with "emotional reasons" or "real life problems."  My perspective is that at this point in a very successful career, he's earned the right and respect to do things "whenever/however" and that we the fans are still here and the business partners haven't thrown in the towel either (even with all that we have labeled as delays).

I don't disagree.  I just think its one poor business plan.

And I think that's where I butt heads with folks.  Tell me all you want that he can do as he pleases.  But don't then tell me this is a great way to run things from a business perspective.

[D-GenerationX]

Gypsy, why do you think there are copyright/legal issues with using material created from former band members?  Wouldn?t that have also been the case with CD, since Robin, Bucket and Brain were gone before that came out? (perhaps it was but I don?t recall it being an issue before).

Yeah, I don't get that either.  Why is it different now?

Bucket and Robin were gone before the last one came out.  An agreement was made.  Why would there be no agreement now?

[D-GenerationX]

For anyone that finds it strange that people feel the urge to defend their favorite band, I have a few thoughts about this. I can only speak for myself personally. I identify with GNR's music and the people that make that music. Therefore I feel it is not that unusual for me to be more open to putting myself in their shoes. It seems to me it's a natural response to the some of the stimuli that is given.

I have never thought that I should defend anything in life unreservedly, based on the fact that, I consider myself a fan of, presumably most of their prior decisions and music if I am a 'fan' - same applies of film series which go to rubbish with bad sequels. This is not even how bands operate. Were Stones fans defending Dirty Work, or Metallica fans, St Anger?

If there were an Aerosmith message board in 1982 during 'Rock In A Hard Place', would there be insistence that was Aerosmith?

Then 2 years later, would there be vigorous defenses of 'Done With Mirrors'?

[LongGoneDay]

Whenever someone asks me if I ever got to see Guns N? Roses, I know they are referring to a specific lineup, and I know which one that is.
I grew up with die hard GN?R fans, but I literally don?t know anyone(outside of the internets) who doesn?t consider them dead and buried.

That said, there is no disputing the fact that this band?s legal name is Guns N? Roses.
Axl owns the name, and chose to ?move forward? long after the classic lineup imploded.

Whether that was a good idea or not is another story.

After some shady maneuvering mixed in with a bit of naivety, Axl found himself with the rights to the GN?R name.
So, it all comes down to what the fans are willing to accept.

Guns N? Roses today is not the band that I grew up with.
That tape my parents bought me for Christmas in ?88 that I listened to over and over and over again in my yellow Sony Sports walkman?
Outside of Axl, this band has literally nothing to do with the creation of those songs.
Guns N? Roses is essentially the soundtrack to my life.
There is a memory attached to most if not every song on Appetite for Destruction through Spaghetti Incident.

Outside of Axl and Dizzy, this band has nothing to do with those songs.
That?s just a plain and simple fact.

Chinese Democracy unfortunately didn?t resonate with me. Even if it did, main contributors to it?s sound are long gone.

I have no emotional attachment to the current incarnation, outside of Axl.
For a time I found it disingenuous, to say the least of him to bill a Slash/Izzy/Duff/Steven-less band as GN?R.
But, it?s not a lie if he believes it, and so I accept the fact that Axl wants us to believe it?s still Guns N? Roses.
I?ve supported them by buying their lone CD, DVD and multiple concert tickets.
Will continue to buy their albums should anymore see the light of day.

To me Guns N? Roses is something much bigger than Axl or any single member of the alumni.
I used to think he was rubbing his dick on GN?R's legacy with some of his post ?94 moves/decisions, but in the end it?s just a name.
It doesn?t take away from the fact he helped create my favorite songs/records, or change what GN?R as a whole means to me.

[D-GenerationX]

You seem to be generalizing people that always defend the band, but aren't you generally criticizing the band? It goes both ways. To say one way is strange or another way is strange when both are basically extremes seems kind of baseless. The person calling the other side strange will be biased. Obviously they will think the other side strange and their own side normal.

I think much of the conflict arises when not only is the band defended, but defended in such emotional terms, you'd think some here knew them, personally.

As I said in an earlier post, I'm all for supporting an artist and defending their actions if you feel its warranted.  But not in such a way you'd think people just insulted your mother.  You don't know these people.  They make music you like to listen to.  That's it.  Its not your duty to worry about their feelings or how you think they might be affected by what mean people say on the internet.  These are grown ups.  

(BTW, the "you" there is a catch all term and not directed at you, personally)

[D-GenerationX]

When one says this is not GNR, that person likely has the opinion that another form of GNR besides the current incarnation is the real deal.

So that leads me to be curious about what one might base this opinion off of. What was it that qualified what they see as the real GNR to be considered the real GNR?

If you had to introduce someone to the band Guns N' Roses, are you starting with the current line-up?  That's how I define it.

Now, sure, I know people are going to right away get their backs up and tell me that if people want Guns N Roses in 2014, this is what it is.  I agree.  Also not what I'm saying.

If someone had never heard of the band and asked you about them, are you not starting with AFD?  With all their iconic and best known songs?  Well...who did all that stuff?  Not these guys.  It's going to pretty damn far down the list of things to show them before you get to 'Shackler's Revenge'.  The CD album is not terribly required reading to tell someone what Guns N' Roses are about.

There seems to a be a disconnect and some false equivalence with the terms of equal time.  That if you are going to talk about the classic line-up, you need to mention the current one along side of it.  In my view...not really.  You don't have to ignore CD or the current line-up, but its more of a footnote to their legacy as a band.  They aren't a full partner in the firm, so to speak.

None of this means you can't enjoy the current line-up.  But some perspective is important, I think.

[D-GenerationX]

Whenever someone asks me if I ever got to see Guns N? Roses, I know they are referring to a specific lineup, and I know which one that is.
I grew up with die hard GN?R fans, but I literally don?t know anyone(outside of the internets) who doesn?t consider them dead and buried.

Totally agree.  And this greatly annoys people for some reason.

Its like this "this is supposed to be a fan forum" routine.  Is it?  Or is it shelter from the storm of the real world?

To be honest, a lot of the pushback against anyone not willing to say that everything is right as rain comes across, to me anyway, as an admission that people know its not, but this is their sanctuary from having to deal with that reality.

Guns N? Roses today is not the band that I grew up with.
That tape my parents bought me for Christmas in ?88 that I listened to over and over and over again in my yellow Sony Sports walkman?

HOLY SHIT. 

I had that same Walkman.  Hahaha.  That's awesome.

[Ginger King]

Whenever someone asks me if I ever got to see Guns N? Roses, I know they are referring to a specific lineup, and I know which one that is.
I grew up with die hard GN?R fans, but I literally don?t know anyone(outside of the internets) who doesn?t consider them dead and buried.

Totally agree.  And this greatly annoys people for some reason.

Its like this "this is supposed to be a fan forum" routine.  Is it?  Or is it shelter from the storm of the real world?

To be honest, a lot of the pushback against anyone not willing to say that everything is right as rain comes across, to me anyway, as an admission that people know its not, but this is their sanctuary from having to deal with that reality.

Guns N? Roses today is not the band that I grew up with.
That tape my parents bought me for Christmas in ?88 that I listened to over and over and over again in my yellow Sony Sports walkman?

HOLY SHIT. 

I had that same Walkman.  Hahaha.  That's awesome.

Me too.  The one with the flip down latch?  Still remember that like it was yesterday.

FYI, we are (slowly) getting to your age in 1991.  If we get this up to 70 pages I think we'll be there.

[jarmo]

I don't disagree.  I just think its one poor business plan.

And I think that's where I butt heads with folks.  Tell me all you want that he can do as he pleases.  But don't then tell me this is a great way to run things from a business perspective.

What do you base this on and why is it that important to you? Why do you care if it's bad from a business perspective?

Let's say you get an album you love that's considered "challenging and not accessible" by others, do you object to the album being that way because it's a poor business move to release such album, instead of some easy listening album with catchy songs?

It seems like some GN'R fans like to act like they have invested money in GN'R and object to decisions based on it being, in their minds, bad business. Suddenly we have wanna be managers, business managers, agents, promoters, producers, record company executives, video directors, tour managers and so on among us.


Let me ask you this, which would you say is easier to achieve better results in, something you hate doing every day of the week, or something you love doing and believe in?




/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

What do you base this on and why is it that important to you? Why do you care if it's bad from a business perspective?

I base it on how poorly things are run, coupled with the fact no other band on the planet would look at the past 10-15 years of this operation's management and emulate it.

It not "important to me".  It's a well founded observation.

Let's say you get an album you love that's considered "challenging and not accessible" by others, do you object to the album being that way because it's a poor business move to release such album, instead of some easy listening album with catchy songs?

No, I do not.  But I think the "challenging and not accessible" bit is a just spin to explain lack of impact something makes.

There are all sorts of things that don't sell like hotcakes but are still considered impactful.  There also things that don't sell and make no impact whatsoever.

It seems like some GN'R fans like to act like they have invested money in GN'R and object to decisions based on it being, in their minds, bad business. Suddenly we have wanna be managers, business managers, agents, promoters, producers, record company executives, video directors, tour managers and so on among us.

Its just an observation.

You are just salty because...well, you are always salty about anything that is not sunshine and puppy dog tails. 

The double edged sword of observations is that they either positive or negative, depending on what the subject has given you to work with.  Once you determine the only acceptable observations are ones that highlight the positive, and anything negative should never be mentioned, you lose your credibility.

Let me ask you this, which would you say is easier to achieve better results in, something you hate doing every day of the week, or something you love doing and believe in?

The easy answer is stuff you love, but that invalidates anyone that ever been successful as a job they don't love.  Which I suspect is most of the world.

[D-GenerationX]

That's also the strawman of alltime.

Never one time has anyone that dared say anything critical implied they are industry experts, can do a better job, know everything about everything.

That whole routine is ridiculous.   

[jarmo]

I base it on how poorly things are run, coupled with the fact no other band on the planet would look at the past 10-15 years of this operation's management and emulate it.

It not "important to me".  It's a well founded observation.

No, because every band is individual.
Also, your idea of poor is assuming the other alternative is great?

Let's say the band finished in 1996. Would that have been better for you?

No, I do not.  But I think the "challenging and not accessible" bit is a just spin to explain lack of impact something makes.

There are all sorts of things that don't sell like hotcakes but are still considered impactful.  There also things that don't sell and make no impact whatsoever.

No no, you talk about business. Not impact. So stick to that.

Pearl Jam made some albums in the 1990s that were less accessible. They sold less, there were no videos and so on, is that bad business? They put their art first.

I wouldn't personally condemn any artist or band for doing that. I don't care if it doesn't sell, they did what they believed in. Then they went back to more accessible albums, I guess they did their little "trial". Maybe that era made it possible for them to be where they are now. Same thing with many other bands. Bad business might mean longevity in the long run.

You are just salty because...well, you are always salty about anything that is not sunshine and puppy dog tails.

 

Ah, personal insults.

The easy answer is stuff you love, but that invalidates anyone that ever been successful as a job they don't love.  Which I suspect is most of the world.

So you'd rather have people unhappy taking care of business, or people being happier and staying true to themselves but making "bad business moves"?

I mean, we do have a lot of that kind of bands around. I'm sure you're jealous of them because they are so amazing in every way, except their music sucks. But the business is good and well run! Small price to pay....


I know, I'll get the usual reply about how everybody else can see how GN'R is run badly and how bad business it is and blah blah blah. See, it's easy to type that. The whole point is, if you're facing the hurdles GN'R have faced, maybe the only option to survive is to make certain decisions that the "people of the Internet" will not agree with.

Everything is not black and white. It's not good or bad. Maybe there's something in between where it might not be the best, but it's a compromise....




/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

No, because every band is individual.
Also, your idea of poor is assuming the other alternative is great?

No, poor is poor.  GNR circa 2000 onwards is not a business plan anyone will be adopting.

Don't worry about what other bands are doing.  Worry about this one.   

Let's say the band finished in 1996. Would that have been better for you?

Nah.  I got a handful of songs I really liked. 

If my choice is have them or don't, I'd pick have them.

Pearl Jam made some albums in the 1990s that were less accessible. They sold less, there were no videos and so on, is that bad business? They put their art first.

I wouldn't personally condemn any artist or band for doing that. I don't care if it doesn't sell, they did what they believed in. Then they went back to more accessible albums, I guess they did their little "trial". Maybe that era made it possible for them to be where they are now. Same thing with many other bands. Bad business might mean longevity in the long run.

I think their feud with Ticketmaster was bad business.  If you are a band, its never good business to bench yourself in your prime and not let people see you play.

As for albums, what other than 'No Code' was not accessible?  Every other album of that decade had songs that were radio staples and remain so to this day.

So you'd rather have people unhappy taking care of business, or people being happier and staying true to themselves but making "bad business moves"?

Music at this level is a business.  With our guys, its a pretty shoddily run one.

Don't overthink it or try and church it up.

[jarmo]

No, poor is poor.  GNR circa 2000 onwards is not a business plan anyone will be adopting.

You mean nobody else would like to put out  compilation album that sells multiple platinum, one of the most anticipated albums of recent decades as well as playing shows all over the world? Yeah, when you think about it, it's gotta be bad. I'm sure most smaller bands wouldn't want any of that.

Don't worry about what other bands are doing.  Worry about this one. 

 


I don't worry. I know the people running it are capable of doing their jobs.

Nah.  I got a handful of songs I really liked. 

If my choice is have them or don't, I'd pick have them.

Ah. So it's a case of you not minding the "bad business", you just wanna complain about it.

I think their feud with Ticketmaster was bad business.  If you are a band, its never good business to bench yourself in your prime and not let people see you play.

As for albums, what other than 'No Code' was not accessible?  Every other album of that decade had songs that were radio staples and remain so to this day.

Compare Vitalogy to the first two and then No Code to them. Definitely more challenging in ways.
Of course songs got played on the radio, they were on of the biggest hard rock bands around at the time.

Music at this level is a business.  With our guys, its a pretty shoddily run one.

Don't overthink it or try and church it up.

I don't over think. It doesn't take a lot to see there's more to the picture that what you portray.

I wish some people didn't "under think", always taking the easy way out because we all know complaining is the easiest form of "feedback". 



/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

No, poor is poor.  GNR circa 2000 onwards is not a business plan anyone will be adopting.

You mean nobody else would like to put out  compilation album that sells multiple platinum, one of the most anticipated albums of recent decades as well as playing shows all over the world? Yeah, when you think about it, it's gotta be bad. I'm sure most smaller bands wouldn't want any of that.

Hahahaha.  The release of a greatest hits is now a big accomplishment.  You're a hoot, Jarmo.

And didn't Axl try and sue to block that?  Odd he would be against such an obvious accomplishment and feather in his cap.

As for the touring, its only an accomplishment if we compare it to the times the touring got fucked up.  But, since you don't allow that as a topic, it can't then be used to make the times it worked all that much greater.

Is there another band whose fans get all funny in the pants when a band announces shows and then shows up to play them?  Why is it such a big deal for us?

Oh...right.  Can't talk about that.

Nah.  I got a handful of songs I really liked. 

If my choice is have them or don't, I'd pick have them.

Ah. So it's a case of you not minding the "bad business", you just wanna complain about it.

No, I was just honestly answering your snitty question.  I would not rather the band ceased to exist in 1996.

I also wish things were run better these past 10-15 years.  Can't always get what you want, as you are so fond of telling us.

Compare Vitalogy to the first two and then No Code to them. Definitely more challenging in ways.
Of course songs got played on the radio, they were on of the biggest hard rock bands around at the time.

True.

But stuff from 'Vitalogy' got played and stuff from 'Yield' got played.  You never hear a 'No Code' song on the radio.

I don't over think. It doesn't take a lot to see there's more to the picture that what you portray.

I wish some people didn't "under think", always taking the easy way out because we all know complaining is the easiest form of "feedback". 

There's always a boogeyman if you very much want there to be one.  It doesn't even have to be seen, it seems.  Just trust in its invisible menace.

[ice cream sand pig]

Great post jazjme! Thanks for sharing your story! Can you tell us any more about your meetings with the band members? I'd love to hear more about that.

For anyone that finds it strange that people feel the urge to defend their favorite band, I have a few thoughts about this. I can only speak for myself personally. I identify with GNR's music and the people that make that music. Therefore I feel it is not that unusual for me to be more open to putting myself in their shoes. It seems to me it's a natural response to the some of the stimuli that is given.

I have never thought that I should defend anything in life unreservedly, based on the fact that, I consider myself a fan of, presumably most of their prior decisions and music if I am a 'fan' - same applies of film series which go to rubbish with bad sequels. This is not even how bands operate. Were Stones fans defending Dirty Work, or Metallica fans, St Anger?

If there were an Aerosmith message board in 1982 during 'Rock In A Hard Place', would there be insistence that was Aerosmith?

Then 2 years later, would there be vigorous defenses of 'Done With Mirrors'?

I don't see the correlation with 'Done With Mirrors'. Was that a stinker album? Honestly, I don't need force myself to say CD is good to be polite or to protect the band. I say it because I like CD. I don't have to go out of my way to say it sounds like GNR to me. It really does.

Another important thing to note (again), I think, is that if Axl didn't get the name he would have gone off and created some instrumental music soundtrack stuff. The fact that he kept the band going and still tries to produce GNR type music is something I am really thankful for. It's a shame things couldn't work out with him and Slash, but all things considered, if they had to part ways, then I am happy Axl is the one that ended up with the name. Otherwise VR probably would have been called GNR. No thanks.

Again, don't really see how the urge to put myself in their shoes and try to see how things look from their perspective is all that strange. Besides, I just don't have many negative things to say about them. I am not intentionally spinning anything to convince myself to be positive about them. I just am. I like them. I don't feel some duty to protect them. I am just sharing how I feel.

[D-GenerationX]

If there were an Aerosmith message board in 1982 during 'Rock In A Hard Place', would there be insistence that was Aerosmith?

Then 2 years later, would there be vigorous defenses of 'Done With Mirrors'?

I don't see the correlation with 'Done With Mirrors'. Was that a stinker album? Honestly, I don't need force myself to say CD is good to be polite or to protect the band. I say it because I like CD. I don't have to go out of my way to say it sounds like GNR to me. It really does.

Yeah, 'Done With Mirrors' is totally forgettable.  The only song anyone even knows (Let the Music Do The Talking) was actually a Joe Perry Project tune from 4 years prior.

The point that was being made, I believe, is that all bands have stinkers.  It happens.  Not everything can be great.  And I would doubt anyone on an Aerosmith forum would get bothered by someone saying the album was not up to snuff.

But would we roll like that, as a fanbase?  We seem to have a pretty stringent purity test going a lot of the time.

[jarmo]

No, poor is poor.  GNR circa 2000 onwards is not a business plan anyone will be adopting.

You mean nobody else would like to put out  compilation album that sells multiple platinum, one of the most anticipated albums of recent decades as well as playing shows all over the world? Yeah, when you think about it, it's gotta be bad. I'm sure most smaller bands wouldn't want any of that.

Hahahaha.  The release of a greatest hits is now a big accomplishment.  You're a hoot, Jarmo.

Nowhere did I say that. You have once again demonstrated your inability of basic understanding.
You say something and then when I reply to that exact thing, you make it seem like I replied to something else.

It's not rocket science. Can't you even follow your own thoughts? The whole thing has been about business. Nothing else.
Stick to talking business. Not impact, not accomplishments.

And didn't Axl try and sue to block that?  Odd he would be against such an obvious accomplishment and feather in his cap.

Not only him. Still doesn't change the fact that it sold. Talking of business.....

As for the touring, its only an accomplishment

Accomplishment, accomplishment, accomplishment. Stop.

But stuff from 'Vitalogy' got played and stuff from 'Yield' got played.  You never hear a 'No Code' song on the radio.

I wouldn't know, I don't listen to radio. But Hail, Hail sounds radio friendly to me...




/jarmo