New Dj interview at LegendaryRockInterviews.com (Sep 2014)

[kaasupoltin]

But it's still weird how some people seem to think that a band let them down because the band did something they didn't want the band to do. Then they seem to have this right to give some sort of directions like "they should have done this and this and that and I would still like them". You think the band cares? Or do they care more about being creative and doing what they love and want to do? It has happened with GN'R and with Red Hot Chili Peppers and with Pearl Jam and with Pink Floyd and so on... but somehow I seem to find these bands the most interesting ones. They don't stand still, they don't do something just because someone says they should do it. And being in it for the money, GN'R, really? Shit. They could have abused the music scene through these years much more than they have done..

Musically it's also based on opinions. Referring to mortismurphy's post above, I too remember hearing Madagascar from RIR III for the first time and it really stood out from the rest of the new songs. But what really is a masterpiece? Who defines it anyway? Some records sell and some don't, some affect the music scene and some don't. Some affect the scene without being a masterpiece of musical talent, whereas some musical talent seem to be wasted for whatever reasons. Some think that CD is a masterpiece and some don't. And it is something you can argue with. It useless though.

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.

True. But it also works the other way around too; a lot of people who didn't support the the band in 1999-2002 later on found no excuse to hate good music.

[mortismurphy]

Well I can only speak for myself but if that includes me, I have never been under any illusion that the band are going to listen to me.

[kaasupoltin]

Well I can only speak for myself but if that includes me, I have never been under any illusion that the band are going to listen to me.

No no, my comment was not directed at you at all, it was for those who really seem to think their opinions and needs are more important than the band itself.

[EmilyGNR]

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.

No, I'm not agreeing with you at all on this point, nor agreeing that you somehow have a right to determine what GNR is. If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong.

You do not, and you are overstepping your boundaries and investing in a delusion if you somehow think you do.

You don't have to like it, your decision entirely, and it is quite obvious that you have a few deep-seated and unresolved problems and focus on demeaning the band -

but you do not get to determine what GNR is. Period.

[EmilyGNR]

But it's still weird how some people seem to think that a band let them down because the band did something they didn't want the band to do. Then they seem to have this right to give some sort of directions like "they should have done this and this and that and I would still like them". You think the band cares? Or do they care more about being creative and doing what they love and want to do? It has happened with GN'R and with Red Hot Chili Peppers and with Pearl Jam and with Pink Floyd and so on... but somehow I seem to find these bands the most interesting ones. They don't stand still, they don't do something just because someone says they should do it. And being in it for the money, GN'R, really? Shit. They could have abused the music scene through these years much more than they have done..

Musically it's also based on opinions. Referring to mortismurphy's post above, I too remember hearing Madagascar from RIR III for the first time and it really stood out from the rest of the new songs. But what really is a masterpiece? Who defines it anyway? Some records sell and some don't, some affect the music scene and some don't. Some affect the scene without being a masterpiece of musical talent, whereas some musical talent seem to be wasted for whatever reasons. Some think that CD is a masterpiece and some don't. And it is something you can argue with. It useless though.

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.

True. But it also works the other way around too; a lot of people who didn't support the the band in 1999-2002 later on found no excuse to hate good music.

Great insight, you nailed it-

Honestly all boils down to the mistaken entitlement issues that some people have imo. They think somehow that the band "owes" them in some way, because they attended a show or bought an album- etc.

I honestly don't understand this mindset, honestly don't understand the people who don't attend the shows and copiously complain on the internet- makes no sense to me why they wouldn't go and seek out some music they liked, and could relate to, instead of focusing and wallowing in all that negativity on a daily basis.

I'm not a Kanye fan, but I dont haunt his fan sites making other people miserable with constantly reiterating and regurgitating why I don't like him, and why I think he sucks and other juvenile insults.

The "entitled fan" is that jackass who whines and moans that a band has "sold out" because they don't write songs like they used to, they don't do business like the fan wants, they don't release music of the right kind, or at the right speed to appease this person, and god forbid if the lineup should change.

Some fans need to relinquish the notion that they have any semblance of control, or right to such and slide comfortably back into the role on the receiving end of artists? works.

My pov entirely.

[D-GenerationX]

Well I can only speak for myself but if that includes me, I have never been under any illusion that the band are going to listen to me.

No one has. 

That argument is phony strawman bullshit.  No one has said that in the history of forever.

It's total nonsense.

[JAEBALL]

Well I can only speak for myself but if that includes me, I have never been under any illusion that the band are going to listen to me.

No one has. 

That argument is phony strawman bullshit.  No one has said that in the history of forever.

It's total nonsense.

Exactly, I also don't demand releases or think that Axl Rose has ever cared what I think about how he lives his life..

I hate that bullshit

If he chooses to never leave his house again and have Beta play bass with a new singer and call it Guns N roses...go right ahead... am I gunna be disappointed? yeah ... I love the guys work... I'd like to have more of it.

[D-GenerationX]

But it's still weird how some people seem to think that a band let them down because the band did something they didn't want the band to do. Then they seem to have this right to give some sort of directions like "they should have done this and this and that and I would still like them". You think the band cares?

No, but nor do I think that's what anyone here is saying.

If you are still here following them, you are a fan.  If you are still rolling with all of this, they will never lose you.  So I don't think anyone's fandom is teetering on the brink based on them doing this or that.

But, when you look at something that either didn't work or is not working, its no crime to say that another approach might have been better.  That is not a demand.  That is not a threat to revoke your support.  Its an observation.

Axl running off into hiding for over a year after an album he spent 10 years on was a bad development.  Suggesting a different way he might have gone with that is not anyone saying they have all the answers and they can't believe Axl didn't ring them up and ask them.

[mortismurphy]

I have never once thought that I am entitled to anything by Axl - well, maybe a show if I have bought a ticket but that's that. I thought I was merely on a forum here discussing a rock n' roll band, not, claiming some compensation for none deliverance of goods! The, 'Axl does not owe you anything' is another straw man trotted out by the zealots.

[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.

No, I'm not agreeing with you at all on this point, nor agreeing that you somehow have a right to determine what GNR is. If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong.

You do not, and you are overstepping your boundaries and investing in a delusion if you somehow think you do.

You don't have to like it, your decision entirely, and it is quite obvious that you have a few deep-seated and unresolved problems and focus on demeaning the band -

but you do not get to determine what GNR is. Period.

I think you have a problem misunderstanding colloquial expressions.

Regardless, I have not once expressed my own opinion on the true substance of Guns N' Roses on this forum - that is the ironic thing here, people assuming you belong to one partisan group simply because you do not belong to their partisan group. I do not think I care to discuss the matter with you either. Toodle loo.

[D-GenerationX]

I have never once thought that I am entitled to anything by Axl - well, maybe a show if I have bought a ticket but that's that. I thought I was merely on a forum here discussing a rock n' roll band, not, claiming some compensation for none deliverance of goods! The, 'Axl does not owe you anything' is another straw man trotted out by the zealots.

The whole argument is preposterous.  Here is your chain of events :

- you say something the other person doesn't like
- the other person misunderstand it and also mischaracterizes your motives for saying it
- you then correct them by telling them that's not what you are saying nor how you mean it
- they ignore that, double down, and go right back saying the same stuff...in essence, telling you they know what you mean better than you do

How super seriously are you supposed to take such a person at that point?  Mistakes happen and its hardly uncommon to have people misunderstand your point.  But once you clarify and correct that (in this case, several times over) and they still don't budge...rather a lost cause.

At that point, you might as well drop out of the conversation entirely and let them just do both parts.  That way, they can ensure they hear exactly what they want to hear, and are spared your meddlesome protests that their premise is faulty.

[jarmo]

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.

Soooo. Why are you here?
I'm curious.

You're not a fan of anything that has happened in the last eight years or so. You think something's gonna make you flip 180 degrees again?



/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

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.

Soooo. Why are you here?
I'm curious.

You're not a fan of anything that has happened in the last eight years or so. You think something's gonna make you flip 180 degrees again.

Sounds like he's saying he's a bit disillusioned with the past 3 years, no?  In terms of the Vegas schmaltz and the looking backward, not forward.  He's hardly alone on that.

And yes, it could flip.  If Axl actually put out an album, toured the U.S. for real, and made the first substantial changes to the setlist in a decade...that's a good thing.  We all hope that happens.

[mortismurphy]

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.

Soooo. Why are you here?
I'm curious.

You're not a fan of anything that has happened in the last eight years or so. You think something's gonna make you flip 180 degrees again?



/jarmo

'Eight years or so'. I think we are seeing the change, into this nostalgia Vegas band, around 2011 or 2012 or so. So I give it, more, three-four years.

But to answer your question, probably because I have been a fan of the band for the previous twenty five years. Axl brings out a flying piano, hires Ashba, and plays Vegas: it does not mean I suddenly go, ''right, I am no longer a fan anymore''. And, on top of that, I am always going to be intrigued by the Buckethead-Finck era outtakes. An album would certainly regain my interest. I think the touring has been far to extensive if truthful. Markets have been saturated with the tours - Brazilian venues were not selling out last time. Even the Eskimos are bored with the chinese democracy tour.

[jarmo]

I think only certain fans would see a residency in Las Vegas as something bad. Personally, having been there, I can't see that side of it.
It's easier for everyone involved plus you can do things you can't do on a normal tour. The downside? Some Internet posters don't like it.


And I don't see the backward looking anywhere. I see everything that happens as means to keep moving. For example the 2002 tour was needed at the time. It made the band get experience on playing live, it made fans re-discover the band and so on. There was a purpose.

And if for some reason the timing isn't right to put out a new album, why sit home doing nothing if you're offered to tour? Seems to me like some fans would've rather had the tour end in 2011 or 2012. Then we would've sat here "waiting". Instead we got all kinds of things to talk about since 2012...

toured the U.S. for real,

The amount of shows the US have gotten since 2010 is quite substantial.

What kind of tour are you talking about? You keep pointing out that no one wants to see them, yet here you are hoping for a tour. If there's no demand, how can you be hoping for a tour? I don't understand the logic. Surely your wish is unrealistic based on your own opinions?

Brazilian venues were not selling out last time.

Yeah, instead of two or three shows in that country, they got nine shows. Instead of what some fans were claiming to be "empty venues", the shows were selling way better than that.


So much focus on the flying piano in Las Vegas. Wow! Poor piano.
I think you take it way too seriously. It was a Las Vegas residency. What do you expect? We Are The World singalong?



/jarmo

[mortismurphy]

I just do not like the whole Vegas scene. It is a graveyard of self-parody and cash grabbing. Artists do not go there to be creative. They go there to die. Think of Elvis in the 1970s and all of those crooners, and Monkees and Osmonds revival acts.

I actually started laughing at the flying piano. Embarrassing.

[JAEBALL]

Love the vegas shows... the town is pure fantasy... go out to eat at a 5 star place...have time to take a nap before the show starts lol... get drunk watch GNR.. then gamble in to breakfast..then go to the pool

what could be better than that?

I said this a couple weeks ago... the Vegas act is changing... people like jennifer Lopez and kanye are getting offered millions upon millions to do residencies, the stigma of being a washed up vegas act doesn't hold true anymore

Over the past ten years or so Vegas is considered a hot spot

[jarmo]

I just do not like the whole Vegas scene. It is a graveyard of self-parody and cash grabbing. Artists do not go there to be creative. They go there to die. Think of Elvis in the 1970s and all of those crooners, and Monkees and Osmonds revival acts.

I actually started laughing at the flying piano. Embarrassing.

Your view of Las Vegas is as dated as the Monkees.

Some of the most amazing shows you can see on stage reside in Las Vegas.
I suggest you check out some of those Cirque de Soleil shows next time you're in Las Vegas before you say it's not creative.

The whole idea of the residency is to put on a show you can't take on the road. Creativity like making the piano fly might not work elsewhere.... Ironic isn't it.


/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

The amount of shows the US have gotten since 2010 is quite substantial.

What kind of tour are you talking about? You keep pointing out that no one wants to see them, yet here you are hoping for a tour. If there's no demand, how can you be hoping for a tour? I don't understand the logic. Surely your wish is unrealistic based on your own opinions?

A proper nationwide tour, which has not been done since 2011.  You don't hear any criticism from me on touring until 2012 onwards, because that's when it got stale.

2012 was a short residency in one city.  2014 was the same thing, with 1 festival date ahead of time.  Hardly a real thorough tour of your own country.

A real tour is a proper tour of the country.  Truly taking your act on the road an letting people see what you have been up to and what you can do.

Not setting up camp in a destination city and telling people that if they want to take a vacation, they can spend at least one of the nights seeing a show built around a 25 year old album.  That's spinning your wheels.

In terms of what sort of venues they can fill nationwide, well, that's the point we see who is right, you or me.  Because we can't both be.

[mortismurphy]

Not my scene, Jarmo, not my scene.