New Dj interview at LegendaryRockInterviews.com (Sep 2014)

[D-GenerationX]

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.

You absolutely said that. 

I said their business plan from 2000 onwards is not something to be emulated.

You came back with :

- greatest hits
- Chinese Democracy
- world tours

Those are your words, sport.

I'm just curious how the release of a compilation album in 2004 with no new tracks, and the newest song on there being from 1994, is a huge win for the management.

Management is promotion, which was not done for the greatest hits.  In fact, Axl tried to sue to block its release.  Where is management's big win in all this?

Chinese Democracy?  Again, where is the promotion?  The "most anticipated album of alltime!" was out of sight and out of mind not even 2 months later.  What did management do here to help things?

World tours?  They booked shows and the band showed up to play them.  Awesome.  That's the job.  Its only a cookie worthy moment for this band because sometimes, shows, if not entire tours are scrapped.  Aborted 2001 tour, good management?  2002 tour debacle, good management?  COmplete and utter lack of promotion for all these tours, good management?

Poor communication, no promotion, and lack of setting up situations for the band to succeed.  Those are the calling cards of the management for 15 years.  And this doesn't even get into the fact there is a disturbing amount of time we don't even know who is in the band.

Yeah...they rock.  Amazing other bands haven't beaten a path to their door for their services.

[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.

You absolutely said that. 

I said their business plan from 2000 onwards is not something to be emulated.

You came back with :

- greatest hits
- Chinese Democracy
- world tours

Those are your words, sport.

Nowhere did I say anything about accomplishments. It was about business.
You try to ridicule it. Yet I pointed out that I'm sure some bands would love to have that kind of "bad" business as GN'R has had. Asked to headline major festivals and tour around the world. Have a compilation album go multiple platinum and have one of the most anticipated albums of recent decades.

Yeah, nobody wants any of that.

The media attention Axl gets alone, is a source for jealousy from certain other bands.

I'm just curious how the release of a compilation album in 2004 with no new tracks, and the newest song on there being from 1994, is a huge win for the management.

What? you were talking about business. It must be great business to repackage something old and still sell millions of it? The costs involved in that can't be high. Management? You were talking about business... Pick one and stick to it.

Business, management, accomplishments or what? What's your problem of the day with GN'R?

Management is promotion, which was not done for the greatest hits.  In fact, Axl tried to sue to block its release.  Where is management's big win in all this?

Once again, business. I'm sure it made money for your friends at the record company.

Chinese Democracy?  Again, where is the promotion?  The "most anticipated album of alltime!" was out of sight and out of mind not even 2 months later.  What did management do here to help things?

It came out. I sold. It made money instead of not coming out and making none.

World tours?  They booked shows and the band showed up to play them.  Awesome.  That's the job.  Its only a cookie worthy moment for this band because sometimes, shows, if not entire tours are scrapped.  Aborted 2001 tour, good management?  2002 tour debacle, good management?  COmplete and utter lack of promotion for all these tours, good management?

2002? Please.
Who was the manager? Same one as in 1991.... Are you actually blaming the same manager who managed the old band? 


You go from talking business into this tirade against the band's various management people. So you're essentially saying you don't care about the actual business or financial aspects, all you know is that the various managers over the years haven't done a good job. We all knew that.

You just try to hide it under the label business. And I'm pretty sure you know nothing about the band's business.
Oh, but you know because you see things. You know it must be bad business if a tour is canceled. You know it's bad business if they release a compilation album and so on.

Unless your privy to certain information, you don't really know anything. Sorry.
It doesn't change the fact you want to be seen as some kind of armchair authority on GN'R's as a business.


Aren't you the guy who gave credit to past managers for doing something, while current management is only "doing their job" when they do something?




/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

What's your problem of the day with GN'R?

Today?  Snitty message board moderators.

This one, though, I love :

Once again, business. I'm sure it made money for your friends at the record company.

Beautiful.

[LongGoneDay]

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.

I?ve seen this point raised more than once, and I?m not sure I agree.
I think regardless of their differences, Slash and Duff have enough respect for Axl, and GN?R?s legacy that they wouldn?t have attempted to move on with the name.
Granted I never would have imagined a Slash/Duff/Izzy/Steven-less Guns N? Roses either.
The fact that VR is supposedly looking for Scott?s replacement might suggest otherwise as well, but I?d like to think they wouldn?t have messed with their legacy.

I think an interesting potential disadvantage of the current circumstances are that Axl sort of painted himself into a corner.
I?m personally over the prospect of a potential reunion, but I am very much in the minority when it comes to GN?R fans.

Had Axl gone solo, or started a new band, he?d have been free to create any sounds his little heart desired. He?d have spared himself a lot of criticism.
He also would have had the option of revisiting GN?R down the road if they could manage to get past their differences.

Of course Axl decided to piss into the wind, so if they were ever able to iron out their differences, which isn?t exactly unprecedented in the history of mankind, the album Chinese Democracy becomes the elephant in the room. Unless Axl was so burnt out from the process of creating it, and wanted to distance himself from it.
I can?t imagine Slash wanting anything to do with it.

The alumni have an impressive discography post Guns, but could have made a smooth transition right back in with the paths they chose.
Axl?s chosen path would make it a bit awkward to say the least.

[D-GenerationX]

Unless your privy to certain information, you don't really know anything. Sorry.
It doesn't change the fact you want to be seen as some kind of armchair authority on GN'R's as a business.

I'm curious.

If I was lauding everything, would I be similarly scolded about not knowing anything and I really shouldn't speculate?

I'd have to be, right?  I can't imagine that's a one way street.

[D-GenerationX]

I?ve seen this point raised more than once, and I?m not sure I agree.
I think regardless of their differences, Slash and Duff have enough respect for Axl, and GN?R?s legacy that they wouldn?t have attempted to move on with the name.

Oh, I disagree.

I think they'd have Van Hagared it up with a different singer if they could have.  Velvet Revolver would have been called Guns N' Roses.

Had Axl gone solo, or started a new band, he?d have been free to create any sounds his little heart desired. He?d have spared himself a lot of criticism.

Perhaps, but it would have killed him business wise.

Is "The Axl Rose Band" with no album and a band roster of people few have ever of headlining festivals?  I highly doubt it.  He's on a side stage at 5:30 PM.

[LongGoneDay]

I?ve seen this point raised more than once, and I?m not sure I agree.
I think regardless of their differences, Slash and Duff have enough respect for Axl, and GN?R?s legacy that they wouldn?t have attempted to move on with the name.

Oh, I disagree.

I think they'd have Van Hagared it up with a different singer if they could have.  Velvet Revolver would have been called Guns N' Roses.

Had Axl gone solo, or started a new band, he?d have been free to create any sounds his little heart desired. He?d have spared himself a lot of criticism.

Perhaps, but it would have killed him business wise.

Is "The Axl Rose Band" with no album and a band roster of people few have ever of headlining festivals?  I highly doubt it.  He's on a side stage at 5:30 PM.

You could be right. I think the way things ended, the last thing they wanted at the time was to keep that band going.
Plus they?d know it would be an uphill battle, they?d be the bad guys if they had the gall to move forward without Axl.
Luckily we'll never have to know!

In regards to Axl, I think the name obviously helped him financially.
In a strange way I think even the financial support could be seen as a burden.
Without the name, infinite budget, and pressure it brought, would he have been so meticulous in creating, and apprehensive about releasing a single record?
We know the whole process took an emotional toll on him.

I?d like to know if he deems it all worth it in the end, or if he?d do things differently given a second chance.
Because beyond financials, looking in, it appears the negatives the GN?R name brings outweigh the positives.

[JAEBALL]

I?ve seen this point raised more than once, and I?m not sure I agree.
I think regardless of their differences, Slash and Duff have enough respect for Axl, and GN?R?s legacy that they wouldn?t have attempted to move on with the name.

Oh, I disagree.

I think they'd have Van Hagared it up with a different singer if they could have.  Velvet Revolver would have been called Guns N' Roses.

Had Axl gone solo, or started a new band, he?d have been free to create any sounds his little heart desired. He?d have spared himself a lot of criticism.

Perhaps, but it would have killed him business wise.

Is "The Axl Rose Band" with no album and a band roster of people few have ever of headlining festivals?  I highly doubt it.  He's on a side stage at 5:30 PM.

I also think VR would have been called Guns N Roses... and they would have been ridiculed for it just the same as GNR is now ...

In the chats Axl said the name helped the music more than we could know... I was always curious what he meant by that... because how could he honestly think that? The constant comparisons or the constant this doesn't sound like GNR wouldn't be there no?

But again, I ahve no clue what he really meant by that, so I don't know

[JAEBALL]

I?ve seen this point raised more than once, and I?m not sure I agree.
I think regardless of their differences, Slash and Duff have enough respect for Axl, and GN?R?s legacy that they wouldn?t have attempted to move on with the name.

Oh, I disagree.

I think they'd have Van Hagared it up with a different singer if they could have.  Velvet Revolver would have been called Guns N' Roses.

Had Axl gone solo, or started a new band, he?d have been free to create any sounds his little heart desired. He?d have spared himself a lot of criticism.

Perhaps, but it would have killed him business wise.

Is "The Axl Rose Band" with no album and a band roster of people few have ever of headlining festivals?  I highly doubt it.  He's on a side stage at 5:30 PM.

You could be right. I think the way things ended, the last thing they wanted at the time was to keep that band going.
Plus they?d know it would be an uphill battle, they?d be the bad guys if they had the gall to move forward without Axl.
Luckily we'll never have to know!

In regards to Axl, I think the name obviously helped him financially.
In a strange way I think even the financial support could be seen as a burden.
Without the name, infinite budget, and pressure it brought, would he have been so meticulous in creating, and apprehensive about releasing a single record?
We know the whole process took an emotional toll on him.

I?d like to know if he deems it all worth it in the end, or if he?d do things differently given a second chance.
Because beyond financials, looking in, it appears the negatives the GN?R name brings outweigh the positives.

Well speaking strictly financially... he never would have sold a quarter of the tickets he has sold since 2000 without the name

But emotionally and physically... Maybe he would do it differently.. if given a truth serum... he's admitted waht an awful process it was... maybe he wouldn't use the name...who knows

[D-GenerationX]

I also think VR would have been called Guns N Roses... and they would have been ridiculed for it just the same as GNR is now ...

I think they'd have faced some of the same talk.  Stuff like how it isn't really Guns N' Roses and bring back Axl.

But, I think it was be a bit more muted than what Axl faces.  Simply because VR was at least a competently run operation that functioned more like a band.  They'd never truly escape reunion talk, but I don't think it would be as brutal.

And, elephant in the room, they'd also have Axl's rep in their favor.  One of the biggest things Axl has working against him is his rep for being difficult on a good day and impossible on a bad one.  So when people see GNR these days, the most common thing you hear is how Axl kicked them all out because he's crazy.

Well, flip that on its head.  Couldn't a Slash/Duff Axl-less version of GNR use some of that as cover?  Yeah, they've sorry he's not here anymore either, but...you know, he's crazy.

[JAEBALL]

I also think VR would have been called Guns N Roses... and they would have been ridiculed for it just the same as GNR is now ...

I think they'd have faced some of the same talk.  Stuff like how it isn't really Guns N' Roses and bring back Axl.

But, I think it was be a bit more muted than what Axl faces.  Simply because VR was at least a competently run operation that functioned more like a band.  They'd never truly escape reunion talk, but I don't think it would be as brutal.

And, elephant in the room, they'd also have Axl's rep in their favor.  One of the biggest things Axl has working against him is his rep for being difficult on a good day and impossible on a bad one.  So when people see GNR these days, the most common thing you hear is how Axl kicked them all out because he's crazy.

Well, flip that on its head.  Couldn't a Slash/Duff Axl-less version of GNR use some of that as cover?  Yeah, they've sorry he's not here anymore either, but...you know, he's crazy.

Did you see Plant reportedly turned down 300 million for 35 LZ dates?

You think Axl would say no that kind of coin? lol

[LongGoneDay]

I?ve seen this point raised more than once, and I?m not sure I agree.
I think regardless of their differences, Slash and Duff have enough respect for Axl, and GN?R?s legacy that they wouldn?t have attempted to move on with the name.

Oh, I disagree.

I think they'd have Van Hagared it up with a different singer if they could have.  Velvet Revolver would have been called Guns N' Roses.

Had Axl gone solo, or started a new band, he?d have been free to create any sounds his little heart desired. He?d have spared himself a lot of criticism.

Perhaps, but it would have killed him business wise.

Is "The Axl Rose Band" with no album and a band roster of people few have ever of headlining festivals?  I highly doubt it.  He's on a side stage at 5:30 PM.

I also think VR would have been called Guns N Roses... and they would have been ridiculed for it just the same as GNR is now ...

In the chats Axl said the name helped the music more than we could know... I was always curious what he meant by that... because how could he honestly think that? The constant comparisons or the constant this doesn't sound like GNR wouldn't be there no?

But again, I ahve no clue what he really meant by that, so I don't know

Yeah, I'm not sure. I remember Axl's chats giving me a migraine headache. I'll have to revisit at some point.

[D-GenerationX]

Did you see Plant reportedly turned down 300 million for 35 LZ dates?

You think Axl would say no that kind of coin? lol

Yeah, he's always been steadfast on that.  Page has been trying for YEARS.

Shit, he got so desperate he started working with David Coverdale.  I'm sure Robert got a kick out of that, Jimmy working with the guy Robert called "David Coverversion".

[Ali]

Bumblefoot is surely a first-rate troll, and has been trolling his negativity since he joined the band? Buckethead is a troll for leaving Axl in the lurch and leaving behind a carefully worded letter of 'negativity' via his manager. Robin is a troll also when he criticised Axl's eccentric recording methods.

Totally agree!!!  Those trolling bastards!!! 


joke 

HTGTH is so obsessed with censoring that it lives within its own bubble which does not even logically square with Newgnr themselves!

Exactly which part of these 1222 dead-horse conversation replies is the censorship part?? 

Well I did not mean in the literal sense - although I have had one post removed - but in the expectation, the expectation to follow a band in a specific way. Obviously I am referring to the attacks which surface whenever the merest whiff of controversy rears its head - the words 'troll'' and 'negativity' will lead you in the right direction. I find this expectation, of what a fan is supposed to be, completely absurd.

Listen, it is just a stupid rock band. Lighten up people. Every band has off days. Every band makes decisions which seem odd or stupid - and back fire. Many bands have members fans might not be keen on - 'Lars's drumming' is a category you will frequently see on Metallica boards for instance. Yet with every other band, fans seem able to discuss these matters without having their fandom or integrity brought into question - and do it with a sense of humour. Axl is not going to assassinate you for thinking CD is stinks to high heaven or DJ cannot play his ukulele well. GN'R are, at the end of the day, just a silly rock band. We are not discussing theology or a cure for cancer here.

I don't think your seeing things clearly.  Someone comes on this board, who's never been....they are seeing both negative and positive.  Just because someone counters a complaint doesn't mean they aren't accepting negativity.  Maybe it just means they see things differently than you.  They're people who see a lot of positive on here and they're people who don't.  And they are all posting and expressing their opinions.  I would argue that these other sites you speak of, are very similar and have counter posts with different opinions that sometimes turn into attacks.  It's just what happens...

I think you need to read the posts that are being said on here. Certain posts have provoked a reaction from one particular poster which borders on the irrational. They have had their personal integrity question, and have been asked to leave.

Not irrational at all, unlike you I like and support this band, I have been a fan for close to 20 years and have attended countless shows. I don't have the entitlement  mindset, and I understand how the recording industry works, I respect how artists create and I dont feel "owed".

Nobody in authority has asked me to leave, and I take what disgruntled little kids, trolls, and haters say with a grain of salt and consider the source and the mentality of such people.

Fuck what the idiots say about my integrity, I dont fucking care about those kind of people.

I'm simply a long time fan and supporter of this band, I have seen all incarnations, and yes, this is GNR whether you like it or not, that part is non-negotiable.

I may be a bit sadistic, I do enjoy watching Jarmo own the arguments and discount all the ridiculous hater and troll supposed points and petty gripes and endless complaints.

The only reason I got my passport renewed this year was to attend upcoming shows if a european tour happens.

Long live GNR, the soundtrack to my life.

Not even worth the reply.

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

Yes, legally GNR is under Axl. However, to call it GNR is subjective. There was an analogy about sports teams and roster, which I agree with. There is another analogy in business as well. Bank of America bought Merrill Lynch during the financial crisis. Legally there is still a Merrill Lynch brand, BUT culturally they took on Bank of America. The same people who worked at Merrill Lynch when it was an indecent company no longer works there. To those people it's not Merrill Lynch anymore.

PS: Had to respond to this. Wow! a lot of reading. Haven't been on here since Tuesday due to work.

No, the band name is not subjective. Only Axl gets to determine what is and what isn't GN'R. What is subjective is whether or not you like GN'R as it is today.

Ali

De jure you are correct. De facto, incorrect. If fan X sees Chinese Democracy in a store and says to himself, ''that is not gnr'', he is perfectly entitled to that viewpoint.

No.  What fan X would be saying is "I don't like this Guns N' Roses" or "I don't accept this as Guns N' Roses".  Fan X cannot determine what is and what is not Guns N' Roses.  Only Axl Rose can.

Ali

[D-GenerationX]

Yeah, I'm not sure. I remember Axl's chats giving me a migraine headache. I'll have to revisit at some point.

The answers were definitely more brief than normal, but in the usual Axl speak.

I still wonder what moved him to do that.  I just happened to be online at MYGNR that night.  It was wild.

Also a little disheartening.  Here we got the guy on the line, just released his album he worked on for a decade...and people are badgering him about what happened with Slash 12 years prior.

[D-GenerationX]

No.  What fan X would be saying is "I don't like this Guns N' Roses" or "I don't accept this as Guns N' Roses".  Fan X cannot determine what is and what is not Guns N' Roses.  Only Axl Rose can.

So, as you see it, Ben Affleck is Batman now, because the movie studio is the only one that can say that.

And anyone that doesn't buy him as Batman, they are incorrect.  He's Batman.  It says so right here...see?

[mortismurphy]

Bumblefoot is surely a first-rate troll, and has been trolling his negativity since he joined the band? Buckethead is a troll for leaving Axl in the lurch and leaving behind a carefully worded letter of 'negativity' via his manager. Robin is a troll also when he criticised Axl's eccentric recording methods.

Totally agree!!!  Those trolling bastards!!! 


joke 

HTGTH is so obsessed with censoring that it lives within its own bubble which does not even logically square with Newgnr themselves!

Exactly which part of these 1222 dead-horse conversation replies is the censorship part?? 

Well I did not mean in the literal sense - although I have had one post removed - but in the expectation, the expectation to follow a band in a specific way. Obviously I am referring to the attacks which surface whenever the merest whiff of controversy rears its head - the words 'troll'' and 'negativity' will lead you in the right direction. I find this expectation, of what a fan is supposed to be, completely absurd.

Listen, it is just a stupid rock band. Lighten up people. Every band has off days. Every band makes decisions which seem odd or stupid - and back fire. Many bands have members fans might not be keen on - 'Lars's drumming' is a category you will frequently see on Metallica boards for instance. Yet with every other band, fans seem able to discuss these matters without having their fandom or integrity brought into question - and do it with a sense of humour. Axl is not going to assassinate you for thinking CD is stinks to high heaven or DJ cannot play his ukulele well. GN'R are, at the end of the day, just a silly rock band. We are not discussing theology or a cure for cancer here.

I don't think your seeing things clearly.  Someone comes on this board, who's never been....they are seeing both negative and positive.  Just because someone counters a complaint doesn't mean they aren't accepting negativity.  Maybe it just means they see things differently than you.  They're people who see a lot of positive on here and they're people who don't.  And they are all posting and expressing their opinions.  I would argue that these other sites you speak of, are very similar and have counter posts with different opinions that sometimes turn into attacks.  It's just what happens...

I think you need to read the posts that are being said on here. Certain posts have provoked a reaction from one particular poster which borders on the irrational. They have had their personal integrity question, and have been asked to leave.

Not irrational at all, unlike you I like and support this band, I have been a fan for close to 20 years and have attended countless shows. I don't have the entitlement  mindset, and I understand how the recording industry works, I respect how artists create and I dont feel "owed".

Nobody in authority has asked me to leave, and I take what disgruntled little kids, trolls, and haters say with a grain of salt and consider the source and the mentality of such people.

Fuck what the idiots say about my integrity, I dont fucking care about those kind of people.

I'm simply a long time fan and supporter of this band, I have seen all incarnations, and yes, this is GNR whether you like it or not, that part is non-negotiable.

I may be a bit sadistic, I do enjoy watching Jarmo own the arguments and discount all the ridiculous hater and troll supposed points and petty gripes and endless complaints.

The only reason I got my passport renewed this year was to attend upcoming shows if a european tour happens.

Long live GNR, the soundtrack to my life.

Not even worth the reply.

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

Yes, legally GNR is under Axl. However, to call it GNR is subjective. There was an analogy about sports teams and roster, which I agree with. There is another analogy in business as well. Bank of America bought Merrill Lynch during the financial crisis. Legally there is still a Merrill Lynch brand, BUT culturally they took on Bank of America. The same people who worked at Merrill Lynch when it was an indecent company no longer works there. To those people it's not Merrill Lynch anymore.

PS: Had to respond to this. Wow! a lot of reading. Haven't been on here since Tuesday due to work.

No, the band name is not subjective. Only Axl gets to determine what is and what isn't GN'R. What is subjective is whether or not you like GN'R as it is today.

Ali

De jure you are correct. De facto, incorrect. If fan X sees Chinese Democracy in a store and says to himself, ''that is not gnr'', he is perfectly entitled to that viewpoint.

No.  What fan X would be saying is "I don't like this Guns N' Roses" or "I don't accept this as Guns N' Roses".  Fan X cannot determine what is and what is not Guns N' Roses.  Only Axl Rose can.

Ali

The difference between ''this is not'' and ''I don't accept this as'' Guns N' Roses is mere semantics.

[D-GenerationX]

The difference between ''this is not'' and ''I don't accept this as'' Guns N' Roses is mere semantics.

Yep.

Makes sense on paper, but little practical application trying to sell it in the real world.

The only people that accept that rationale are the people with a vested interest to believe it.

The second we can get somebody that doesn't still follow the band to sign on, I'll be convinced.

[GypsySoul]

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.

How can it be "one poor business plan" if it's HIS business??  How can it be "poor business" if in after almost 30 years and with all the changes that in 2014 you still can get MILLIONS of fans following you on facebook/twitter/instagram/etc.??  How can it be "poor business" if over almost 30 years and with all the changes that in 2014 promoters and fans still want you to headline festivals and do shows literally all over the world??  How can it be "poor business" if the record company waited over 15 years and gave you millions upon millions of dollars to make an album??  How can it be "poor business" if those same millions of fb/twitter/etc fans anxiously waited all those years for that album and upon it's release supported the band as they toured that album all over the world??  How can it be "poor business" if those same millions of fans, including yourself, are still here 6 years after that release and have been anxiously awaiting/anticipating the next release??  How can it be "poor business" if after more than 5 years since the release of that album, a simple statement in an interview suggesting they'll look into releasing a new album would cause those same millions of fans, including yourself, to "go dancing in the streets, throwing confetti in the air" and then proceeded to wait for months n' months now with bated breath because Axl himself said he'd look into doing that??

Sounds to me like not only does Axl know HIS business but he continues to be very good at it.
There aren't too many bands in the history of the music business who can or would want to follow Axl's business formula BUT I'm sure every one of them would want/hope to be in the position to have that same level of "success" in their business.

No.  What fan X would be saying is "I don't like this Guns N' Roses" or "I don't accept this as Guns N' Roses".  Fan X cannot determine what is and what is not Guns N' Roses.  Only Axl Rose can.

So, as you see it, Ben Affleck is Batman now, because the movie studio is the only one that can say that.

And anyone that doesn't buy him as Batman, they are incorrect.  He's Batman.  It says so right here...see?

Ben Affleck IS Batman.  The movie studio said so.  There's no one else currently who IS Batman.  If you asked anyone else that used to be in any of the past Batman movies who is the current Batman, they'd tell you Ben Affleck!!!

[D-GenerationX]

How can it be "one poor business plan" if it's HIS business??  How can it be "poor business" if in after almost 30 years and with all the changes that in 2014 you still can get MILLIONS of fans following you on facebook/twitter/instagram/etc.??  How can it be "poor business" if over almost 30 years and with all the changes that in 2014 promoters and fans still want you to headline festivals and do shows literally all over the world??  How can it be "poor business" if the record company waited over 15 years and gave you millions upon millions of dollars to make an album??  How can it be "poor business" if those same millions of fb/twitter/etc fans anxiously waited all those years for that album and upon it's release supported the band as they toured that album all over the world??  How can it be "poor business" if those same millions of fans, including yourself, are still here 6 years after that release and have been anxiously awaiting/anticipating the next release??  How can it be "poor business" if after more than 5 years since the release of that album, a simple statement in an interview suggesting they'll look into releasing a new album would cause those same millions of fans, including yourself, to "go dancing in the streets, throwing confetti in the air" and then proceeded to wait for months n' months now with bated breath because Axl himself said he'd look into doing that??

Sounds to me like not only does Axl know HIS business but he continues to be very good at it.  There aren't too many bands in the history of the music business who can or would want to follow Axl's business formula BUT I'm sure every one of them would want/hope to be in the position to have that same level of "success" in their business.

Then what they'd need is about a solid 5 year run then can cash in on for the rest of their days.

Does ANY of what you just ran down even get off the ground without that 5 year run in the bank?

Ben Affleck IS Batman.  The movie studio said so.  There's no one else currently who IS Batman.  If you asked anyone else that used to be in any of the past Batman movies who is the current Batman, they'd tell you Ben Affleck!!!

Yet if no one goes to see the movie, is there going to be a big muckety muck meeting some boardroom where some exasperated department head is going to say "I don't know what the god damn problem was.  The guy WAS Batman.  It says it right here, for christ's sake!!  People are fuckin' idiots, I swear."

Is the studio head going to accept that, I wonder?