New Dj interview at LegendaryRockInterviews.com (Sep 2014)

[jarmo]

Well...yeah.

If the "Guns N' Roses" comes to my town as is, they are in a 3,000 seat place they don't fill.

If the "Guns N' Roses" that 99% of the world recognizes comes, they are at a 20,000 arena, sold out.  Perhaps even 2 nights in bigger cities.

I don't see how you could spin that as meaningless.  You are talking a ticket disparity of 17,000 at best, perhaps 37,000 at worst.  And multiply that by every major city.  And since the name is the same, the obvious difference is personnel.

Still, this is not evidence of what you claim. It's evidence that people love nostalgia.

Reunion tours sell even when the band stopped existing and then reunited. So those fans have no name issues to protest against. But they still go see the show.

I know the old band was popular. But I'm not gonna make claims to know what exactly would have happened if they kept going with for example the 1993 line up into the 2000s. Considering most bands' popularity goes up and down.

I think this is pretty pie in the sky, all due respect.  All sorts of concerts happen every day of the week in major cities, and people fill the buildings. 

On one hand you keep saying nobody wants to emulate GN'R's history, on the other hand you are always comparing them to other bands. If nobody did what GN'R has done, how's that a fair comparison?



I don't think this can be explained with one or two simple reasons. That was my whole point.

I don't think people are boycotting the shows because they have such strong beliefs over the name issue. Sure, some might be. Their loss. Other people who are more casual fans probably don't care but they'll just use that excuse to be part of the bandwagon....

/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

I know the old band was popular. But I'm not gonna make claims to know what exactly would have happened if they kept going with for example the 1993 line up into the 2000s. Considering most bands' popularity goes up and down.

It would be doing better than this.  That's as far as you have to go with it.

The rest is just overthinking and attempting to flood the valley with a deluge of theories, conjecture, and general misdirection in hopes of avoiding having to say that.

I don't think people are boycotting the shows because they have such strong beliefs over the name issue. Sure, some might be. Their loss. Other people who are more casual fans probably don't care but they'll just use that excuse to be part of the bandwagon....

Their ticket buying base has been decimated because most people don't consider this Guns N' Roses.  Many thinking that to the point they don't even bother to listen to anything the new band has done.

Now, can you then take the position of "its their loss"?  I suppose.  But that comes across as you just trying to put a good spin on things.  And you can lump it right in with changing tastes, peaks and valleys, can't find a babysitter, busy schedules...or whatever the latest excuse du jour is these days.

[D-GenerationX]

I never heard the thirty second loop. I wasn't actually in "the loop" yet at that time. I heard GNR a lot when I was a kid. I was born a month within the time that Appetite came out and heard it, illusions, and lies very often during my earlier years, up to about the age of seven. Then my dad became obsessed with rap (I hate rap) and I stopped hearing it. I remember seeing them on the VMA's performing madagascar live and being confused about the way Axl looked and about Buckethead. My dad had a kind of "what the fuck is this?" attitude about it. Other than hearing PC on the radio every now and then, I didn't really think about them much.

The VMAs were such a debacle.

I was so excited too.  We got word on the old GNR mailing list that it was happening.  (yes, a mailing list...I am old)  I was so pumped that my band was coming back, and were moved right to the finale. I had been faithfully listening to my RIR III bootleg, and was pumped.

And I told the world too.  And keep in mind, this is pre-Facebook.  So I'm literally calling all my friends and telling them to watch.

Then, to see that disastrous performance was such a gut punch.  People knew it wasn't going to be Slash and Duff, but I don't think they were ready for Robin looking like an extra from 'Mad Max', or Bucket's whole schtick.

All of which might have been saved by a good performance, but Axl was a mess.

In a lot of ways, I think that performance doomed them with the US public.

[D-GenerationX]

When I finally looked into it I was really disappointed, but that was mostly based off of the unfamiliar images of the band I saw and the negative articles I read. How the fuck could they do this to my comfort zone!? It wasn't until I heard the leak of TWAT that I realized something great could be in the works. I really dug it and started to obsess about a new GNR album because I couldn't relate to anything that was popular at the time. I thought of Axl as this villain that ruined GNR and was keeping all of his great songs to himself just to be a dick... it's really funny to me looking back at it.

Three leaks blew me away upon first hearing them :
 
- Magagascar : for its epic feel
- Better : for Axl's incredibly strong vocals and finally something with a freakin' tune
- There Was A Time : for being the best post Slash guitar work I had heard to that point (and it still is, in my view)

2003-2005 was so god damn grim, I had just about given up.  Those leaks in early 2006 were a life preserver to a lot of fans, myself included. 

[LongGoneDay]

Still, the name is most commonly associated with the classic lineup.
Nothing this current, or any future incarnation does will ever change that.

If anyone were to buy into your "logic" then one would also have to believe that Guns N' Roses in the public's eye ceased to exist and/or evolve and/or prosper after July 11, 1990.

I think we can all agree that on July 12, 1990 and beyond, they have in fact been able to successfully reincarnate Guns N' Roses many many times over.

Sadly, I don?t think that?s far off.

I think it?s safe to say that most people outside of this forum do subscribe to my ?logic?.
Allow me to rephrase, the Guns N? Roses name is most commonly associated with the AFD-UYI lineup.
Those guys made it happen. They are the ones we grew up watching on Mtv.

I love Spaghetti Incident for what it is, a cover album, but it obviously didn?t go over as well with the fans as UYI.

That was 1993. Did Guns N? Roses technically cease to exist afterwards?
No, but they may as well have in the minds of many.
They were out of sight, out of mind for a long, long time.

When new material finally reared it?s head 6 years later, it sounded like an entirely different band, which it was.
I personally love Oh My God, but it?s a total departure from the ?87-?93 sound, and most fans weren?t on board with the direction.

Fast forward 9 years, Chinese Democracy is finally released.
I understand CD has it?s admirers, but most fans who bothered listening feel it?s a drastic departure from the ?87-?93 sound as well.

Some people feel it sounds like a natural progression, and hey, I can?t tell them they are hearing it wrong.
Maybe it?s my, and the majority of old Guns fan?s loss that we don?t hear what they hear.
I?d love nothing more than to have another GN?R album I enjoy to add to the rotation.

I guess you are right when you say they have been able to successfully reincarnate many times over, but not sure turnover in personnel puts them in the win column.
They have enjoyed relative success since ?93, with Live Era, Greatest Hits, etc which I believe is a true testament to what the AFD-UYI lineup built before imploding.
Nonetheless, touring is where the current incarnation makes their living, and they deliver the goods, so any praise/success they receive in that respect is well earned.

It?s all irrelevant to the fact that this incarnation has not made the same impact as the AFD/UYI lineup.
That is not a knock on anyone. I can?t think of another band that?s come along since that has been compared to Zep and the Stones.
That?s how big they were. We all know this. Naturally people are going to associate that era with the name.
Not the entirely reconstructed lineup that was put together 18 years after their last hit album.

[D-GenerationX]

It?s all irrelevant to the fact that this incarnation has not made the same impact as the AFD/UYI lineup.
That is not a knock on anyone. I can?t think of another band that?s come along since that has been compared to Zep and the Stones.
That?s how big they were. We all know this. Naturally people are going to associate that era with the name.
Not the entirely reconstructed lineup that was put together 18 years after their last hit album.

And more than once.

I'm not saying if the 2001-02 band stayed together things would be awesome.  But you could at least point to a little bit of continuity.

Axl is not on version 2.0 of his band, he's on version 3.0.  And since for all intents and purposes, version 2.0 came and went without ever really doing anything, it just further hurts any sort of connection with the people.

The current band splitting their set between stuff done by the old band and stuff done by them would be one thing.  But we have a band who's set is split between the old band, and stuff from an incarnation of the band in the interim that never really made a mark.

I dislike the "cover band" taunt you hear from a lot of folks, but its true on some level, no?  The current band does nothing they have created.  They are playing full concerts done by two sets of other line-ups.

[GNR2014]

In the same amount of time since Dj ASHBA was announced as the latest bandmember (March 2009), the Slash-era band released Appetite, Lies, Use Your Illusions I & II, and The Spaghetti Incident.

[EmilyGNR]

Here are some excerpts from the 2009 Spinner.com interview, some interesting comments and some statements that could definitely still apply today-

Del James: As reported, were you, either in your mind or otherwise, trying to create the "best album ever made"?

Axl Rose: "No. That's f---ing ridiculous and more negative media nonsense. We were all just trying to do our best for the fans and ourselves."

At any point did you feel or say either you or the band had to make a "masterpiece"?

"Of course not -- more unaccountable nonsense. Obviously, media, elements of the public, fans and our detractors had all kinds of things going on such as high hopes, expectations, pressure, naysayers, etc. I don't think anyone would mind discovering a diamond mine and I don't think anyone in any competitive field would get very far if they didn't have dreams, aspirations or simply hope to do well."

"That said, these types of comments are more from our detractors, pulled out of their ass if not thin air."

Do you feel that your alleged sense of perfectionism has delayed the release of the album?

"No. Guns in any lineup wasn't going to release anything all that great any sooner. And no matter how any of us tried, that didn't happen, and often while any number of us were pushing to try and do so with whatever we had going at the time. In regard to so-called perfectionism, I feel that has a lot to do with your goals or requirements with whatever one's doing or creating. Different levels may be required for different objectives. If you're making brakes for a vehicle, what's required? It's all relative, right? You try to make the best calls you can at any given moment and go from there."


"Generally, when this term is used by others in regard to me or how I work, it's said in a negative way or as an excuse for their shortcomings -- and again by my detractors. Whether they are open about such or not, some people love putting others in a negative light; helps them feel better about themselves. Too many ears and too many stupid comments have proven that." 

Who's in the band?

"I think we'll go with a combo of who's around and who's on the album for now and worry about that when we get ready to tour."

When's the next album?

"Have no idea and don't care. Hopefully, we'll be working 'Chinese' for a good bit. Of course there's the same idiots that have been around forever already demanding release dates".


You're not saying much.

"You got that? What I can say is if you don't like this, then you probably won't like that. Same people, lots more approaches, bit meaner in places and darker in some. Robin does a really great Stevie Ray Vaughan-type solo on one track."

Looking forward to this, when it is deemed ready to release 

[JAEBALL]

Here are some excerpts from the 2009 Spinner.com interview, some interesting comments and some statements that could definitely still apply today-

Del James: As reported, were you, either in your mind or otherwise, trying to create the "best album ever made"?

Axl Rose: "No. That's f---ing ridiculous and more negative media nonsense. We were all just trying to do our best for the fans and ourselves."

At any point did you feel or say either you or the band had to make a "masterpiece"?

"Of course not -- more unaccountable nonsense. Obviously, media, elements of the public, fans and our detractors had all kinds of things going on such as high hopes, expectations, pressure, naysayers, etc. I don't think anyone would mind discovering a diamond mine and I don't think anyone in any competitive field would get very far if they didn't have dreams, aspirations or simply hope to do well."

"That said, these types of comments are more from our detractors, pulled out of their ass if not thin air."

Do you feel that your alleged sense of perfectionism has delayed the release of the album?

"No. Guns in any lineup wasn't going to release anything all that great any sooner. And no matter how any of us tried, that didn't happen, and often while any number of us were pushing to try and do so with whatever we had going at the time. In regard to so-called perfectionism, I feel that has a lot to do with your goals or requirements with whatever one's doing or creating. Different levels may be required for different objectives. If you're making brakes for a vehicle, what's required? It's all relative, right? You try to make the best calls you can at any given moment and go from there."


"Generally, when this term is used by others in regard to me or how I work, it's said in a negative way or as an excuse for their shortcomings -- and again by my detractors. Whether they are open about such or not, some people love putting others in a negative light; helps them feel better about themselves. Too many ears and too many stupid comments have proven that." 

Who's in the band?

"I think we'll go with a combo of who's around and who's on the album for now and worry about that when we get ready to tour."

When's the next album?

"Have no idea and don't care. Hopefully, we'll be working 'Chinese' for a good bit. Of course there's the same idiots that have been around forever already demanding release dates".


You're not saying much.

"You got that? What I can say is if you don't like this, then you probably won't like that. Same people, lots more approaches, bit meaner in places and darker in some. Robin does a really great Stevie Ray Vaughan-type solo on one track."

Looking forward to this, when it is deemed ready to release 

Alright ...I will bite ... what are you trying to prove by showing Axl's comment or lack there of in response tot he question who was even in his band at the time?

You can love every moment of GNR's history... but you cans see why some have more difficulty right? I feel no connection to guys presently in the band who really have little to zero impact on ANY Guns N Roses song

They put on a great show... I have been there... but you just illustrated why people don't like it..and you used Axl's words to prove it.

[GNR2014]

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; even smaller minds copy-and-paste old interviews.

[jarmo]

It would be doing better than this.  That's as far as you have to go with it.

Better than what?
If you think they would've played stadiums on every US tour in 2002, 2006, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014, I think that's just your wishful thinking.

Their ticket buying base has been decimated because most people don't consider this Guns N' Roses.  Many thinking that to the point they don't even bother to listen to anything the new band has done.

So you're saying people would rather not hear the songs being sung by Axl because "it's not GN'R", than go to the shows?
I don't buy it. It's just an easy excuse to make it seem like the reunion is the magic answer to everything.

There's probably stubborn people like that, but I don't think they are a majority. Sure, some of the people attending shows wouldn't say "no" to a reunion show either. But I think there's a bunch of people who are more concerned about things like the weekday of the show, the ticket price, the location and so on before objecting to who's in the band and who's not.

I think the priorities are a bit different to most fans than those who are still hung up on the name issue almost 20 years after the old band broke up....

Velvet Revolver was the "reunion" of the old band minus Axl plus "that guy from STP". They didn't play stadiums in the USA. Their popularity went downhill after the reunion buzz died off. They couldn't headline arenas on their own, they had to co-headline with Alice In Chains. Then they went back to playing single nights in places like The Joint.

Axl and Duff reunited to play full shows together for the first time since 1993 this year. It went unnoticed by a lot of people. Wouldn't you think that was a huge deal for people who are hung up on the name? Or maybe they only care about certain people, not the rest of the band..... So essentially it's not really an issue as long as two guys are there?


It's all about gimmicks and marketing.

Why do you think a band like Metallica has to promote shows with things like "playing the Black album in full" or "by request"? Shouldn't they be able to sell out stadiums everywhere by just showing up? But they don't.... They don't even tour the US, they only play select shows before going abroad to play shows there.




/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

"You got that? What I can say is if you don't like this, then you probably won't like that. Same people, lots more approaches, bit meaner in places and darker in some. Robin does a really great Stevie Ray Vaughan-type solo on one track."

This quote has always stuck out to me, because I'm trying to imagine that sort of solo with the band's current sound.

[JAEBALL]

It would be doing better than this.  That's as far as you have to go with it.

Better than what?
If you think they would've played stadiums on every US tour in 2002, 2006, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014, I think that's just your wishful thinking.

Their ticket buying base has been decimated because most people don't consider this Guns N' Roses.  Many thinking that to the point they don't even bother to listen to anything the new band has done.

So you're saying people would rather not hear the songs being sung by Axl because "it's not GN'R", than go to the shows?
I don't buy it. It's just an easy excuse to make it seem like the reunion is the magic answer to everything.

There's probably stubborn people like that, but I don't think they are a majority. Sure, some of the people attending shows wouldn't say "no" to a reunion show either. But I think there's a bunch of people who are more concerned about things like the weekday of the show, the ticket price, the location and so on before objecting to who's in the band and who's not.

I think the priorities are a bit different to most fans than those who are still hung up on the name issue almost 20 years after the old band broke up....

Velvet Revolver was the "reunion" of the old band minus Axl plus "that guy from STP". They didn't play stadiums in the USA. Their popularity went downhill after the reunion buzz died off. They couldn't headline arenas on their own, they had to co-headline with Alice In Chains. Then they went back to playing single nights in places like The Joint.

Axl and Duff reunited to play full shows together for the first time since 1993 this year. It went unnoticed by a lot of people. Wouldn't you think that was a huge deal for people who are hung up on the name? Or maybe they only care about certain people, not the rest of the band..... So essentially it's not really an issue as long as two guys are there?


It's all about gimmicks and marketing.

Why do you think a band like Metallica has to promote shows with things like "playing the Black album in full" or "by request"? Shouldn't they be able to sell out stadiums everywhere by just showing up? But they don't.... They don't even tour the US, they only play select shows before going abroad to play shows there.




/jarmo

I agree in that if they marketed a GNR Reunion tour with just Axl and Slash and whoever around them...it would sell big... To the average guy... they won't care if Izzy is up there or who is playing drums. . and I also agree they would not have continued to sell stadiums out every year if there was never a break up.

But yes they certainly would have sold much better than they have. To what extent? Impossible to know.

I do feel there are a lot more people who wont go to a show in 2014 than you are making it seem, and NOT because the fanbase is older now. Does it matter ? No not really. Axl still makes a very nice living I'm sure. It's all moot anyway.

Unless Axl grasps thats his buddies Duff and Izzy told the same lies Slash for the last 15 years... it won't happen anyway. Both guys... huge egos...very stubborn lol

[LongGoneDay]

It would be doing better than this.  That's as far as you have to go with it.

Better than what?
If you think they would've played stadiums on every US tour in 2002, 2006, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014, I think that's just your wishful thinking.

Their ticket buying base has been decimated because most people don't consider this Guns N' Roses.  Many thinking that to the point they don't even bother to listen to anything the new band has done.

So you're saying people would rather not hear the songs being sung by Axl because "it's not GN'R", than go to the shows?
I don't buy it. It's just an easy excuse to make it seem like the reunion is the magic answer to everything.

There's probably stubborn people like that, but I don't think they are a majority. Sure, some of the people attending shows wouldn't say "no" to a reunion show either. But I think there's a bunch of people who are more concerned about things like the weekday of the show, the ticket price, the location and so on before objecting to who's in the band and who's not.

I think the priorities are a bit different to most fans than those who are still hung up on the name issue almost 20 years after the old band broke up....

Velvet Revolver was the "reunion" of the old band minus Axl plus "that guy from STP". They didn't play stadiums in the USA. Their popularity went downhill after the reunion buzz died off. They couldn't headline arenas on their own, they had to co-headline with Alice In Chains. Then they went back to playing single nights in places like The Joint.

Axl and Duff reunited to play full shows together for the first time since 1993 this year. It went unnoticed by a lot of people. Wouldn't you think that was a huge deal for people who are hung up on the name? Or maybe they only care about certain people, not the rest of the band..... So essentially it's not really an issue as long as two guys are there?


It's all about gimmicks and marketing.

Why do you think a band like Metallica has to promote shows with things like "playing the Black album in full" or "by request"? Shouldn't they be able to sell out stadiums everywhere by just showing up? But they don't.... They don't even tour the US, they only play select shows before going abroad to play shows there.




/jarmo

Plenty of people love Axl and GNR songs enough that they are willing to look past the fact that 4/5 of the band that created those songs won?t be at the show they?re attending.
Hearing Axl and 6 strangers play Guns N? Roses songs is better than not hearing Axl sing Guns N? Roses songs.

It?s not being "hung up" on the name after 20 years. All the time in the world isn?t going to change the fact that people view this for what it is, an entirely different band than the one they grew up with.

Some people are genuinely fans of Stinson, Thai etc. Some are there for Axl. Some think it?s a sham, and aren?t going to support it.

To most, the old band minus Axl still isn?t Guns N? Roses.
Duff joining the band, while exciting to you and me, still isn?t Guns N? Roses.

You can call it a gimmick if you want, but if there was a reunion tour, fans would be out in droves.
The casual fans may not necessarily know each and every member by name, but the reunion tag reassures them that this is the lineup they became a fan of.

[JAEBALL]

It would be doing better than this.  That's as far as you have to go with it.

Better than what?
If you think they would've played stadiums on every US tour in 2002, 2006, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014, I think that's just your wishful thinking.

Their ticket buying base has been decimated because most people don't consider this Guns N' Roses.  Many thinking that to the point they don't even bother to listen to anything the new band has done.

So you're saying people would rather not hear the songs being sung by Axl because "it's not GN'R", than go to the shows?
I don't buy it. It's just an easy excuse to make it seem like the reunion is the magic answer to everything.

There's probably stubborn people like that, but I don't think they are a majority. Sure, some of the people attending shows wouldn't say "no" to a reunion show either. But I think there's a bunch of people who are more concerned about things like the weekday of the show, the ticket price, the location and so on before objecting to who's in the band and who's not.

I think the priorities are a bit different to most fans than those who are still hung up on the name issue almost 20 years after the old band broke up....

Velvet Revolver was the "reunion" of the old band minus Axl plus "that guy from STP". They didn't play stadiums in the USA. Their popularity went downhill after the reunion buzz died off. They couldn't headline arenas on their own, they had to co-headline with Alice In Chains. Then they went back to playing single nights in places like The Joint.

Axl and Duff reunited to play full shows together for the first time since 1993 this year. It went unnoticed by a lot of people. Wouldn't you think that was a huge deal for people who are hung up on the name? Or maybe they only care about certain people, not the rest of the band..... So essentially it's not really an issue as long as two guys are there?


It's all about gimmicks and marketing.

Why do you think a band like Metallica has to promote shows with things like "playing the Black album in full" or "by request"? Shouldn't they be able to sell out stadiums everywhere by just showing up? But they don't.... They don't even tour the US, they only play select shows before going abroad to play shows there.




/jarmo

Plenty of people love Axl and GNR songs enough that they are willing to look past the fact that 4/5 of the band that created those songs won?t be at the show they?re attending.
Hearing Axl and 6 strangers play Guns N? Roses songs is better than not hearing Axl sing Guns N? Roses songs.

It?s not being "hung up" on the name after 20 years. All the time in the world isn?t going to change the fact that people view this for what it is, an entirely different band than the one they grew up with.

Some people are genuinely fans of Stinson, Thai etc. Some are there for Axl. Some think it?s a sham, and aren?t going to support it.

To most, the old band minus Axl still isn?t Guns N? Roses.
Duff joining the band, while exciting to you and me, still isn?t Guns N? Roses.

You can call it a gimmick if you want, but if there was a reunion tour, fans would be out in droves.
The casual fans may not necessarily know each and every member by name, but the reunion tag reassures them that this is the lineup they became a fan of.

A usual. Well said.

It's Guns N Roses... just a very different Guns N Roses

I hope Duff comes back in to the fold full time. I love the guy.

[D-GenerationX]

It would be doing better than this.  That's as far as you have to go with it.

Better than what?
If you think they would've played stadiums on every US tour in 2002, 2006, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014, I think that's just your wishful thinking.

Guess its a good thing I never said that.  I sure dodged a bullet there.

What I have said is that the line-up people know is not playing a taped off arena, or struggling to fill a club.  That's what I've said, because that's how it is.

So you're saying people would rather not hear the songs being sung by Axl because "it's not GN'R", than go to the shows?
I don't buy it. It's just an easy excuse to make it seem like the reunion is the magic answer to everything.

Of course you don't buy it.  You have a very vested interest in not buying it.

Who is talking about a reunion?  We were talking about how if the current band stayed together they would be doing better business than Axl is doing with the current crop.  I have never once said the world "reunion", ever.

To the most of the world, we can recognize that most people (even former fans) pay the current band no attention.  They know its out there and do not care.  They don't care about the new material, and don't want to see people they couldn't pick out of a line-up playing the parts originally done by the band they loved. If the band people know were still together, they'd be doing better than the current set-up of Axl and 6 guys named Harry calling themselves Guns N' Roses, because that's all they are to most people.

I think the priorities are a bit different to most fans than those who are still hung up on the name issue almost 20 years after the old band broke up....

I don't see people hung up on the name.  I see pushback against people who want to put a spin on the current situation that strains credibility to its breaking point.

Axl and Duff reunited to play full shows together for the first time since 1993 this year. It went unnoticed by a lot of people. Wouldn't you think that was a huge deal for people who are hung up on the name? Or maybe they only care about certain people, not the rest of the band..... So essentially it's not really an issue as long as two guys are there?

It's all about gimmicks and marketing.

It is, and the current band sucks big sweaty monkey balls at that part of it.

Why do you think a band like Metallica has to promote shows with things like "playing the Black album in full" or "by request"? Shouldn't they be able to sell out stadiums everywhere by just showing up? But they don't.... They don't even tour the US, they only play select shows before going abroad to play shows there.

When the next album comes out, Metallica will play arenas nationwide.  When Guns N' Roses next album comes out, gun to my head, I'm saying they will not.

No one plays stadiums anymore except U2, Springsteen, and some country acts.  But any competent rock band, and certainly one with a catalog like GNR, should be able to fill arenas.  And can do so without any caveats or disclaimers about busy schedules or babysitters.

[D-GenerationX]

Plenty of people love Axl and GNR songs enough that they are willing to look past the fact that 4/5 of the band that created those songs won?t be at the show they?re attending.  Hearing Axl and 6 strangers play Guns N? Roses songs is better than not hearing Axl sing Guns N? Roses songs.

Pretty much my mission statement, and the feeling of a lot of us.

Why is that not enough?

[D-GenerationX]

By the way, I'd just like to throw this out there.

We spent all of last night talking about what we were all doing early last decade waiting for the album.  How we excited about some of the leaks and how much we like some of the stuff on the last album.

Did ANY of that get quoted today to further those conversations?  Nope.  The stuff that got quoted to continue the conversations are more stuff about the name.

[EmilyGNR]

"You got that? What I can say is if you don't like this, then you probably won't like that. Same people, lots more approaches, bit meaner in places and darker in some. Robin does a really great Stevie Ray Vaughan-type solo on one track."

This quote has always stuck out to me, because I'm trying to imagine that sort of solo with the band's current sound.

It was intriguing to me as well, I'm very interested to hear the "bit darker and meaner in places."

[EmilyGNR]

Here are some excerpts from the 2009 Spinner.com interview, some interesting comments and some statements that could definitely still apply today-

Del James: As reported, were you, either in your mind or otherwise, trying to create the "best album ever made"?

Axl Rose: "No. That's f---ing ridiculous and more negative media nonsense. We were all just trying to do our best for the fans and ourselves."

At any point did you feel or say either you or the band had to make a "masterpiece"?

"Of course not -- more unaccountable nonsense. Obviously, media, elements of the public, fans and our detractors had all kinds of things going on such as high hopes, expectations, pressure, naysayers, etc. I don't think anyone would mind discovering a diamond mine and I don't think anyone in any competitive field would get very far if they didn't have dreams, aspirations or simply hope to do well."

"That said, these types of comments are more from our detractors, pulled out of their ass if not thin air."

Do you feel that your alleged sense of perfectionism has delayed the release of the album?

"No. Guns in any lineup wasn't going to release anything all that great any sooner. And no matter how any of us tried, that didn't happen, and often while any number of us were pushing to try and do so with whatever we had going at the time. In regard to so-called perfectionism, I feel that has a lot to do with your goals or requirements with whatever one's doing or creating. Different levels may be required for different objectives. If you're making brakes for a vehicle, what's required? It's all relative, right? You try to make the best calls you can at any given moment and go from there."


"Generally, when this term is used by others in regard to me or how I work, it's said in a negative way or as an excuse for their shortcomings -- and again by my detractors. Whether they are open about such or not, some people love putting others in a negative light; helps them feel better about themselves. Too many ears and too many stupid comments have proven that." 

Who's in the band?

"I think we'll go with a combo of who's around and who's on the album for now and worry about that when we get ready to tour."

When's the next album?

"Have no idea and don't care. Hopefully, we'll be working 'Chinese' for a good bit. Of course there's the same idiots that have been around forever already demanding release dates".


You're not saying much.

"You got that? What I can say is if you don't like this, then you probably won't like that. Same people, lots more approaches, bit meaner in places and darker in some. Robin does a really great Stevie Ray Vaughan-type solo on one track."

Looking forward to this, when it is deemed ready to release 

Alright ...I will bite ... what are you trying to prove by showing Axl's comment or lack there of in response tot he question who was even in his band at the time?

You can love every moment of GNR's history... but you cans see why some have more difficulty right? I feel no connection to guys presently in the band who really have little to zero impact on ANY Guns N Roses song

They put on a great show... I have been there... but you just illustrated why people don't like it..and you used Axl's words to prove it.

It was simply a comment on all the commotion about "who is in the band" what does it matter while the band is on hiatus?
It will be revealed in due time.

If that is truly what you gleaned from that excerpt, you are beyond reason and help.

Here, reread this part, it is for people like you:

"Some people love putting others in a negative light; helps them feel better about themselves. Too many ears and too many stupid comments have proven that."