New Dj interview at LegendaryRockInterviews.com (Sep 2014)

[jarmo]

Alright then and returning this to its original point...

Old GN'R's last gig in the United Kingdom was at Milton Keynes National Bowl which seats, 65,000.

New GN'R's first gig in the United Kingdom was at London Arena which seats 15,000.

Both gigs were either sell outs or near sell outs I believe..

A very fair comparison considering one was in support of Use Your Illusion (the fastest selling albums in history at that point I believe) and the other show happened nine years later, after GN'R had been built up again.

Um, not a good comparison at all. In 1993 the band was everywhere. MTV, radio, newspapers, magazines, you name it.

Besides, you forgot to mention the gig at Leeds Festival.

You are clearly an imbecile.

That's unnecessary. Consider yourself warned.


/jarmo

[mortismurphy]

Alright then and returning this to its original point...

Old GN'R's last gig in the United Kingdom was at Milton Keynes National Bowl which seats, 65,000.

New GN'R's first gig in the United Kingdom was at London Arena which seats 15,000.

Both gigs were either sell outs or near sell outs I believe.

So, assuming that everyone who attended the New GN'R show believed that it was bona fide 'Guns N' Roses' they were seeing (which I do not believe for a second by the way, but, let's keep this simple) that is a reduction in crowd capacity of 50,000. Granted, there may be alternative reasons why those people did not attend, a decline in GN'R's popularity, individual circumstances (lack of money, family concerns), but I think it is a certain that a significant majority of that 50,000 chose not to attend because they did not believe it was 'Guns N' Roses'.

That is wholly an assumption on your part, unless you magically determined the people who didn't attend and polled them all.

As I said, I have been to shows in Stadiums, arenas and much smaller venues, I have enjoyed them all.

I am still not getting your point, they still play both larger and smaller venues.

The subject of the band being GNR is not open for negotiation, you may not like nor appreciate the band, but make no mistake, it IS GNR and any silly little scenario you are attempting to paint will never prove successfully that GNR isn't GNR.

Nobody is arguing that there haven't been lineup changes, nobody is claiming that didn't happen, but the band IS GNR in 2014 whether you personally like it or whether you dont.

I saw GNR in Bethlehem and Vegas this year, was it a different lineup than I saw in 1991? Yes, was it a different lineup than 1988? Yes.

Was it GNR? Oh hell yes 

De jure, de facto Emily. Look it up. I am arguing the latter. I was trying to make the same point with Ali.

You are clearly an imbecile.

That's unnecessary. Consider yourself warned.


/jarmo

Yet ''cretins,trolls and idiots'' (and similar repeated at individual posters here on a daily basis) does not produce a warning. Hmm?

[jarmo]

Yet ''cretins,trolls and idiots'' (and similar repeated at individual posters here on a daily basis) does not produce a warning. Hmm?

It's very simple. Be aware of the crowd you're in.

If you start posting negative things about somebody's favorite band on a fan site dedicated to that band, you'll upset people. What do you expect?

I'm aware for some of you this is entertainment. You come here to see what you can get away with. But don't play the innocent victim.



/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

Why do you believe answering questions and confronting some untruths on a message board was a bad idea? It got picked up by periodicals and magazines, so why was it a bad idea?

Some people still claim the "wouldn't go onstage until it was signed" scenario is true, even after being told the truth.

Oh, I'm absolutely saying he should correct the record. 

But you need to do it ASAP.  The longer an untruth hangs out there unchallenged, the more it gets ingrained in people's mind.  As you yourself say, there are STILL people that believe that story.  And that's because it just hung there all that time.

As for doing it on a fan message board, I simply meant that is not a platform that gets you a lot of exposure.  If someone is making you look like shit, and you say he's full of it, I would think you'd want that correction to get the widest exposure possible, which is not a fan message board.

Speaking personally, I was one of those people in my earlier example that believed it when I heard it.  It didn't seem all that out of the ordinary for Axl to pull something like that.  But, to be fair, once I heard his explanation in those chats, he did have a point.  How would that sort of agreement ever stand up to legal scrutiny?

[mortismurphy]

Yet ''cretins,trolls and idiots'' (and similar repeated at individual posters here on a daily basis) does not produce a warning. Hmm?

It's very simple. Be aware of the crowd you're in.

If you start posting negative things about somebody's favorite band on a fan site dedicated to that band, you'll upset people. What do you expect?

I'm aware for some of you this is entertainment. You come here to see what you can get away with. But don't play the innocent victim.



/jarmo

I think you take yourself way too seriously, Jarmo.

[Ginger King]

Yet ''cretins,trolls and idiots'' (and similar repeated at individual posters here on a daily basis) does not produce a warning. Hmm?

It's very simple. Be aware of the crowd you're in.

If you start posting negative things about somebody's favorite band on a fan site dedicated to that band, you'll upset people. What do you expect?

I'm aware for some of you this is entertainment. You come here to see what you can get away with. But don't play the innocent victim.



/jarmo

That still doesn't explain why you condone one and condemn the other. 

So, if someone is personally insulting somebody (but it's in defense of GnR) it's ok?

[jarmo]

I think you take yourself way too seriously, Jarmo.

Not really, some of you take yourselves and your online images way too seriously though.

That still doesn't explain why you condone one and condemn the other. 

So, if someone is personally insulting somebody (but it's in defense of GnR) it's ok?

It explains the fact that some people like to bait others into arguments and then whine about being "insulted".

Sorry if it upsets you that there's a bit more understanding towards GN'R fans who aren't here to whine and post shit they don't like about the band.




/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

The only way a moderator can be truly objective is if they do not post amongst the group.

So long as the person with the magic buttons is a heavy volume poster, there is zero chance their decisions will not be clouded by any number of factors.

I've moderated boards myself.  Its a shit job.

[EmilyGNR]

Alright then and returning this to its original point...

Old GN'R's last gig in the United Kingdom was at Milton Keynes National Bowl which seats, 65,000.

New GN'R's first gig in the United Kingdom was at London Arena which seats 15,000.

Both gigs were either sell outs or near sell outs I believe.

So, assuming that everyone who attended the New GN'R show believed that it was bona fide 'Guns N' Roses' they were seeing (which I do not believe for a second by the way, but, let's keep this simple) that is a reduction in crowd capacity of 50,000. Granted, there may be alternative reasons why those people did not attend, a decline in GN'R's popularity, individual circumstances (lack of money, family concerns), but I think it is a certain that a significant majority of that 50,000 chose not to attend because they did not believe it was 'Guns N' Roses'.

That is wholly an assumption on your part, unless you magically determined the people who didn't attend and polled them all.

As I said, I have been to shows in Stadiums, arenas and much smaller venues, I have enjoyed them all.

I am still not getting your point, they still play both larger and smaller venues.

The subject of the band being GNR is not open for negotiation, you may not like nor appreciate the band, but make no mistake, it IS GNR and any silly little scenario you are attempting to paint will never prove successfully that GNR isn't GNR.

Nobody is arguing that there haven't been lineup changes, nobody is claiming that didn't happen, but the band IS GNR in 2014 whether you personally like it or whether you dont.

I saw GNR in Bethlehem and Vegas this year, was it a different lineup than I saw in 1991? Yes, was it a different lineup than 1988? Yes.

Was it GNR? Oh hell yes 

De jure, de facto Emily. Look it up. I am arguing the latter. I was trying to make the same point with Ali.

Actually I have no need to "look up" those common legal terms, you are not arguing in a court of law here, you are attempting to discredit a band for some reason, on a fan forum.

Let me explain my POV, "de jure" indicates what the law says- for all legal intents and purposes this IS GNR.
"de facto" is  "in fact" or "for all intents and purposes" - your point is still numb, null, and void- this IS GNR for all intents and purposes.

You may not like it, and that is your right, but you absolutely 100% do not get to determine what is GNR and what is not. Fact.

[EmilyGNR]

Why do you believe answering questions and confronting some untruths on a message board was a bad idea? It got picked up by periodicals and magazines, so why was it a bad idea?

Some people still claim the "wouldn't go onstage until it was signed" scenario is true, even after being told the truth.

Oh, I'm absolutely saying he should correct the record. 

But you need to do it ASAP.  The longer an untruth hangs out there unchallenged, the more it gets ingrained in people's mind.  As you yourself say, there are STILL people that believe that story.  And that's because it just hung there all that time.

As for doing it on a fan message board, I simply meant that is not a platform that gets you a lot of exposure.  If someone is making you look like shit, and you say he's full of it, I would think you'd want that correction to get the widest exposure possible, which is not a fan message board.

Speaking personally, I was one of those people in my earlier example that believed it when I heard it.  It didn't seem all that out of the ordinary for Axl to pull something like that.  But, to be fair, once I heard his explanation in those chats, he did have a point.  How would that sort of agreement ever stand up to legal scrutiny?

That is totally your preference that matters be cleared up "immediately", apparently some didn't see the urgency that you saw.

The chats were picked up by several periodicals, by numerous online sites and overall got very good  exposure.

I have a tendency to take things with a grain of salt, when it comes from a source that has been insincere before, lied before, and has a agenda for painting a certain picture with the public, and a history of manipulating the media.

I'm glad you saw that the legal ramifications made the "wouldn't go on stage" implausible, there's also the time frame that doesn't support the initial claims of ex-band members.

[Ali]

Here's a question I have that I asked before:  What is saying this isn't GN'R going to do?  How is saying that going to move any conversation forward?  If you leave it at that, I can always say that the name of the band is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. 

I agree with you, overall.  And I can only speak for myself here.

But to me, I don't find too many people that can "leave it at that".  I would use just about every post Jarmo has ever made as proof of this.  The impression I get from a certain segment of this fanbase is that they can not let that slide.  Wagons are circled, and backs get up.  You can't say that sort of thing and not have to listento a lecture, a lot of the time.

That's a fair point.  A lot of people cannot just leave it at that.

Ali

[D-GenerationX]

Here's a question I have that I asked before:  What is saying this isn't GN'R going to do?  How is saying that going to move any conversation forward?  If you leave it at that, I can always say that the name of the band is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. 

I agree with you, overall.  And I can only speak for myself here.

But to me, I don't find too many people that can "leave it at that".  I would use just about every post Jarmo has ever made as proof of this.  The impression I get from a certain segment of this fanbase is that they can not let that slide.  Wagons are circled, and backs get up.  You can't say that sort of thing and not have to listento a lecture, a lot of the time.

That's a fair point.  A lot of people cannot just leave it at that.

Ali

People seem to take it as a diss, I've found.

I'm very consistent and totally upfront about how even if I do not consider the current crop to be the definitive Guns N' Roses, I can roll with what they are giving me and enjoy it.

I don't see that as some grave insult.  Others see its as a huge insult.  But in my view, the bigger issue is that I can still roll with it and am still enjoying it.  Isn't that more important than the fact I won't swear a blood oath and label the current band definitive GNR?  Who cares about that?

Well, more people than I thought would care, I've found.

[AxlsMainMan]

Here's a question I have that I asked before:  What is saying this isn't GN'R going to do?  How is saying that going to move any conversation forward?  If you leave it at that, I can always say that the name of the band is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. 

I agree with you, overall.  And I can only speak for myself here.

But to me, I don't find too many people that can "leave it at that".  I would use just about every post Jarmo has ever made as proof of this.  The impression I get from a certain segment of this fanbase is that they can not let that slide.  Wagons are circled, and backs get up.  You can't say that sort of thing and not have to listento a lecture, a lot of the time.

That's a fair point.  A lot of people cannot just leave it at that.

Ali

People seem to take it as a diss, I've found.

I'm very consistent and totally upfront about how even if I do not consider the current crop to be the definitive Guns N' Roses, I can roll with what they are giving me and enjoy it.

I don't see that as some grave insult.  Others see its as a huge insult.  But in my view, the bigger issue is that I can still roll with it and am still enjoying it.  Isn't that more important than the fact I won't swear a blood oath and label the current band definitive GNR?  Who cares about that?

Well, more people than I thought would care, I've found.

At the end of the day, people leave bands everyday; the world is an imperfect place.

Was AC/DC the 'definitive' AC/DC with Bon Scott or Brian Johnson? Was Pink Floyd the 'definitive' Pink Floyd with Syd, Roger, or Dave as frontman?

[mortismurphy]

Actually I have no need to "look up" those common legal terms, you are not arguing in a court of law here, you are attempting to discredit a band for some reason, on a fan forum.

Let me explain my POV, "de jure" indicates what the law says- for all legal intents and purposes this IS GNR.
"de facto" is  "in fact" or "for all intents and purposes" - your point is still numb, null, and void- this IS GNR for all intents and purposes.

You may not like it, and that is your right, but you absolutely 100% do not get to determine what is GNR and what is not. Fact.

Well we have to just agree to disagree here or we run the risk of running around in circles. That this is de jure 'Guns N' Roses' is irrefutable, however, I appreciate and respect why so many regard 'de facto Guns N' Roses' a hard stretch of the imagination, a hard sell.

I think you take yourself way too seriously, Jarmo.

Not really, some of you take yourselves and your online images way too seriously though.

That still doesn't explain why you condone one and condemn the other. 

So, if someone is personally insulting somebody (but it's in defense of GnR) it's ok?

It explains the fact that some people like to bait others into arguments and then whine about being "insulted".

In my regards, who was baiting who here? I have never baited anyone here and I am certainly not going to start now. The original 'consider this a warning' remark concerned my exasperation over a language misinterpretation - and yes, it was probably wrong but it is certainly hypocritical when there is much worse language being used regularly that does not receive one of your thoroughly ridiculous warnings of absurd self-importance. Do not try and pigeon hole me into your 'GN'R fan-types', Jarmo. You do not know the first thing about me. Ironically, I have never even expressed an opinion on whether I, personally, regard this as 'GN'R'; I was offering some understanding on why other people legitimately hold that view, but nobody seems to care as you are either for, or, against, here.

[D-GenerationX]

At the end of the day, people leave bands everyday; the world is an imperfect place.

Was AC/DC the 'definitive' AC/DC with Bon Scott or Brian Johnson? Was Pink Floyd the 'definitive' Pink Floyd with Syd, Roger, or Dave as frontman?

AC/DC is a way tougher decision than Floyd, I'd think.

[ice cream sand pig]

Mortis, have you ever said anything nice about the new era of GNR on HTGTH? I haven't actually read every single one of your posts so I don't know. I am legitimately asking, not accusing.

[ice cream sand pig]

Since this seems almost like the "post anything you want to about GNR" thread, I wanted to mention some things that I have been wondering about.

I think one of the things that makes GNR so attractive is that it is still alive and kind of up in the air. They are a band that earned their legendary status but they still continue to grow. Bands like Zeppelin have a history that has in a way already come to an end. But here this band is, still writing music, still shaping their image. And not in some shoddy half assed way either.

That is bound to appear as a bad thing to some, especially those that cherish the band's former image and insist that it does not change beyond that. But GNR is not a dead thing. It is still alive, and life is an insecure thing. It isn't safe, it's much safer to be a statue. But Axl refuses to die. He really puts himself on the line by doing that. He could have easily just left the world of GNR behind after UYI's success and enjoyed his legendary status, but for whatever reason, he refuses to close the book of GNR just yet.

While being perhaps even more conscious of the band's past than us fans, he is here at the forefront making the decision that there is more to GNR that the world hasn't experienced yet. It's a really captivating scenario. The fact that Axl's approach is so controversial seems to make everything he does very vulnerable to scrutiny. Some hate him, some love him, but thousands (millions?) are watching him. You never really know what he's going to do next. He is the ultimate underdog because so many people disagree with the idea of him taking Guns in the direction he has. One doesn't have to look far to find sources of discouragement for the man. It's pretty blatant all over the internet. I really want to see him pull something extraordinary off in the face of all this opposition. The great thing is, he really does pull it off. And you know he gives it his all. It's rare for someone his age to be so ambitious. It can be seen as a sign of a person with a really strong vision.

[mortismurphy]

Mortis, have you ever said anything nice about the new era of GNR on HTGTH? I haven't actually read every single one of your posts so I don't know. I am legitimately asking, not accusing.

They have not really done anything to comment on!!

I have to admit, I am not a fan of this current Vegas-Ashba-nostalgia fest. This is why I will not be buying the DVD. I preferred the 1999-2002 era, and to a lesser degree the 2006 line-up. There seemed to be a hope of exciting new material then and the band had an experimental, wacky, side to it. Also, there is the simple fact that Buckethead was a phenomenal talent so you wondered all the time what that sounded like when placed against Axl. There was a lot of musicianmanship in that band, not just from Bucket. You also had Brain and Robin, who has this organic style of playing. I was there for Rio 3 and the leaks and I thought, ''well perhaps Axl can pull this off''

2006, Axl's vocals where stellar and there was still a prospect of doing something good with a release as Robin was still there. I am not really a fan of BF but he had the technical chops, so something could have been revived from the mess of the 2002 tour fall-out and non-arrival of cd. Sadly it didn't happen.

[ice cream sand pig]

Huh, this totally changes my idea of you. I thought for sure you were someone that wouldn't like anything post Slash, whatever it was. I suppose that's an assumption I make about a lot of people that aren't happy with the way things are, but I guess that isn't always the case. Thanks for sharing your opinion about what it felt like for you to experience the adding of Bucket into the mix. It really was an interesting situation. Bucket was such a different kind of player than Slash. You couldn't really tell where it was going to go back then. I agree that Robin is a great musician. I think everyone that has ever been in GNR is a great musician.

I am not a fan of Six AAM, they sort of remind me of the kind of trailer park gritty cock rock dark for dark's sake stuff I heard a lot of growing up, but I think DJ is a great guitar player. I have no idea what he will bring to the table in terms of writing music with GNR, but for me that's makes him all the more fascinating and under scrutiny. In my book he's another underdog I really want to see succeed.

[mortismurphy]

There are a lot of people who actually supported new Guns N' Roses at some stage in the past but have ducked out due to the line-up changes, lack of prolifically, broken promises and censorship style politics. It is certainly not as simple as: the type of fan Jarmo prefers v Reunion obsessed leather clad Slash diehards. Many people that supported the band 1999-2002 now, totally hate the band basically. In fact you could argue that they hate the current band more than the old school lobby because they have had so many broken promises. The old school never believed it would ever amount to much anyhow so they were never disillusioned.

For me personally, I was optimistic around the Rio 3 concert. I remember hearing Madagascar for the first time and thinking, ''well this is almost on par with No Quarter era Zep. If he has nine more of these on an album the name issue will become irrelevant because the guy will have an absolute masterpiece out and you cannot argue with a masterpiece''. I think the best way to deal with the name issue was to basically make it an irrelevancy due to the quality of music. Unfortunately it did not pan out like that. This was the era when we were expected a trilogy by the way.

I just do not like the direction the band has taken since the release of CD, flying pianos, casinos, strippers, greatest hits sets, Ashba (I am not a fan, sorry). I think Axl could do so much better than all of this. He could have aspired to a Zeppelin meets Radiohead sort of musicality and integrity. Now it just seems, rawk out to the hits and grab the money. I also do not like the Team Brazil operation.